Sprague Specialties Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 19, 1940

20 N.L.R.B. 585 (N.L.R.B. 1940)

In the Matter of SPRAGUE SPECIALTIES COMPANY and UNITED ELEC-
TRICAL, RADIO AND MACHINE WORKERS OF AMERICA, LOCAL No. 249
Case No: C-1040-Decided February 19, 1940
Electrical Supplies Manufacturing Industry-Interference, Restraint, and
'Coercion.: formation of, domination, support, of two successive inside labor or-
'ganizations '; statements of superintendent favoring inside unions ; posting of
notice condemning activities of "outside" union-Compan?/-Dominated Union:
charges of , against third successive inside union , not sustained.
Mr. Benjamin E. Gordon, for the Board.
Mr. William J. Nolan, of Boston, Mass., and Mr. Ralph A. Lind,
of New York City, for the respondent.
Mr. Robert C. Davis, of Pittsfield, Mass., for Local 249.
Mr. James A.'Bowes, of Pittsfield, Mass ., for I. C. W. 2.
Mr. Stanley D. Metzger, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon charges and amended charges duly filed by United Electrical,
Radio and Machine Workers of America, Local No. 249, herein called
Local 249, the National Labor Relations Board, herein called the
Board, by the Regional Director for the First Region (Boston, Mass-
achusetts), issued its complaint dated September 1, 1938, against
Sprague Specialties Company, North Adams, Massachusetts, herein
called the- respondent,. alleging that the respondent had engaged in
and was engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within
the meaning of Section 8 (1) and (2) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of
the National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein called the Act.
Copies of the complaint and notice of hearing thereon were duly served
on the respondent and Local 249.
The complaint alleged in substance (1) that on or about April 1,
1937, and at various times thereafter, the respondent prevented its
employees from exercising their rights to join a labor organization
of their own free choice; (2) that on or about March 23, 1938, and
at various times thereafter, the respondent dominated and interfered
20 N. L. R. B., No. 60.
585
586 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
with the formation and administration of Independent Condenser
Workers Union No. 2, herein called I. C. W. 2, and contributed fi-
nancial and other support to it, by informing its employees that it
favored a labor organization limited in membership to the respond-
ent's employees, by assisting I. C. W. 2 in being formed, by supporting.
it in its administration, and by other acts; and (3) that by these and
other acts the respondent interfered with, restrained,-and coerced,
and is interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the
exercise of the rights guaranteed them by the Act.
.
In its answer, dated September 9, 1938, the respondent denied the
allegations of the complaint with respect to the unfair labor prac-'
tices. On September 16, 1938, I. C. W. 2 filed a motion for leave to
intervene in the proceeding, and an answer to the complaint denying,
the allegations with respect to I. C. W. 2 contained therein.
Pursuant to notice,, a hearing was held in North Adams, Massachu-
setts, on September 16, 17, 19, 20, and 21, 1938, before Thomas S..
Wilson, the Trial Examiner duly designated by the Board. At the
outset of the hearing, the Trial Examiner granted I. C. W. 2's motion
for intervention. The Board, the respondent, and I. C. W. 2 were
represented by counsel, and Local 249 by a duly designated represen-
tative; all participated in the hearing. Full opportunity to be heard,
to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence
bearing on the issues was afforded all parties. During the course of the
hearing the Trial Examiner 'Made various rulings on motions and on
objections to the admission of evidence. He reserved ruling on the re-
spondent's motion to dismiss the complaint. In his Intermediate
Report he denied the motion. The Board has reviewed the rulings
of the Trial Examiner and finds that no prejudicial errors were com-
mitted. The rulings are hereby affirmed.
On October 11, 1938, the respondent' filed a brief before the Trial-
Examiner, which was duly considered by him. On November 8, 1938,
the Trial Examiner filed his Intermediate Report, copies of which
were duly served upon all parties, in which he found that the respond-
ent had engaged in unfair labor practices substantially as alleged in
the complaint. He recommended that the respondent cease and desist
from engaging in such unfair labor practices and that it withdraw
recognition from and disestablish I. C. W. 2 as the collective bargain
ing representative of its employees. On November 19, and Decem
ber 15, 1938, respectively, I. C. W. 2 and the respondent filed their
' On September 6, 1938, the respondent moved for postponement of the hearing date,-
On September 8, 1938, the Regional Director denied the motion .. On September . 14, 1938,
the Regional Director issued a notice of postponement of the hearing , previously scheduled
for September 15, until September 19, 1938. On September 16, 1938, all parties agreed,
that the hearing should begin on September 16, 1938.
SPRAGUE SPECIALTIES COMPANY 587 ,
exceptions to the Intermediate Report. On January 26, 1939, the
respondent filed a brief in support of its exceptions.
Pursuant to request therefor by the respondent and notice to all
parties, a hearing was held before the Board in Washington, D. C.,
on January 11, 1940, for the purpose of oral argument. The respond-
ent was represented by counsel and participated in the argument..
Neither Local 249 nor I. C. W. 2 appeared. The Board has considered
the exceptions to the Intermediate Report filed by the respondent and:
I. C. W. 2, and the respondent's brief and oral argument in support"
thereof, and, save for those exceptions which are inconsistent with the
findings, conclusions, and order hereinafter set forth, herewith
sustains them.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
Sprague Specialties Company is a Massachusetts corporation hav-
ing its main office and plant in North Adams, Massachusetts, where
it manufactures all types of fixed electrical condensers. Approxi
mately 75 per cent of all the raw materials used by the respondent,
consisting of chemicals, papers, acids, waxes, and foil, is procured
from sources outside the State of Massachusetts. Approximately 75
per cent of the entire production of the respondent is shipped to desti
nations outside the State of Massachusetts; approximately 5 per cent
of the production is shipped to foreign countries. In 1937 the gross
business of the respondent was in excess of $1,000,000.
Approximately 500 persons are employed by the' respondent.
II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America, Local
No. 249, is a labor organization affiliated with the Congress of Indus-
trial Organizations, admitting to its membership employees of the
respondent.
Independent Condenser Workers Union No. 2 is an unaffiliated labor-
organization admitting to its membership hourly paid employees of
the respondent.
Sprague Company Union was an unaffiliated labor organization ad-
mitting to its membership employees of the respondent.
Independent Condenser Workers Union No. 1 was an unaffiliated
labor organization admitting- to its membership employes of the re-
spondent.
.588 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
The complaint alleges that on or about April 1, 1937, and at various
times thereafter, the respondent prevented its employees from exercis-
ing their rights to join a labor organization of their own free choice,
and that on or about March 23, 1938, and at various times thereafter,
the respondent dominated and interfered with the formation and ad-
ministration of L C. W: 2, and' contributed financial and "othen:sup-
port to it, and that by these and other acts the respondent committed
unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (1) and (2) of
the Act.
In the first week of March 1937, a wage dispute led to a 2-day
:strike of the employees of the respondent working in the can shop.
Carleton Shugg, the respondent's vice president and factory manager,
who was in charge of labor relations, settled the strike by calling the
.strikers and nonstrikers together, and proposing a representation
plan to settle grievances. Elections of shop representatives and offi-
cials of the plan, the "Sprague Company Union," herein called
S. C. U., were held the following week at Shugg's direction. S. C. U.'s
constitution and bylaws were dittoed on the respondent's paper and
machine; its application cards were furnished by the respondent.
•S. C. U. meetings were held in the plant during working hours, .and
its officials were paid for time spent at such meetings. Shugg ad-
mitted dominating the formation of S. C. U., testifying, ". . . I think
I definitely took the leadership in the direction of the formation of
the Sprague Company Union." Shugg also admitted that his action
constituted an interference with the rights of the employees as guar-
anteed by the Act.
Shortly after the formation of S. C. U., Gerard Steinberg, an em-
ployee, warned Shugg that Shugg's activity in the formation of
S. C. U. would pave the way for the entrance into the respondent's
plant of a "bona fide" labor organization. Shugg replied that it was
"his worry." Steinberg stated that someone was "coming in with
.a bona fide labor organization" and asked Shugg if he should _"go
.along with them." Shugg replied that the employees could join any
union •they desired, but added, to Steinberg, "that is a fine way to
:show your appreciation of what I have done for you."
About the last week of March 1937 Walter Kenefick, a representa-
tive of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, herein
called the I. B. E. W., after preparatory conferences with Steinberg,
addressed a meeting of approximately 125 of the respondent's em-
ployees and explained the purposes of I. B. E. W. Kenefick did not
solicit membership°for I: B. E. W.' at' that:Ineeting; but , announced
that a meeting would be held in the "near future," by which time he
SPRAGUE SPECIALTIES COMPANY 589
would have arranged for the grant of a local charter for the respond-
ent's employees. Between the first and second meetings called by
Kenefick, the respondent posted a notice on the plant bulletin board
announcing that S. C. U. and the respondent had agreed to a vacation
plan for employees on the basis of length of service, and a time and a
half-wage rate for holiday and week-end work. . Shugg testified that
he knew about the activity of the I. B. E. W. "soon after" the forma-
tion of S. C. U. At the second I. B: E. W. meeting, held sometime
in April 1937, Kenefick asked if any of the approximately 125 em-
ployees of the respondent present were "ready to sign up." Only one
person indicated his willingness to do so. Various other employees-
refused to join I. B. E. W., stating that the respondent, through
S. C. U., was granting them all that was necessary; that they did not
see the need of having an outside organization come in when they
could get as much and more from the "present relationship," mention-
ing the agreement recently posted by the respondent.
In April 1937, after the decisions of the Supreme Court of the
United States upholding the constitutionality of the Act, Shugg and
Charles Dean, president of S. C. U., conferred regarding "cutting
loose" S. C. U. from what S11ugg termed "its very evident company
support." Shugg suggested to Dean that S. C. U. change its name
and meeting place. S. C. U. went out of existence in the first week
of May 1937, and Independent Condenser Workers Union No. 1,,-
herein called I. C. W. 1, sprang up immediately thereafter. With a
few exceptions, shop representatives remained the same under I. C.
W. 1 as under S. C. U. I. C. W. I's constitution and bylaws were
dittoed on the respondent's stationery with the respondent's equip-
ment. Dean was elected vice president of I. C. W. 1. Membership
in I. C. W. 1 was solicited among the employees on the respondent's
time and property, and the full complement of the respondent's em-
ployees became members. I. C. W. 1 was recognized by the respond-
ent as the exclusive bargaining representative of its employees, but.
it never attempted to secure a contract.
About November 1, 1937, Steinberg, then a member of I. C. W. 1's
grievance committee, asked Shugg for a conference regarding the lay-
ing off of certain I. C. W. 1 members in the can shop, and the conse-
quent jibing they received from non-members of I. C. W. 1. Shugg
refused, stating that "if you people are going to start telling us how to
do things around here I can't have anything to do with a meeting
like that." Later in the day Shugg, apparently having softened
somewhat in his attitude, called Steinberg and Cassidy, president of
I. C. W. 1, to his office, and asked them to tell him about the can-
shop situation. Steinberg asked Shugg if their conference was to be
considered a meeting on grievances. Shugg replied negatively, say-
590 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ing "When we get ready to .. have a knockdown and drag out
fight, let us make it on something bigger than the can shop situation."
Shugg then asked Cassidy how it was that a motion of,, that type had
been carried by the membership. Cassidy explained that 'he was not
present at the meeting which adopted the motion to present the
grievance, that Dean had conducted the meeting. Shugg suggested
that he would handle the difficulty by calling in the can-shop em-
ployees, find out what was the trouble, and if necessary "transfer the
agitators or the people who were starting the trouble, from one de-
partment to another, get them out of there and. keep them from
causing any trouble."
On January 13, 1938, at a special meeting of I. C. W. 1, Shugg an-
nounced 2 that, owing to poor business and the difficult competitive
situation, a 10-per cent wage cut would go into effect. Following
this announcement, Steinberg criticized I. C.- W. 1 for permitting
itself to get into a position where it was unprepared to meet any
statement of fact made by the respondent, and suggested that a
committee of I. C. W. 1 members be appointed whose sole duty would
be to study conditions in the condenser industry. Shortly thereafter,
-Steinberg and Dean met with Shugg. Shugg asked Steinberg if
Steinberg noticed any change in Shugg's attitude toward him. Stein-
berg replied that he did, that he supposed it was because of his
remarks at the meeting "the other night." Shugg assented. Stein-
-berg then stated that he did not mean to imply that Shugg was a
liar, but simply thought "the people at the shop should act a little
more on their own and not take the word all the time of the general
manager."
In February 1938, shortly after Steinberg expressed dissatisfaction
with I. C. W. 1, Tom Dwyer, a representative of United Electrical,
Radio and Machine Workers of America, herein called the U. E. R.
M. W. A., visited North Adams. Dwyer discussed the aims of
U. E. R. M. W. A. with a group of I. C. W. 1 executive board mem-
bers at Steinberg's home, and invited them to New York to secure
additional information. In the first week in March 1938, a group
-of employees visited New York, met the executive board of U. E. R.
W. W. A. Local 1206, visited condenser factories where U. E. R.
X. W. A. had contracts, and invited James Carey, International
President of U. E. R. M. W. A., to speak in North Adams. Oil
March 18, 1938, Carey spoke to approximately 400 persons in North
Adams, a majority of whom were employees of the respondent. The
following day, March 19, the executive board of I. C. W. 1 announced
a meeting of I. C. W. 1 for the evening of March 22 for the purpose
a The record does not show who called the meeting or how Shugg happened to be
present.
SPRAGUE SPECIALTIES COMPANY 591
of voting on whether or not I. C. W. 1 should affiliate with U. E. R.
M. W. A. The meeting was advertised in the newspaper, by word
of mouth, and by a notice posted just outside the plant. On March
22, at noon, Shugg called Dean "and his gang" to his office, and in-
formed them that present conditions were no different from those
on January 13, when he had announced the wage cut, that the re-
spondent's sales representatives had gone into the field with instruc-
tions as to costs and prices, and that there was no possibility of
changing the costs and prices. Shugg stated that the methods being
used by the people who were at that time engaged in "organizational
activities" were not to his liking, and that he felt they "were doing
harm to the bulk of the workers." Shugg admitted at the hearing
that he was referring to the activities of the executive board of
I. C. W. 1 in conjunction with the U. E. R-. M. W. A. and, in particu-
lar, to the affiliation meeting which was to be held that evening.
On the evening of March 22, approximately 125 of I. C. W. 1's ap-
proximately 700 members 3 met to decide the affiliation question.
Landry, as well as several other employees, objected to voting on
whether I. C. W. 1 should affiliate with U. E. R. M. W. A. at that
time, because of the small attendance. His objection was overruled.
Members who were paid-up in dues were permitted to vote. The
result of the balloting was 51 to 46 in favor of affiliation with
U. E. R. M. W. A. After the ballots were counted, Adolph Stearn, a
U. E. R. M: W. A. organizer, entered the hall and solicited member-
-ship. Landry announced that he was going to continue as an "inde-
-pendent" and would not join the U. E. R. M. W. A. He walked out
of the meeting with "quite a, few" of his "followers."
In the early morning of March 23, dissatisfaction with the affilia-
tion vote of the night prior was rife among some of the respondent's
employees. As a result Landry twice asked Shugg to confer with
the, group, and the second time was granted his request, a meeting
being arranged for noon of the same day. Shortly before noon
Shugg posted a notice on the plant bulletin board repeating in sub-
stance what he had told Dean and his associates on March 22, namely,
that the "methods used by the leadership in this move do a distinct
=injustice to the big body of workers. I also believe that most em-
ployees will realize this themselves at some later date." Approxi-
mately 15 employees led by Landry, met with Shugg at noon. They
asked Shugg whether the respondent was contemplating another wage
cut, whether the respondent was worried about sabotage from Philco
workers, whether it was true that no other union except the C. I. O.
could get- a charter from the State of Massachusetts, and whether
the respondent would deal with a group other than the C. I. O.
-3 About 500 were then actually working in the plant.
592 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Shugg replied that the respondent was not contemplating another
wage cut, that it was not worried about the Philco situation, that
so far as he knew, the name of the organization had nothing to do
with obtaining a Massachusetts charter, and that the respondent
would deal with "any union which had a majority."
Following this meeting at 4 p. m. on March 23, representatives of
the newly formed Local 249 of U. E. R. M. W. A. met with Shugg
and protested the posting of the notice referred to above, claiming
that it was an interference with the rights of the employees, and
requested its removal. Dwyer admitted that Shugg was within
his "legal rights" in posting the notice, but added that it would not
do what Shugg "hoped it would." However, Dean, president of the
newly formed Local 249 of U. E. R. M. W. A., testified that he did
not consider the notice an invitation to the formation of a new
inside union. Shugg refused to remove the notice, explaining that
he had posted it to stop the "bickering" which had been going on,
and further, requested Local 249 to refrain from organizing on the
respondent's time and property.
As Local 249's representatives left the meeting they saw posted
in the plant a notice addressed "to all Sprague employees interested
in organizational problems" announcing a meeting for that evening,
March 23. Stearn and Steinberg requested John Washburn, personnel
manager of the respondent, to remove the notice, stated that its
presence was inconsistent with the instructions Shugg had just given
them. Washburn refused to remove it, stating, that I. C. W. 1 had
always been permitted to post notices. On March 24 and 26, Local
249 again requested the removal of the notice Shugg had posted on
March 23, but the notice remained on the bulletin board about a.
week.
On the evening of March 23 Landry and his followers held a meet-
ing attended by approximately 175 of the respondent's employees, in-
cluding 6 minor supervisory employees, at which Independent Con-
denser Workers Union No. 2 was formed. On March 29 I. C. W: 2
representatives requested recognition as the exclusive bargaining
representative of the respondent's employees. Shugg told them what
he had told Local 249 earlier, that he would recognize any union that
could prove that it represented a majority of the employees. On
March 29, also, Shugg put into effect a ban on all notices in the plant
of an "organization character."
On March 23 Robert Teeple, division superintendent in charge of
250 employees, expressed to James Shea, Local 249 member, in the
plant, his preference for an "inside" organization over an "outside"
union. The same evening Teeple expressed the same sentiments to
Pringle, an employee, in a nearby cafe. About a week later, Teeple
told Charles Dean in the plant that inside unions were preferable.
SPR AGUE SPECIALTIES COMPANY 593
Teeple admitted speaking about unions to these employees, but denied
having expressed the preference for inside unions attributed to him.
The Trial Examiner found that Teeple made the statements, disbe-
lieving Teeple's denials. The record amply supports the Trial Ex-
aminer's finding, and we affirm it. The record also discloses that
minor supervisory employees solicited membership in I. C. W. 2 on
the respondent's time and property subsequent. to March 23. This
solicitation, however, was in direct contravention of Shugg's instruc-
tions to foremen to "keep their noses clean" of any union activities.
Furthermore, minor supervisory employees were eligible to member-
ship in, and were members, of Local 249 as well as I. C. W. 2.
On March 30 Local 249 filed charges with the Regional Director
alleging that the respondent had violated Section 8 (2) of the Act
by assisting in the formation of I. C. W. 2. On April 6 I. C. W. 2
again requested recognition by Shugg, but Shugg informed I. C. W.
2 that it would have to offer proof of a majority representation, and
must have dues and a constitution and bylaws to show its stability as
a labor organization. I. C. W. 2 adopted a constitution closely fol-
lowing I. C. W. 1's constitution, adding, however, a provision stating
"Voting to affiliate with any other union is barred from this Organiza-
tion." On April 13, after a conference with Dallas, a Field Examiner
for the Board, Shugg posted a notice containing Section 7 of the Act
and a request for abstention from organizing on the respondent's
time and property on the part of all employees.
On April 26, 1938, I. C. W. 2, after repeated informal, verbal re-
quests for recognition, sent a letter, requesting such recognition, to
Shugg, accompanied by I. C. W. 2 membership application cards which
were signed by the respondent's employees and which designated
I. C. W. 2 as their representative for the purposes of collective bar-
gaining. Washburn compared the signatures on the cards with pay-
roll records and, other data and informed Shugg that I. C. W. 2 rep-
resented a majority. On April 27 Shugg posted a notice which stated
that the respondent recognized I. C. W. 2 as the representative of its
employees for the purposes of collective bargaining.
Subsequent to recognition, I. C. W. 2 requested a restoration of
wages to the level existing prior to the 10-per cent wage cut; when this
was refused, it requested a 5-per cent increase in wages. Shugg coun-
tered with a Wage Adjustment Plan which provided for profit-shar-
ing when business conditions warranted. On June 4 I. C. W. 2 mem-
bers voted' to accept the Plan. The Plan, together with a 10-per cent
wage increase for night work, went into effect on June 5.
About the middle of June 1938 Steinberg requested Shugg's permis-
sion to post a notice announcing a picnic, sponsored by Dean, Local
249 president. Shugg refused on the ground that it was a notice of
an "organizational character," falling under the ban on such notices
594 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
referred to above. Shortly thereafter, Shugg lifted the ban. On July.
9, I. C. W. 2 posted a picnic notice without Shugg's. permission. A
company truck transported two company tables to this picnic. In
September 1938 the respondent sponsored a benefit dance for Charles
Dean, president of Local 249, to aid him after a fire had destroyed
his home.
The above chronicle shows clearly that the respondent formed
S. C. U., supported it throughout its existence by extending to it the
use of the respondent's facilities, and knowing of the organizing.
efforts of the I. B. E. W., granted its self-created labor organization
benefits with the intention and the effect of forestalling the organiza-
tional drive of the I. B. E. W. After the constitutionality of the Act
was upheld, the respondent sought to "cut loose" its creation from
"its very evident company support." In so doing, the respondent insti-
gated the formation of I. C. W. 1, which followed S. C. U. imine-.
diately in time, and substantially in character. Shop representatives.
under I. C. W. 1 remained substantially the same as in S. C. U.
I. C. W. 1 was likewise supported throughout its existence, by,. the .use'
of the respondent's facilities and time both for administrative and
organizational purposes. Although I. C. W. 1 received recognition
as the exclusive representative of the respondent's employees, it never
sought to negotiate an agreement. That I. C. W. 1 was the respondent's
puppet appears beyond doubt from the treatment it received when,
it summoned the courage to present a grievance in November 1937.
Its impotence was clearly demonstrated when the respondent-without
any attempt at negotiation imposed a wage cut in January 1938. The
respondent's formation of S. C. U., its acts in support thereof, the
transformation of S. C. U. into I. C. W. 1, and its subsequent support
to and domination of I. C. W. 1, deprived the employees of their- right
to form, join, or assist labor organizations, and to bargain. collectively
through representatives of, their own choosing.' We find that the
respondent, by the acts recounted above, interfered with, . restrained,
and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them
in Section 7 of the Act.
The respondent's statement on- March 22 to Dean "and his gang,"
and the notice posted by it on March 23, condemning their "recent.
organizational activities" in conjunction with U. E. R. M. W. A. as
exhibited in the proposed, and subsequently accomplished, affiliation
meeting of March 23, was an interference with the rights of its em-
ployees. The respondent claims that it took the above action to curb
the "bickering" then current among ifs employees. , However; the
4 See National Labor Relations Board v . H. F. _ Flctcher Co., 108 F. ( 2d) 459, 1939
(C. C. A. 1), enf'g Matter ' of H. F . Fletcher , Co: and Granite Cutters' International Aseoota-:
tion of America , 5 N. L. R . B. 729. .
SPRAGUE SPECIALTILS COMPANY 595
"bickering" seems to have been accelerated rather than diminished
following the posting of the notice, and Local 249 twice urged its
removal. Since the respondent kept the notice posted about a week,
and since its removal would have aided in the accomplishment of the
respondent's asserted aim, we do not credit the reason offered by the
respondent for the posting of the notice. Furthermore, regardless of
motives, an employer's participation in an organizational controversy
is fraught with danger. "The basic policy of the Act is `hands off'
so far as he is concerned."' Teeple's statements favoring "inside"
over "outside" organizations also interfered with the rights of the
employees. The respondent is charged with these statements of an
important supervisory employee.
We find that the respondent, by disapproving the "methods of the
leadership" of Local 249 and seeking thereby to discourage it from
holding its organization meeting on March 22, by posting a notice to
the same effect on March 23, and by the statements made by Teeple,
interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise
of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
We do not find, however, that the respondent has dominated, aided
in the formation of,, or supported I. C. W. 2, within the meaning of
Section 8 (2) of the Act. The entire record discloses a genuine desire
on the part of a group of employees, on' and about March 23, 1938,
for an independent organization, which they formed as I. C. W. 2.
Under the circumstances of this case, we believe that the potency of
this desire transcended its possible conditioning by the history of com-
pany-dominated unions in the respondent's plants While the .re-
spondent did post a notice which we have found to be an interference
with the rights of its employees, we do not believe that this notice
affected in any considerable fashion the desire of the employees to
form I. C. W. 2, such desire having been expressed by them before
the notice was posted. Furthermore, the.president-of Local,249, Dean,
testified that he did not consider the notice to be an invitation to form
an inside union. Apart from, and subsequent to, the notice, the re-
spondent, almost without exception, scrupulously avoided interfering
with the union activities of its employees. In addition, I. C. W. 2
appears to have secured real gains for the employees. For the reasons
stated, therefore, we shall dismiss the complaint in so far as it-alleges
that the respondent has committed unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 8 (2) of the Act.
6 International Association of Machinists v. National Labor Relations Board, 110 F. (2d)
29 (C. A. D. C.), enf'g Matter of The Serrick Corporation and International Union, United
Automobile Workers of America, Local No. 459, 8 N . L. R. B. 621.
Cf. Matter of Wisconsin Telephone Company and Telephone Operators Union, Local
175-A, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, 12 N. L. R. B. 375.
.50 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
We find that the activities of the respondent set forth in Section
III above, occurring in connection with the operations of the respond-
ent described in Section I above, have a close, intimate, and substan-
tial 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.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire
record in the case, the Board makes the following :
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America, Local
No. 249, and Independent Condenser Workers Union No. 2 are labor
organizations, within the-meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
2. Sprague Company Union and Independent Condenser Workers
Union No. 1 were labor organizations, within the meaning of Section
2 (5) of the Act.
3. The respondent, by interfering with, restraining, and coercing
its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7
of the Act, has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices,
within the meaning of Section 8 (1) of the Act.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices
affecting commerce, within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7)
of the Act.
5. The respondent has not engaged in unfair labor practices within
the meaning of Section 8 (2) of the Act.
ORDER
Upon the basis of the. above. findings of. fact and conclusions of
law, and pursuant to Section 10 (c) of the. National Labor Relations
Act, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the
respondent, Sprague Specialties Company, North Adams, Massachu
setts, and its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall:.
1. Cease and desist from in any manner interfering with, restrain-.
ing, or coercing its employees in. the exercise. of their rights to self
organization, to form, join, or assist United Electrical, Radio and
Machine Workers of America, Local No. 249, or any other labor.
organization, 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 Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds
will effectuate the policies of the Act :
SPRAGUE SPECIALTIES COMPANY 597
(a) Immediately ' post notices in conspicuous places throughout
its North Adams, Massachusetts, plant and maintain such notices
for a period of at least sixty -(60) consecutive days, stating that the_
respondent will cease and desist in the manner set forth in paragraph
1 of this Order;
(b) Notify the Regional Director for the First Region in writing
ten (10) days from the date of this Order what steps the respondent
has taken to comply herewith.
AND rr Is FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint be, and it hereby is,
dismissed in so far as it alleges that the respondent has engaged in
unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (2) of the
Act.
MR. EDWIN S. SMITH, dissenting in part :
I agree with the majority that S. C. U. and I. C. W. 1 were formed,
dominated, and supported by the respondent, and that the respond-
ent thereby interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees
in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. I
dissent from the holding of the majority that the respondent has
not engaged in unfair labor practices, within the meaning of Section
8 (2) of the Act, with respect to I. C. W. 2. I believe that the
respondent should be 'ordered to withdraw all recognition from
I. C. W. 2 and to completely disestablish it as the collective bargain-
ing agelicy of its employees.
In March 1937, ther respondent indicated its desire for an "inside"
union by establishing and supporting S. C. U. At about the same
time it expressed its opposition to "outside" unions by granting bene-
fits to its self-created labor organization, S. C. U., with the inten-
tion and effect of forestalling the organizational drive of the I. B.
E. W. After the constitutionality of the Act was affirmed, the re-
spondent abandoned S. C.' U. and instigated the formation. of another
"inside" organization, I. C. W. 1, which it subsequently dominated
and supported. In March 1938, when I. C. W. 1 asserted its inde-
pendence and voted to affiliate with an "outside" union, U. E. R.
M. W. A., the respondent once more indicated its opposition to "out-
side" unions by posting a notice condemning the "recent organiza-
tional activities" of I. C. W. 1 in voting to affiliate with U. E. R. M.
W. A. Only after this notice was posted was I. C. W. 2 formed by
certain of the members of I. C. W. 1.
The majority opinion concludes that the formation of I. C. W. -2
resulted from the desire of the employees to form an independent
organization and that the "potency of this desire transcended its
possible conditioning by the history of company-dominated unions
in the respondent's plant." J cannot agree with this conclusion. The
283031-41-vol. 20-39
598 DECISIONS" OF . NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
outstanding facts disclosed by the record-:wit :,,re"spect, to the. respond-
ent's relations to its employees are that the respondent actively de-
sired to maintain an "inside" employee labor organization at its.
plant ' and that it was . openly opposed to the establishment of an
"outside" union. There is ample basis to conclude, in view of these
facts and in view of the outgrowth of I. C. W. 2 from I. C._ W. 1,
that I. C. W. 2 could. not appear otherwise than company sponsored
in the eyes of the employees. If any doubt existed= it must certainly
have been dispelled by the respondent's action in posting the notice
attacking the shift in affiliation to U. E. R. M. W. A. and by. the
subsequent statements of Superintendent Teeple favoring "inside"
over "outside" organizations.
In view of the respondent's activities in connection with S. C. U.
and I. C. W. 1, the conditions at its plant were such that, at the time
I. C. W. 2 was formed, little action on the part of the respondent
was necessary to cause the reemergence of an "inside" union. The
respondent, by posting the -notice of March 23 and by the- statements
of Superintendent Teeple, provided the needed impetus.
I think it plain that the respondent's activities have not only inter
fered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in-the exercise of
the rights guaranteed in Section 7- of the Act, but have also so
seriously impaired any free exercise of choice on the part of the
employees as to constitute an "interference with the formation" of.
a labor organization which the Act was designed to prevent. I
would, therefore, in order to secure to the employees the rights
guaranteed by the Act, order the respondent to withdraw recognition
from I. C. W. 2 and completely disestablish it as a collective bar-
gaining agency.'
. 7I would order the respondent to take the same remedial action in this case even if I
did not find that it had violated Section S (2) of the Act, since the case clearly falls
within the reasoning of my dissenting opinion ' in Matter 'of Wisconsin' Telephone Company
and Telephone Operators Union, Local 175-A, International Brotherhood of Electrical
Workers, et at., 12 N. L. R. B. 375.