Thompson Products, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 1, 1941

33 N.L.R.B. 1033 (N.L.R.B. 1941)

In the Matter of THoi.IpsoN PRODUCTS, INC. and UNITED AUTOMOBILE
WORKERS OF AMERICA LOCAL 300 ( CIO)
Case No. C-1848.-Decided August 1, 1941
Jurisdiction : metal products manufacturing industry.
Unfair Labor Practices
Interference, Restraint, and Coercion: separate allegation concerning, dismissed.
Company-Dominated Unions: successor organization to predecessor-dominated
employee representation plan-no public cleavage between predecessor and
successor-support, attacks on outside union in factory newspaper and by
articles extolling the inside union.
Remedial Orders : disestablishment of successor-dominated organization; prede-
cessor-dominated organization not ordered disestablished since there appeared
no likelihood of its reestablishment ; contracts abrogated without disturbing
substantive features of the agreements
Evidence
Affirmative defense that present proceeding alleging a violation of Section
8 (2) is barred because such allegations could have or should have been liti-
gated in prior complaints alleging violations of Sections 8 (1) and 8 (3),
held without merit.
Mr. Max W. Johnstone, for the Board.
Stanley d Smoyer, by Messrs. Harry E. Snoyer and Frank Emer-
son, of Cleveland, Ohio, for the respondent.
Mr. M. A. Roemisch, of Cleveland, Ohio, for the Alliance.
Mr. Sidney L. Davis, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
6
AND
ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon,an amended charge duly filed on October 22, 1940, by United
Automobile Workers of America, Local 300 (CIO), herein called the
Union, the National Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board,
by the Regional Director for the Eighth Region (Cleveland, Ohio),
issued its complaint dated October 23, 1940, against Thompson Prod-
ucts, Inc., Cleveland, Ohio, herein called the respondent, alleging that
the respondent had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor prac-
tices affecting commerce, within the meaning of Section 8 (1) and (2)
and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act, 49
Stat. 449, herein called the Act. Copies of the complaint accompanied
33 N. L. R. B., No. 181.
1033
1034 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
by notices of hearing were duly served upon the respondent, the Union,
Thompson Products, Inc. Employees Association, herein called the
Association, and Automotive and Aircraft Workers Alliance, Inc.,
herein called the Alliance.
With respect to the unfair labor practices, the complaint alleged in
substance that from late in 1933 or early in 1934, the respondent fos-
tered, encouraged, dominated, and interfered with the formation and
administration of the Association, a labor organization, and furnished
it active support inter alia by (a) permitting organizational and other
meetings of the Association to be held on company property; (b) fur-
nishing ballots and other assistance in connection with the conduct of
Association elections; (c) permitting and assisting in solicitation for
the Association among the employees on company time and property;
(d) paying representatives of the Association for time spent on Asso-
ciation business; (e) dominating joint deliberations of the respond-
ent and the Association through a Joint Council provided under the
constitution of the Association; and (f) publishing propaganda favor-
able to the Association in "Friendly Forum," the respondent's house
organ.
The complaint further alleged that the Alliance is a successor to the
Association, and that in 1937 the respondent fostered, encouraged,
dominated, and interfered with the formation and administration of
the Alliance, inter alia, by (a) failing to disassociate itself from the
Association, and, through its agents in the Association, encouraging
and inviting the formation of the Alliance; (b) suggesting and securing
the passage of a resolution in July 1937 indicating its preference for
dealing with agents who were Association officers; (c) permitting an
organization meeting of the Alliance on company property; (d) using
the balance in the Association treasury to defray expenses incident to
the formation of the Alliance; (e) permitting and assisting active
Association members to solicit membership for the Alliance on com-
pany time and property; and (f) in other specified ways participating
in Alliance affairs. The complaint further alleged that in addition
to the acts recited, the respondent interfered with, restrained, and
coerced its employees by (a) publishing in the said Friendly Forum in
April 1937 articles derogatory to the Union; (b) making a specified
anti-union threat against a laid-off employee; and (c) by various other
acts.
On or about November 28, 1940,1 the respondent filed an answer
admitting certain allegations with respect to its business and certain
other allegations with respect to the Association but denying the alleged
unfair labor practices. The respondent's answer also alleged that the
Board had issued two previous complaints against it, one on May 12,
'The date for filing an answer was twice extended by the Regional Director on the
respondent's motion. ,
THODZPSION PRODUCTS, INC. 1035
1937,2 and the other on March 18, 1939, which was settled after issuance
of the Intermediate Report but prior to the Board decision; that both
complaints involved allegations of violation of Section 8 (1) and (3)
of the Act; that in the former case the proceeding was eventually dis-
missed by the Circuit Court and the latter case settled; that the Board
was therefore barred from issuing complaints on charges based on any
act of the respondent occurring prior to the date of the complaints in
both earlier cases (or, in the alternative as to the second case, prior to
the date of settlement) of which the Board through its agents and the
Union had knowledge. The answer further alleged that the existence
and operation of the Association had been.common knowledge for 3
years prior to May 12, 1937, and, as to the Alliance, for nearly 2 years
before March 18, 1939; that as to both, the Board and the Union were
chargeable with said knowledge and barred from proceeding herein
upon any matter which could have been included in the earlier
complaints.
As the respondent's answer itself admits, there was no allegation of
violation of Section 8 (2) of the Act in either of the earlier charges
or complaints. No such findings could have been made upon the plead-
ings. No such allegation was in issue or litigated. The affirmative
defense is based upon the theory that with knowledge of the existence
and operation of the Association and the Alliance such allegation could
have and should have been included earlier, and that the failure thus
to include it bars its inclusion here. We are of the opinion and we
find that the affirmative defenses raised by the respondent are without
merit.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held from December 2 through
December 6, 1940,3 at Cleveland, Ohio, before Samuel H. Jaffee, the
Trial Examiner duly designated by the Chief Trial Examiner. At the
opening of the hearing, the Alliance filed an application for leave to
intervene, which was allowed to the' extent that its interests appeared.
The Alliance thereupon filed an answer denying that it was company-
dominated. The Board, the respondent, and the Alliance were repre-
sented by counsel and participated in the hearing. Full opportunity
to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce
evidence bearing upon the issues was afforded all parties. At the con-
clusion of the hearing counsel for the Board moved to conform the
pleadings to the proof. There was no objection and the motion was
granted by the Trial Examiner. The Trial Examiner reserved ruling
on a motion of counsel for the respondent to dismiss all the allegations
2 See Matter of Thompson Products, Inc. and United Automobile Workers of America,
3 N L. R B 332 , set aside , National Labor Relations Board v. Thompson Products, Inc,
97 F. (2d) 13 (C. C A 6).
3 The opening of the hearing was continued by the Regional Director from November 20
to December 2 on motion by the respondent.
1036 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
of the complaint which charged the respondent with violating Sec-
tion 8 (1) and (2) of the Act and, on a motion of counsel for the
Alliance, to dismiss all the allegations in paragraph 10 of the com-
plaint.4 Said motions were denied by the Trial Examiner in his Inter-
mediate Report. During the course of the hearing the Trial Examiner
made various rulings on other motions and on objections to the admis-
sion of evidence. The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial
Examiner and finds that no prejudicial errors were committed. Except
as indicated below, the rulings are hereby affirmed.
On January 21, 1941, in accordance with a stipulation entered into
between the respective counsel for the respondent, the Alliance, and
the Board, the Trial Examiner issued an order directing correction of
certain typographical errors in the transcript of the hearing.'
The Trial Examiner thereafter filed his Intermediate Report dated
March 31,1941, copies of which were duly served upon the parties. He
found tl.erein that the respondent had engaged in and was engaging in
unfair labor practices affecting commerce, within the meaning of Sec-
tion 8 (1) and (2) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act and recom-
mended that the respondent cease and desist therefrom and take certain
specified affirmative action deemed necessary to effectuate the policies
of the Act. On May 9, 1941, the respondent and the Alliance filed
exceptions to the Intermediate Report, and on May 20, 1941, submitted
briefs in support of such exceptions.
Pursuant to notice duly served upon all the parties, a hearing for the
purpose of oral argument was held before the Board on May 22, 1941,
in Washington, D. C. The respondent and the Alliance were repre-
sented by counsel and presented argument. The Board has considered
the exceptions to the Intermediate Report and the briefs in support
thereof 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 case, the Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
Thompson Products, Inc., was incorporated in 1916 under the laws
of the State of Ohio and has its principal office and place of business in
Cleveland, Ohio. It is engaged in the manufacture, sale, and distri-
bution of valves, pistons, tie rods, drag links, and other metal products
used in the automobile and aviation industry. The principal raw ma-
4 Paragraph 10 of the complaint alleged various acts of the respondent with respect to
the formation and administration of the Alliance
5 On May 29 , 1941, the Board issued an order making "Additional Stipulation Correcting
Errors in Transcript" a part of record.
THOMPSON PRODUCTS, INC. 1037
terials used are steel, steel alloys, and aluminum alloys. It has manu-
facturing plants in Cleveland, Ohio, and Detroit, Michigan, and sev-
eral subsidiary corporations, including one in Canada. This proceed-
ing involves only the Cleveland plant of the respondent.
In' 1936 the volume of the respondent's business amounted to $10,-
356,424.76. Of raw materials costing approximately $1,775,000 used
by the respondent at its Cleveland plant in 1936, $1,250,000 were ship-
ped from points outside the State of Ohio. Approximately 75 per
cent in value of the total products manufactured by the respondent
are sold and shipped outside the State of Ohio. The respondent
stipulated at the hearing that it was engaged in interstate commerce.
II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
United Automobile Workers of America, Local 300, is a labor organ-
ization affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations, admit-
ting to membership employees of the respondent.
Thompson Products, Inc., Employees Association was an unaffiliated
labor organization admitting to membership employees of the
respondent.
Automotive and Aircraft Workers Alliance, Inc., is an unaffili-
ated labor organization admitting to membership employees of the
respondent.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Domination of, interference with, and support of labor
organizations
1. The Association
There is no evidence of the existence of any labor organization in
the plant 6 prior to 1934. Early in 1934, at the request of certain of its
employees, the respondent cooperated with them in the formation of
the Association. At a meeting attended by some 200 or 300 employees
in the respondent's dining room in January 193.4, a committee was
elected to draft a constitution for the Association. After the consti-
tution was drafted, it was presented and approved at another meeting
of the employees. Immediately the machinery provided in the con-
stitution for the election of a "Committee of Employee Representa-
tives" was put in motion, those in direct charge of handling its details
being the members of the "Constitution Committee" who acted as
temporary officers, assisted by an election committee the personnel of
which was not disclosed in the record. Nomination notices were
8 There are three plants of the respondent in Cleveland called, respectively, the Main
Plant, the Piston Plant , and the Pin ( or Ashland ) Plant. Hereinafter , the word "plant"
refers to these three plants collectively.
1038 DECISIONS Or NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
posted near the time clocks. Ballots were supplied by the respondent.
Voting took place in the plant during and outside working hours.'
The seven persons elected as representatives thereafter comprised the
"Constitution Committee."
The .constitution provided for an employee representation plan
for the purpose of collective bargaining "through a Committee of
Employee Representatives . . . who are vested with the power of
representing each employee who participates in this plan . . . The
Committee of Employee Representatives shall have the power to enter
into agreements with the Company . . . binding upon the participat-
ing employees." Under the plan, seven employee representatives were
elected annually from specified voting districts. It was required that
representatives be participants in the plan, be employed in the district
from which they were elected, be over 21 years of age, and should have
been continuously employed by the respondent for at least a year.
The representatives elected their own chairman and secretary.
The constitution required that the respondent appoint a committee
of seven management representatives; that both committees there-
upon meet as a Joint Council for collective bargaining; that the
Council elect its own chairman and secretary; that a majority of
each constitute a quorum at Joint Council meetings; that where a
quorum is present at meetings of the Joint Council and its com-
mittees, both employee representatives and management representa-
tives shall be entitled to cast an equal number of votes; and that a
two-thirds vote shall be necessary to decide a question. The con-
stitution also barred strikes or "other independent action taken by the
employees or their representatives," and any matters which had not
been satisfactorily settled after appeal to the respondent's Board of
Directors might be submitted to arbitration by such method as "may
be determined by the Joint Council." No provision was made in the
constitution or otherwise for meetings of the membership of the
Association." The employee representatives represented only "par-
ticipants" in the plan.9 The original Association constitution was
thereafter amended' in particulars not here material. The minutes
of Joint Council meetings indicate that in practice the Council took
it upon itself to amend the constitution.
On February 23, 1934, the respondent and "the members of Thomp-
son Products Inc. Employees Association . . . through their elected
representatives" entered into an agreement which provided inter alia,
that the Association and, "subject to the conditions set forth in this
T Association elections were held each year until 1937
8 No meetings were in fact ever so held except occasional social meetings held in the
plant.
9 Regular Joint Council meetings were held monthly, and there were occasionally addi-
tional special meetings.
THOMPSON PRODUCTS, INC. 1039
agreement," the respondent, agreed to abide by the obligations im-
posed by the constitution of the Association theretofore adopted. It
further provided that employees would be retained, advanced, and
paid "on the basis of their individual merit and without regard to
their affiliation or non-affiliation with any lawful labor or other organ-
ization." There was a further provision that minimum wages and
hours "shall be in accordance with the provisions of such codes of
fair competition as Employer may be operating under."
Substantially similar contracts were executed on March 4, 1935,
and March 2, 1936, respectively, there being in addition, however, pro-
visions to the effect that regardless of anything in the Association's
constitution to the contrary, the respondent reserved to itself "the
right to take such action as, in the opinion of its President, is neces-
sary to insure the well-being and perpetuity of Employer"; and that
the respondent was not obliged to comply with any amendments to
the constitution or bylaws thereafter adopted unless it first consented
in writing.
When new employees were hired, the respondent's personnel de-
partment sent their names to the employee representatives. Such new
employees were then solicited by the representatives for the district
where the new employees were hired, and in most instances their par-
ticipation in the plan was secured. Col. es of the constitution of the
Association were printed and published by the respondent and dis-
tributed to employees who applied for membership in the Association.
Employee representatives were not only paid by the respondent for
time spent at meetings of the Joint Council but also for meetings of
employee representatives and delegates 10
2. The Alliance
. In March and April 1937, the Union was active in attempting to
organize the respondent's employees. At about this time there ap-
peared in the respondent's factory newspaper, Friendly Forum,", ar-
ticles 'which were favorable to the Association and derogatory of the
Union. Thus on March 26 an article appeared which in substance
10 Although the position of "delegate " was not provided for in the Association constitu-
tion, it appears that each employee representative appointed delegates from his department
to assist him.
" In the 1940 edition of the "Thompson Products Inc. Employees handbook" published
by the respondent and distributed to its employees , there appears on pages 26 and 27
thereof the following concerning the Friendly Fot mn :
. . . Once each four weeks the company publishes a paper , Friendly Forum,
which contains news of the company and of employees This is distributed free to
all employees
Employees aie responsible for knowledge of information published either on bulletin
boards or in Friendly Forum. Make a practice of reading the bulletin boards each day
and be sure to get your copy of Friendly Forum each time it is issued Also, em-
ployees are encouraged to contribute news items to Friendly Forum.
1040 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
stated that Association representatives "were given reason to swell
their chests in pride" when Whiting Williams, "world prominent in-
dustrial relations' counsel" congratulated them and the respondent
in a speech that he made the previous week "on the splendid co-
operative job" they had done "in placing the Company's labor rela-
tions on a sound basis"; that employees could "do far better for them-
selves through representatives who are their fellow employees, than
they can through strong-arm agents of outside organizations."
An article published on April 9 reported that at a union organi-
zational meeting a union organizer was "embarrassed" by questions
from "Thompson" employees, that he "failed to answer satisfactorily
a single question put to him," and that what happened at the meeting
was evidence that the employees "are well satisfied with their present
method of bargaining." The same issue of the Forum carried an
editorial entitled "Whose Job Is It?" The editorial commented upon
a speech which had been made by Director of Personnel Livingstone
a few days previously to members of a similar association at the plant
of one of the respondent's subsidiaries. During that speech Living-
stone "charged the members of the Association with the duty of,pre-
serving and protecting their jobs against the undermining influences
of young, irresponsible and easily led employees" who are "capable of
great and perhaps permanent injury to a company and its personnel";
that it was "the old employees . . . who si and to lose most through
labor disputes," and that hence it was "to their own best interests to
exert all of their influence in helping to shape proper and sound
opinions in the minds of new employees." In commenting upon this
speech the editorial stated that "From the comments of the men who
heard the address it was obvious that most of them understood the
common sense contained in the counsel."
An "open letter" appearing in the April 9 issue addressed to all the
employees and signed by the Association employee representatives,
stated that the Association had acted for the employees for over 4
years, that it had secured specified benefits, that "recent statements
made by an outside organization . . . in an effort to invade our
plants" prompt the "candid opinion that no organization can secure
any concession from Management that your present Association can-
not secure. And with less . . . ill will . . . to say nothing about
the savings in dues or lost time"; finally, that fellow. employees were
more anxious to adjust employee problems "than an outsider whose
only interest is in the amount of dues he can collect."
On April 12, 1937, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality
of the Act.12 On April 15 the respondent rested on its bulletin boards
a notice stating that "due to interest iii, aiid some misunderstanding
' Nattional Labor Relations Board v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Cotp, 301 U. S. 1, and
companion cases. ,
THOMPSON PRODUCTS, INC. 1041
over" the Act, it was taking the opportunity to inform employees of
its "highlights." These "highlights" were summarized in five para-
graphs. Paragraph 1 stated that the intention of the Act was to
eliminate labor disputes. Paragraph 2 quoted the definition of a labor
organization as contained in the Act but capitalized only the phrase
"employee representation committee or plan." Paragraph 3 sum-
marized the unfair labor practices defined in Section 8 of the Act.
Paragraph 4 referred to "the principle of majority rule," and stated
that `•`the collective bargaining agency selected by the majority of em-
ployees in an appropriate company unit shall be the exclusive repre-
sentative of all such employees . . ." Paragraph 5 stated that the
Act created the Board to decide questions of representation and to rule
on alleged unfair labor practices, but that the Board had no enforce-
ment powers. Following these five paragraphs there appeared a
concluding observation emphasized in capital letters as follows:
IT SHOULD BE UNDERSTOOD THAT THIS BILL HAS
BEEN A LAW FOR NEARLY TWO YEARS, AND THIS
COMPANY HAS BEEN OBSERVING ITS TERMS.
THEREFORE, THE SUPREME COURT'S RECENT DE-
CISION CAUSES NO CHANGE WHATSOEVER IN PRES-
ENT PLANT CONDITIONS OR RELATIONSHIPS.
In spite of this assurance, there was talk among the employee repre-
sentatives concerning the effect of the Supreme Court decisions on the
Association. As stated by William A. Hoffman, chairman of the
"employee representatives," in an affidavit submitted to the Board's
agent prior to the hearing, and supported by his testimony at the
hearing, "it became apparent to the representatives of the Association
that the Association was not within the letter and spirit of the Wagner
Act. Consequently we realized that a change would have to be made."
Accordingly, Hoffman went to see Raymond S. Livingstone, director
of personnel for the respondent and executive secretary of the Joint
Council and of the "employee representatives and delegates," and sug-
gested, as testified by Hoffman, that his opinion was that "We would
have to adjust our constitution because we knew previously that it
had not conformed to it, and we didn't know whether the Act would
be approved by the Court or not." Hoffman testified that Livingstone
"felt the same as I did; that we had to revise our constitution in order
to make it conform with the Wagner Act," that "We will certainly
have to do something, because previous to that we always told the
representatives how to conduct themselves in their capacity as repre-
sentatives . . .," and that Livingstone also said, "You better get things
lined up." Hoffman said he would do so. Thereupon Livingstone
said, "We would have to have quick action . . . We knew we were
violating the law."
1042 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Hoffman testified under subpoena as a witness for the Board. The
Trial Examiner found that Hoffman was, if not a hostile witness, at
least an unfriendly one. Livingstone in his testimony did not dispute
the conversations recited. We find, as did the Trial Examiner, such
conversations to be substantially in accordance with Hoffman's
testimony.
On April 23, 1937, an editorial appeared in the Friendly Forum
entitled "At What Profit" in which "the recently announced terms of
The Chrysler strike settlement" in which the Union herein was in-
volved, was referred to as "futile" and not "exactly a smashing vic-
tory" for the Union. The same issue contained an article headed
"Hoffman Calls Wagner Act Aid to Association" in which Association
"Chairman Bill Hoffman" was quoted as to the effect of the Supreme
Court decisions upholding the Act. Therein Hoffman stated that the
Association had "always been governed by principles which" the Act
"now makes a law"; that the Association "was organized spontane-
ously by the employees . . . and conceived by" them. He concluded
that "Our relations with management at present are entirely satisfac-
tory and at this time we see no reason to disturb them in any way."
Prior to a meeting of the representatives and delegates of the Asso-
ciation held on April 26, the Election Committee 13 called upon
J. D. Wright, an officer of the respondent, to discuss clarification of
various portions of the constitution of the Association. The Com-
mittee also asked Wright's opinion regarding the advisability of
incorporating the Association. Wright replied that incorporation
was unnecessary, that the Association "might be slightly improved by
the election of officers and also by making certain revisions in the
constitution."
The Committee reported this advice at the meeting of employee
representatives and delegates on April 26 held in the office of F. C.
Crawford, the respondent's president, at which Livingstone was pres-
ent. During the meeting Livingstone made suggestions concerning
proposed revisions in the constitution. He stated that the constitution
as revised "should deal only with the purpose of the Association, eligi-
bility for membership, and rules pertaining to the election and eligi-
bility of representatives"; that "Any provision for presentation of
grievances and relationships with Management should be included in a
contract ..." 14 Pursuant to a motion made and carried, a committee
13 Under the constitution of the Association an election committee was appointed by
the chairman of the Joint Council with the consent of the Council and consisted of an
equal number of employee and manageinent representatives.
14 The quotations are from the minutes of the meeting . Since May 7, 3934 , Livingstone
had not only been "executive secretary" of the Joint Council but also acted as "executive
secretary" of the employee representatives and delegates at meetings, held only among
themselves Livingstone prepared the minutes of the above meeting He resigned as
"executive secretary" of the Association at the conclusion of the meeting. An election
THOMPSON PRODUCT'S, INC. 1043
was then appointed to study and recommend changes in the consti-
tution of the Association.
Between April 29 and May 24 certain changes in the constitution of
the Association were decided upon by the committee appointed at the
April 26 meeting referred to above. After working hours on May
24 a meeting attended by employee representatives and delegates was
held in the respondent's dining room. Hoffman, who was then, and
except for the year 1936, always had been, chairman of the employee
representatives, presided at the opening of the meeting.15 The com-
mittee gave its report and, according to the testimony of Hoffman, it
was accepted. The record does not disclose what such revisions were
except for the testimony of Hoffman that "at that meeting a revised
constitution to conform to the Labor Act, as declared constitutional
by the Supreme Court, was adopted."
Pursuant to acceptance of the report, Hoffman retired as chairman
of the employee representatives, and thereupon, in accordance with
the suggested revisions the following "temporary" officers were elected :
Frank Arnold, president; Joseph Vanyo, vice president; Harry F.
Stuebe, secretary; Paul Lucksinger, treasurer lc
During the next few days there was some discussion among the
employee representatives as to the advisability of changing the name
of the Association and of incorporating it. At the suggestion of A. J.
Anderson, a former delegate, Stuebe called on M. A. Roemisch, the at-
torney who appeared for the Alliance in this proceeding.17 Roemisch
advised against incorporating the Association and suggested the in-
corporation of a new organization. He indicated his willingness to
handle the legal details. Stuebe returned within a day or two with
the other "temporary" officers and three or four other employees, and
Roemisch confirmed the advice. It was accordingly decided by this
small group to proceed with the incorporation.
Roemisch advanced the necessary incorporation expenses,18 and on
June 8, Arnold, Vanyo, Stuebe, and Lucksinger signed the Articles of
Organization of the Alliance, naming themselves therein as the tempo-
rary trustees. On June 11, the Articles were duly filed with the Secre-
tary of State of Ohio.
was then held for a new secretary. Hariy F Stuebe, an employee delegate, was then
elected secretary of the employee representatives and delegates.
15 The minutes of the meeting, if any were kept, are not in evidence.
'Olt is not entirely clear whether the representatives and delegates who had hitherto
been in office resigned at this meeting and whether such resignations, if any were made
were followed by new elections and appointments as such representatives and delegates
If, however, such elections were held and appointments made, it did not materially alter
the situation with reference to the identity of such persons, since in any event the same
persons, with possibly two or three exceptions, continued in the same capacities after the
meeting as prior to it.
17 Anderson was a personal client of Roemisch
18 He was reimbursed by the Alliance several months later.
450122 , 42-vol 33-67
1044 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
On June 14, the four incorporators-trustees met with "the other
members" 10 of the Alliance "at the offices of the Corporation '20 for
the purpose of holding the first meeting, preparing and approving a
Code of Regulations for the election of the necessary officers and com-
mittee of representatives, and trustees, and for the transaction of
such other business as may properly be brought before the meeting."
The "Code of Regulations" referred to is apparently the document in
evidence entitled "Constitution and By-Laws" of the Alliance. Arnold
and Stuebe acted as temporary chairman and temporary secretary,
respectively, of the meeting. The "Code of Regulations" which had
already been prepared was read, and adopted and signed by the 10'
members. Arnold, as temporary chairman, then moved that the "Code
of Regulations" be waived, and that officers and a committee of repre-
sentatives be elected to serve until December 31, 1937, or until other-
wise replaced by a later election. The motion was seconded. The
minutes state that "the names of the members were placed 'in nomi-
nation as candidates for officers" and that balloting followed, result-
ing in the following "unanimous election": Frank Arnold, president;
Joe Vanyo, vice president; Harry Stuebe, secretary; Paul Lucksinger,
treasurer. Thereupon the members proceeded to elect "a committee
of representatives," which proceeding "resulted in the unanimous elec-
tion" of the remaining six members.
On June 20 a "joint meeting of the committee of representatives and
the officers of the corporation" was held, consisting of the 10 persons
previously named. At this meeting election districts were defined
throughout the plant and each representative was authorized to ap-
point four members to a "Council of Delegates." It was further voted
to notify the respondent of the intent to seek a contract and further
"to set up, means and methods of working out a labor relations com-
mittee to perfect the various dealings, complaints and demands of this
Corporation from the said company." Finally, the membership com-
mittee appointed at the June 14 meeting reported that it'had received
912 applications for membership.
The constitution of the Alliance was made up of the substance of the
Articles of Incorporation already described. The bylaws, so far as
here material, in substance included the following : officers and a com-
mittee of eight representatives were established, all to be elected an-
nually by ballot of the entire membership ; eligibility for these positions
was limited to persons over 21 years old having not less than a stated
length of membership; the committee of representatives was designated
"Quoted from the minutes of this meeting. In addition to the incorporators, "the
other members" were the following employees : Lawrence Madge, Joe, Strasser, Norbert
Roubieu , Joseph Bosoty , Thomas McKiernan and John DeCapite There are variations in
the spelling of some of these names in the exhibits and transcript of the testimony.
"Attorney Roemi3ch ' s law office was and continued to be the corporate office.
THOMPSON PRODUCTS, INC. 1045
as bargaining agent for the organization; all contracts and adjust-
ments to be subject to approval by the remaining officers and the Coun-
cil of Delegates; however, questions concerning general pay raises and
seniority were to be further submitted to the corporate members for
formal approval; elections were to be held in November, the persons
elected to take office on January 1 of the following year.
The officers, representatives, and appointed delegates jointly con-
stituted the Council of Delegates, individual delegates "being ac-
countable" to the appointing representative, who could revoke the
appointment at will. Semi-monthly meetings of the Council were
provided for. It was further provided that the president should
call a meeting of the entire corporation at least quarterly. However,
the majority of the officers and representatives constituted a quorum.21
During this entire period the Union had been active, being en-
gaged, among other things, in passing out handbills around the
plant. On June 18 the following items appeared in the Friendly
Forum : (1) an editorial entitled "Where Does It Lead?"; (2) ar-
ticles entitled $150,000 Added to Wages; Co. Seeks to Boost Prices";
and (3) a further article entitled "Alliance Seeks TP Membership."
The editorial attacked "the labor movement" as rushing "ruthlessly
along under its newly acquired power"; stated that "seemingly drunk
with its power the union grows bolder and bolder in its demands";
and that the lot of manufacturers who had signed contracts was
"no better than that of those who" had not. The opening para-
graph of the article headed "$150,000 Added to Wages" etc. is suffi-
ciently illustrative. This paragraph stated that "Gaining quick
action in a series of rapid-fire meetings early last week, the Em-
ployees' Association won its third substantial wage increase for
hourly rate employees in less than 8 months . . ." The other
article similarly headed was to the effect that the respondent 's sales
staff intensified a drive to secure higher prices for its products fol-
lowing total wage increases of $150,000 annually. The article headed
"Alliance Seeks TP Membership" followed the tenor of the head-
line. A statement of Frank Arnold, "temporary president" of the
Alliance, was quoted, stating in substance that the Alliance was "the
only sane method of bargaining collectively"; that the Alliance was
"not asking employees to pay high monthly dues"; and that the
"small nominal dues" collected would not "go to pay salaries of
officers and organizers ." The article further set forth the naives
of the other temporary officers of the Alliance.
a It does 'not appear that general mass meetings of the membership were held quarterly.
Roemisch testified that in addition to the meeting at the Little Theater hereinafter de-
scribed, there was another such meeting in 1938. However, it was the custom upon
occasion to submit to the membership by mail the question of the ratification of some
important matters.
1046 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
On June 21, in accordance with action taken at the "joint meeting
of the committee of representatives and officers" the previous day,
a committee consisting of the four Alliance officers (Arnold, Vanyo,
Stuebe, and Lucksinger) and two representatives, accompanied by
Attorney Roemisch, met with Livingstone in the office of F. C. Craw-
ford, the respondent's president. Roemisch produced copies of the
corporate charter and other incorporation papers and presented 833
signed memberhip cards which he said constituted a majority of the
respondent's employees. He requested the respondent to negotiate
an exclusive bargaining contract with the Alliance. It was arranged
that Employment Manager Naff should check the signatures on the
cards against the respondent's employment records.
On June 23, a letter signed by Arnold, Stuebe, and Roemisch was
sent to the respondent, which stated in substance that the Alliance
represented 75 percent of the respondent's Cleveland employees, and
demaiided that the respondent recognize it as the sole agent for col-
lective bargaining within 5 days, and negotiate within 30 days there-
after a contract covering specified matters. On June 25, Livingstone
replied by letter that a check of the signatures on the membership
cards indicated that 831 signatures were genuine ; 22 that this was
a decisive majority "and, in view of the terms of the Wagner Act,
it leaves us no alternative but to grant your organization exclusive
bargaining rights.". He concluded that Crawford would be willing
to meet with the Alliance for the purpose of negotiating the contract.
Sometime between June 25 and 30, the terms of the contract were
tentatively agreed upon. On June 30, what was referred to by
Attorney Roemisch in his testimony "as a regular meeting of the
Alliance" was held in his law office. This so-called regular meeting
was attended by only the officers and representatives, 10 in number,
previously named. No minutes of this meeting were introduced in
evidence, nor is it clear whether any were made. It was voted to
accept the contract and to authorize its execution.
In the meantime, the activity of the Union still continued. There
were also several meetings of the Joint Council of the Association
during the month of June and the final meeting was held on July 1.
On the latter date it was agreed that since a "new union" now repre-
sented a substantial majority of the employees, the contract of the
Association should be terminated. Livingstone, who was present at
this meeting, stated that it was now appropriate that a resolution
be drafted "as a testimonial to the achievements of the Association."
Thereupon Wright, the respondent's secretary, moved that employee
representative Stuebe be requested to draft such a resolution. The
motion was passed.
" At this time there were 1, 362 employees , including supervisors
THOMPSION PRODUCTS, , INC. 1047
In accordance with the vote at the July 1 meeting of the Joint
Council, an agreement was simultaneously drafted between the
respondent and "the members of Thompson Products, Inc. Em-
ployees' Association" purporting to terminate the Association con-
tract. On behalf of "the members" this agreement was signed by six
Association representatives and one delegate.23 The contract, inter
alia, recited that the members represented that by reason of the fact
that "another organization" now represented a majority of the em-
ployees, the Association had been dissolved on June 11, 1937.
In accordance with the vote taken at the July 1 meeting of the
Joint Council concerning the testimonial referred to above, Stuebe
prepared a resolution which stated that the employee representa-
tives extended their sincere thanks to the management representatives
for the consideration shown them at all times ; that the representa-
tives of management in turn complimented the employee repre-
sentatives for their sincere efforts to better working conditions, and
trusted that the "employees in general may appreciate the efforts
put forth in their behalf and continue to select men of equal intelli-
gence and courage to present their problems to Management for
adjustment...." The resolution further recited that the Association
had existed from "February 19, 1934 to July 1, 1937 . . ."
Livingstone testified that he received the draft of the resolution
in August. He approved of it and instructed his stenographer
to type it. After she typed it, she asked him "what to do with it."
Livingstone replied, "Put it in the minute book, right on top."
Although places were indicated on the resolution for the signatures
of both the employee and management representatives, it was not
signed.
On July 2, the contract between the respondent and the Alliance
was signed. Under it, inter alia, the respondent recognized the
Alliance as the exclusive representative of its Cleveland employees
eligible for membership-in the Alliance for the purposes of collec-
tive bargaining. The contract also provided for the creation of
a Labor Relations Committee "consisting of an equal number of
Alliance and Management representatives for the purpose of ad-
justing such grievances" arising with the employees that cannot be
amicably and expeditiously adjusted by the foreman, with the indi-
vidual representatives of the Alliance. The contract- was signed
by Arnold and Stuebe as president and secretary, respectively, on
.behalf of the Alliance, and by Crawford and Wright as president
and secretary, respectively, on behalf of the respondent. On July
23 Lawrence Madge, Howard Blake , Norbert Roubieu, Joseph Bosoty , John D. DeCapite,
Joseph Vanyo , and Thomas McKiernan ( delegate ). The record indicates that these desig-
nations were in error as Blake and Vanyo were delegates, and the others employee
representatives.
1048 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
16, a supplement to the contract was executed which clarified griev-
ance and bargaining procedure.
At the time of the meeting of the 10 Alliance members in Roemisch's
law office on June 30, above recited, it was agreed that a mass meet-
ing of the entire membership would be held following the execution
of the contract for the purpose of obtaining approval of the contract.
Pursuant to this understanding, a meeting was, held in the Little
Theater of the Public Auditorium in Cleveland early in August.
Frank Arnold, the Alliance president, presided. Attorney Roemisch
attended and made a speech outlining the contract. There was
thereafter some discussion and finally approval was obtained.
In October 1938 further contracts were made between the respond-
ent and the Alliance, which were substantially the same as the 1937
contract. At the time of the hearing, the Alliance was still in exist-
ence and its structure was substantially as it had been when created.
The Friendly Forum was still being published and distributed.
As indicated hereinabove, the 10 employees who were the leaders in
the formation of the Alliance were Frank Arnold, Joe Vanyo, Harry
F. Stuebe, Paul Lucksinger, Lawrence Madge, Joe Strasser, Norbert
Roubieu, Joseph Bosoty, Thomas McKiernan, and John DeCapite.
Frank Arnold was an employee delegate of the Association in 1936
and 1937, and was elected president of the Association on May 24, 1937.
He became one of the four Alliance incorporators, temporary trustee,
presiding officer at its early meetings, one of the signers of its con-
tract, and first president of the Alliance. Joe Vanyo was an employee
delegate of the Association in 1935, 1936, and 1937 and was elected vice
president thereof on May 24, 1937. He signed the July 1, 1937, agree-
ment which terminated the existing Association contract. He was an
incorporator of the Alliance, a temporary trustee, and vice president
thereof in 1937 and 1938. Harry F. Stuebe was an employee delegate
of the Association from 1935-1937, and was elected secretary on April
26, 1937. He was also an Alliance incorporator, temporary trustee,
and one of the signers of all the Alliance contracts. He was secre-
tary of the organization in 1937, even prior to its incorporation, and
thereafter secretary-treasurer in 1938-1940. Paul Lucksinger was an
employee delegate of the Association in 1937 and, according to the
testimony of Hoffman, "it may be he (Lucksinger) was elected treas-
urer" at the May 24 meeting. Ho^vever, Hoffman was under the
impression that offices of secretary and treasurer were combined.
Lucksinger was the remaining incorporator of the Alliance and tem-.
porary trustee, and also treasurer of the organization in 1937.
The other six leaders in the formation of the Alliance were equally
prominent in the Association. Lawrence Madge was an employee del-
egate of the Association for part of 1935 and representative for the
TH'OMPSON PRODUCTS, INC. 1049
remainder of the year, and served in the latter capacity in 1936-1937.
He was one of the signers of the Association contract of March 2, 1936,
and also signed the agreement of July 1, 1937, terminating the Asso-
ciation contract. He was one of the first six self-appointed Alliance
employee representatives other than the officers, and acted in that
capacity for the years 1937-1939. Joe Strasser was an employee dele-
gate of the Association in 1934, representative in 1935-1937, and chair-
man in 1936. He was one of the signers of the Association contracts
of March 4, 1935, and March 2, 1936. He was one of the original rep-
resentatives of the Alliance and one of its first three regular trustees.
Norbert Roubieu was an employee representative of the Association in
1935-1937. He signed the Association contract of March 2, 1936. He
also signed the July 1, 1937. contract of termination. He was one of
the first Alliance representatives, and acted in that capacity during
part of 1937 and in 1938 as well; he was also one of the three original
regular trustees.
Joseph Bosoty was an employee representative of the Association
in 1935-1937. He signed the Association contract of March 2, 1936;
also the contract of termination. He was an Alliance representative
in 1937-1939. Thomas McKiernan was either a delegate or repre-
sentative of the Association during the years 1935-1937. He signed
the Association contract of March 2,1936, and the agreement of July 1,
1937, terminating it. He was an Alliance representative from the
beginning of its organization and was still acting in that capacity at
the time of the hearing. He was one of its first three regular trustees.
John DeCapite was an employee representative of the Association in
1937. He signed the July 1, 1937, agreement terminating the Asso-
ciation contract. He was an Alliance representative from the begin-
ning of the organization and was still acting in that capacity at the
time of the hearing.
In addition to the men above enumerated, it should be noted that
Chester McMullen, who acted as the chairman of the committee for
revision of the Association's constitution in April and May 1937, was
an Association employee delegate in 1935-1936 and successively dele-
gate and representative in 1937. Also on the committee for constitu-
tion revision were Stuebe, Madge, Roubieu, and DeCapite.
(3) Conclusions as to the Association and the Alliance
The respondent cooperated in the formation of the Association.
Representatives of the Association were paid by the respondent for
time spent in connection with affairs of the Association. The struc-
ture of the Association indicated the respondent's control through the
Joint Council, its governing body. The employees were limited in
their free choice of representatives. No meetings of participants were
1050 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
provided for or held. Association expenses were met by the respond-
ent. This conduct, begun before the Act was passed, continued there-
after. The entire record indicates that the Association was merely an
advisory agency supported by the management for adjusting differ-
ences with the employees within management limitations. It was
formed,' existed, and functioned only through the respondent's control,
participation, financial support, and sufferance.
Despite the fact that the Supreme Court decisions of April 12, 1937,
made it plain to the respondent that the continuance of the Association
was illegal, the respondent, 3 days later, posted a notice to its employees
emphasizing that the Court's action "causes no changes whatsoever in
present plant conditions or relationships." We find that subsequent
to July 5, 1935, the respondent dominated and interfered with the ad-
ministration of the Association and contributed financial and other
support thereto; and that the respondent thereby interfered with,
restrained, and coerced its employees in the 'exercise of the rights guar-
anteed in Section 7 of the Act.24
The manner in which the Alliance was formed, and the support
granted to it by the respondent during the period of its formation,
clearly indicated the desire of the respondent to retain control of its
employees' representatives. The leaders of the Association were the
originators of the Alliance. In the eyes of the employees, they were
representatives of the management.25 The Association was not aban-
doned until the Alliance was finally established.26 Not only was there
no cleavage between the Association and the Alliance, as was the
respondent's duty under the circumstances ,2i but the respondent also
24 See National Labor Relations Board v. Pennsylvania C-i eyhound Lines , Inc, et al.,
303 U S. 261; National Labor Relations Board v. Newport News Shipbuilding & Dry
Dock Co, 308 U. S 241 ; National Labor Relations Board v H. E. Fletcher Co, 108 F.
(2d) 459 (C C. A 1), enf'g 5 N. L R. B 729, cert den 309 U S 678
2r, For the significance of such duplication of personnel coupled with substantial con-
tinuity of existence , see, International Association of Machinists V National Labor Rela-
tions Board, 110 F. (2d) '29 (App D. C ), aff'd 311 U. S 72; National Labor Relations
Board v Link-Belt Co , 311 U S 584
Si The respondent contends that the Association was formally dissolved on June 11,
1937. There is no evidence of a formal dissolution of the Association except for the
recital in the July 1, 1937, agreement terminating the contract between the Association
and the respondent that the "members represent that the Association was dissolved as
of June 11, 1937." Whatever inference may be derived from this recital is rebutted by_
other facts such as the notation in the resolution drafted by Stuebe, secretary of the
Association, and approved by Livingstone, the respondent 's director of personnel, that
the Association existed from February 19, 1934, to July 1, 1937 , the meeting of the Joint
Council on July 1, and the article in the June 18, 1937, issue of the Friendly Forum under
the heading "$150,000 Added to Wages " The only finding that we can make under the
circumstance , as we now do , is that the Association as such ceased to function as a labor
organization after July 1, 1937. -
n As the Court said in Western Union Telegraph Co. v. National Labor Relations Board,
113 F ( 2d) 992 (C. C. A. 2), an "absolute and public cleavage between the old and the
new" was necessary In Westinghouse Electric if Mfg Co. v National Labor Relations
Board, 112 F. (2d) 657 (C C A 3), aff'd (per curiani ) 312 U. S 660 , the Court , commenting
upon the disestablishment order in the Newport News case , supra, said :
The reason for this was that, although the new union would be lawful, if freely
formed, it had in fact arisen out of the earlier organization , and the company had
THOMPSON PRODUCTS, INC. 1051
furnished direct support to the Alliance by the Friendly Forum attacks
on the Union and other outside labor organizations, and by articles
extolling the Alliance.28 We are of the opinion and we find that the
Alliance was the successor to the Association, and that the employees
were never given the opportunity freely to choose their own repre-
sentatives.
The respondent and the Alliance contend that the operation of the
Alliance as a bargaining agent dispels any inference or presumption
of "company domination or control." While the minutes of the Labor
Relations Council of the Alliance indicate that the employee repre-
sentatives presented demands which were accepted by the manage-
ment after discussion and submission of counterproposals, "the fact
that the employees received a measure of success with the kind of
organization permitted them by the employer does not forfeit their
right to organize differently if they wish and does not legalize the
obstruction by the company of such a change." 29
We find that the respondent dominated and interfered with the
formation and administration of the Alliance, and contributed sup-
port thereto, and has thereby interfered with, restrained, and coerced
its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of
done nothing to mark the separation between the two and publicly to deprive the
successor of the advantage of its apparently continued favor . . The employees
at large had not been advised that the company was wholly indifferent whether they
joined the new union , and that, as it might , and probably did, appear to be a suc-
cessor of the old The separation should have been made plain, and with it the dis-
continuance of any continued countenance from the employer The theory is that
in cases such as this , where an unaffi]iated union seems to the employees at large to
have evolved out of an earlier joint organization of employer and employees, the
Board may take it as datum, in the absence of satisfactory evidence to the contrary,
that the employees will suppose that the company approves the new, as it did the
old, and their choice is for that reason not as free a^ the statute demands.
The respondent asserts that the publication of the Friendly Forum articles was fair
comment and privileged within the first amendment to the Federal Constitution Viewed
in their setting the articles were not only coercive but in some instances , such as the
article in the June 18 , 1937, issue under the heading "Alliance Seeks TP Membership,"
constituted direct support to the Alliance . The fact that such statements were in printed
form does not afford the respondent any greater protection . Moreover , it may be noted
that the Friendly Forum is the business organ of the respondent and not a publication
for the general dissemination of news. "Expressions of opinion concerning labor unions
,by an employer, either written or merely spoken , may be of such nature that their effect,
is to coerce and intimidate the employees contrary to the provisions of the National
Labor Relations Act. To hold that such expressions , when employer manifestly intended
to give them such an effect , are not violative of the Labor Act, would be to nullify the
provisions of the Act and to thwart the public policy evidenced by said Act ." National
Labor Relations Board v. Chicago Apparatus Company, 116 F. ( 2d) 753 (C. C. A. 7),
enf'g 12 N. L. R B 1002. See also, Bethlehem Steel Company, etc., et al. v. National
Labor Relations Board, May 12, 1941 (App. D. C ), enf'g 14 N L. R. B. 539; National
Labor Relations Board v. Reed &• Prince Mfg. Co. (C C. A. 1) decided April 21, 1941;
National Labor Relations Board v. New Era Die Inc ., 118 F. ( 2d) 500 (C. C. A 3), enf'g
as mod. 19 N L . R. B. 227; Valley Mould and Iron Corporation v. National Labor Rela-
tions Board, 116 F ( 2d) 760 (C. C. A. 7) enf'g 20 N L R. B 211.
z9 Corning Glass Works v. National Labor Relations Board , et al, 118 F. (2d) 625
'(C C. A. 2), enf'g as mod 15 N. L. R. B. 598; see also, National Labor Relations Board
v. Newport News Shipbuilding & Dry, Dock Co ., 308 U. S. 741.
1052 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the Act.30 We further find that the agreements entered into between
the respondent and the Alliance and the contractual relationship
existing thereunder have been, and are, a means of utilizing an em-
ployer-dominated labor organization to frustrate the exercise by the
respondent's employees of the rights- guaranteed in Section 7 of the
Act.
The Trial Examiner found that the allegation in the complaint
that the balance in the Association treasury was used by the Asso-
ciation to pay Alliance formation expenses was not borne out by the
evidence. We concur in this finding. Accordingly such allegation
will be dismissed.
B. Interference, restraint, and coercion
The complaint alleges, inter alia, that the respondent engaged in
interference, restraint, and coercion contrary to the Act in that on
May 8, 1940, Plant Manager McBride told a laid-off employee that if
the latter ever had anything to do with the Union he would never be
taken back to work. This was denied by the respondent in its answer.
This incident involved Earl Bennett, a former employee representa-
tive of the Association. McBride was ill at the time of the hearing
and did not appear, but the parties stipulated with respect to the
testimony that he would give if called. McBride's version was that
on several occasions between the latter part of 1939 and July 1940
Bennett called him on the telephone and inquired about a position,
and that he [McBride], referred Bennett to Naff in the employment
office. However, McBride did not expressly deny Bennett's testimony
that a position would be refused Bennett if he had anything to do with
the Union.
Bennett testified that the alleged statement was made to him by
McBride in the latter's office in a face-to-face conversation and he
named several employees who had seen him in McBride's office. Mc-
Bride stated that he had no recollection of any face-to-lace talk with
Bennett during 1940. Although the Trial Examiner found that
Bennett was in some particulars not an impressive witness, he never-
theless credited Bennett's testimony since the respondent failed to
call as witnesses the persons named by Bennett as having seen him in
McBride's office on that date to rebut such testimony. Upon exami-
nation of the record, we find that Bennett's testimony was contra-
dictory in many respects and that he was thoroughly discredited as a
reliable witness. We have therefore disregarded his entire testimony.
Under the circumstances we find that there is insufficient evidence to
w See Link-Belt Co. v. National Labor Relations Board, 311 U. S. 584; National Labor
Relations Board V. Dow Chemical Co ., 117 F. ( 2d) 455 (C. C. A. 6) enf'g as mod. 13
N. L. R. B. 993.
THOMPSON PRODUCTS, INC. 1053
support the above allegation of the complaint and, accordingly, it will
be dismissed.
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 re-
spondent described in Section I above, have a' close, intimate, and
substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several
States, and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing
commerce and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that the respondent has engaged in unfair labor
practices , we shall order it to cease and desist therefrom and take
certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the
Act. -
We have found that the respondent has dominated and interfered
with the administration of the Association and has contributed
financial and other support thereto . Since the Association as, such
has ceased to function and there appears no likelihood of its rees-
tablishment , we shall not order that it be disestablished . We have
further found that the respondent has dominated and interfered
with the formation and administration of the Alliance and has
contributed support therto . The effect and consequences of the re-
spondent 's domination , interference with, and support of the Alli-
ance, as well as the continued recognition of the Alliance as the
bargaining representative of its employees , constitute a continuing
obstacle to the free exercise by its employees of their right to self-
organization and to bargain collectively through representatives of
their own choosing . Because of the respondent 's illegal conduct, the
Alliance is incapable of serving the respondent 's employees as a
genuine collective bargaining agency. Moreover , the continued rec-
ognition of the Alliance would be obstructive of the free exercise
by the employees of the rights guaranteed them by the Act. Ac-
cordingly, we will order the respondent to disestablish and withdraw
all recognition from the Alliance as the representative of any of its
employees for the purpose of dealing with it concerning grievances,
labor disputes , wages, rates of pay, hours of employment , or other
conditions of employment.
We have also found that the contracts entered into between the
respondent and the Alliance have been a means whereby the re-
spondent has utilized an employer -dominated labor organization to
frustrate self-organization and defeat collective bargaining by its
employees . Under these circumstances , any continuation , renewal,
or modification of such agreements would perpetuate the conditions
1054 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
which have deprived employees of the rights guaranteed them by
the Act and would render ineffectual other portions of our remedial
order. We shall therefore order the respondent to cease giving
effect to any contracts between it and the Alliance, or to any modi-
fication or extension thereof. Nothing in the order, however, shall
be taken to require the respondent to vary those wage, hour, and
other such substantive features of its relations with the employees
themselves, which the respondent may have established in perform-
ance of these contracts as extended, renewed,, modified, supple-
mented, or superseded.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the
entire record in the case, the Board makes the following : '
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. United Automobile Workers of America, Local 300, affiliated with
the Congress of Industrial Organizations, and Automotive and Air-
craft Workers Alliance, Inc., are labor organizations, and Thompson
Products, Inc., Employees Association was a labor organization, within
the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
2. By dominating and interfering with the administration of
Thompson Products, Inc., Employees Association, and contributing
financial and other support thereto, and by dominating and interfering
with the formation and administration of Automotive and Aircraft
Workers Alliance, Inc., and contributing support thereto, the respond-
ent has engaged in, and as to'the Alliance is engaging in, unfair labor
practices, within the meaning of Section 8 (2) of the Act.
3. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in
the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the
respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices,
within the irieaning of Section 8 (1) of the Act.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices
affecting commerce, within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of
the Act.
5. The respondent has not engaged in unfair labor practices within
the meaning of Section 8 (2) of the Act in so far as the complaint
alleges that the balance in the Association treasury was used by the
Association to defray Alliance formation expenses.
6. The respondent has not engaged in unfair labor practices within
the meaning of Section 8 (1) of the Act in so far as the complaint
alleges that•on May 8, 1940, the respondent, through its plant manager,
sought to discourage the union activity of a laid-off employee.
ORDER
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and conclusions of law,
and pursuant to Section 10 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act,
THOMPSON PRODUCTS, INC. 1055
the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the respondent,
Thompson Products, Inc., Cleveland, Ohio, its officers, agents, suc-
cessors, and assigns, shall
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Dominating or interfering with the administration of Thomp-
son Products, Inc., Employees Association, and with the formation or
administration of Automotive and Aircraft Workers Alliance, Inc.,
or any other labor organization of its employees, and from contributing
financial or other support to said labor organizations or to any labor
organization of its employees;
(b) Giving effect to any and all contracts, or supplements thereto
or modifications thereof, with Automotive and Aircraft Workers
Alliance, Inc.;
(c) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing
its employees in the exercise of the right to self-organization, to form,
join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through rep-
resentatives of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted activities
for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or pro-
tection 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 Automotive and Aircraft Work-
ers Alliance, Inc., as the representative of any of its employees for
the purpose of dealing with the respondent concerning grievances,
labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, or other
conditions of employment, and completely disestablish Automotive and
Aircraft Workers Alliance, Inc., as such representative;
(b) Post immediately in conspicuous places throughout its plants at
Cleveland, Ohio, and maintain for a period of at ]east sixty (60) con-
secutive days from the date of posting, notices stating: (1) that the
respondent will not engage in the conduct from which it is ordered to
cease and desist in paragraphs 1 (a), (b), and (c) of this Order; and
(2) that it will take the affirmative action set forth in paragraph 2 (a)
of this Order ;
(c) Notify the Regional Director for the Eighth Region in writing
within ten (10) days from the date of this Order what steps the
respondent has taken to comply herewith;
AND BE IT FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint be, and the same
hereby is, dismissed, in so far as it alleges that the balance in the Asso-
ciation treasury was used by the Association to defray Alliance forma-
tion expenses, and in so far as it further alleges that on May 8, 1940,
the respondent, through its plant manager, sought to discourage the
union activity of a laid-off employee.