The Solvay Process Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 16, 1938

5 N.L.R.B. 330 (N.L.R.B. 1938)

In the Matter of THE SOLVAY PROCESS COMPANY and UNITED CHEMI-
CAL WORKERS LOCAL INDUSTRIAL UNION No. 164
Case No. C-291-Decided February 16, 1938
Chemical Manufacturinq Industry-Company-Dominated Union: charges of
not sustained , complaint dismissed.
Mr. Jacob Blum and Mr. Beeves R. Hilton, for the Board.
Hunton, Williams, Anderson, Gay and Moore, by Mr. T. Justin
Moore and Mr. George D. Gibson, of Richmond, Va., Mr. David A.
Harrison, Jr., of Hopewell, Va., and Mr. Harry S. Ferguson, of New
York City, for the respondent.
Mr. Robert J. Francis, of Petersburg, Va., for the Council.
Mr. Hyman A. Schulson, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon charges duly filed by The Federation of Architects, Engi-
neers, Chemists and Technicians, herein called the Federation, the
National Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board, by Bennet
F. Schauffier, Regional Director for the Fifth Region (Baltimore,
Maryland), issued its complaint dated July 28, 1937, against The
Solvay Process Company, Hopewell, Virginia, herein called the
respondent. The complaint and notice of hearing were duly served
upon the parties. The complaint alleged that the respondent had
engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices affecting com-
merce 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, in that it had dominated and interfered with the
formation and administration of a labor organization known as the
Solvay Workers' Council, herein called the Council, and had con-
tributed financial and other support to it.
On August 7, 1937, counsel for the respondent, appearing specially,
filed with the Regional Director motions to dismiss the complaint
and for a bill of particulars. On the same day counsel for the re-
spondent filed an answer to the complaint in which it admitted the
allegations concerning interstate commerce, but denied the allega-
tions concerning the alleged unfair labor practices.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held in Hopewell, Virginia, on
August 26, 27, 28, 30, and 31, 1937, before D. Lacy McBryde, the
330
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 331
Trial Examiner duly designated by the Board. The Board, the
respondent, and the Council were represented by counsel and par-
ticipated in the hearing. Full opportunity to be heard, to examine
and cross-examine witnesses, and to produce evidence bearing upon
the issues was afforded to the parties.
A written motion to intervene in this proceeding was filed on
August 8, 1937, with the Regional Director by counsel for the Coun-
cil, and was resubmitted at the hearing; the Trial Examiner granted
this motion. At the outset of the hearing the respondent resubmitted
the motions to dismiss the complaint and for a bill of particulars
which it had previously filed with the Regional Director. These
motions were denied by the Trial Examiner. During the hearing,
amendments to the pleadings changing the name of the Federation
of Architects, Engineers, Chemists and Technicians to United Chemi-
cal Workers Local Industrial Union No. 164, herein called the United,
were also allowed. At the close of the hearing, counsel for the re-
spondent moved to dismiss the complaint on the ground that no
evidence had been adduced to sustain the allegations. The Trial
Examiner reserved ruling on the motion.
On November 13, 1937, the Trial Examiner filed an Intermediate
Report finding that the respondent had committed unfair labor prac-
tices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8 (1) and
(2) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. Thereafter the respond-
ent and the Council filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report,
taking exceptions to the ruling of the Trial Examiner during the
course of the hearing, as well as to the findings and conclusions of
the Intermediate Report, and requested an opportunity to argue the
exceptions before the Board. The respondent filed with its excep.
tions a brief in support thereof.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held before the Board in Wash-
ington, D. C., on December 23, 1937, for the purpose of oral argu-
ment. The respondent and the United participated.
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner on
objections to the introduction of evidence made during the course
of the hearing and finds that no prejudicial errors were committed.
The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the
exceptions to the Intermediate Report and the brief filed in support
thereof. As indicated below, the exceptions to the conclusions and
recommendations of the Trial Examiner are sustained.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
The Solvay Process Company, a subsidiary of the Allied Chemical
& Dye Corporation, a 'New York corporation, owns and operates a
332 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
chemical plant at Hopewell, Virginia, where it is engaged in the
manufacture of nitrogen derivatives and related products. Ap-
proximately 800 employees are engaged in the plant; about 100 of
these constitute the supervisory staff.
The allegations of the complaint that the respondent causes both
its raw materials and its products to move through States other than
Virginia were admitted by the respondent in its answer.
II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
United Chemical Workers Local Industrial Union No. 164 is a
labor organization admitting to membership all chemical employees
of the respondent, exclusive of supervisory and clerical employees.
It is a local affiliated with the Committee for Industrial Organiza-
tion, herein called the C. I. O.
The Solvay Workers' Council is a labor organization limiting its
membership to all employees of the respondent, exclusive of super-
visory employees.
III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The alleged domination of and interference with the Solvay
Workers' Council
Early in May 1937, some of the respondent's employees led by
Russel Powell Eaves, a pipe bender, decided to form a labor organi-
zation and to that end called upon John W. Pollard, an organizer
for the C. I. 0., at his office in Richmond, Virginia. Shortly there-
after, Ray Broyhill, a co-owner of the Conoco Service Station in
Hopewell, acting without authority, for five dollars rented the Hope-
well Armory to the Eaves group for the purpose of holding its first
meeting on May 12. When some of the respondent's employees
came to the armory on the evening of May 12, they found it locked.
On the same night, J. L. Bazemore, a member of the Eaves group,
received the following letter from Ray Broyhill :
Mr. BAZEMORE. Due to the action of the City Council, the right
to rent the armory has revoked and placed in the hands of the
City Manager only. I don't know why this took place so sud-
den as I didn't know anything -about it until a few min. ago
so I suggest you call Mr. Ancell about your meeting tonight.
Sorry I cant come down myself but Red has gone to supper.
RAY R . BROYHILL.
P. S. I am returning the rental paid me. It will have to be,
paid the city.
In his testimony Eaves stated that control of the Armory was
vested in Dr. Elder, the mayor of Hopewell and the respondent's
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 333
physician. H. Budge, an employee in the mechanical division of the
respondent's plant, told the same story with the additional statement
that the City Council said, "There wasn't going to be no C. I. O.
meetings held in Hopewell." These statements were conclusively
shown to be without foundation. The mayor had no jurisdiction over
the use of the Armory, but the matter was vested by unanimous reso-
lutions of the City Council at a regular meeting on December 12, ,
1933, solely in W. G. Ancell, the city manager of Hopewell' Ancell
entered into an agreement dated January 10, 1936, with Thomas
Broyhill and Ray Broyhill, co-owners of the Conoco Service Station
in Hopewell, giving them certain privileges for the use of the armory
for a one-year period expiring January 10, 1937.2 After the expira-
tion of said agreement Thomas Broyhill requested a renewal. The
city manager refused the renewal but gave him the privilege of rent-
ing the armory for Saturday night dances and special dances on other
nights when convenient to the city, but only for dances. This ar-
rangement was embodied in a letter dated April 27, 1937, prior to the
beginning of the first union activity.' Due to the absence of Thomas
Broyhill from town, Eaves applied to Ray Broyhill, who knew noth-
ing whatever of the terms of the agreement and was mistaken in sup-
posing that he had authority to let the Eaves group use the armory.
When this action was brought to the attention of the city manager
by the caretaker of the armory, he promptly refused to allow such
use to be made of the armory, not only because Broyhill was without
authority in the premises, but also because the armory had been
cleaned and decorated and the floor polished for a hospital dance
on the following evening. The mayor knew nothing of the occurrence.
The prejudice against the C. I. O. which members of the United at-
tempted to show was therefore solely a matter of ignorance on the
part of Ray Broyhill. The mayor and the city manager subsequently
allowed the United to use the Hopewell Municipal Building for meet-
ing purposes.
After failing to meet at the armory on May 12, the Eaves group held
a meeting at Budge's farm on the same night.
A few days prior to this meeting and thereafter, membership appli-
cations and cards were circulated throughout the respondent's plant.4
One of these was handed to J. J. O'Leary, the respondent's manager
of production, on May 8, 1937, by one of the respondent's supervisory
employees. O'Leary, upon the receipt of the membership card,
promptly issued instructions to all the foremen, assistant foremen,
and other supervisory employees of the respondent that they "must so
' Respondent Exhibit No 21.
2 Respondent Exhibit No 22
Respondent Exhibit No. 23
Respondent Exhibit No. 1.
334 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
conduct themselves as not to interfere in any manner with any group
that might wish to organize."
A few days after May 8, rumors became prevalent around the plant
that the gas plant would be seized or shut down. Accordingly, on May
12 some additional men were transferred to the gas plant from the
ammonia plant. The management took proper precautions, and noth-
ing untoward occurred. Shortly after May 15, the rumors of seizure
declined, and the extra men in the gas plant were transferred back to
the ammonia plant.
On May 17, O'Leary received a letter from Eaves as chairman, and
four other men as members, of the Committee for the Hopewell
Chemical Workers Union, requesting a conference on the following
day, primarily "to discuss with you some misunderstanding as to our
purpose in organizing." Essentially the letter announced three
things : (1) contrary to the general rumor, the Committee intended
no violence; (2) the Committee had "no authority to negotiate any
agreements" but was only in an incipient stage; (3) the union men
had not affiliated with any national organization and the "Committee
sees no reason why they and the respondent cannot arrange a meeting
with a permanent committee from the plant, which will truly repre-
sent the men in the plant as a whole, without any outside advice."
Such conference was held on May 18, Eaves then stated that his
group had no idea of calling a strike but was merely organizing "for
job security". O'Leary made no objection to this course but pointed
to the Act and said that the management would not take a stand
one way or the other and would so conduct itself as to retain the
friendship of all the employees. He cautioned them against permit-
ting persons unfamiliar with the operation of the plant to cause some
improvident action which would endanger the plant. Aside from
that, O'Leary told the Committee he had no interest in whom it
placed its direction under, and did not intend to take any part in
relation to any organization of the employees one way or the other.
He made it clear that he would not take sides, object or interfere
in any way, however the men organized. This testimony was cor-
roborated by Eaves. At the end of the conference O'Leary "asked
them to come back whenever they wished". To use his own words,
"I invited Mr. Eaves to bring his own committee (which I considered
C. I. 0) back to meet me any time at all. I told him I was not hard
to reach and they did not have to give me advance notice, that they
could get me any time they wished and, on top of that, any of them as
individuals could come in any time they wanted to."
During cross-examination Eaves developed the idea that O'Leary
had limited his willingness' for a further conference to a conference
with a local committee unaffiliated with any national organization
and had declined to meet with any committee having such affiliation.
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 335
We cannot give credence to Eaves' testimony. O'Leary directly
and unequivocally denied Eaves' testimony. W. H. Langewisch,
assistant manager of production, who was present at the conference
confirms O'Leary's testimony. None of the other four men on the
committee, two of whom testified, corroborated Eaves' testimony. In
fact, on the following day, May 19, Eaves, presiding over a meeting
of the United in the Hopewell Municipal Building, announced that
he "hoped to present the Union's working agreement to the Company
within a few days" and that "the plant superintendent had talked
favorably about the Union".5 Neither Eaves nor his Committee, nor
any representative of the United, ever had any further interview
with O'Leary and never made any effort for collective bargaining or
negotiation after May 18.
At the May 18th conference Eaves likewise requested O'Leary to
see that Walter George, the supervisor of safety, was instructed to
discontinue making efforts to obtain signatures of employees on a pe-
tition that was being circulated through the plant. George is an em-
ployee with no subordinates or supervisory authority of any kind, and
is engaged solely in inspecting and improving safety conditions in
the plant. O'Leary replied that it was always his practice, on hearing
a charge made against another man, to call in the other man and
give him an opportunity to tell his side of the story; he accordingly
cifered to summon George and thresh the matter out in the Com-
mittee's presence. Eaves, however, refused to allow this to be done.
As soon as the conference was over, O'Leary called George to his
office and asked him whether Eaves' charge was correct. George
replied that there was no truth whatever in the charge. O'Leary
then pointed out to George that the successful discharge of George's
duties relative to safety in the plant required the cooperation of all
employees and that for that reason he should not permit himself to
become involved or affiliated in any faction or movement of any
kind that might exist among the employees. George had previously
received identical instructions from Duffy, his superior, and testified
that he faithfully obeyed them at all times.
On May 13, the morning after the meeting of the Eaves group at
Budge's farm, H. L. Reichardt, an employee working on the scales,
came into the machine shop and, met R. F. Whitehurst, an employee,
who had a short time before the hearing resigned his position to take
a new position with another company in Brazil. Whitehurst began
a conversation on the subject of unions. It is significant to point out
that Whitehurst had worked for the Tubize-Chatillon Company at
its Hopewell plant for about 12 years prior to 1934. In 1934, a.
union was organized in the Tubize-Chatillon plant under the auspices
5 Respondent Exhibit Nos 10 and 19
336 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
of the American Federation of Labor and a strike was called. As
a result of this strike the machinery was injured and the plant was
closed down and never reopened. As a result Whitehurst lost his
job and was unemployed for about a year. He finally obtained a
job with the respondent. Whitehurst was very much disturbed by
the current rumors of union organization for fear that trouble might
develop at the plant similar to that which he had previously experi-
enced. Whitehurst asked Reichardt if they could draw up some
kind of petition in order to see how many men were opposed to an
outside labor organization. Reichardt agreed that this would be
desirable and the two men composed forthwith the text for such a
petition. This was the product of their joint labor, and was, so far
as the evidence shows, conceived and executed by them without sug-
gestion or assistance from any other source and without the knowl-
edge of any other person. Reichardt took the longhand draft home
with him that night to type, but his typewriter was out of order. He
came to the plant early the next morning and typed it in the oxida-
tion laboratory prior to his working hours. Nobody else was present
in the laboratory at that time and he had no permission to use the
typewriter or the paper which he found in the typewriter desk.
The petition so prepared was a declaration of sentiment on the
part of the subscribers to the effect that they did not want the United
or any other similar organization.
Whitehurst and Reichardt had heard of an independent union in
the neighboring plant of the Dupont Company at Ampthill, Vir-
ginia. Both men thought that some such organization would be
desirable at the plant if the men approved. Copies of the petition
were distributed to hourly employees in various parts of the plant
for circularization. In the ensuing three or four days about 150
men subscribed to the petition. This was done without aid or sup-
port from any of the management groups.
When these signatures had been obtained, Reichardt thinking it
proper that the management should be advised that there was a
division of feeling among the men on the question of unionization,
wrote a letter to O'Leary on May 18, 1937, and submitted that letter,
together with the originals of the petition, to O'Leary on the morn-
ing of May 19. O'Leary did not encourage or discourage Reichardt
in his views or converse with him on the matter whatever.
J. V. Daniel, an employee in the mechanical department, shortly
after the advent of Pollard, the C. I. O. organizer, prepared a letter
to O'Leary 6 stating that the subscribers desired to lay before him
their ' plan to combat any outside labor organization whatever and to
hear from him any advice which he might see fit to give on that
6 Respondent Exhibit No. 3.
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 337
subject, their plan being to form an employees' works council.
Daniel then knew nothing about the Whitehurst-Reichardt petition,
but shortly after he had written this letter, he discovered that White-
hurst and Reichardt were working along similar lines to his, and.
so he invited them to join him.
Daniel delivered his letter to O'Leary on May 26. O'Leary had
a conference with Daniel, Whitehurst, Reichardt, and others on the
afternoon of the same day. Daniel and the other subscribers to his
letter stated that they were opposed to having a C. I. O. organiza-
tion in the plant and requested advice as to what they could do in
furtherance of that purpose. O'Leary replied that he would "give
them no advice whatsoever", that under the Act the management
could not participate or advise or assist in any labor movement or
organization, that he could not have any part or parcel therein,
and that he would not interfere with any labor organization going
on, either in word or in spirit. Daniel and his associates stated to
O'Leary at the conclusion of the conference that it was their in-
tention to form a workers' council. O'Leary replied that he would
not tell them or suggest to them that they form an organization or
not, but that it was his instruction that no effort of any kind in that
direction be made on company time. This testimony of O'Leary was
not contradicted or questioned. In fact, it was confirmed in all
points by every witness who referred to it.
On the evening of May 28 a meeting was called by the Daniel-
Whitehurst-Reichardt group to organize an independent union.
Membership cards had been printed in advance. Carter, an em-
ployee, had drawn up a tentative draft of bylaws. F. C. Maloney,
a chemist, acted as temporary chairman of the meeting. He ex-
plained that "the purpose of the meeting was to organize the hourly
employees of the plant into a group independent of any foreign or
any outstanding labor organization and with absolutely no con-
nection with the company." A discussion of the tentative draft of
the bylaws ensued. The question of the amount of dues to -be
charged was also discussed. A number of employees signed mem-
bership cards at the conclusion of the meeting.
Maloney had been informed on May 21, seven days prior to the
Council's meeting, that he was to be transferred to the salaried roll
on June 1. This change did not affect the nature of his duties in any
way and did not give him any supervisory authority or bring him
into the ranks of the management, but was merely a provision to
enable the respondent to call for his services more than 40 hours a
week, and was made without any connection or reference whatever
to any possible labor activities or sympathies on Maloney's part.
Maloney had been asked to preside by Carter because his experience
338 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
in presiding at meetings of his church qualified him for the task.
When Maloney learned that membership in the Council was re-
stricted to hourly employees, he at first refused to preside. When the
Committee, however, pressed him to preside, he did so with the
reservation that he would only act as chairman for the first meeting
as he was still an hourly employee when the first meeting of the
Council was held. In his uncertainty as to whether his declared but
not yet effective change in pay-roll classification made it improper
for him to preside at a meeting in regard to the -formation of an
organization of hourly employees, he asked O'Leary for advice on
this question, but O'Leary flatly declined to give him any advice or
counsel of any kind. Maloney took no active part in the Council after
June 1, the day he was put on the salaried list.
At the invitation of Daniel's nephew, an employee at the plant,
Lowry, the head of the workers' council in the neighboring Dupont
plant, addressed a second meeting of the Council on June 3. Lowry
explained the organization of the Dupont Council and answered ques-
tions in regard thereto. At the end of the meeting a voluntary
offering vv as taken up to defray the expenses of the Council, and
some $33 was collected. From that collection all expenses of the
Council up to that time were paid; an itemized list was given in
the record. It was clearly shown that the respondent contributed
no financial support toward the Council. The only other revenue
of the Council was money subsequently received from membership
dues.
On the evening of June 3 the United had a meeting in Petersburg,
at which it voted to affiliate with the C. I. 0., and elected permanent
officers.
At this time there had developed two distinct factions among the
men at the plant, the United and the Council. Both groups actively
solicited members. O'Leary had given instructions that there should
be no solicitation of membership in any organization of any kind on
company time, but it was impossible to enforce compliance with these
instructions, and they were in fact disregarded by both groups.
At a conference with O'Leary on June 9, Reichardt at a Council
committee produced Council membership cards signed by 374 hourly
employees of the plant and requested O'Leary to recognize the
Council as the exclusive bargaining representative of the respondent's
hourly employees. O'Leary refused to recognize the Council as the
exclusive bargaining representative, but said that he would recog-
nize the Council as the sole bargaining agency for its members only.
O'Leary stated that the Board was the final judge as to who would
be the exclusive bargaining agent. He refused to recognize the
Council in order to protect himself against the possibility of both
the Council and the United claiming a majority in good faith.
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 339
On June 18, O'Leary had another conference with the Council
committee , pursuant to its request . At this time the Council claimed
to represent 390 hourly employees . The committee again asked for
recognition as exclusive bargaining agent, which O'Leary again re-
fused for reasons previously stated. The committee asked him to
begin negotiations looking toward an agreement . O'Leary took this
under advisement and gave no definite reply . The committee also
laid before O'Leary Articles IX and X of the tentative draft of the
Council's bylaws, specifying certain procedure for the handling of
grievances . O'Leary took this proposal under advisement . The com-
mittee also listed certain grievances , principally a request for a more
liberal vacation allowance and a request for a revision of rate struc-
ture in the mechanical and electrical forces. O'Leary promised to
give this matter his studied consideration . O'Leary refused the com-
mittee's request for permission to use the respondent 's bulletin boards
and issued instructions that the bulletin boards could be used only
for company purposes.
At this point we digress to consider Eaves' testimony that the Coun-
cil's bylaws were "hanging on every ( bulletin ) board in the plant
for eight or ten days ". On cross-examination it appeared that Eaves
never went in any other part of the plant except the machine shop
and knew only about the machine shop bulletin board . Eaves cut
down his general statement to a charge that a copy of the bylaws
was on the machine shop bulletin board for a period of three or four
days. He was , however, definitely able to say that this occurred
between May 5th and 10th . It was shown by other witnesses, how-
ever, that it was not until May 28, when the first meeting of the Coun-
cil was held, that a preliminary draft of the bylaws was made. The
final form of the bylaws was completed in time for the Council meet-
ing on June 14, at which time they were approved . - The bylaws were
not mimeographed until the last week in June.
W. A. Waldron, an employee , testified that a particular copy of
the bylaws 7 was posted on the bulletin board of the compressor
building from July 15 to August 4, but it was shown by the Board's
counsel that that particular copy had been in the Regional Director's
possession since June 21.
E. M. Reed, a welder , testified that he had seen a particular copy
of the bylaws 8 on the bulletin board in the machine shop, but he was
unable to recall whether it was in January, April , May, June, July,
or August . It was clearly shown that the instructions of the manage-
ment forbade ar y notice to be posted on company bulletin boards by
either group . No violations of these instructions had been reported
or came to the knowledge of the management , except a notice of a
7 Board Exhibit No. 11.
6 Board Exhibit No. 14.
340 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
meeting of the Eaves group which O'Leary ordered taken down after
speaking to Eaves about it.
On June 23 the Council committee again conferred with O'Leary
to receive his reply to their requests of June 18. O'Leary agreed to
recognize the Council as the bargaining representative for its mem-
bers and granted a vacation with pay to all employees continuously
on the pay roll since January 1, 1935.
On June 21, Eaves filed with the Regional Director charges of the
alleged violation by the respondent of Section 8 (1) and (2) and
Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
The next meeting of O'Leary with the Council committee was on
July 27. The committee presented to O'Leary a draft of an agree-
ment.9 Certain changes were recommended by O'Leary and the mat-
ter was continued for further discussion and consideration. On July
29, O'Leary received an amended draft of the proposed agreement
from the Council. On the same day the respondent was served with
the complaint of the Board in this proceeding. O'Leary concluded
that it would be best for all parties concerned to defer any action
in regard to the proposed working agreement until the question pre-
sented in this proceeding had been determined. O'Leary wrote to
the Council on August 5 advising it of the respondent's decision.
There are certain episodes related by members of the United tend-
ing to show the respondent's support of the Council, which deserve
some comment. Aderholt, a section operator of the respondent and
treasurer of the United, testified that on May 14, George, supervisor
of safety, gave him a letter in a buff envelope addressed to Thad
Stevens, an employee. According to Aderholt's story, George di-
rected him to open the letter, explaining that "it is company busi-
ness". Aderholt did so and saw inside a copy of the petition. Ader-
holt further testified that George told him to "go up and start cir-
culating on the four to twelve shift". In fact, Aderholt took the
communication home with him, "snitched" another copy of the peti-
tion "out of the purification building", put that in the envelope and
gave that to Stevens. On cross-examination Aderholt added that
George initially said to return the letter to the police station and
then "caught himself and said `return it to Whitehurst at the ma-
chine shop' ". On direct examination Aderholt said that the letter
was sealed when it was given to him; on cross-examination he said
that the letter at that time was open.
George absolutely denied Aderholt's story. George testified that
in, the course of his duties, which require him to go throughout the
plant, he frequently takes letters left at the patrol office to their
addresses throughout the plant, including personal messages be.
Respondent Exhibit No. 13.
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 341
tween the men as well as company business. On this occasion he
found at the patrol office an envelope, left there in his absence,
addressed to Stevens. He took the envelope and on his rounds came
to the compression building. He there saw Aderholt and asked
him to deliver the letter to Stevens. Aderholt demanded to know
what was in the letter. George replied that he had no idea, and
thereupon departed. Aderholt did not open the letter in George's
presence.
We cannot give credence to Aderholt's testimony. It is difficult
to believe that George would have tried to promote a petition by the
Reichardt-Daniel group by giving it to Aderholt who by general
knowledge was a leader of the Eaves faction. It will be recalled
that George, shortly after May 8, was specifically instructed not to
align himself with any faction among the men or to take any part
by work or deed or gesture in any labor organization activity. Those
instructions were repeated to him by O'Leary after the latter's
meeting with the Eaves group on May 18. George testified that he
at all times faithfully carried out those instructions.
Subsequently Aderholt tried to dispel rumors around the plant
that he was connected with the C. I. O. by voluntarily denying
these reports to Houser, the superintendent of the power subdivision,
and Reeves, his foreman. Houser told him that he was not interested
and replied, "You use, your own judgment about that". 'Reeves
replied that he was not interested and that anything Aderholt did
about union organization was all right. When Aderholt told Reeves
he did not want to jeopardize his job, Reeves replied, "Well, Ader-
holt, as long as you do your work here with us, that is all I personally
expect of you." This testimony was not denied by Aderholt.
Another episode was recounted by Everingham, who testified that
Daniel brought to him, in the tool room, which was ordinarily locked,
a copy of the petition and asked his signature, which he declined to
give. Daniel left and returned in a short time with W. F. Ashton,
the general foreman, who allegedly said, "What is the matter with
you, why won't you sign this petition?" Everingham replied, "Mr.
Ashton, first I don't believe it; I have seen too many of these so-
called unions; they don't go." After some delay, according to Ever-
ingham, Ashton said that if Everingham did not sign the petition he
was going to make E. K. Lund, the master mechanic, "mad", adding
that Everingham "was the one man that the old man Lund wanted
to sign the card", and that he knew what would happen if he did
make the old man mad.
Daniel and Ashton explained their version of what took place.
Daniel at that time was proceeding to obtain signatures to the letter
of May 26, requesting an interview with O'Leary.1° Daniel asked his
10 Respondent Exhibit No. 3.
342 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
foreman, Ashton, if he could assemble a committee to call on O'Leary,
without explaining to Ashton the purpose of the committee. Ashton
said that that was all right. In the course of a business visit to the
machine shop, Daniel asked Everingham if he would sign the letter
as representative of the machine shop. Everingham replied that he
was in favor of the letter, but that he could not sign because of the
men in the machine shop who were with the C. I. O. Daniel departed.
Later as Daniel was passing through the machine shop with Ashton,
Everingham, being in the tool room which is merely an enclosure of
netted wire, saw them and beckoned them to approach, which they
did. Everingham asked Daniel for the letter and turned to talk to
Ashton about it. Everingham said that he could not sign the peti-
tion. Ashton replied that he knew nothing of any petition, that as
far as he knew "they were looking for a committee to wait on
O'Leary." Ashton made no suggestion whatever that Everingham
sign any paper and made no effort to induce him to do so, but told
him that that was a matter for his own choice. When Everingham
subsequently spoke to Lund about the matter, Lund replied, "That
will be entirely up to you. It is immaterial to me whatever you
do. Whatever they want you to sign, if you want to sign, go ahead."
Having considered the conflicting evidence concerning the above
episodes and the respondent's neutral attitude toward its employees'
organizational activities, we give credence to the testimony of the
respondent's witnesses. The testimony of Everingham and Aderholt
concerning the above-described episodes was in a large measure dis-
credited on cross-examination and contradicted by other witnesses.
In the whole record there is little or no evidence of any antiunion
activity by the respondent in its plant.
The record discloses that Reichardt, who helped to form the Coun-
cil was promoted from an hourly employee to a foreman in the
respondent's transportation department on July 28. We are tunable
to agree with the Trial Examiner's finding that Reichardt's promo-
tion was in reward for his activities in helping to organize the Coun-
cil. Reichardt' had been negotiating for a better paying position
with the Merrick Scale Manufacturing Company of Passaic, New
Jersey, since March 1937. A better position was offered to him by
that company in July.'1 In order to retain Reichardt in its employ
the respondent promoted him to a supervisory position. In this con-
nection we point out that Bazemore, a former officer of the United,
also was promoted on July 1 and thereafter resigned from the
United.
We find that the respondent has not dominated or interfered with
the formation or administration of the Solvay Workers' Council or
contributed financial or other support to it.
11 Respondent Exhibit No. 20
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 343
We find that the. respondent had not interfered with, restrained,
or coerced its employees in the exercise of the right of self-organiza-
tion to form, join, or assist, labor organizations, to bargain collec-
tively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage
in concerted activities, for the purposes of collective bargaining and
other mutual aid and protection.
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. The operations of the respondent, The Solvay Process Company,
occur in commerce, within the meaning of Section 2 (6) of the Act.
2. United Chemical Workers Local Industrial Union No. 164 and
Solvay Workers' Council are labor organizations within the meaning
of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
ORDER
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions
of law and pursuant to Section 10 (c) of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the
complaint against The Solvay Process Company be, and it hereby is,
dismissed,
80535-38-23