Scandore Paper Box Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 14, 1938

4 N.L.R.B. 910 (N.L.R.B. 1938)

In the Matter of SCANDORE PAPER Box Co., INC. and CONTINENTAL
CONTAINER CORPORATION and PAPER Box MAKERS UNION, LOCAL
18239
Case No. C-227.-Decided January 14, 1938
Paper Bow Manufacturing Industry-Interference , Restratint , or Coercion:
expressed opposition to labor organization ; threats of retaliatory action; threats
and warnings given to employees on day of Board election to vote against
Union-Discrimination: discharges-Collective Bargaining : meeting with repre-
sentatives , but with no intention of bargaining in good faith ; formation of com-
mittee of employees for collective bargaining purposes and the signing of indi-
vidual contracts with employer , not the free act of employees but the result
of employer 's refusal to negotiate with representatives-Company Union: charges
of, dismissed-Reinstatement Ordered-Back Pay: awarded.
Mr. Will Maslow, for the Board.
Mr. Louis Barnett, of New York City, for the respondents.
Mr. S. G. Lippman, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
On June 17, 1937, Paper Box Makers Union, Local 18239, herein
called the Union, filed a charge with the Regional Director for the
Second Region (New York City) alleging that Scandore Paper Box
Co., Inc., Brooklyn, New York, and its wholly owned subsidiary Con-
tinental Container Corporation, Brooklyn, New York, herein called
the respondents, had engaged in and were engaging in unfair labor
practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8 (1),
(2), (3), and (5) of the National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449,
herein called the Act. On June 21, 1937, the National Labor Rela-
tions Board, -herein called the Board, by the Regional Director for
the Second Region, issued its complaint against the respondents,
alleging that the respondents had engaged in and were engaging in
unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of
Section 8 (1), (2), (3), and (5) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the
Act, in that the respondents, jointly and severally, on May 3 and 4,
1937, did lock out and refuse to allow their employees to work, in
910
DECISION'S AND ORDERS 911
order to discourage membership in or activity on behalf of the Union ;
that since April 12, 1937, the respondents have interfered with, re-
strained and coerced their employees in the exercise of their rights'
guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act; that on or about May 27, 1937,.
the respondents initiated, formed, and sponsored a labor organization
known as Committee of the Employees of the Continental Container
Corporation and have since dominated and interfered with the ad-
ministration of this labor organization; that the respondents dis-
charged Rose Passarelli on April 30, 1937, and Matteo Romeo on.
May 24, 1937, because they had joined and assisted the Union and
engaged with other employees in concerted activities for their mutual
aid and protection; that although the Union had been designated by
more than a majority of the employees of the respondents, the re-
spondents refused to bargain collectively with it.
The respondents in their verified answer dated June 25, 1937,
denied every material allegation in the complaint, but admitted that
the Union was the collective bargaining agency for the employees
of Scandore Paper Box Co., Inc., although it was not the representa-
tive of the employees of Continental Container Corporation.
Pursuant to a notice, issued by the Regional Director on June 21,
1937, and duly served on the respondents and the Union, a hearing
was held on July 8, and 9, 1937, in New York City, before Robert M.
Gates, the Trial Examiner duly designated by the Board. The
Board and the respondents were represented by counsel, and partici-
pated in the hearing. Full opportunity to be heard, to examine and
cross-examine witnesses, and to produce evidence bearing upon the
issues was afforded to all parties.
At the close of the Board's case, the respondents moved that the
complaint be dismissed. The motion was denied. At the close of
the respondents' case, the motion was renewed. Decision on that
motion was reserved and was denied by the Trial Examiner in his
Intermediate Report. During the course of the hearing an oral
motion to intervene was made by the attorney for the Committee
of Continental Container Corporation Employees. The motion was
denied.
The Trial Examiner, in his Intermediate Report, found and con-
cluded that the respondents had engaged in unfair labor practices
affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8 (1), (3), and
(5), and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act, but not within the mean-
ing of Section 8 (2) of the Act. The Trial Examiner recommended
that the respondents cease and desist from their unfair labor practices
in discouraging membership in any labor organization, and from
refusing to bargain collectively, and in addition offer reinstatement
912 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
and back pay to Rose Passarelli and Matteo Romeo, and on request
bargain collectively with the Union or its successor.
The respondents thereafter filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's
findings upon the ground that they were contrary to the weight of
the evidence. On respondents' motion oral argument was had before
the Board. The respondents were also given permission to file a
briefin support of their exceptions.
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner and
finds no prejudicial errors were committed. The rulings are hereby
affirmed. The Board has also considered the exceptions to the find-
ings of the Intermediate Report and finds they are without merit.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENTS
Scandore Paper Box Co., Inc., is and has been since February 28,
1934, a corporation organized and existing by virtue of the laws of
the State of New York. Continental Container Corporation is and
has been since January 11, 1934, a corporation organized and existing
by virtue of the laws of the State of New York. Both corporations
have their principal offices and places of business at the same address,
in Brooklyn, New York. Scandore Paper Box Co., Inc., is engaged
in the manufacture and sale of paper boxes. Continental Container
'Corporation is engaged in the manufacture and sale of corrugated
boxes and kindred products. The officers, directors, and stockholders
of both corporations are identical.
In accordance with a stipulation entered into between the respond-
ents and counsel for the Board, we find "that the respondents in the
course and conduct of their business caused and have continually
caused a major portion of the raw materials used in the manufacture
,of paper and corrugated boxes and kindred products to be purchased
and transported in interstate commerce from and through the states
of the United States, other than the State of New York, to their plant
in the City of New York, and caused and have continuously caused
the paper and corrugated boxes and kindred products produced by
them to be sold and transported in interstate commerce from their
plant in the City of New York into, and through states of the United
States other than the State of New York."
II. THE UNION
Local 18239 of Paper Box Makers Union was directly affiliated with
the American Federation of Labor and admitted into membership
all the production employees, of the respondents' factories, excluding
supervisory employees.
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 913
On June 1, 1937, the local was transferred and became ,Local 299
of the International Brotherhood of Pulp, Sulphite and Paper Mill
Workers, affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, retaining,
however, the same membership and officers, and the rights and
obligations of Local 18239.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The shut-down of April 30, 1937, and incidents prior thereto
On April 22, 1937, a union meeting was held, attended by many
of the respondents' employees. The following day Rose Fazio and
Anna Modica were transferred from a job at which a bonus could
be earned to a job at which no bonus was payable. They were in
effect demoted. Anna Modica had spoken at the meeting, and it
appears that Rose Fazio had been suspected of actively participating
in the union meeting. Minnie Salenao, a sister of Rose Fazio, testi-
fied that Nicholas Scandore, an officer of both corporations, said
to her, "'See what happened to your sister? Wasn't she satisfied?
She had to join the Union and had to do a lot of speaking."' About
two weeks later, Michael Scandore, an officer of the corporations
restored the girls to their former positions.
On April 23, 1937, Michael Scandore stated to several employees
that it was all right for the men to join a union, but they should-
"make sure it is the right kind of a union." It was further testified
that Michael Scandore stated that the management "were seriously
considering closing down the plant for business was very poor and
that we fellows should be very careful what we do."
On April 29, 1937, the Union held a mass meeting for employees
in the paper box industry. At the close of the meeting the respond-
ents' employees met separately. On April 30, a notice was posted at
the plant announcing that it would remain closed the following
Monday and Tuesday, May 3 and 4, 1937. The reasons given by the
respondents for this shut-down were bad management and the
glutted condition of the factory caused by a shortage of "wraps"
necessary to complete a large order in process of fabrication. This
was the first time in years that the factory had completely stopped
production.
Michael Scandore testified that, assisted at times by two others,
he worked for four days removing the incompleted boxes to make
the plant ready for operation on Wednesday, May 5, 1937. It ap-
pears that no great effort was made to relieve the glutted condition
during Saturday and Sunday, although with the aid of a reasonable
number of employees the factory might have been ready for work
on Monday morning.
914 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Insufficient evidence, however, was introduced to rebut the re-
spondents' explanation that the shut-down was for the purpose of
relieving the glutted condition of the factory, and was not for the
purpose of discouraging union activities.
B. The discharge of Rose Passarelli and Matteo Romeo
On the same Friday, April 30, 1937, Rose Passarelli, an employee
of the respondent Scandore Paper Box Co., Inc., a niece of Nicholas
Scandore, was discharged. Rose Passarelli testified that on that
day Nicholas Scandore had asked her the names of the girls who
had accompanied her to the union meeting of April 22, 1937. Ac-
cording to Rose Passarelli, Nicholas Scandore said, "Come on, tell me.
It won't make any difference to you. I won't do anything. I just
want to know who the girls were." She replied, "You wouldn't want
me to be a rat." Rose Passarelli was discharged that evening.
Nicholas Scandore denied making such statements, but stated, "She
came to me one day and told me they had threatened her, so I asked
her who threatened her, and she said, `I am not a rat' so I walked
away from her, and told her to stay away a couple of days." He testi-
fied on direct examination that he laid her off for her own protec-
tion, because of threats to her safety. On cross-examination, however,
he testified that he laid her off because of her discourtesy to him.
At her husband's request Mrs. Scandore went to see Rose Passa-
relli. She testified, "I went there on Saturday to my niece's house,
and I told her my husband said she can go in on Monday. She says,
`No, I quit."' According to Rose Passarelli, Mrs. Scandore said she
would ask Nicholas Scandore to take her back to work, and in answer
to the question whether she would go back to work, she replied, "No,
he fired me." Subsequently, when requested to reinstate her, Nicholas
Scandore refused on the ground that she had quit.
The Board is inclined to believe Rose Passarelli's version of the
incident in view of Nicholas Scandore's inconsistency in offering an
explanation for her lay-off, her admitted reply to Nicholas Scandore,
the respondents' hostility toward unionization, and the fact that, as
the factory was about to be closed, there was no need of singling her
out to stay home for her protection. We are led to the conclusion
that Nicholas Scandore's action was not a two day lay-off for the
purpose of disciplining Rose Passarelli for discourtesy, but was actu-
ally motivated by her refusal to answer his improper question.
Matteo Romeo had worked for the respondent, Scandore Paper Box
Co., Inc., for about seven years and was the only employee capable
of operating the automatic stripping machine. Prior to 1934, Matteo
Romeo had worked on these machines on a piece-rate basis earning
about $40 a week. In May of 1934 an arrangement was entered into
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 915
between Matteo Romeo and Michael Scandore , whereby Romeo would
receive a flat rate of $30 a week thereafter , and steady work all year
around . Romeo testified that thereafter he worked four or five months
out of the year on the automatic stripping machines, the balance of
the year being spent operating other machines , and doing various
kinds of work in different departments of the plant.
On April 29, Matteo Romeo was elected by the members of the
Union as floor steward and was very active in soliciting members for
the Union . He was a leader among the union employees. The re-
spondents contend that Romeo was laid off because of a shortage of
the kind of work which required the use of the automatic stripping
machines. Romeo was laid off on May 24, 1937 , while he was running
an order for 100 ,000 boxes , and was engaged in setting up another
machine for a second order . There is testimony that since Romeo's
lay-off the respondents have worked by hand on orders usually done
by Romeo on the automatic stripping machines.
Romeo received no criticism of his work , and no effort was made
to explain to him the respondents ' reason for his lay-off . The re-
spondents ' attitude toward him is illustrated by the testimony of
Marie Buskirk, an employee, who testified that while she was at work
on May 17, 1937 , Nicholas Scandore "came over and banged his fists
on the table and said, `This firm is not compelled to deal with the
Union .... Somebody told me that Matteo said I can't lay him off
or fire him. Is the government paying his wages? I can lay him
off or fire him whenever I please."'
The circumstances of the lay-off, Romeo's production and employ-
ment record, and the respondents ' antagonism to Romeo's union ac-
tivities rebut the respondents ' explanation as to the reason for laying
him off , and establish that Matteo Romeo was laid off in order to
discourage union organization and concerted activities for the purpose
of collective bargaining or other mutual aid and protection.
We find that the respondent , Scandore Paper Box Co., Inc., in
discharging Rose Passarelli and laying off Matteo Romeo have dis-
criminated against them in regard to hire and tenure of employment
and have thereby discouraged membership in a labor organization.
C. The coercion of employees and the failure to bargain collectively
On May 5, 1937, Abraham Weinberg, business agent of the Union,
called upon Mariani, an officer of the respondents; Emil and Nicholas
Scandore were present. At that time Weinberg submitted as a pro-
posal a contract which had been found acceptable by 95 per cent of
the paper box manufacturers in the City of New York. It provided
for a 40-hour work week, and a minimum wage of $16 a week for
girls, and $21 a week for men. No question was raised as to the
916 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Union's right to bargain for the respondents' employees. Mariani
is alleged to have remarked, ". . . I am perfectly in accord with the
objectives of the Union . . . and I think we can get along on the
basis of this agreement. It is perfectly satisfactory to me . . . ex-
cepting I cannot see how at this time our firm can grant any con-
cessions to its employees in the way of increased wages or reducing
the hours of labor . . . I can see the need of organizing the in-
dustry. It will be a good thing for both the employees and the
employers. I should be perfectly willing to proceed to negotiating
an agreement on the basis of the agreement submitted."
On May 8, 1937, the Union addressed letters to the respondents
asking for collective bargaining conferences. On May 11, 1937, each
respondent sent an identical reply stating : "We know that you do not
represent our employees, and consequently we cannot agree to meet
with you to discuss our problems. Upon satisfactory proof furnished
by you that you do represent our employees we shall be glad to confer
with you and then discuss their problems." '
On May 14, 1937, each respondent entered into an agreement with
the Union for a consent election to be held under the supervision of
the Board's Regional Office for the. purpose of determining the bar-
gaining agency of each of the respondents' employees. The agree-
ments contained the following language :
The employer agrees to bargain collectively with the Union as
the exclusive bargaining agency of all its employees, in the
event that the Union wins such election... .
The employer agrees not to interfere by coercion or persuasion,
directly or by his agents or foremen, with his employees' free
choice of collective bargaining representatives.
Camillio Addeo, an employee, testified that on May 17, 1937, the
morning of the election, Nicholas Scandore said to her, "`You know
there is going to be an election here today.' He said, who am I
going to vote for? And he said to me if he was fair to me or not."
She also testified to a second conversation with Scandore that day :
"He said to me why should I worry about the Union, that the Gov-
ernment is going to give forty hours a week and $16 a week ! So I
said, Why should we wait for the Government if we can do anything
about it now with the Union? So he said, Have you been listening
to Matteo?"' 1 Marie Buskirk testified that on the morning of the
election Nicholas Scandore came up to a group of nine employees
"and banged his'fist on the table and said, `This firm is not compelled
to deal with the Union, so when you vote use your own head, do as
you please . .."'
' niatteo Romeo , Ni hose discharge is discussed above.
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 917
Nicholas Scandore testified on cross-examination that he did talk
with a number of his employees prior to the election and "I just said
I wasn't going to sign a contract with the Union, so vote any way you
want."
It is obvious that Nicholas Scandore attempted to influence the
employees in their choice of representatives, by urging them to vote
against the Union. Such action was an unfair labor'practice within
the meaning of Section 8 (1) of the Act as well as being a violation
of the consent election agreement.
The election was held on May 17, 1937, for the employees of each
of the respondents. In both instances the Union was chosen as the
bargaining representative by a large majority. On May 19, a meet-
ing was held for the purpose of collective bargaining. The respond-
ents came to the meeting accompanied by their counsel and a stenog-
rapher for the purpose of making a record of the proceedings. After
some discussion the conference was adjourned for several days to
permit the respondents to study the proposed contract.
When the meeting again opened the respondents read a prepared
reply into the record. The respondents' answer to the 6th and 7th
clause of the contract, which merely provided, in effect, that no union
employee should be discharged except for a justifiable cause, illus-
trates the quality and spirit of the bargaining carried on. The
answer is as follows :
We cannot agree to a closed shop, and we will not abrogate or
give up our rights to hire and discharge as deemed to the best
interest of our business.
During the course of the meeting, counsel for the respondents made
the following statement:
This company definitely states that it will not enter into a con-
tract with the union. The principal objection to the contract
has to do with the interference with the proper management of
the Company by the people who have all of the money invested
in the Company. The officers of this Company propose to run
this business fairly in the future and without any interference of
any kind, and this is the principal objection to the proposed
contract.
Collective bargaining requires more than meeting with representa-
tives of employees; the employer is under an obligation to make an
honest and sincere attempt to reach an agreement. The respondents,
as indicated by the language above quoted, have made no such effort.
They flatly took the position that they would not enter into an agree-
ment with the Union, declaring that negotiations by the Union as to
conditions of employment constituted interference in the manage-
ment of their business.
918 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
About May 20, Alfred Meringolo, an employee who had represented
the employees at the conference of May 19, called the 32 employees
of the Continental Container Corporation together, most of whom
were members of the Union, and suggested they form a committee
and bargain for themselves. Meringolo argued that the Company was
hostile to the Union and that the Union would not get anywhere in its
negotiations. An attorney retained by the group wrote to the re-
spondents asking for a conference. The respondents decided to deal
with this group.
A proposed contract was prepared on May 26. The terms of this
contract were worked out by the counsel representing the committee
and the respondents. It provided, among other things, for a 20 per
cent increase in wages, and an open shop. The following day, May
27, the committee's counsel appeared at the plant. Operations were
stopped, the contract was read, and all the employees signed the
contract. The contract does not purport to be a contract between the
Continental Container Corporation and an organization ; rather it is a
contract between the respondent and individuals signing the contract.
The contrast between the difficulties experienced by the Union in its
attempt to negotiate an agreement and the ease with which the indi-
vidual contracts were negotiated by the committee, is indicative of
the fact that the Company was anxious to deal individually, and to
avoid its obligation to bargain collectively with the Union as the
representative of its employees.
This negotiation of individual contracts by the respondent, Con-
tinental Container Corporation, does not fulfill its obligation under
Section 8 (5) of the Act to bargain collectively with the duly author-
ized representatives of its employees. While there is nothing in the
evidence to indicate that the employer was directly responsible for
the formation of the bargaining committee, it is plain that the
employees designated the committee as their representative solely
because the employer refused to deal with the Union, their proper
representative. Under such circumstances, to hold that the com-
mittee is the freely chosen representative of the employees or that
the employer is under no further obligation to bargain with the
Union, would be to nullify the provisions of Section 8 (5) of the Act.
We find that the committee selected by the employees of the Con-
tinental Container Corporation on May 20 is not the freely chosen
representative of the employees of said respondent and that the
Union remained the duly designated representative of such em-
ployees. We further find that each of the respondents has refused
to bargain collectively with representatives of its employees and has
interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise
of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
I
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 919
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the respondents set forth in Section III above,
occurring in connection with the operations of the respondents de-
scribed in Section I above, have a close, intimate, and substantial
relation to trade, traffic and commerce among the several States and
tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce
and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
For the reasons stated above we shall order each of the respondents
to bargain collectively with the Union as the representative of its
employees for the purpose of collective bargaining. We shall fur-
ther order the respondent, Scandore Paper Box Co., Inc., to offer
reinstatement to Rose Passarelli and Matteo Romeo and to make
them whole for the loss' of wages they have suffered during the
period from their discharge and lay-off, respectively, to the date of
such offer of reinstatement, less any sum of money they have earned
in the interval.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact the Board makes
the following conclusions of law :
1. Paper Box Makers Union , Local 18239 , and its successor, Local
299, of the International Brotherhood of Pulp, Sulphite , and Paper
Mill Workers , affiliated with the American Federation of Labor,
are labor organizations , within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of
the Act.
2. The respondent , Scandore Paper Box Co., Inc., by discriminat-
ing in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of Rose Passa-
relli and Matteo Romeo and thereby discouraging membership in
a labor organization , has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 8 (3) of the Act.%
3. By their refusal to bargain collectively with the Union as the
representative of their employees with respect to rates of pay,
wages, hours of employment , and other conditions of employment,
the respondents have engaged in and are engaging in unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 8 (5) of the Act.
4. The respondents by interfering with, restraining and coercing
their employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section
7 of the Act , have engaged in and are engaging in unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 8 (1) of the Act.
5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor prac-
tices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and
(7) of the Act.
67373-38-vol iv-59
920 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ORDER
On the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of
law and pursuant to Section 10 (c) of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that :
1. The respondent, Scandore Paper Box Co., Inc., and its officers,
agents, successors, and assigns shall:
(a) Cease and desist from discouraging membership in Paper Box
Makers Union, Local 18239, and its successor, International Brother-
hood of Pulp, Sulphite, and Paper Mill Workers, Local 299, affili-
ated with the American Federation of Labor, or any other labor or-
ganization of its employees, by discharging or refusing to reinstate
any of its employees or by discriminating in any other manner in
regard to the hire or tenure of employment of any of its employees.
(b) Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds
will effectuate the policies of the Act :
(1) Offer to Rose Passarelli and Matteo Romeo immediate rein-
statement to their former positions without prejudice to their senior-
ity and other rights and privileges;
(2) Make whole the employees named in paragraph (1) above for
any loss of pay they have suffered by reason of the discrimination
in regard to their hire and tenure of employment, by payment, re-
spectively, of a sum of money equal to that which each would have
earned as wages during the period from the date of such discrimina-
tion to the date of such offer of reinstatement, less the amount each
has earned during that period.
2. The respondents, Scandore Paper Box Co., and Continental
Container Corporation, and their officers, agents, successors, and
assigns, shall:
(a) Cease and desist from in any manner interfering with, re-
straining, or coercing their employees in the exercise of their rights
to self-organization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to
bargain /collectively through representatives of their own choosing,
and to "engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective
bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, as guaranteed in Sec-
tion 7 of the National Labor Relations Act;
(b) Cease and desist from refusing to bargain collectively with
Paper Box Makers Union, Local 18239, or its successor, Interna-
tional Brotherhood of Pulp, Sulphite, and Paper Mill Workers,
Local 299, affiliated with the American Federation of Labor as the
exclusive representative of their respective employees in regard to
rates of pay, wages, hours of employment and other conditions of
employment.
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 921
(c) Take the following affirmative action, which the Board finds
will effectuate the policies of the Act :
(1) Upon request, bargain collectively with Paper Box Makers
Union, Local 18239, or its successor, International Brotherhood of
Pulp, Sulphite, and Paper Mill Workers, Local 299, affiliated with
the American Federation of Labor, as the exclusive representative
of their respective employees in regard to rates of pay, wages, hours
of employment, and other conditions of employment;
(2) Post immediately notices to their employees in conspicuous
places in each department of their places of business stating that
the respondents will cease and desist in the manner aforesaid, and
maintain such notices for a period of at least thirty (30) consecu-
tive days from the date of posting;
(3) Notify the Regional Director for the Second Region within
ten (10) days from the date of this order what steps the respondents
have taken to comply herewith.
It is further ordered that the complaint be, and is, hereby dis-
missed with respect to the allegation that the respondents have en-
gaged in and are engaging in an unfair labor practice within the
meaning of Section -8 (2) of the National Labor Relations Act.