Standard Steel Works Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 9, 1940

26 N.L.R.B. 447 (N.L.R.B. 1940)

In the Matter Of STANDARD STEEL WORKS COMPANY and STEEL
WORKERS ORGANIZING COMMITTEE, ON BEHALF OF LODGE
No. 1940, AMALGAMATED ASSN. OF IRON, STEEL & TIN WORKERS
OF NORTH AMERICA
''I
Case No. C-812.-Decided August 9, 1940
Jurisdiction : steel product manufacturing industry.
Unfair Labor Practices.
In General: respondent's responsibility for acts of supervisory employees.
Company-Dominated Union: employer's participation' in formation and adminis-
tration of: supervisory employees' membership in, attendance at meetings,
solicitation of members, and collecting dues-contribution of support to, by
permitting employees to solicit members and collect dues on company time.
Discrimination. allegations of discrimination, dismissed.
Remedial Orders : company-dominated union disestablished and its contract
abrogated.
Mr. W. G. Stuart Sherman, for the Board.
Morgan, Lewis cQ Bockius, by Mr. Frederick H. Knight, of Phila-,
delphia, Pa., and Mr. Gilbert H. Montague and Mr. A. A. Clifford
Hansen, both of New York City, for the respondent.
Mr. Anthony Wayne Smith, of Washington, D. C., for the S. W. O. C.
Mr. Howard 0. Lantz, of Lewistown, Pa., for the Independent.
Mr. David Delman, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon charges,and amended charges duly filed by Steel Workers
Organizing Committee, herein called the S. W. O. C., on behalf of
Lodge No. 1940, Amalgamated Association of Iron, Stpel & Tin
Workers of North America, the National Labor Relations Board,
herein called the Board, by Charles T. Douds, Regional Director
for the Sixth Region (Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania), issued its complaint,
dated May 5, 1938, against Standard Steel Works Company, Burn-
ham, Pennsylvania, 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),,(2), and
26 N L. R. B., No. 41.
447
448 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
(3) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act,
49 Stat. 449, herein called the Act. Copies of the complaint and
accompanying notice of hearing were duly served upon the respondent
and the S. W. O. C.
With respect to the unfair labor practices, the complaint alleged, in
substance, that at all times since April 15, 1937, the respondent made
known to its employees its hostility to the Committee for Industrial
Organization; that the respondent coerced and intimidated persons
lawfully engaged in soliciting members on behalf of the S. W. O. C.;
that the respondehtIfostered the Independent Steel Workers, Burn-
ham, Pennsylvania, herein called the Independent, by soliciting mem-
bers for the Independent and threatening loss of employment to cer-
tain employees if, said ,employees did not join the Independent; that
the respondent tdominated and. interfered with the administration of
the Independent and contributed financial and other support to it;
that the respondent' discriminatorily demoted' and transferred one
named employee and discharged five other named employees 2 be-
cause of their membership in, and-activities on behalf of the S. W. O. C.;
and that the respondent, by all the aforesaid acts, interfered with, re-
strained, and coerced and is interfering with, restraining, and coercing
its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of
the Act.'
On May 10, 1938, the respondent, appearing specially, filed with
the Regional Director,a; written motion praying that the Board furnish
certain particulars' in respect of certain paragraphs of the complaint.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held at Lewistown, Pennsylvania,
from May 17 to June 1, 1938, before William P. Webb, the Trial Ex-
aminer duly designated by the Board. The Board, the respondent, and
the Independent4 were represented by counsel and participated in
the hearing. We find that full opportunity to be heard, to examine
and cross-examine witnesses, and, to introduce evidence bearing upon
the issues was afforded all parties.
At the beginning of the hearing the respondent moved to quash
service of the complaint, on the ground that the copy of the com-
plaint served upon • the respondent was not a copy of the complaint
I Herbert Harpster
IPaul Ferguson , Harry De Frehn , Paul Kauffman , Charles McKahps , and Harry Searer
' Subsequent to the issuance of the complaint on May 5, 1938, the S P1 0 C. filed a petition alleging
that a question affecting commerce had arisen concerning the representation of employees of the respondent
and requesting an investigation and certification of representatives (?hatter of Standard Steel Works Com-
pany and`Sleel Workers Organizing Committee , Case No VI-R-64) On April 18, 1938, the Board , acting
pursuant to.Section 9 (c) of the Act and Article III, Section 3, of National Labor Relations Board Rules
and Regulations-Series 1, as amended , ordered that an investigation be conducted and that an appro-
priate hearing be provided for upon due notice On the same day the Board , acting pursuant to Article
II, Section 37 (b), and Article III, Section 10 (c) (2 ), of said Rules and Regulations , ordered the consolida-
tion of,the representation case with the instant proceeding On May 3, 1938, the Board granted a request
by the S W 0 C that it be permitted to withdraw its petition requesting an investigation and certifi
cation of representatives , and ordered the severance of Case No . VI-R-64 from the instant proceeding
4 The Trial Examiner granted a written motion to intervene which was submitted at the hearing by the
Independent
STANDARD STEEL WORKS COMPANY 449
within the meaning of the Act and the Rules and Regulations. The
Trial Examiner denied this motion. His ruling is hereby,afl^irmed.' ;
The respondent's motion praying that the Board furnish therespond-
ent with particulars in respect to certain allegations of the complaint
was denied by the Trial Examiner. We hold that the complaint
afforded a sufficient basis for apprising the respondent, of the issues of
fact it might be called upon to meet. The ruling of the Trial•Examine'r
denying the request for particulars is hereby affirmed.'- I" ' '•
During the first day of the hearing counsel for''the, respondent
also moved to dismiss the complaint on the grounds set forth in the
motion to quash, because of numerous other alleged irregularities in
the pleadings and in the proceeding, because of alleged violations'of the
Constitution of the United States, and on numerous other grounds.
The Trial Examiner denied the motions to dismiss. -These rulings
of the Trial Examiner are hereby affirmed.
During the hearing the respondent made a written request, for
the issuance of certain subpenas and subpenas duces tecum.s This
request was denied by the Trial Examiner and his' ruling is hereby
affirmed.
At the close of the Board's case counsel for the Board moved to
amended the complaint to conform to the proof with respect to varia-
tions in minor matters, such as dates and the spelling of names.
The motion was granted and the ruling is hereby affirmed.
Motions were then made by the respondent's counsel to dismiss on all
the grounds stated at the outset of the hearing and on numerous other
grounds. At the conclusion of the hearing counsel for the respondent
again moved to dismiss on all the grounds stated in the respondent's
motions to dismiss at the outset of the hearing and also on other grounds.
The motions were denied by the Trial Examiner and his rulings are
hereby affirmed. During the course of the hearing the Trial Ex-
aminer made various other rulings on motions and on objections to
the admission of evidence. The Board has reviewed the rulings of
the Trial Examiner and finds that no prejudicial errors were com-
mitted. The rulings are hereby affirmed.
Thereafter the Trial Examiner filed his Intermediate Report,
dated July 12, 1938, copies of which were duly served upon all the
parties, finding that the respondent had engaged in and was engaging
in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of
Section 8 (1), (2), and (3) and Section 2 '(6) and (7) of the Act,' and
s See Matter of North Electric 1Lianufacturang Company and International Association of 1%Iachanists, Local
1151, 24 N L R B 547
6 The subpenas requested were for J . Warren Madden, Chairman of the Board , Edwin S Smith , member
of the Bow d , Charles T Douds, the Regional Director for the Sixth Region, John L. Lewis, Chairman of
Committee for Industrial Organization , Philip Murray, Chairman of S. W. 0. C , Clinton S. Golden,
Director , Northeastern Region, S W 0 C ; John Doe (the real name being unknown ), chief executive
officer of Amalgamated Association of Iron, Steel and Tin Workers of North America, J II Carstetter,
President of Lodge No 1940 thereof.
450 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
recommending that the respondent cease and desist therefrom and
take certain affirmative action to effectuate the policies of the Act,
including the disestablishment of the Independent and the rein-
statement, with back pay, of five named individuals.
On August 15, 1938, the respondent filed a statement of exceptions
to the Intermediate Report and to the record. On the same date
the Independent filed a document entitled" Statement of Intervenor's
Exceptions," in which it adopted each and every exception contained
in the statement of exceptions filed by the respondent.
Pursuant to notice served on the parties, a hearing for the purpose
of oral argument was held on July 25, 1940, before the Board in
Washington, D. C. The respondent and the S. W. 0. C. were
represented by counsel and participated in the argument.
In its statement of exceptions the respondent contends, among
other things, that it was prejudiced by conduct of the Trial Examiner
at the hearing, that it was deprived of its right to give testimony,
and that, in general, it was denied due process of law and its right to a
fair and impartial hearing. We have examined and reviewed the
record of the instances at the hearing cited by the respondent in
support of its contentions. We are of the opinion that the respondent
was afforded full opportunity to give evidence material to the issues,
that it was not denied due process of law, and that it was accorded
a full and fair hearing; that the conduct complained of was not
prejudicial to it.
The Board has considered the exceptions to the Intermediate
Report and to the record, and, in so far as the exceptions are inconsist-
ent with the findings,, conclusions, and order set forth below, finds
them to be without merit.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
Standard Steel Works Company, a wholly owned subsidiary of
Baldwin Locomotive Works, is a Pennsylvania corporation with its
principal office and manufacturing plant at Burnham, Pennsylvania.
The respondent is engaged in the manufacture, sale, and distribution
of steel products, such as steel-tired wheels, rolled and forged steel
wheels, steel castings, forgings, steel springs, and the like Its plant
covers an area of approximately 280 acres of land and consists of some
24 or more buildings. Both the land and the buildings are owned by
the respondent.
The principal raw materials used in connection with the manufac-
ture of the respondent's products are steel scrap, pig iron, iron ore,
electrical nickel, fuel oil, coal, sand, clay; and ferro alloys, including
manganese, ferro silicas, ferro titanium, spiegeleisin, and vanadium.
STANDARD STEEL WORKS COMPANY 451
In 1937 the respondent used approximately 361,000 tons of raw
materials, about 18 per cent of which came from outside the State of
Pennsylvania. The output of the plant in 1937 amounted to some
116,409 tons, having a, total value of about $7,200,000. During the
same year the respondent sold and shipped about 60 percent of its
finished products to points outside the State of Pennsylvania.
In the distribution of its products the respondent utilizes practically
every first-class railroad in the United States, motor-trucking facilities,
and nine or more steamship lines. It maintains district offices at
Eddystone, Pennsylvania; New York, New York; Chicago, Illinois;
St. Louis, Missouri; San Francisco, California; and Portland, Oregon.
It employs 16 salesmen who travel over the entire country in' the
interests of the respondent's business. Baldwin Foreign Sales
Department acts as foreign agent for the respondent.
II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
The charges in this proceeding were filed by Steel Workers Organiz-
ing Committee on behalf of Lodge No. 1940 of the Amalgamated
Association of Iron, Steel & Tin Workers of North America, herein
called Lodge No. 1940. We find that both S. W. O. C. and Lodge
No. 1940 are labor organizations affiliated with the Congress of
Industrial Organizations.7 Lodge No. 1940 admits to membership
employees of the respondent except those in supervisory capacities. '
Independent Steel Workers, Burnham, Pennsylvania, is an un-
affiliated labor organization admitting to its membership all shop
employees of the respondent except salaried employees. '
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Interference with and domination of the Independent '
In November 1933 the Amalgamated- Association of Iron, Steel &
Tin Workers of Lewistown, affiliated with the American Federation of
Labor, attempted to organize the re'spondent's employees. During
the'same period efforts were launched to form a "company organiza-
tion." In November 1933 notices were posted on bulletin boards in
the respondent's plant announcing an organization meeting, which
subsequently was held at the Y. M. C. A. John P. Sykes, who at that
time was vice president of the respondent, presented a constitution and
bylaws and delivered a speech to the assembled employees urging
7 While the record contains no detailed evidence relating to the structure and function of the S W 0 C'
and the Amalgamated Association of Iron, Steel & Tin Workers of North America , we have found upon
numerous occasions in other cases, and the record as a whole in this case makes clear , that steel workers are
organized into lodges of the Amalgamated Association of Iron, Steel & Tin Wokers of North America,
which function under the S W. 0 C. The S W n C is a committee composed of representatives of a
group of unions affiliated vuith the Congress of Industrial Organizations See Matter of Bethlehem Steel
Corporation , a Delaware Corporation , et at and Steel Workers Organizing Committee, 14 N. L. R. B. 539;
Matter of Republic Steel Corporation and Steel Workers Organizing Committee, 9 N L. R. B. 219, enf'd as
mod , Republic Steel Corporation v. National Labor Relations Board, 107 F. (2d) 472 (C. C A 3)
452 DECISIONS OF, NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
them to vote for, the proposed organization. Following this speech a
vote was taken, by a show of hands. The record does not disclose the
results,of the vote. It is clear, however, that an organization, called
the Employees Representation Plan, herein called the Plan, was formed
and,that it continued.in existence until sometime in 1937.
In May 1937 the S. W..0. C. began its organizational activities at
the respondent's plant. In June 1937 the Independent was initiated
and organized., Ross Hufford, a teacher and an athletic coach in the
Lewistown public schools, played a prominent role in the organization
of'the- Independent. He was employed by the respondent in the sum-
mer.of 1936 as an electrician's helper, and the summer of 1937 as an
electrician, in the repair shop. Hufford testified that in the summer of
1937 there was a great deal of talk among the men because some of
them knew that the Plan would have to be disbanded since it did not
comply with the Act; that he, as a teacher of social science, was familiar
with new legislation ; that in conversations with the men he mentioned
the choices they had with respect to unions and that one of the employ-
ees suggested that they, try to "get something started."
On June 8, 1937, Hufford asked-a group of men to attend a meeting
to be held the 'following night at the Lewistown Y. M. C. A. He
testified that his purpose was to organize "a defense against strike
movements." On the night of June 8 three men from the Eddystone
plant 8 introduced themselves to Hufford and told him that they had
a plan for organizing the respondent's employees. Hufford invited
them to speak at the meeting scheduled for the following night.
On June 9, 1937,, a, group of approximately 10 men met at the Lewis-
town Y. M. C. A. The group included Ira S. Tapler, formerly chairman
of the Plan, Dwyer Burkholder, formerly a shop representative for the
Plan, and Samuel S. Cooper, who had been a foreman in the coreshop
Hufford presided until'Burkliolder was appointed temporary chairman.
Burkholder introduced the three men from Eddystone, who stated
that,they; had come to help form an independent union. They ex-
plained how,they, had'formed the Eddystone organization and how a
similar. organization could be formed at, the respondent's plant.
,-,On June 16;,,1937, a general meeting was held at the Burnham
Y.IM: C:.A.,for• the purpose of, forming the Independent and electing
officers. -John Burtoh;'a_gang boss and formerly a foreman, was elected
president. A. committee was appointed to draft a constitution and
bylaws. - This committee consisted of Burkholder, Burton, Hufford,
and two others. The constitution of the Independent provided for a
Board of Trustees which "shall direct the policy" of the Independent.
The members of the Independent in each department of the plant
8 The Eddystone plant, located in Eddystone, Pennsylvania, was operated by the Baldwin Locomotive
Works, the'parent company of the respondent herein The Federation of Baldwin Employees, organized
at Eddystone in May 1937, has been found to be an employer-dominated organization Matter of The Bald-
win L'scesnot:ae Works and Steel Workers Organizing Committee. 20 N. L R B. 1100.
STANDARD STEEL WORKS COMPANY 453
wore to elect a representative committee. This committee was to
elect its chairman . The Board of Trustees was composed of these
committee chairmen, who automatically became members thereof.
On July 20, 1937 , the Independent informed the respondent that
it represented a majority of the respondent 's employees and requested
recognition as exclusive bargaining representative . The respondent
suggested that three arbitrators be appointed to determine whether
or not the Independent represented a majority. On August 3, 1937,
a committee , consisting of the secretary of,the local Y. M. C. A., the
president of a local bank, and a priest in a local church , after compar-
ing Independent membership cards and written powers of attorney
signed by the employees with the respondent ' s employment , records,
certified that the Independent represented 993, out of 1,921 shop
employees as of July 23, 1937 . On August 4, 1937, the Independent
submitted to the respondent a draft of a proposed agreement . On,the,
same day the respondent submitted a proposed agreement which it had.
prepared shortly after receipt of the Independent 's, demand for recog-
nition. The Independent made no suggestions as to changes , and the
contract as prepared by the respondent was signed ; by representatives
of the respondent and the Independent on August 5 or 6, 1937. 'The
contract was to remain in effect for a period of a year, and , thereafter
was terminable by- either party, on 30 , days' notice. ^,,I
During June and , July 1937, the period of , organization, of the
Independent ,, there was widespread activity in aid of the , Independent
among many of the respondents supervisory employees. , This activity,
took the form of solicitation of membership, distribution of Independ-,
ent, application cards, collection of dues, and , attendance- at, Inde-
pendent meetings . The respondent 's daily activities . and operations
were managed by the, works manager ,, Irvin, A. Billiar; the, assistant,
works manager , Thomas; the plant engineer in charge of the, plant
engineering department , Amos Cole; the master mechanic in, charge
of maintenance and construction , Uiiah Showers; and 10 general
foremen, each in charge of a separate department . In each of the
departments , with,one.or two exceptions , there were supervisory„em;
ployees who were subordinate to the general foreman.' .Thus, the open
hearth department had three molter bosses and four gang bosses;,the
steel foundry and the master mechanic's section each had four gang
bosses; the heat-treating department , the tool section, and machine
shop No. 1 each had three gang bosses ;, the tire mill and , machine, shop
No. 2 each had two gang bosses; the forge , shop and the internal
transportation department had one gang boss each .' Starting, in the
latter part of 1935 and continuing up-;to the time of the, hearing,
Y In addition to those named above, the steel foundry had the following supervisory employees a molding
foreman, a mold-closing foreman, a coremaking foreman; a cleaning and finishing foreman, and a, boss
flask fitter. The master mechanic's section included a boss electrician, a boss rigger, a boss bricklayer,
and a boss fireman - e ,
o"23429-42-vol. 26-30
454 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Billiar, at various times, instructed Thomas, Cole, and the foremen to
be absolutely impartial in any dealings with employees concerning
union activities . A number of the foremen testified that they had
complied with these instructions ; none of them testified to the con-
trary. It is not claimed , however, that any such ' instructions were
given to the gang bosses or melter bosses.
A summary of the testimony reveals that out of approximately
30 gang bosses and melter bosses , 16 were active in soliciting mem-
bers for the Independent , 7 distributed Independent application
cards, 2 collected dues for the Independent , 5 were members of the
Independent , and at least 3 attended meetings of the Independent.
Practically all of these testified at the hearing. Six admitted that
they had solicited membership in the Independent , four admitted
that they had distributed Independent application cards, two admitted
that they had collected dues, and two admitted that they had attended
meetings of the Independent.
The record 'discloses that the employees who were classified on the
respondent 's records as gang bosses were known among the nonsuper-
visory employees as "foreman ," " shift foreman ," or "boss." They
gave orders to the men working under them and supervised their
work. They had the power to recommend wage increases and they
undoubtedly were consulted concerning the quality of work of their
subordinates whenever ' a reduction in personnel became necessary.
Depending on the volume of business and on the department in which
he was employed , the number of men supervised by a gang boss varied
from 5 to 70.
John E. Garver was employed in the heat -treating department.
He testified that he was a gang boss and that he was in charge of one
of three shifts in the department . He had 22 or 23 men under him.
Two employees in the heat-treating department testified that Garver
was a foreman . Merle Treaster , Charles Hunter, James Hartsock,
and Robert Kauffman , employees in the heat-treating department,
testified that in July 1937 Garver, carrying with him a bunch of
Independent application cards, asked them and others to sign the
cards. Garver admitted that he carried Independent cards in his
hands and that he distributed them to the employees working under
him. He also admitted that he had been a member of the
Independent.
There is considerable evidence that Garver made threatening and
coercive statements during the time when he was engaging in the
above-described activities on behalf of the Independent . Robert
Kauffman testified that Garver came back to the furnace where
Kauffman was firing and said, "Bob , do you want to sign one of these
Independent Union cards?" To Kauffman's query, "Is this com-
pulsory?" Garver replied , "Well, no, I will write your name down
STANDARD STEEL WORKS COMPANY 455
here." When Kauffman asked, "What do you mean by that?"
Garver said, "If you don't sign this, we will take it that you belong
to the C. I. 0. If there is a lay-off, Bob,, you naturally know who
will go." Concerning this conversation Garver testified as follows:
I asked the man if he wanted one of the cards, and he said, "Is it
compulsory?" I said, "No," and I went on about my business.
The rest is untrue.
According to Hartsock, Garver approached the men on the second
shift in his department with a bunch of Independent cards in his
hand and asked the men if they wanted to sign the cards. Hartsock
refused to sign and Garver wrote his name down. When Hartsock
asked why he did that, Garver said, "Well, if you don't sign these
cards, we will know you belong to the C. I. 0.," and added that "if
[they] didn't sign it [they] wouldn't have a job long." The testimony
of Treaster and Hunter is to the same effect. Garver denied writing
down the names of the employees who did not, sign the cards.
The Trial Examiner did not credit Garver's denials. In view of
Garver's admissions, we attach little weight to his denials. We find
the testimony of Kauffman, Hartsock, Treaster, and Hunter to be
substantially correct. Accordingly, we find that John E. Garver
distributed Independent application cards to the employees under
his supervision, solicited their membership in the Independent, and,
by keeping a list of those who refused and making statements which
threatened their tenure of employment, attempted to coerce employees
to enroll for membership in the Independent.
John L. Jackson testified that he was a gang leader of the laborers in
the maintenance and construction department. In the summer of
1937 there were between 60 and 70 men in his gang. These employees
considered him to be their foreman. John Burd testified that Jackson
asked him to join the Independent. This occurred on three different
occasions within a period of 2 weeks in July and August 1937. Jack-
son said that he did not want the C. I. 0. in the plant and that," We
don't want no trouble" such as they had at Johnstown and other steel
works. He told Burd that there was a chance of his being laid off if
he did not sign up with the Independent. Burd testified that he
joined the Independent because he "thought by joining the Inde-
pendent union [he] would hold [his] job." Harry De Frehn testified
that, in June 1937, Jackson asked him to join the Independent. Paul
Ferguson testified that in the latter part of July or early in August
1937, Jackson approached him and asked if he "belonged to the
C. I. 0." When Ferguson asked "Why?" Jackson told him that he
"would like [him] to sign an Independent union card." Ferguson
then said that he did belong to the C. I. 0. and Jackson told him that
some of the employees denied membership in the C. I. 0. when he
456 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
first questioned them but told' him that they were members of the
C. I. 0. after he asked them to join the Independent. Although
Jackson denied that he had any conversations with Burd, De Frehn,
or-Ferguson concerning union; activities or that he solicited their mem-
bership in the Independent, he admitted that he "contacted" Fer-
guson and others, and that in June and July 1937 he was active in
behalf of the Independent. Jackson testified that when he distributed
Independent application cards to the men he said nothing to them
except, "Use your head." He ceased his activities 'on behalf of the
Independent in August 1937 when Showers, Jackson's immediate
superior, told him to stop.
We find, as did the Trial Examiner, that John L. Jackson distributed
Independent application cards, requested the men under his supervi-
sion to become members of the Independent, and asked his men
whether or not they were members of the S. W. 0. C.
Thomas Betleyon was a melter boss in the open hearth department.
,He was in, charge of the third shift which was composed of at least 15
men.' He supervised the work of these men and issued orders to
them'.' Betleyon admitted that he' joined the Independent in the
summer of 1937. Jay Stroup, formerly a foreman, was a boss fireman
in 1937. Samuel ' Graham testified that Betleyon and Stroup ap-
proached him in the summer of 1937. Betleyon asked Graham if he
was a member of the S. W. 6.'c. 'When Graham said, "Yes,"
Betleyon said, "I didn't think you would join that. I thought you
knowed better than that." Stroup then talked to Graham for about
an hour, urged him to joiri'the Independent, and told him that he
would sign an application card if he "cared anything' for [his] job."
Stroup finally persuaded him to sign an Independent card. In
September 1937, Betleyon asked Graham whether he had attended
the S. W. 0. C. meeting that night, and told him that he had been
informed that Graham and others,had attended the meeting. F. J.
Teim testified that Stroup, in July 1937, solicited his membership in
the Independent, and told him that the employees would get an
increase of 10 per cent in wages"if the Independent secured a majority.
0. F. Rhodes testified that Stroup told him that he would like to have
his signed application card immediately because he wanted "to get
51•% before the C. I. 0." There is evidence that Stroup solicited
many others. Stroup, although still in the employ of the respondent,
did not testify at the hearing. Betleyon admitted that he asked
Graham to sign an Independent application card. He testified that
he spoke to Graham for 15 or 20 minutes, that Stroup came in and
gave Betleyon a card, that he handed the card to Graham, asked him
if he wanted to sign it, and that when Graham stated that he belonged
to''th"e C. I. 0. he said, "It don't make any difference, you can sign
them both."
STANDARD STEEL WORKS COMPANY 457
We find that Thomas Betleyon and Jay Stroup engaged in activities
in behalf of the Independent, distributed application cards for the
Independent, and urged employees of, the respondent to join the
Independent.
Samuel Moore was the head hammerman in the tire, mill. He was
in charge of a gang of 17 men on the second shift. , Moore was a
member of the Independent. According to the testimony, of 0. F.
Rhodes, Moore left the mill on the night of the Independent's first
meeting at the Burnham Y. M. C. A. and when he returned described
to the men what had occurred at the -meeting, and then compared the
Independent with the S. W. 0. C., saying that the dues in, the Inde-
pendent were only 25 cents a month and no assessments,: whereas
membership in the S. W. 0. C. would mean the payment of assess-
ments as well as one-fifth of their wages for the support of outside,
unions. Moore then distributed Independent application cards to the,
employees in the tin mill. Moore admitted that he attended the
Independent meeting, spoke to the men in his gang, distributed cards,
and that the testimony of Rhodes was substantially correct.
Edmund C. Aikin was a gang boss in the open hearth department.
As gang boss, he had the power to recommend increases in wages for
the men working under him. Cloyd Mumper testified that Aiken
asked him to join the Independent in July 1937. and that he circulated
Independent application cards among the men in the open hearth
department. Aiken admitted- that he distributed cards. He did
not deny that he asked Mumper to join the Independent, and we
find that he did so.
Guy M. Baker testified, that he was a gang boss in the heat-treating
department. According to George Watson, he was an assistant
foreman in charge of the heat-treating- plant during the night shift,
and was known among the men as a shift foreman. Watson testified
that Baker gave him an Independent application card in August 1937
and that the men paid dues to Baker in his office. Baker admitted
that he collected dues and that he was active in behalf of the Inde-
pendent for "a couple of weeks." He testified that he stopped because
he did not think it was right for him as shift foreman to continue
collecting dues. John Kreig, general foreman of the heat-treating
department, testified that in February 1938 he was informed that
Baker was "soliciting for the Independent union" and that he then
told Baker to "cut it out."
Frank E. Brinton was an electrical gang boss. He supervised the
work of three electricians. Charles McKalips testified that in July,
1937 Brinton told him that he had batter join the Independent or he
would lose his job. Brinton, who was a. member of the Independent,
denied telling McKalips that he would lose his job if he did not join
the Independent. He admitted that he asked many employees to
458 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
join the Independent, and that his activities on behalf of the Inde-
pendent continued for "a couple of months." - In view of Brinton's
admissions, we do not credit his denial of McKalips' testimony.
We find, as did the Trial Examiner, that Brinton attempted to coerce
McKalips to join the Independent.
John McCurry, Sr., was a gang boss in the forge shop. He gave
orders to the men under him and supervised their. work. Grant Stuck
testified that in June 1937, about the time of the Johnstown strike,
McCurry asked him if he had signed an Independent application card
and that when he said "No," McCurry said, "Well, probably you
want a trip to Johnstown." 'Stuck stated that he joined the Inde-
pendent because he "didn't want to lose [his] job any quicker than
was necessary." McCurry admitted that he had attended two
meetings of the Independent. Concerning his conversation with
Stuck, he testified as follows:
We were talking about the union, not his union, mine, and I
said, our union was all right. Well, he replied it was not no
good. Well, I said to him-and the next thing was, Well, if
you was out in Johnstown, you would not have a job like the
one you have now.
We find that McCurry urged and coerced Stuck to join the Inde-
pendent.
Herbert C. Price was a chairman leader, a minor supervisory em-
ployee, known. as a strawboss or labor boss among the men. Price
testified that he "solicited anyone that [he] felt would be a suitable meln-
ber" of the Independent, those working under him as well as others.
William Goss and James Burnell testified that Charles Smith and
John Weader, gang bosses, asked them to join the Independent.
Their testimony was not rebutted, since neither Smith nor Weader
testified at the hearing.
Gennaro Galucci was a gang boss of laborers in the transportation
department. He gave orders to his gang and supervised their work.
John Henry was a gang boss in the heat-treating plant. He gave
orders to the men under him and supervised their work. Samuel
McLaughlin was a gang boss in the open hearth department. Charles
Swartzel was a gang boss in the tire mill.
Dale Whitsel testified that Galucci distributed Independent applica-
tion cards to the men in his gang in August 1937 and urged and
coerced them to sign, saying that "the plant would shut down with
the C. I. 0." Walter Anderson corroborated Whitsel's testimony..
Galucci denied everything. William Goss testified that when John
Henry asked him and others to join the Independent in July 1937 he
told them-that membership in the C. 1.,0. would cost $1.00 a month
plus assessments of 1 day's pay each week, whereas the Independent'
STANDARD STEEL WORKS COMPANY 459
cost only 25 cents a month and gave them the same benefits as the
C. I. 0. Henry denied any and all activity on behalf of the Inde-
pendent, although he admitted that he joined the Independent when
it was first organized. Paul Kauffman and Herbert Shirk testified
that, McLaughlin requested the employees in his gang to join the
Independent and Rhodes testified that Swartzel urged him to join
the Independent. McLaughlin and Swartzel denied that they had
clone or said anything on behalf of the Independent. In view of the
entire record, and the findings of the Trial Examiner, who had an
opportunity to observe the demeanor of the witnesses, we cannot
give credence to these denials. We find that Gennaro Galucci,
John Henry, Samuel McLaughlin, and Charles Swartzel urged and
requested the respondent's employees to join the Independent and
that Galucci made threatening statements for the purpose of coercing
the men in his gang to sign Independent application cards.
We find that Edmund C. Aikin, Guy M. Baker, Thomas Betleyon,
Frank E. Brinton, John E. Garver, Gennaro Galucci, John Henry,
John L. Jackson, John McCurry, Sr., Samuel McLaughlin, Samuel
Moore, Herbert C. Price, Charles Smith, Jay Stroup, Charles Swartzel,
and John Weader were supervisory. employees for whose activities
and statements the respondent is responsible.1°
In addition to the activities of the above-mentioned supers isory
employees, the record is replete with evidence of activities on behalf of
the Independent by non-supervisory employees during working hours
on company property. These activities included open solicitation
of members, widespread distribution of Independent application cards
and literature, and collection of dues.ll A number of the general
foremen of various departments 12 testified that they never observed
10 Sunshine Mining Cod N L R B , 110 F (2d) 780 (C C A 9), enf'g Matter of Sunshine Mining Co
and International Union of Mine , Mill and Smelter Workers , 7 N L R . B 1252 , N. L. R. B v. American
Mfg Co , 309 U S 629, aff'g as mod 106 F (2d) 61 (C C. A 2), which enf'd as mod Matter of American
Mfg Co , et at and Textile Workers Organizing Committee , C I 0 , 5 N L R B 443, N L. R B v A S.
Abell Co 97 F (2d)951 (C.C A 4), enf'g as mod Matter of TheA. S Abell Co , a corporation , and International
Printing and Pressmen 's Union, Baltimore Branch , Baltimore Web Pressmen ' s Union , No 51, 5 N. L. R B.
644, N L R B v Virginia Ferry Co , 101 F. (2d) 103 (C C A 4), enf'g as mod. Matter of Virginia Ferry
Corp . and Master , Mates and Pilots of America , No 9, 8 N. L R B. 730 , Al. L R. B v Planters Mfg. Co,
105 F . (2d) 750 (C C A. 4), enf'g Matter of Planters 2ilfg Co , Inc and United Veneer Box and Barrel Workers
Union, C 1 0, 10 N L R B 735, N L R. B v Goshen Rubber Co, 110 F (2d) 432 (C C. A. 7), enf'g as
mod Matter of Goshen Rubber and Manufacturing Co and United Rubber Workers of America , Local #124,
11 N. L. R. B. 1346, Swift & Co v N L R B, 106 F. (2d) 87 (C C. A 10), enforcing as modified Matter
of Swift & Co , a corporation , and Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Butcher Workmen of North America, Local
No 641, and United Packing House Workers Local Industrial Union No 300, 7 N . L. R B 269, International
Association of Machinists v N L R B., 110 F (2d) 29 (App D C ), enf'g Matter of The Serrick Corp and
International Union, United Automobile Workers of America , Local No 459, 8 N. L R B . 621, cert granted,
60 S Ct. 721.
It See the testimony of Charles Carpenter , Reed Havice , Paul Kauffman , Grant Stuck , William Hall,
Herbert Shirk , Cloyd Mumper, James Hartsock , Rudolph Gahagan, James McCardle, Robert Ranck,
Harry De Frehn, Paul Ferguson , Charles McKalips, Walter Anderson , and Joseph Fisher. See also the
admissions of Melvin Miller, George Barger, David Bishop , Oscar Harmon , J V Montgomery , and Ira S.
Trapler.
ti The following general foremen testified Vinemt E Bawn , machine shop No. 2, Fred W. Beardsley,
steel foundry , James R Bryant, machine shop No 1, J S Gross , tool section , James G. Mitchell, molding;
John J. Kreig, heat treating , George Baldwin, open hearth.
460 . DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
any solicitation or other activities on behalf of the Independent.
They testified, in substance, that they knew nothing about the
Independent; some of them denied knowledge of its existence, and
of the fact that a : contract had been'executed between the Independent
and the respondent. We' do not credit their testimony. It is un-
believable that they remained completely ignorant of the widespread
activity of employees and gang bosses in their departments, of the
Independent's organization meetings, of the certification by three
prominent citizens that the Independent represented a majority,
and of the existence of contractual relations between the respondent
and the Independent.
We find that the general foremen knew of and allowed the solici-
tauion of employees to join the Independent, the circulation of In-
dependent application cards, and the collection of Independent dues
during working hours on company property.
We' find that the respondent, by the above-described course of
conduct, dominated and interfered with the formation and adminis-
tration of, and contributed support to the Independent, and that it
thereby interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the
exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
We find that the respondent, by the above-described statements
and activities of Thomas Betleyon, Frank Brinton, John Garver,
' Gennaro Galucci, John Henry, John L. Jackson, John McCurry, Sr.,
Samuel McLaughlin, Samuel Moore, Herbert Price, andJay Stroup,
discouraged membership in the -S. W. O. C. and encouraged member-
ship in the Independent, thereby interfering with, restraining, and
coercing its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in
Section 7 of the Act.
B. The alleged discrimination in regard to hire and tenure of employment
Paul Ferguson began to work for the respondent in November 1936
as a sand-machine operator. In January 1937 he was injured in the
course of his duties and did not work until April 19, 1937, when he
returned as a laborer in the plant engineering section. He joined
the S. W. O. C. on July 27, 1937, and solicited members among his
friends. On August 15, 1937, Ferguson and 23 others, who were pant
of a gang of 61 men, were informed by Jackson, their gang boss, that
they were being laid off and would be recalled when business improved.
At the date of the hearing none of these men had been rehired. Be-
tween August 13, 1937, and April '29, 1938, shortly before the hearing,
the number of the respondent's shop employees working on an hourly
and piece-work basis had been reduced gradually from 1,819 to 795.
Ferguson testified that shortly before the termination of his em-
ployment he was asked by Jackson to join the Independent and was
questioned concerning his membership in the S. W. O. C. He stated
STANDARD STEE L WORKS COMPANNY , 461
that he told Jackson that he was a member of the S. W. 0. C., and
that thereafter Jackson unreasonably criticized his work, although
his work was good. Jackson admitted that he "contacted" Ferguson
for membership in the Independent, but denied that he had discrimi-
nated against him.13 He testified that Showers, his superior, asked
him to speak to Ferguson and others about their unsatisfactory work
and that when Ferguson told him that his arm had been broken he
gave Ferguson easier work to do.
Showers, Cole, the plant engineer, and Billiar, the work manager,
denied any knowledge of Ferguson's membership in the S. W. 0. C.
Billiar, who made the ultimate decision that Ferguson should be laid
off, testified that it did not seem fair to retain Ferguson, who had been
employed only about 8 months, when so many other men with more
seniority were being laid off. No evidence was introduced to show
that employees with less seniority than Ferguson were retained at this
time.
We find that Ferguson was not laid off because of his union mem-
bership and activities.
-Charles McKalips had been employed by the respondent for
approximately 40 years, not including periods of lay-off. At the
time of the termination of his employment on September 30. 1937,
he was working on dies in the tool section. He joined the S. W. 0. C.
on June 17, 1937, and was active in the distribution of literature and
the solicitation of members.
About the last of July 1937 Brinton, an electrical gang boss, told
McKalips that if he did not join the Independent he would lose his job.14
Tom Steward, a gang boss,ls told McKalips that he (McKalips) and
three others were the only ones in the shop who did not belong to
the Independent.
McKalips testified that after he joined the S. W. 0. C. Gross,
the foreman of the tool section, found fault with his work without
reason; that after a few complaints- had been made about his .work he
had three disinterested employees -inspect his work before Gross did;
that the three employees said his work was all right but that Gross
subsequently criticized it. Gross denied any knowledge of McKalips',
membership in the S. W. 0. C. He testified that he never criticized
McKalips more than anyone else, but that when McKalips made mis-
takes he would tell McKalips he would have to, do better or that he
would have to fix up the•work,that he was doing. Gross testified that'
he knew nothing of the incident when three employees were supposed
to have inspected McKalips' work; until he heard McKalips' testi-
13 For our detailed findings on Jackson 's activities , see supra '
14 Brinton admitted that he had solicited members for the Independent , but testified that he could not
recall making the above statement to McKalips . we have found that he made such a statement. See
supra.
15 McKalips referred to Steward as a foreman.
462 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
mony, and that none of the three men mentioned by McKalips ever
told him that McKalips' work was done all right. None of the three
men mentioned by McKalips testified concerning this incident.
-McKalips also testified that four men in his section with less seniority
than he had were retained after he was laid off. He implies that
this occurred because he was a member of the S. W. O. C. Gross,
Cole, and Billiar, who were responsible for his lay-off, denied any
knowledge of McKalips' membership in the S. W. O. C. The respond-
ent contends that McKalips was laid off because of lack of work and
that seniority, computed from the date of the most recent hiring, was
the main basis of selection. The record as a whole substantiates this
contention. Between August 6 and October 1, 1937, more than 200
of the respondent's employees were laid off. McKalips was last
hired on March 16, 1937, after a lay-off of approximately 3 years. Of
the 13 men doing the same general type of work as McKalips, only 2
were hired after March 16, 1937. One of these two was laid off before
McKalips and the second, together with two others, was laid off on
the same day that McKalips' employment was terminated.
We find that McKalips was not laid off because of his union member-
ship and activities.
Harry De Frehn began to work for the respondent in January 1913.
He was laid off in October 1934, returned to the respondent's employ on
January 10, 1935, as a laborer in the plant engineering department and
continued to work as a laborer until November 19, 1937, when his
employment was terminated. De Frehn joined the S. W. O. C. on
May 22, 1937, and was an active member. Jackson, his gang boss,
and Showers, Jackson's superior, knew of Do Frehn's membership in
the S. W. O. C.
Do Frehn testified that Jackson, his superior, solicited him for
membership in the Independent in June 1937 and that there was ill
feeling between him and Jackson after his refusal to join the Independ-
ent. Jackson denied that he asked De Frehn to join the Independent
but, as noted above, we find that he did so. Billiar testified that poor
business conditions necessitated a reduction in force in the labor gang
and the lay-off of De Frehn. That business conditions were poor is
evidenced by the fact that over 400 employees were laid off between
August 1, 1937, and November 19, 1937, when Do Frehn's employment
was terminated. The record discloses that 16 of the 23 men employed
in be Frehn's gang, including both Independent and S. W. O. C.
members, were laid off with De Frehn. There is no evidence that any
of those retained had more seniority than De Frehn. Of the 16, only
1, who was an expert cement mixer, had been rehired at the time
of the hearing.
We find that Harry De Frehn was not laid off because of his union
membership and activities.
STANDARD STEEL WORKS COMPANY 463
Paul Kauffman began to work for the respondent in 1920, was'laid
off in July 1930 and was rehired in May 1933 as a laborer. Thereafter
he worked at a number of different jobs in the open hearth department
including charge machine runner, crane operator and laborer, until
February 8, 1938, the last day that Kauffman actually worked for the
respondent. On April 1, 1938, Kauffman was notified by the employ-
ment office to return his employment tag since he had not worked for
over a month.
Kauffman joined the S. W. O. C. in May 1937 and was an active
member. He marched in the Labor Day parade in September 1937
and carried an S. W. O. C. banner. In November 1937 he was
transferred from the crane operator's job to that of a laborer, with the
result that his wages were reduced 20 cents per hour. The crane
operator's job was given to Weader, a member of the Independent,
who had less seniority than Kauffman. According to Kauffman's
testimony, he complained to Baldwin, foreman of the open hearth
department. He was told that since the open hearth department was
operating only one furnace, Weader, who had been an active foreman
when three furnaces were in operation, was being transferred to the
crane operator's job. Baldwin testified that Weader was a gang boss
and was given the crane operator's job in preference to Kauffman
because the respondent "had an investment in him." The complaint
did not allege that Kauffman was discriminatorily demoted in Novem-
ber 1937, and that issue was not litigated. We find that Kauffman
was properly transferred in November 1937.
For more than a month prior to February 8, 1938, Kauffman and
four other men had been working on a special construction job. Off
February 8 the job was completed and the five men, all of them
members of the S. W. O. C., were laid off.
Billiar testified that in December 1937 the open hearth department
was operating only one furnace with about 71 men. He decided to
give the men who were oldest in point of service or had special ability
4 days work per week and to carry the rest of the gang as "extras to
be given fill-in jobs. Kauffman was one of these "extra" men:
After February 8 there was no work for the"extras." Billiar admitted
that five men with less seniority than Kauffman were retained on the
extra gang. He testified that three of them were kept because they
could pour steel,ls and one because he was a pipe fitter. Billiar did
not recall why the fifth man was retained. No'one has been hired to
replace Kauffman. Billiar and Baldwin denied that they knew
Kauffman belonged to the S. W. O. C.
Although the case is not free from doubt, we find that Paul Kauff-
man was not laid off because of his union membership and acitvities.
1E While Kauffman had poured steel in the past, Billiar testified that he was not considered adept at this
work
464 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Harry Searer was employed by the respondent for approximately
26 years prior to April 1938. His last hiring dated from July 10, 1933.
Soarer joined the S. W. O. C. in March 1938. On April 15, 1938,
Gross, the foreman of the tool section in which Soarer was employed
as a tool grinder, informed him that one man had to be laid off and
that he had been selected. Soarer testified that men with less seniority
were retained.
Gross admitted that Soarer had more seniority than some of the
men who were retained. He testified that their comparative youth
and their ability to perform various tasks in the toolroom operated in
favor of the men retained. Cole, the plant engineer, testified that he
received a memorandum from Billiar stating that because of poor
business conditions the tool crib force had to be reduced by one man.
Cole then consulted Gross and after an analysis of the abilities of the
men employed in the tool section, Cole recommended to Billiar that
Soarer, a "one purpose man," should be laid off. Billiar, Cole, and
Gross denied knowledge of Soarer's membership in the S. W. O. C.
Seven men had been laid off in the tool crib prior to Soarer's lay-off.
We find that Harry Soarer was not laid off because of his union
membership or activities.
Herbert Harpster has been employed by the respondent for approxi-
mately 27 years. .He joined the S. W. O. C. on June 6, 1937, was an
active member and became vice president in July 1937.
In February 1937 Harpster was employed as i chainman in the
steel foundry. At about this time, Bilhar agreed to promote Harpster
to a higher rate of pay as chainman leader "A" on March 6, 1937,
"providing business conditions did not change." In February 1937
Harpster was transferred to the inspection department as a process
inspector with the understanding that if that job did not continue he
could return to his original position in the steel foundry. On Novem-
ber l,'1937, the inspection job was terminated and Harpster was trans-
ferred to the steel foundry as a shipping clerk on the second shift.
On February 1, 1938, he was again transferred to his former job as a'
chainman.
Harpster charged that the transfers of November 1, 1937, and
February 1, 1938, were discriminatory demotions. Billiar testified
that he could not carry out his promise to promote Harpster to chain-
man leader but gave him the inspector's job instead at an increased
rate of pay. When that job was abolished, Harpster was transferred
to the best available opening, that of shipping clerk, and subsequently
was restored to his former position. The record as a whole substanti-
ates,Billiar's testimony.
We find that Harpster was not demoted because of his union mem-
bership and activities.
STANDARD STEEL WORKS COMPANY 465
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, 'aiid sub-
stantial 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.
THE REMEDY
Having found that the respondent has engaged in unfair labor
practices, we will order it to cease and desist therefrom, and to, take
certain affirmative action which we find necessary to effectuate the
policies of the Act.
We have found that the respondent dominated and interfered with
the formation and administration of, and supported, the Independent.
The facts heretofore found establish, and we find, that the Independent
is incapable of ever serving as a true collective bargaining agency
of the employees. Its existence does and will constitute a continuing
obstacle to the exercise by the respondent's employees of the rights
guaranteed them by the Act. Hence, not only shall we order the
respondent to cease and desist from its unfair labor practices in con-
nection with the Independent, but in aid of that order and to remove
the impediment thus established to the free exercise by the employees
of their rights under the Act, we shall direct the respondent to with-
draw recognition from the Independent as a representative of its
employees, to disestablish that organization as such a representative,
and to refrain from giving effect to or performing any and all existing
contracts, understandings, or arrangements concerning labor relations
to which the Independent is a party. Nothing in this Decision and
Order should be taken to require the respondent to vary those wage;
hour, seniority, and such other substantial ,features of its relations
with the employees themselves, which the respondent established in
performance of the invalid contract as extended, renewed; modified,
supplemented, or superseded.
Where we have found, that the record does not support the allega-
tions of unfair labor practices set forth in the complaint, we will
order the complaint dismissed in so far as it alleges such unfair labor
practices.
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and upon the entire
record in the case, the Board makes the following:
CONCLUSIONS or LAW
1. Steel Workers Organizing Committee on behalf of Lodge No.
1940, Amalgamated Association of Iron, Steel & Tin Workers of
466 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
North America , affiliated with the C. I. 0., and Independent Steel
Workers, Burnham , Pennsylvania , are labor organizations , within the
meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
2. By interfering with, restraining , -and coercing its employees in
the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the
respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices,
within the meaning of Section 8 ( 1) of the Act.
3. By dominating and interfering with the formation and adminis-
tration of Independent Steel Workers, Burnham, Pennsylvania, and
by contributing support to it, the respondent has engaged in and is
engaging in unfair labor practices , within the meaning of Section 8 (2)
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 (3) of the Act with respect to Paul Ferguson,
Charles McKalips , Harry De Frehn, Paul Kauffman, Harry Soarer,
and Herbert Harpster.
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 respond-
ent, Standard Steel Works Company, Burnham, Pennsylvania, and
its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) In any manner dominating or' interfering with the administra-
tion of Independent Steel Workers, Burnham, Pennsylvania, or with
the formation or administration of any other labor organization of
its employees, and from contributing support to Independent Steel
Workers, Burnham, Pennsylvania, or to any other labor organization
of its employees;
(b) Giving effect to or performing any and all contracts, under-
standings, or arrangements relating to rates of pay, wages, hours of
employment, or other conditions of employment to which Inde-
pendent Steel Workers, Burnham, Pennsylvania, is a party;
(c) In any other manner'interfering with, restraining, or coercing its
employees in the exercise of the right to self-organization, to form, join,
or, assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through repre-
sentatives of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted activities
for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protec-
tion as guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act:
STANDARD STEEL WORKS COMPANY 467
(a) Withdraw all recognition from and refrain from recognizing In-
dependent Steel Workers, Burnham, Pennsylvania, as the representa-
tive of any of its employees for the purpose of dealing with the re-
spondent in any manner concerning grievances, labor disputes, wages,
rates of pay, hours of employment, or other conditions of employment,
and completely disestablish Independent Steel Workers, Burnham,
Pennsylvania, as such representative;
(b) Post immediately in conspicuous places at its plant, and main-
tain for a period of at least sixty .(60) consecutive days from the date
of posting, notices to its employees stating: (1) that the respondent
will not engage in the conduct from which it is ordered to cease and
desist in paragraphs 1 (a), (b), and (c) of this Order;'and (2) that the
respondent will take the affirmative action set forth in 2 (a) -of this
Order;
(c) Notify the Regional Director for the Sixth Region in writing
within ten (10) days from the date of this Order what steps,the re-
spondent has taken to comply therewith.
AND IT 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 (3) of the
National Labor Relations Act with respect to Paul Ferguson, Charles
McKalips, Harry De Frehn, Paul Kauffman, Harry Searer, and Her-
bert Harpster.
MR. WILLIAM M. LEISERSON took no part in the consideration of
the above Decision and Order.