The Solvay Process Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 22, 1940

21 N.L.R.B. 882 (N.L.R.B. 1940)

IN THE MATTER OF THE SOLVAY PROCESS COMPANY, BATON ROUGE,
LOUISIANA and OIL WORKERS' INTERNATIONAL UNION, LOCAL No. 424,
AFFILIATED WITH THE COMMITTEE FOR INDUSTRIAL ORGANIZATION'
Cases Nos. C-108 and R-983-Decided March W, 1940
Chemical Manufacturing Industry-Interference, Restraint. and Coercion: anti-
union statements-Conipany-Darniamated Union: domination of'and interference
with formation and administration; activities of supervisory employees; activ-
ities on company time and property ; support ; disestablished, as agency for
collective bargaining-Unit Appropriate for Collective Bargaining: all employees
in plant except clerical and supervisory employees, laboratory employees, gate-
men, brine-well employees, and mill, water, and wharf employees-Repr esenta-
tives: proof of choice: cards and petitions designating Union as bargaining agent;
testimony of union officers and organizers-Collective Bargaunng' meeting with
union representatives, but with no bona fide intent to reach an agreement-
Investigation of Representatives: petition for, dismissed, in view of order to
employer to bargain.
Mr. Samuel Lang, for the Board.
Mr. Charles V. Porter, of Baton .Rouge, La., and Hunton, Williams,
Anderson, Gay & Moore, by Mr. T. Justin Moore and Mr. Edmund M.
Preston, of Richmond, Va., for the respondent.
Mr. Arthur J. Mandell and Mr. Chris Dixie, of Houston. Texas, and
Mr. J. L. Coulter, of Ft. Worth, Texas, for the Union.
Breazeale & Sachse, by Mr. H. Payne Breazeale, Mr. Victor A.
Sachse, and Mr. Percy J. Landry, Jr., of Baton Rouge, La., for the
Council.
Miss Anne E. Freeling, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
On April 3, 1938, Oil Workers' International Union, Local No. 424,
herein called the Union, filed with the Regional Director for thq
Fifteenth Region (New Orleans, Louisiana), herein called the Regional
Director, a charge alleging that The Solvay Process Company, Baton
Rouge, Louisiana, herein called the respondent, had engaged in and
was engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce, within the
i Now the Congress of Industrial Organizations
21 N L . R. B., No. 90.
882
THE SOLVAY PROCESS COMPANY 883
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, and
a petition alleging that a question affecting commerce had arisen con-
cerning the representation of employees of the respondent and request-
ing an investigation and certification of representatives pursuant to
Section 9 (c) of the Act.
On June 4, 1938, the National Labor Relations Board, herein called
the Board, acting pursuant to Section 9 (c) of the Act and Article
III, Section 3, of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regula-
tions-Series 1, as amended, ordered an investigation and authorized
the Regional Director to conduct it and to provide for an appropriate
hearing upon due notice. On August 19, 1938, the Board, acting
pursuant to' Article II, Section 37 (b), and Article III, Section
10 (c) (2), of said Rules and Regulations, ordered that the two cases
be consolidated for the purposes of hearing and that one record of the
hearing be made.
On August 20, 1938, the Union filed an amended charge alleging that
the respondent had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor prac-
tices affecting commerce, within the meaning of Section 8 (1)', (2), and
(5), and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act, and an amended petition for
investigation and certification of representatives.
Upon the amended charge, the Board, by the Regional Director,
issued its complaint, dated August 27, 1938, alleging that the respond-
ent had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices affect-
ing commerce, within the meaning of Section 8 (1), (2), and (5), and
Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.2 Notices , of the hearing upon the
complaint and upon the amended petition, together with copies of the
notice of consolidation, the complaint, the amended charge, and the
amended petition, were duly served upon the respondent and upon the
Union.
The, complaint alleged in substance that, the respondent dominated
and interfered with the formation and administration of Solvay Em-
ployees Council, herein called the Council, a labor organization of its
employees, and contributed financial and other support to it; that on
or about March 22 and April 2, 1938, and at all times thereafter, the
respondent refused to bargain collectively with the Union, which was
then, and continued to be, the representative of a majority of the
respondent's employees in a unit appropriate for collective bargaining;
and that thereby, and by threatening to shut down the plant if the
Union pressed a claim for recognition, by advising and inducing its
2 The complaint also alleged that the respondent had engaged in unfair labor practices
within the meaning of Section 8 (3) of the Act This allegation was obviously due to
a typographical error, and was deleted at the heal in;; upon motion of counsel for the
Boaid
884 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
employees to refrain from joining the Union or to give up their mem-
bership in it, by threatening them with loss of employment if they
did not join the Council, and by other acts and conduct, the respondent
interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise
of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. The respondent filed
an answer to the complaint, admitting certain allegations of fact as
to its business, but denying the allegations as to unfair labor practices.
Pursuant to notice, a consolidated hearing in the complaint and
representation cases was held in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, from Sep-
tember 15 through October 7, 1938, before Albert L. Lohm, the Trial
Examiner duly designated by the Board. At the opening of the hear-
ing, the Council presented a written motion to intervene. The Trial
Examiner reserved his ruling thereon, and thereafter, in the course of
the hearing, granted the Council leave to intervene in the representa-
tion case only. The Board, the respondent, and the Union appeared
by counsel and participated in the hearing in the complaint and rep-
resentation cases. The Council appeared by counsel and participated
in the hearing in the representation case. Full opportunity to be
heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evi-
dence bearing on the issues was afforded all parties.3 At the Close of
the Board's case, counsel for the Board moved that the pleadings be
amended to conform to the proof adduced at the hearing. The Trial
Examiner granted this motion. At the close of the hearing, the re-
spondent moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of evidence to,
sustain the allegations thereof. The Trial Examiner reserved ruling
upon this motion. During the course of the hearing, the Trial Ex-
aminer made several rulings on other motions and on objections to the
admission of evidence. We have reviewed all such rulings and find
that no prejudicial errors were committed. Such rulings are hereby
affirmed.
On December 7, 1938, the Trial Examiner filed his Intermediate
Report, copies of which were duly served upon all the parties, in which
he found that the respondent had engaged in and was engaging in
unfair labor practices affecting commerce, within the meaning of Sec-
tion 8 (1), (2), and (5) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. He
recommended that the respondent cease and desist from its unfair
labor practices, withdraw recognition from and disestablish Solvay
Employees Council, bargain collectively with the Union, and take
certain other affirmative action to remedy the situation brought about
by the unfair labor practices. In his Intermediate Report the Trial
Examiner denied the motion made by counsel for the respondent at
the hearing to dismiss the complaint for lack of proof.
3 Participation by the Council was limited to issues arising in the repiesentat : on case
THE SOLVAY PROCESS COMPANY '885
The respondent and the Council duly filed exceptions to the Inter-
mediate Report and requested an opportunity to file briefs and argue
orally before the Board. Pursuant to notice duly served upon all the
parties, a hearing was held before the Board in Washington, D. C.,
on December 14, 1939, for the purpose of oral argument. The respond-
ent, the Union, and the Council were represented by counsel and par-
ticipated in the argument. The Board has reviewed the exceptions
to the Intermediate Report, and the briefs and arguments in support
of such exceptions, and, save as the exceptions are consistent with the
findings, conclusions, and order set forth below, finds them to be
without merit.
Upon the entire record in the cases, the Board makes the follow-
ing:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
The respondent, The Solvay Process Company, is a New York
corporation. It is a subsidiary of Allied Chemical & Dye Company,
and sells its products through Solvay Sales Company, both New York
corporations. The respondent owns or operates plants in Baton
Rouge, Louisiana; Hopewell, Virginia; Syracuse, New York; Detroit,
Michigan; and Amherstberg, Ontario, Canada.
The respondent is engaged at its Baton Rouge plant, which is the
only plant herein involved, in the business of manufacturing, refin-
ing, and processing chemicals and chemical products. The respond-
ent obtains from States other than Louisiana a substantial portion of
the raw materials used at the Baton Rouge plant, including coke, am-
monia, and acids, and machinery and other equipment, and ships to
its other plants, or sells to customers located outside Louisiana, be-
tween 60 and 70 per cent of the products manufactured or processed
at its Baton Rouge plant. In the year 1937, the respondent sent out
of its Baton Rouge plant products manufactured or processed by it
of an aggregate value of more than $1,000,000. The plant employs
approximately 250 persons.
II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
Oil Workers' International Union, Local No. 424, is a labor organiza-
tion affiliated with the Committee for Industrial Organization.4 It
admits to membership employees of the respondent.
Solvay Employees Council is an unaffiliated labor organization
which limits its membership to employees of the respondent.
Now the Congress of Industrial Organizations
283032-41-vol 21-57
886' DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Domination of and interference with the formation and adminis-
tration of the Council; interference , restraint , and coercion
Prior to March 11, 1938, when the Union began to organize the
respondent 's employees , no labor organization existed at the Baton
Rouge plant . Bates , the plant superintendent , nevertheless called
Hargroder , chief electrician , into his office during January or Feb-
ruary of that year and told the latter : -
that he [Bates ] understood that the CIO was coming and that
they would attempt to organize the plant . . . [that] if I [Har-
groder] understood or heard of any activities in the plant, to let
him [Bates ] know . . . that I [Hargroder ] was to remain abso-
lutely neutral in what happened.
Hargroder replied that he would let Bates know.
On March 13 , 1938, 2 days after the beginning of the Union's
activities , an employee told Nill, assistant plant superintendent, that
the men were being organized by outsiders . Nill reported the matter
to Bates, who asked him if he knew of any reason for dissatisfaction
among the men which might have prompted this activity . Nill told
him he did not know of any, but promised to make inquiries about it.
A few of the supervisory employees learned of the Union 's organ-
izing activity soon after it began from conversations which they
overheard among the employees . They reported such activity to
other supervisory employees, and it thus became generally known
throughout the plant within a few days. On March 17 Hurt, ma-
chine-shop foreman, and Hargroder , chief electrician , who share an
office, discussed the Union 's activity with their immediate superior,
Trott, the master mechanic . He referred them to Bates. According
to Hurt, they told Bates that the C . I. O. was organizing , but that
some of the employees preferred a different type of organization.
According to Hargroder , however, he had not yet heard anything
about an independent organization, and they told Bates only that the
C. I. O. was organizing the men. Bates called Nill into his office
during this conference , and asked Hurt and Hargroder to repeat
to Nill what they had just told Bates. Nill testified that as he re-
called their conversation , Hurt and Hargroder "said that several of
the shop men had approached them and asked them to find out if it
would be all right to form an organization to combat the CIO."
We find that the subject of the formation of an inside labor organ-
ization to compete with the Union was broached on this occasion.
The witnesses are agreed that Bates instructed them that the men
THE SOLVAY PROCESS COMPANY 887
had a perfect right to organize, and that they, as part of the man-
agement, must not interfere and must remain neutral. Similar in-
structions were also given to the other supervisory employees, and
were, in fact, repeated to each of them several times.
Shortly after this conference in Bates' office, an employee named
Crawford and one or two other employees told Hurt and Hargroder
that some of the men would like to form a council type of organ-
ization. Hurt told them they had his permission to do so. He also
told them that he "didn't think a hell of a lot of the CIO and
particularly didn't like the man at the head of it . . . John L.
Lewis." Fadely, a clerical employee who works in the receiving room
in an adjoining building, came into the office. Crawford had asked
him to assist in forming a labor organization. Fadely dictated a
petition which Hargroder wrote out in longhand, and which pro-
vided that the signers thereof would meet at a future date to organize
the respondent's employees into a "Solvay Employees Council" for
the purpose of discussing with plant officials from time to time the
general welfare and grievances of the employees. Either Fadely or
Crawford asked Hargroder to take the petition to the management
and find out whether the management would approve it or would
object to a second organization trying to sign up its employees. Har-
groder took the petition to Bates. Bates asked Hargroder whether
the petition was his idea or the men's idea. Hargrocler told him it
was the men's idea. Bates then told him again that the men had a
perfect right to organize, and that the management must not inter-
fere and must remain neutral. Hargroder handed the petition to
Bates, who read it and gave it to Nill to read. Hargrocler returned
to his office and told Crawford what Bates had said. At Crawford's
request, Hargroder, who sometimes typed personal things for the
men, typed copies of the petition, and later in the day typed addi-
tional copies. Crawford started into the shop to obtain signatures
to the petition. Hurt told him he could not do that, but gave him
permission to use the office. Crawford sat at the desk in the office
and the men came in, one or two at a time, to sign the petition. Both
Hurt and Hirgroder sent men to the office for this purpose. Their
efforts met with great success. Hurt testified that he thought he saw
the entire force of 12 or 14 men in the machine shop go into the office
to sign the petition.
Later in the day, while Hurt and Hargroder were in the office
with Crawford, Dove, an employee in the caustic soda section on
the 3: 00 to 11: 00 p. m. shift, came in to discuss with them the or-
ganization of an independent union. They showed Dove the Council
petition and told him that some of the other employees were circulat-
ing copies. Crawford asked Dove if he would circulate a petition
888 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
in the caustic-soda section. Dove said he would circulate it in that
section and anywhere else he had a chance to in order to find out how
many men really wanted an independent organization. In the course
of the discussion, Hurt told Dove that "if he didn't watch out he
would get into something as bad as the C. I. 0." Dove gathered the
impression, as he testified, that Hurt wanted "a local independent
union more to combat the C. I. O. than to be of any particular help to
the employees themselves." In any event, Hurt and Dove engaged
in a heated argument, which Dove terminated by picking up two of
the petitions that were lying on the desk and leaving the office. He
gave one to Kleinpeter, a gateman, and circulated the other in the
plant for at least 2 hours. Dove thereafter assumed active leader-
ship in the- organization of the Council, while Hurt and Hargroder
limited their activity to expressing to the employees their views about
labor organizations.
On March 18 Dove asked Patz, his shift foreman, for permission
to leave early to attend a C. I. O. meeting. Since Dove's machine
-was not in operation at the time, lie would ordinarily have been ex-
-cused, his pay being reduced proportionately. Patz, however, felt
that this request was such an unusual one that he consulted Law,
general foreman of the caustic-soda division, who consulted Nill.
Nill decided that Dove should be excused. Dove addressed the meet-
ing of the Union, and stated that Trott had promised recognition to
whichever organization represented a majority, and that the Council
represented a majority. He displayed copies of the petition, one
which he had circulated and oiie which Crawford had circulated.
Following his address, a number of people crossed their names off
the petition, and Dove thereupon left the meeting.
Dove was paid full time for March 18. Patz testified that at this
time he knew nothing about union activity in the plant. Dove, how-
ever, had circulated a petition the day before for at least 2 hours.
Furthermore, Dove testified that he had discussed C. I. O. activity
with Patz on about March 17, and had informed him that "I didn't
believe in the C. I. 0., that it wasn't a good organization for us and
that I proposed,to combat it the best I could." Dove's activity on
behalf of the Council was known at this time by at least two other
supervisory employees, Hurt and Hargroder, and by many other
employees, and we are convinced from all the evidence that Patz also
knew of it.
On Sunday, March 20, the Council held its first meeting, at which
temporary officers were elected. Dove was elected temporary presi-
dent. On March 21 Dove engaged Victor A. Sachse as the Council's
attorney. Sachse advised the Council officers not to use the petition
since it was merely an agreement to meet and form an independent
THE SOLVAY PROCESS COMPANY 889
organization. The name "Solvay Employees Council," which ap-
peared on the petition, was, however, retained.
The record is replete with testimony about anti-C. I. 0. statements
alleged to have been made by Hurt and Hargroder, many of which
they admit having made. Hurt testified that about a week after the
clay on which his office had been used for obtaining signatures to the
petition, he had a conversation about unions with an employee named
Robinson, of which the following is an excerpt :
II told him what I thought about the C. I. 0. in general . . .
tried to point out to him the trouble that the C. I. 0. had caused
in other plants and the trouble I had seen from other union
activity and strikes, and told him I had never seen any side gain
anything in labor trouble-that both sides usually lost.
Q. Did you say to Robinson that if the union came in, the
company would shut down the plant?
A. I did. No sir, I didn't say that the company would but I
said the C. I. 0. would shut it down. . . . I told him that if we
could take the newspapers for any authority that every plant
that the C. I. 0. had moved into was forced to shut down through
sitdown strikes and other radical means.
Hurt expressed animosity toward the C. I. 0. to a number of em-
ployees, including Duff, president of the Union, whose signature Hurt
sought to obtain on the Council petition, and whom he asked "to
talk it over with the opposition." Hurt continued to make anti-
C. I. 0. statements for about a month after March 17, the day he
was instrumental in initiating the Council.
Hargroder testified that he called an employee named White into
his office one evening around March 17 or 18 and "tried to explain
to him the merits and demerits of labor organizations." He testified
further that:
I told Mr. White that if the C. I. 0. came in and organized that
the demands on the company would be such as to cause a strike
and that the C. I. 0. would definitely shut the plant down, as
I saw it. That was my belief, and I still believe it.
About a week later Hargroder called White to his office again and
reprimanded him for causing a disturbance in the patrol office in the
presence of several employees. The disturbance was created when
White not only refused to sign a Council membership card handed
him by the patrolman, but also tore up the card. Hargroder made
no effort to learn which other employees were in the patrol office at
the time, and was not concerned about the fact that a patrolman
was apparently signing up Council members in the patrol office. He
890 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
did nothing further about the incident after warning White that
"no hard feelings were to come out of our electrical department."
Hargroder also testified : "I told Mr. Dezendorf [vice president of the
Union] that I didn't think the C. I. O. would come into the plant
because the men were generally against it ," and further stated that
he told the men in the plant that the C. I. O. was a bad thing, led by
radicals.
Hurt and Hargroder both claim that after the petition was re-
moved from their office , they confined their activities to expressing
to the employees their hostility to the C. I. 0., and that, although
they mentioned that the men were forming an independent union,
they did not urge anyone to join it since they were opposed to any
labor organization . Assuming this to be true, it seems clear that
with the two organizations competing for membership , statements by
Hurt and Hargroder expressing violent opposition to the Union, at
the same time mentioning , without opposition , the formation of the
inside organization , necessarily had the effect not only of discourag-
ing membership in the Union, but also of encouraging membership
in the Council , particularly in view of the earlier activity of Hurt
and Hargroder in connection with the Council petition . Such a con-
clusion finds adequate support in the statements admitted by Hurt
and Hargroder , without any discussion of the testimony concerning
numerous other statements in opposition to the C. I. O. and in favor
of the Council , which was presented by various witnesses , and which
impresses us as more credible and trustworthy than do the denials
thereof by Hurt and Hargroder.
Hurt explained that he disobeyed the instructions given him by
his superiors because he felt that he had a right to express his per-
sonal opinions to the employees on any subject, including his dislike
of labor organizations . Hargroder , on the other hand, testified that
"I did not feel that I was disobeying any orders in doing anything that
I did."
We have discussed in some detail the activities of Hurt and Har-
groder, not because they were the only supervisory employees who in-
terfered with the formation of a labor organization , but because theirs
was the most flagrant interference. Other supervisory employees also
expressed opposition to outside organizations , urged employees to join
the Council , and in various ways interfered with union activity. A
copy of the Council petition was left on the records table in the
compressor room of the liquid chlorine building, which employees
signed in the presence of Allen, one of the shift foremen. Newton
Umphrey, a foreman in the chlorine section , at Hurt's instruction,
placed a petition on the desk in the chlorine office. Lowry, general
foreman of the chlorine section, testified that D. D. Umphrey, a
THE SOLVAY PROCESS COMPANY 891
shift foreman who worked under him, had told him "that he cir-
culated or carried, I don't remember which, or handed a petition
to one of the operators." We have discussed above 'Crawford's
activity and assistance in the formation of the Council. Although
the respondent denies that Crawford is a supervisory employee, we
find in Section III-B-1 below that he is. Moreover, to the extent
that Crawford's activities were sanctioned by Hurt and Hargroder,
they are attributable to the respondent, regardless of Crawford's
supervisory status.
At a conference on March 22 between a union committee and
Bates, Kinstley, international representative and organizer of the
Union, told Bates of the interference by Hurt and Hargroder with
union activity. Bates called Hurt and Hargroder to his office the
following day, did not question them about the truth or falsity of
Kinstley's statements, but simply told them there were complaints
that they were interfering with union activity, and again instructed
them that they must not interfere. Bates did nothing at this time
to inform the employees that they were free to organize despite
such interference because, he testified, he "didn't believe, in particular,
that Mr. Kinstley knew what he was talking about."
At a conference at the Board's Regional Office in New Orleans
on April 29, the Regional Director read to Bates affidavits signed
by three of the respondent's employees alleging that Hurt and
Hargroder had been active on behalf of the Council and in opposi-
tion to the Union. Following this conference, Bates called Hurt
and Hargroder to his office and told them of the charges that had
been made against them. Hargroder denied, but Hurt admitted,
violating Bates' instructions. Bates thereupon prepared a notice,
which he discussed with Nill, and then posted on the bulletin board
on May 10. The notice reads in part as follows
The Management ... has recently been advised of statements
said to have been made by some of its employees claiming that
certain supervisory employees had encouraged or discouraged
other employees with respect to, labor organization activities.
While the correctness of such statements has been questioned,
any such action would be contrary to the Management's policy
.and instructions.
The Management, as heretofore, will not in any way interfere
with, restrain, or coerce its employees in the exercise of the rights
guaranteed and granted them under Section 7 of the National
Labor Relations Act . . .
On March 24, 1938, Dove wrote Bates a, letter to the effect that
although the Council was still operating under a temporary commit-
892 DECISIONS OF NAT1ONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
tee, and would not elect permanent officers until May, it-represented
a majority of the employees and claimed the right to bargain for
them.' Bates arranged a conference with the Council , which was held
on March 28. At this conference, the Council was represented by
Sachse, Dove, and a number of other employees . Sachse explained to
Bates who he was and what the Council was, and gave Bates two copies
of the Council 's bylaws. He told Bates that the organization was
still temporary , but that "as soon as they had perfected their perma-
nent organization . . . they would come in to bargain with the com-
pany." Dove left with Bates for his consideration the written de-
mands that the Council was going to present when its organization
had been completed . These demands included provisions for wage
increases , equal distribution of overtime work, and vacations for all
employees.
The Council held elections for permanent officers on May 16, 17,
and 18. Printed election notices were distributed in the plant. On
June 6 Bates again met with the Council representatives , who told him
that permanent officers had been elected, and that they insisted upon
being recognized as bargaining agent. Bates promised to give them
an answer in about a week. The next morning Bates consulted the
Regional Director , who refused to advise him in the matter. After
thinking the problem over carefully , Bates testified , he came to the
conclusion that he had to do something since the Council was so ilisist-
ent upon collective bargaining . Accordingly , Bates met with the
Council representatives on June 8 and told them that he would recog-
nize the Council temporarily as bargaining agent for its members only,
provided that the Council furnish proof that it represented a majority
of the employees , that it furnish an affidavit showing that its repre-
sentatives and officers were bona fide, and that , after this had been
done, Bates be permitted to offer to the Union an opportunity to prove
its claims . Bates explained further that although he would recognize
the Council , if at all , as representative of its members only, the results
of their negotiations would apply to all the employees in the plant.
Bates met with the Council representatives again on June 10. They
presented the Council membership cards and affidavits certifying the
results of the elections . Nill checked the cards against employment
records and decided that the Council represented a majority of the
employees . Bates agreed , subject to the conditions enumerated at
their prior conference , to recognize the Council as bargaining agent
for its members only . The Council left with Bates for his considera-
tion a proposed schedule of wage increases.
After the Council committee left, Bates and Nill sent for Duff, presi-
dent of the Union, told him of the terms upon which they had agreed
5 At that time the Council had been designated as bargaining agent by about 60 out
of about 250 employees.
THE SOLVAY PROCESS COMPANY 893
to recognize the Council, and offered him an opportunity to disprove
the Council's claims. Duff stated that the Union did not recognize
the Council as having any legal status.' He offered no proof at this
time of the Union's membership.
On June 13 Bates met again with the Council representatives. After
considerable discussion, they finally reached a compromise on the mat-
ter of wage increases. Bates also granted vacations with pay at this
time, although he claims he did so voluntarily and not at the request
of the Council.
Thus, in summation, it appears that after the Union began to
organize the employees, and Bates was notified thereof, he issued
instructions to all the supervisory employees that they must not
interfere with the union activity of the employees. Such instruc-
tions, furthermore, were repeated to each supervisory employee
several times during the period of union organization, despite the
alleged belief of the plant officials that such instructions were being
observed. As a matter of fact, as we have seen above, the instruc-
tions were violated by several supervisory employees, particularly
by Hurt and Hargroder, who assisted in the preparation of the
Council petition, told Crawford to use their office in obtaining
signatures to the petition, sent employees to the office to sign the
petition, and repeatedly expressed to the employees violent opposition
to the Union. These acts alone vitiate the Council as a freely chosen
representative of the respondent's employees. We think it clear that
by abandoning the petition which had been circulated with the
illegal assistance of supervisory employees, while continuing to use
the name therein appearing, the Council could not dissipate the
effects of the respondent's interference in employee self-organization.
In all the circumstances, including the continuing expression by Hurt
and Hargroder of their hostility toward the Union, the employees
must necessarily have regarded the Council as the object of the
respondent's favor.
The respondent itself took no effective steps to prevent or to dispel
such an impression. The extent to which Bates' instructions to
refrain from interference were disregarded by supervisory employees
compels the conclusion that they were not seriously intended. Bates
must have had some inkling of such interference by Hurt and Har-
groder, particularly when the latter showed him the petition, written
in his handwriting and on Company paper, so soon after their first
conference about union activity. Furthermore, on March 22 and on
April 2, Bates had actual notice of such interference. Yet, even after
such notice, he took no steps to inform the non-supervisory employees
that they were free to form or join any labor organization they desired.
6 The Union had filed its charge and petition on April 3, 1938.
894 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
His explanation that he did not post a notice prior to May 10 because
he did not believe Kinstley is hardly justification for his failure to do
so. Repeating his alleged instructions to Hurt and Hargroder, the
only heed Bates took of Kinstley's assertions, was wholly inadequate
to absolve the respondent from responsibility for the wrongful acts
of its supervisory employees.? Nor was the notice as finally posted
adequate in view of the time which had elapsed, and in view of the
expressions in the notice of doubt as to the truth of the allegations
of interference by supervisory employees when Bates had reason to
know full well that such interference had occurred.
The reports about union activity made by supervisory employees
to their respective superiors as well as to Bates; the openness with
which Council organizers carried on their activities in the presence
and with the knowledge of their superiors; the active role in the
formation of the inside union played by supervisory employees; the
assistance flowing from the numerous statements made to employees
by supervisors expressing antagonism to any outside labor organiza-
tion ; the encouragement given to the Council organizers by the
respondent's unlawful refusal to bargain collectively with the Union,
as found below; the payment to Dove of wages for time spent in an
effort to disrupt a union meeting; and the various other circum-
stances discussed in this section, show unmistakably that the respond-
ent has interfered with the right of its employees to bargain col-
lectively through representatives of their own choosing.
We find that the respondent, by its supervisory employees, domi-
nated and -interfered with the formation and administration of the
Council, and contributed support to it. We further find that thereby,
by warning and threatening its employees that successful unioniza-
tion would cause the plant to be shut down and the employees to
lose their jobs, and by other acts and conduct, the respondent inter-
fered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of
the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
B. The refusal to bargain collectively
1. The appropriate unit
The complaint alleges that the employees of the respondent at
its Baton Rouge plant," exclusive of clerical and supervisory em-
7 See Swift t Company v. National Labor Relations Board, 106 F (2d) 87, wherein
the court stated :
Furthermore, with respect to the acts of the supervisory foremen, the doctilne of
respondent superior applies, and petitioner is responsible for the actions of its
supervisory foremen, even though it had no actual participation therein.
The respondent operates a stone quarry at Winnfield, Louisiana, about 150 miles
from Baton Rouge. None of the parties contend that the quarry employees should be.
included in the same unit as those at the Baton Rouge plant, and we shall not include
them.
THE SOLVAT PROCESS COMPANY 895
ployees, watchmen, first-aid men, safety men, brine-well employees,
and laboratory employees, constitute a unit appropriate for the pur-
poses of collective bargaining. At the hearing the Union also sought
the exclusion of mill, water, and wharf employees. The respondent
contended ° that the unit should include all the employees' except
those whom it admitted to be supervisors, clerical employees who
worked in the main office, and 16,temporary employees.10 These tem-
porary employees were engaged in various capacities, most of them in
connection with construction. The Union agreed that 21, of these
16 employees should be excluded from the unit as of March 22 and
April 2, one 12 because he was a clerical employee, and the other 13
because he was a supervisory employee. The Union contended, how-
ever, that the remaining 14 temporary employees, all of whom are
listed on the March 22 pay roll, should be included in the unit. Most
of them had been employed for several months at the time of the
alleged refusals to bargain. Although some of them were laid off
shortly thereafter, the respondent calls them back from time to time
for various kinds of jobs for which they are qualified. The record
indicates that at least 5 14 of them have been called back since they
were laid off. In view of the length of time they were employed at
the time of the alleged refusals to.bargain, and-in view of the likeli-
hood of their being called back to work by the respondent, these'
employees will be included in the appropriate unit as of March,22
and April 2.
We shall discuss briefly below the duties of those employees who
the Union contends should be excluded from the appropriate unit,
but who the respondent contends should be included :
Four clerks 15 who work in the plant rather than in the main
office, and whom the respondent seeks to include on that ground, keep
records, check incoming materials, charge out against inventory the
materials issued to operators on the presentation of store tickets,
and do other work of a similar nature. Their duties are principally
clerical and we shall therefore exclude them from the unit.
Robert B. Crawford, who is listed on the respondent's pay roll as
machinist leader, appears to be an assistant to Hurt, machine-shop
° The Council 's claim as to the appropriate unit Is almost identical with that of the
respondent . Since , however , we have found the Council to be company dominated, we
regard its contention as to the appropriate unit as irrelevant.
10 George E. Anderson , Heibert L. Bradford , Jesse R Brashear , Richard H . Brubaker,
Oscar L . Collier , Clyde K. Counts , Jack Craig, John H. Hearron , Lester J. Jones , Merlin
I Jones, Earl W. Kettinger , John F Levett , Levi D . Mercer , Marcus Moore , Dewey J.
Perault , Kernie 0 Sibley.
11 Levi D. Mercer, Oscar L. Collier.
Ii Levi D Mercer.
12 Oscar L Collier.
14 George E. Anderson , Jesse R. Brashear , Oscar L . Collier , Levi D Mercer , Kernie
0. Sibley.
15 Edward J. Daigle, Henry O. Fadely, Klein J. Molaison , Robert S Morris.
896 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
foreman, and substituted for Hurt for about 2 months in 1936 when
the latter was ill. When an order comes into the machine shop, Hurt
discusses it with Crawford, who then transmits Hurt's orders to the
men who are to do the work. If it is a blueprint job, Hurt turns it
over to Crawford to handle the detail work, get the materials for it,
and assign the work. Crawford spends part of his time operating
a lathe, and runs a machine when an operator is absent. He is paid
more than the operators, and is on salary, although the respondent
claims that the salary arrangement was entered into in order to com-
pensate Crawford for overtime work performed by him, and not be-
cause he is a supervisor. In any event, we find that Crawford's duties
are largely supervisory, and we shall therefore exclude him from the
appropriate unit.
Bruce C. Deitz, who is listed on the respondent's pay roll as field-
maintenance and cleaning leader, has three men working under him.
He and his gang are part of the maintenance force assigned to work
in the soda-ash department. He gives orders to the men under him
and also does some manual work. At one time during construction
he was appointed a temporary piping foreman. James A. Duff and
Frederic W. Dezendorf, who are listed as millwright leader and pipe-
fitter leader, and who also have helpers to whom they give orders, are
president and vice president respectively of the Union. They are on
the hourly pay roll, however, whereas Deitz is on salary, although the
respondent claims that is because of his overtime work. The Union
claims, furthermore, that whereas Duff and Dezendorf spend practi-
cally all their time in manual labor, working right along with their
helpers, Deitz for the most part merely gives orders to the men
working under him and performs manual labor only on rare occasions
when his men require his assistance. We shall exclude Deitz from
the unit as a supervisory employee.
Twelve head operators,' who perform some manual labor, but
who also have supervisory duties, convey orders from the foremen
to the operators, are responsible for routine work being properly
performed, and relieve the foremen when they are absent from the
plant. They attend safety meetings held from time to time to dis-
cuss methods of preventing accidents, at which the superintendent,
the foremen, and the paymaster are also present. They are paid
more than the operators, are familiar with all the machines in their
respective departments, perform repairs when requested to do so by
an operator, and have the run of the entire building where they
work. Three of them are on the salary pay roll' Since it appears
1g Cecil L. Burton , Charles F . Cheshire , Albert J. Cook , Garvin L Courtney, George
E. Crotty, Jr ., Lysle P. Elliott, Charles A Hitzman , Alvin R . Kelly, Thomas L. McGrew,
Bennie C. Payne , Lonnie Sibley , John B Tucker.
THE SOLWAY PROCESS COMPANY 897
that their duties are to a large extent supervisory, we shall exclude
all the head operators from the unit.
Eight laboratory employees'17 six of whom Work in the labora-
tory located in the nla.in office building, and two of whom work in
the laboratory located in the chlorine building, are all engaged in
taking samples of the products and analyzing them. Production
controls are changed or maintained according to their daily reports.
They are described as operating chemists rather than as research
chemists, and the plant could not operate 24 hours without them.
They work different hours than do the operators and spend most of
their time in the laboratory. Some of them are professional men
who have had highly specialized training, while others have been
trained only in the respondent's laboratory to perform certain routine
tests. Since their work is of a technical nature requiring a higher
degree of skill and training than is required of the production
workers, we shall exclude laboratory workers from the unit.
Four gatemen " Watch the men coning into the plant, intercept
strangers, and check trucks entering or leaving the plant. The gate-
men on the night shift, in addition, get material from the storeroom
which is needed by the operators, act as first-aid men, gather up the
time cards of the men and the distribution cards made out by the
foremen, check then, and mark on the time cards the total number
of hours worked. The respondent has employed no watchmen, classi-
fied as such, since about February 1938. The gatemen act as watch-
men, and we shall therefore exclude them in accordance with our
general practice not to include watchmen within a bargaining unit
composed essentially of production and maintenance employees if
the only bona fide union involved requests their exclusion.
Five brine-well employees "" work at the brine wells, which are
located about 15 miles from the plant. The brine is pumped through
a pipe line to storage tanks in the plant. These tanks must be con-
tinuously refilled since proper operation of the plant depends upon
a constant flow of brine through the tanks, which hold a quantity
sufficient for only a few hours' operation. The brine-well employees
operate pumps similar to some of those used at the plant, test the
quality of the brine coming from the wells, adjust the water input
to the wells, and patrol the section of the line near the pump house.
They are under the supervision of the soda-ash department foreman,
who is in constant communication with them by telephone. Repairs
at the brine wells are performed by mechanics sent from the plant.
'7 Wilbur H Brumfield, Harvard I Busse, W Samuel Dyer, August M. Hochenedel,
Walter Lemann, Jr, Albert I Poche, Edward E Spranley Frank P Tin k
"John W Airidge. Raymond H Bridgeman Charles L Kleinpeter. William D Raiford.
19 Hilton Guidry, Leo F. Lassere, Alvin E Miller, Feidmand J. Pinsonat, Elmoie
E. Rayne.
898 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The Union seeks the exclusion of these men because they work at
such a distance from the men in the plant, and are very infrequently
in contact with them. We shall exclude the brine-well employees
from the unit.
Four mill, water, and wharf men 20 work at the respondent's wharf,
which is about 1,700 feet from the plant. They use the same time
clock and locker rooms as -the men at the plant, but work different
hours. They operate water, pumps and an air compressor , and regu-
late the flow of water to the plant on instructions from the soda-ash
foreman. They also keep the wharf clean, and those on the night
shift make two tours to inspect for fire hazard the wooden trestle
leading to the wharf and the outlying wooden structures which were
put up during construction and are now used for storage. They do
not patrol any of the operating buildings. The Union wants them
excluded because of the distance from the plant of their place of
work and because of their patrol duties. We shall exclude them be-
cause they work at a distance from the plant, because to some extent
they perform the duties of watchmen, and because the only union
involved has requested their exclusion.
The duties of the porter,"' whose job it is to clean the offices at
night, and whose exclusion the Union seeks on the ground that his
work brings him in close contact with gatemen and supervisory
,employees rather than with production employees, are of the same
nature as those of other porters who are included in the unit, and
the fact that his work brings him in contact with gatemen and
supervisory employees is not an adequate reason for excluding him.
We shall include him in the unit.
We find that all the employees of the respondent at its Baton
Rouge plant, exclusive of clerical and supervisory employees, labora-
tory employees, gatemen, brine-well employees, and mill, water, and
wharf employees, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of
collective bargaining and that said unit insures to employees of the
respondent the full benefit of their right to self-organization and
to collective bargaining and otherwise effectuates the policies of
the Act.
2. Representation by the Union of the majority
in the appropriate unit
The respondent introduced in evidence two complete lists of em-
ployees taken from its pay-roll records as of March 22 and Septem-
ber 9, 1938. The parties stipulated that there were no pay-roll
20 William T Core, Bertram L. Fairchild , Louis Marks , Clinton Stokes.
21 Ceaser Winzy, a colored employee
THE SOLVAY PROCESS COMPANY 899
changes between March 22 and April 2, 1938. The respondent
segregated on these two lists those whom it admitted to be super-
visory or clerical employees. When these employees are deducted
from the March 22 list, there remain 253 names. We have found
that 41 22 of the employees listed on the March 22 pay roll should
be excluded from the appropriate unit. Accordingly we find that
on March 22 and on April 2, 1938, the respondent had at its Baton
Rouge plant 212 employees in the appropriate unit.
The Union introduced cards and petitions designating it as col-
lective bargaining representative, of which 141 were signed on or
before March 22, and 148 on or before April 2. Some of these cards
and petitions were undated because the organizers had obtained
The signatures so hurriedly that they did not take the time to write
the dates. Some dates were later inserted by union officials to whom
initiation fees or dues were paid. Witnesses who had observed the
signing of the cards and petitions testified as to the genuineness of
the signatures and as to the dates of signing. There were a few
discrepancies between such testimony and the cards and petitions,
but even if all these discrepancies were resolved against the Union,
it would require the deduction of only one or two names from the
March 22 total, and none at all from the April 2 total. The dis-
crepancies are too few and immaterial to affect the credibility of
the witnesses who testified about the signing of the cards and
petitions.
Upon further checking the Union's cards and petitions, we find
the signatures of two employees 23 who should be excluded from the
appropriate unit. It thus appears that of the 212 employees in the
appropriate unit, the Union represented 139 on March 22 and 146
on April 2.
The respondent contends that the Union has sought to gerry-
mander the appropriate unit in such a manner as to sustain its
claim of majority. The evidence disproves this contention, for even
if all the contested claims regarding unit are resolved in the
respondent's favor, the Union still represented a majority of the
eligible employees at the dates of the alleged refusals to bargain.
Thus, if we exclude the 14 construction workers who have been
22 Oscar L Collier , Levi D Mercer , Edward J Daigle. Henry 0 Fadely , Klein J Molai-
son, Robert S Morris , Robert B. Crawford , Bruce C Deitz , Cecil L Burton , Charles F.
Cheshire , Albert J. Cook , Garvin L . Courtney , George E Crotty , Jr, Lysle P. Elliott,
Cha-l s A Hitzman, Alvin R Kelly, Thomas L' McGrew, Bennie C Payne, Lonnie Sibley,
Tohn B Tucker , Wilbur H Brumfield , Harvard I . Busse, W Samuel Dyer, August M
IIorhenedel , Walter I.emann, Jr, Albert I Poche, Edward E Spranley , Frank P Turk,
John B Tucker , Wilbur H Brumfield , Harvard I Busse, W Samuel Dyer , August M
FIilton Guidry, Leo F Lassere , Alvin E . Miller, Ferdinand J Pinsonat , Elmore E. Rayne,
William T Core . Bertram L . Fairchild , Louis Marks, Clinton Stokes
2Fred Raifoid , labor and yard foreman , and Bennie C. Payne, a head operator.
900 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
included over the respondent's objection, assuming that they are
all union members, and include the 39 employees who have been
excluded over the respondent's objection, assuming that none of
them is a union member, the Union represented 125 employees on
March 22 and 132 on April 2, out of a total of 237 in the unit, a
majority on both dates.
The Council introduced in evidence its membership cards. It
appears from a comparison of these cards with the Union's cards
and petitions that a number of the Union's members joined the Coun-
cil on or after March 23. In view of our finding, however, that the
respondent dominated and interfered with the formation and admin-
istration of the Council, we consider irrelevant any defection in the
ranks of the Union which are a result of the respondent's unfair
labor practices.
We find that on March 22 and April 2, 1938, and at all times there-
after, the Union was the duly designated representative of the ma-
jority of the employees in the appropriate unit for purposes of col-
lective bargaining, and, pursuant to Section 9 (a) of the Act, was
the exclusive representative of all the employees in such unit for
purposes of collective bargaining.
3. The refusal to bargain
A. R. Kinstley, international representative and organizer of the
Union, telephoned Bates on the morning of March 22 and requested
a conference, which took place that afternoon. Kinstley was accom-
panied by a number of the respondent's employees who were on the
union bargaining committee. Kinstley told Bates that the Union
represented a majority of the employees, and requested Bates to
recognize and bargain with the Union. Bates asked Kinstley how
many members the Union had, but Kinstley was unwilling to answer
until he found out whether or not the respondent would bargain with
the Union. Kinstley asked Bates how many employees there were,
but Bates would not answer. Kinstley asked Bates whether he
would recognize the Union as exclusive representative if the Union
proved it represented a majority, or whether he would recognize the
Union as representative of its members only, or in some other limited
fashion. Bates answered only that he did not know, and explained
to Kinstley that he could not answer these questions definitely because
he understood that some of his employees belonged to another organ-
ization, namely the Council. Kinstley stated that the Council was
a "company union." Bates said Kinstley would have to prove that,
and Kinstley related the activities of Hurt and Hargroder. Bates
asked Kinstley if the employees had any complaints. Kinstley said
they did not, but wanted to bargain for better working conditions.
THE SOLVAY PROCESS COMPANY 901
Bates turned to the employees who were present and stated that they
knew they could come to his office and take up individual grievances
at any time. He also told them that he could not understand why
his employees would want to belong to a union in view of the rights
and privileges they enjoyed without one. He told the committee
that he had once belonged to a union himself, and all he ever got
out of it was the chance to pay dues and go out on strike. Bates gave
as a further reason for his reluctance to recognize the Union his
belief that it would not be for the good of either the employees or
the community. He said he had been to Detroit recently, and had
observed the terrible conditions brought about by the C. I. O.'s
numerous strikes. The conference finally ended with a promise by
Bates to consider the matter and give the Union an answer in about
a week.
Kinstley testified that he asked Bates if he would consent to having
a disinterested third party check the Union's membership cards
against the respondent's employment records, that there was some
discussion of who such a third party might be, but that Bates did
not indicate whether or not he would agree to this method of deter-
mining how many employees the Union represented. Bates denied
that Kinstley made any such offer, but the Trial Examiner, who had
opportunity to observe the demeanor of the witnesses, found Kinstley's
testimony more convincing than- Bates' denials, and the general tenor
of the entire conference convinces us also that Kinstley's testimony
is more credible than that of Bates.
Bates testified that he refused to answer Kinstley's questions because
he doubted Kinstley's authority to represent the men, particularly
since he had recently heard of an individual who organized a group
of employees, collected dues, and then 'absconded with the money,
and also because he thought it strange that an oil workers' union
should be organizing a chemical plant. Kinstley told Bates that he
was an official representative of the Union, but presented no written
credentials. Bates did not ask for such credentials nor express to
Kinstley any doubts about his authority. We regard this argument
of Bates as a specious one. The employees had a right to select any-
one they desired as their bargaining agent. The presence of several
of his employees at the March 22 conference should have consituted
some assurance to Bates that the men had authorized Kinstley to
represent them. In any event, had Bates been acting in good faith,
it is obvious that he would have asked Kinstley for some evidence of
his authority. We are convinced that Bates was motivated at the
March 22 conference by a desire to forestall the Union in order that
the Council might have additional time to organize, and not by any
desire to protect his employees from a pseudo-organizer or to give
the matter any further study or consideration.
283032-41-vol. 21--58
902 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
We find that on March 22, 1938, the respondent refused to bargain
with the Union as the representative of its employees in the appro-
priate unit, within the meaning of Section 8 (5) of the Act, and
that thereby, and by the action of Bates in stating to the employees
present at the conference that they did not need a union but could
bring their individual grievances to him, that he had once belonged
to a union and got nothing out of it but an opportunity to pay dues
and go on strike, that Detroit was torn by strife as a result of C. I. O.
strikes, and in otherwise indicating hostility to the Union, the re-
spondent interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in
the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
Kinstley telephoned Bates on Saturday morning, April 2, and
requested another meeting. Bates told Kinstley that Monday would
be more convenient for him, but he finally agreed to see him on Satur-
day. This conference was almost entirely a repetition of the first
one. Kinstley again asked if the respondent would recognize the
Union as representative of all the employees, of its members only,
or in any other limited fashion. Assistant Superintendent Nill, who
was present at this second conference, said, "Why we are meeting
with the boys, we would meet with them, as we are meeting
with them right now." Kinstley replied, "Yes, you are meeting with
them, but not as a unit, not as a union." Bates and Nill asked
Kinstley what the grievances of the men were, what they wanted to
bargain about, and again Kinstley stated that the men wanted recog-
nition of the Union as their representative, and wanted to bargain for
better working conditions in general. Bates told Kinstley he could
still give him no definite answer since the Council had come in in
the meantime and claimed to represent a majority. Kinstley told
Bates he had definite proof that the Council was company dominated,
and told him of the activities of foremen seeking to discourage mem-
bership in the Union and to foster the growth of the Council. When
Bates refused to give Kinstley a definite answer to any of his ques-
tions, Kinstley stated that he would file charges with the Labor Board,
which he did on the following day, April 3.
Bates made no effort, between the first and second conferences,
to determine whether or not Kinstley was an official representative
of the Union. He testified that he was still doubtful of Kinstley's
right to represent the men at the time he granted the second meet-
ing, but granted it nonetheless "out of courtesy." In fact, Bates
testified, it was not until after a conference with the Board's Regional
Director in New Orleans sometime after April 2 that his doubts
about Kinstley's authority were removed by the Regional Direct or's
assurance that Kinstley was an official representative of the Union.
We do not believe that Bates' failure to bargain with the Union
THE SOLVAY PROCESS COMPANY 903
was due to any doubts as to Kinstley's authority to represent the
men since, as we have pointed out above, he could readily have sat-
isfied his mind on that score by questioning Kinstley or by otherwise
seeking to ascertain Kinstley's status with the Union. It seems
clear that Bates had no intention of bargaining in good faith with
the Union, but sought at this second conference, just as he had at
the first, to delay negotiations with the Union until the Council had
further opportunity to gain members. Nill's statement that the
respondent was willing to bargain at any time with the men as in-
dividuals strikes the keynote of the respondent's attitude toward
collective bargaining with the Union. The respondent, in short,
preferred to bargain with its employees as individuals, and was de-
termined that, if it must bargain collectively, it would do so only
with an organization that it could dominate and control. We are
convinced that the respondent, in order to avoid bargaining with
the Union, delayed the negotiations with the hope that upon the
successful organization of the Council it would be relieved of its
obligation to deal with the Union, and that by such conduct the
respondent refused to bargain collectively within the meaning of
Section 8 (5) of the Act.
We find that the respondent, on April 2, 1938, and at all times
thereafter, refused to bargain collectively with the Union as the
representative of its employees in the appropriate unit in respect
to rates of pay, wages, hours of work, and other conditions of em-
ployment. We further find that the respondent thereby interfered
with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
We find that the activities of the respondent set forth in Section
III above, occurring in connection with the operations of the respond-
ent described in Section I above, have a close, intimate, and 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
We have found that the respondent has interfered with, restrained,
and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed
them in Section 7 of the Act. We shall order the respondent to
cease and desist therefrom, and to take certain affirmative action
designed to effectuate the policies of the Act and to restore, as nearly
,S BOARD904 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATION
as possible, the situation that existed prior to the respondent's com-
mission of the unfair labor practices.
We have found that the respondent has dominated and interfered
with the formation and administration of the Council and has con-
tributed support to it. By such domination and interference the
respondent has prevented the free exercise of its employees' rights
to self-organization and to collective bargaining. In order to re-
store to the employees the full measure of their rights guaranteed
under the Act, and in order to remedy the respondent's unlawful
conduct, we shall order the respondent to withdraw all recognition
from the Council and to disestablish it as a representative of its
employees for the purpose of dealing with the respondent concern-
ing grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of work,
or other conditions of employment.
We have found that the respondent has refused to bargain col-
lectively with the Union as the respresentative of its employees with
respect to wages, rates of pay, hours of work, and other conditions
of employment. We shall order the respondent, upon request, to
bargain with the Union as the exclusive representative of its em-
ployees within the appropriate unit.
THE PETITION
In view of the findings in Section III above as to the designa-
tion of the Union by a majority of the respondent's employees in
the appropriate unit as their representative for the purposes of col-
lective bargaining, it is not necessary to consider the petition of
the Union for investigation and certification of representatives.
Consequently, said petition will be dismissed.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the
entire record in the case, the Board makes the following:
CONCLUS10Ns OF LAw
1. Oil Workers' International Union, Local No. 424, and Solvay
Employees Council are labor organizations, within the meaning of
Section 2 (5) of the Act.
2. By dominating and interfering with the formation and ad-
ministration of Solvay Employees Council and contributing sup-
port thereto, the respondent has engaged in and is engaging in
unfair labor practices, within the meaning of Section 8 (2) of
the Act.
3. All the employees of the respondent at its Baton Rouge, Louisi-
ana, plant, exclusive of clerical and supervisory employees, laboratory
THE SOLVAY PROCESS COMPANY 905
'employees, gatemen,. brine-well employees, and mill, water, and
wharf employees, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of
-collective bargaining, within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the
Act.
4. Oil Workers' International Union, Local No. 424, was, on March
22 and April 2, 1938, and at all times thereafter has been, the ex-
clusive representative of all the employeees in such unit for the
purposes of collective bargainihg, within the meaning of Section 9
(a) of the Act.
5. By refusing to bargain collectively with Oil Workers' Inter-
national Union, Local No. 424, as the exclusive representative of the
employees in such unit, the respondent has engaged in and is en-
gaging in unfair labor practices, within the meaning of Section
8 (5) of the Act.
6. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in
the exercise of their rights 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 activi-
ties; for the purposes of collective bargaining or other mutual aid
and protection, as 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.
7. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices
affecting commerce, within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of
the Act.
ORDER
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and conclusions of
law, and pursuant to Section 10 (c) of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that
the respondent, The Solvay Process Company, its officers, agents,
successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Dominating or interfering with the administration of Solvay
Employees Council, or with the formation or administration of any
other labor organization of its employees, and from contributing
support to Solvay Employees Council or to any other labor organ-
ization of its employees;
(b) Recognizing Solvay Employees Council as the representative
of any of its employees for the purpose of dealing with the respond-
ent concerning grievances, labor disputes, rates of pay, wages, hours
of work, or other conditions of employment;
(c) Refusing to bargain collectively with Oil Workers' Interna-
tional Union, Local No. 424, as the exclusive representative of all
906 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATION'S BOARD
the employees at its Baton Rouge, Louisiana, plant, exclusive of
-clerical and supervisory employees, laboratory employees, gatemen,
brine-well employees, and mill, water, and wharf employees;
(d) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing
its employees in the exercise of their rights to self-organization, to
form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively
through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in con-,
certed activities, for the purposes of collective bargaining or other
mutual aid and protection, 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 :
(a) Withdraw all recognition from Solvay Employees Council as
a representative of its employees for the purpose of dealing with the
respondent concerning grievances, labor disputes, rates of pay, wages,
hours of work, or other conditions of employment, and completely
disestablish said organization as a representative of its employees;
(b) Upon request, bargain collectively with Oil Workers' Interna-
tional Union, Local No. 424, as the exclusive representative of all
the employees at the respondent's Baton Rouge, Louisiana, plant,
exclusive of clerical and supervisory employees, laboratory em-
ployees, gatemen, brine-well employees, and mill, water, and wharf
employees, in respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of work, and other
conditions of employment;
(c) Post immediately, and maintain for a period of at least sixty
(60) consecutive days from the date of posting, notices to its em-
ployees in conspicuous places throughout its Baton Rouge, Louisiana,
plant, stating that the respondent will cease and desist in the manner
set forth in paragraphs 1 (a), (b), (c), and (d), and that it will
take the affirmative action set forth in' paragraphs 2 (a) and (b)
of this'Order;
(d) Notify the Regional Director for the Fifteenth Region in writ-
ing, within ten (10) days from the date of this Order, what steps
the respondent has taken to comply herewith.
AND IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the petition for investigation and
certification of representatives, filed by Oil Workers' International
Union, Local No. 424, be, and it hereby is, dismissed.