U.S. Pipe & Foundry Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 28, 1940

23 N.L.R.B. 1302 (N.L.R.B. 1940)

In the Matter of U . S. PIPE & FOUNDRY COMPANY and STEEL
WORKERS ORGANIZING COMMITTEE
Case No. C-1232.-Decided May 28, 1940
Cast Iron Pipe Manufacturing Industry-Interference, Restraint, and Coer-
cton: anti-union statements by supervisory employees ; threats of loss of em-
ployment, to close plant, and to send business elsewhere-COmpany-Domtinated
Union: domination of and interference with formation and administration ; super-
visory cooperation and participation in solicitation of membership ; activities on
employer's time and property ; exclusive recognition on meager proof of majority ;
employer ordered to withdraw recognition from and completely disestablish as
agency for collective bargaining-Contract: with organization found to be
company-dominated ; employer ordered to cease giving effect thereto.
Mr. Goeffrey Cunniff and Mr. Welden P. Monson, for the Board.
Winston, Strawn c Shaw, by Mr. George B. Christiansen, of
Chicago, Ill., for the respondent.
Mr. Robert D. Allen, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon charges and amended charges filed by Steel Workers Organ-
izing Committee, for Amalgamated Association of Iron, Steel and
Tin Workers of North America,' herein called the S. W. O. C., the
National Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board, by the
Regional Director for the Fourth Region (Philadelphia, Pennsyl-
vania), issued its complaint, dated January 7, 1939, against United
States Pipe & Foundry Company, Burlington, New Jersey, herein
called the respondent, alleging that the respondent had engaged in
and was engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce, within
the meaning of Section 8 (1) and (2) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of
the National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein called the Act.
Copies of the complaint and notice of hearing were duly served upon
the respondent and upon the S. W. O. C.
'Although the charges were filed as above indicated, the record shows that the steel
Workers Organizing Committee was acting on behalf of Lodge No. 2026, Amalgamated
Association of Iron, Steel and Tin Workers of North America.
23 N. L. R. B., No. 135.
1302
U. S. PIPE & FOUNDRY COMPANY 1303
Thereafter the respondent filed with the Regional Director a mo-
tion to dismiss the complaint and, in the event of its denial, a motion
to make the complaint and second amended charge more definite
and certain. Pending the disposition of these motions, the respond-
ent requested an extension of time for filing its answer to the com-
plaint, and a continuation of the hearing. On January 16, 1939, the
Regional Director granted the respondent's motion for extension of
time for filing its answer but denied the motion for continuance. On
February 1, 1939, the S. W. O. C. filed with the Regional Director a
third amended charge and the Board, by the Regional Director,
issued and served upon the respondent and the S. W. O. C. an
amended complaint.
With respect to the unfair labor practices, the amended complaint
alleged in substance that (1) on or about July 1, 1937, and thereafter,
the respondent dominated and interfered with the formation and
administration of a labor organization of its employees known as the
Employees Committee Union, herein called the E. C. U., and -con-
tributed financial and other support thereto; and (2) by the fore-
going and, other acts the respondent interfered with, restrained, and
coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Sec-
tion 7 of the Act.
Thereafter, the respondent filed with the Regional Director writ-
ten motions to strike the third amended charge, to dismiss the
amended complaint, and for examination by the respondent before
hearing of certain named individuals.
Pursuant to notice a hearing was held on February 20 and 21,
1939, at Burlington, New Jersey, before Webster Powell, the Trial
Examiner duly designated by the Board. The Board was repre-
sented by counsel. The respondent, appearing specially, was repre-
sented by counsel at the commencement of the hearing. At that
time the, respondent filed a written motion for a more definite and
particular charge and complaint. :This and the respondent's motions
to strike the third amended charge and dismiss the amended com-
plaint and ,for examination before hearing of certain individuals
were denied by the Trial Examiner. However, the Trial Examiner,
to afford the respondent full, opportunity to prepare its own case,
reserved to it the right to move for a continuance of the hearing
at the end of the Board's case. He also ordered counsel for the Board
to furnish for the record the names of employees alleged in the
amended complaint to have been laid off and otherwise discriminated
against by the respondent, although counsel for the Board stated that
no violation of Section 8 (3) of the Act was involved in the case and
no relief in connection therewith was sought. Counsel for the Board
complied with this order. Upon the denial of the respondent's mo-
tions, its counsel withdrew from and did not thereafter participate in
1304 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
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. Prior to the withdrawal of the respondent's
counsel from the hearing, the Trial Examiner ruled upon an oral
motion and upon an objection to the admission of certain evidence.
The Board has reviewed these rulings of the Trial Examiner, as well
as his rulings upon the written motions filed by the respondent, and
finds that no prejudicial errors were committed. The respondent's
motions to strike the third amended charge and to dismiss the
amended complaint and for a more definite and particular charge
and complaint were based in part upon the contention that the alle-
gations of the amended complaint "go beyond" the averments of
the third amended charge and that the latter fails to conform to
the Board's Rules and Regulations. In the third amended charge
it is alleged that the respondent engaged in unfair labor practices
within the meaning of Section 8 (1) and (2) of the Act and the
facts constituting said unfair labor practices are stated. The
amended complaint, alleging that the respondent engaged in unfair
labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (1) and (2) of the
Act, sets forth the facts constituting said unfair labor practices in
somewhat greater detail. In so doing, the amended complaint does
not "go beyond" the third amended charge.
Even were the respondent's position well taken, however, no
prejudice to it would result. As we have previously held, "the func-
tion of the charge is to call the attention of the Board to the fact
that certain unfair labor practices are alleged to have been com-
mitted." 2 A charge is merely the means whereby action on the part
of the Board is initiated and is not a formal pleading which the
respondent is called upon to answer. The charge need not describe
the alleged unfair labor practices with the same particularity as the
complaint, since a proceeding before the Board is tried upon the
allegations of the complaint, or upon those, as was the case here,
of the amended complaint, and upon such answer as the respondent
may make thereto. Since the amended complaint was served upon
the respondent a considerable time before the hearing thereon, the
respondent was given full and timely notice of the unfair labor
practices which it is alleged to have committed and was not
prejudiced by any paucity of facts in the underlying charge.2 The
rulings of the Trial Examiner are hereby affirmed.
2 Matter of Shell Petroleum Corporation and International Union of Operating Engineers,
10 N. L R B. 719; see Matter of Trenton Garment Company and International Ladies'
Garment Workers Union , Local 278, 4 N . L R B 1186.
8 Cf N. L R B. v National Licorice Co., 104 F. (2d) 655 (C. C. A 2 ), mod. & aff'd,
60 S. Ct. 569 , enf'g as mod Matter of National Licorice Company and Bakery and Confec-
tionery Workers International Union of America, Local No. 405, Greater New York and
Vicinity, 7 N. L. R . B. 537.
U. S. PIPE & FOUNDRY COMPANY 1305
On March 27, 1939, the Trial Examiner issued his Intermediate
Report in which he found that the respondent had dominated and
interfered with the formation and administration of the E. C. U. and
contributed financial and other support to -it and that by these and
other acts the respondent had interfered with, restrained, and coerced
its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7
of the Act. He recommended that the respondent cease and desist
from such unfair labor practices and take certain affirmative action
remedial of their effect.
Thereafter, the respondent filed its exceptions to the Intermediate
Report and to the record in the case. On May 1, 1939, pursuant
to permission granted to all parties by the Board, the respondent
filed a brief in support of its exceptions. On October 24, 1939, pur-
suant to request therefor by the respondent and notice to it and to
the S. W. O. C., a hearing was held before the Board in Washing-
ton; D. C., for the purpose of oral argument. Counsel for the
respondent participated therein. The Board has considered the
exceptions of the respondent and finds no merit in them.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
United States Pipe & Foundry Company is a New Jersey corpo-
ration, engaged in the manufacture, sale, and distribution of cast
iron pipe. It operates plants at Burlington, New Jersey, Bessemer
and Birmingham, Alabama, Addyston, Ohio, and Chattanooga,
Tennessee. Only the Burlington plant, herein referred to as the
plant, is involved in this proceeding. The principal raw materials
used by the respondent at the plant are pig iron, sand, hay, foundry
facings, scrap, coke, and limestone. In 1938 the respondent spent
approximately $1,390,000 for raw materials transported to the plant
from points outside the State of New Jersey, these materials being 90
per cent of all raw materials used at the plant in that year. The
value of the respondent's finished products shipped from the plant
to points outside the State of New Jersey during 1938, such products
constituting more than 80 per cent of the plant's total output, was
approximately $2,780,000. The respondent employed approximately
750 employees at the plant during 1938.
U. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
Steel Workers Organizing Committee, for Lodge No. 2026, Amal-
gamated Association of Iron, Steel and Tin Workers of North Amer-
ica, is a labor organization affiliated with the Congress of Industrial
1306 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Organizations. It admits to its membership employees of the re-
spondent , excluding executives , foremen, supervisors with the power
to hire and discharge , and office and clerical employees.
Employees Committee Union , is an unaffiliated labor organization,
admitting to its membership the respondent's employees at the
Burlington plant.
In. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Domination and interference with the formation and administra-
tion of the E. C. U. and contribution of support thereto
During the effective period of the National Industrial Recovery
Act 4 the respondent's employees were organized in an Employees
Representation Plan, herein called the Plan, pursuant to which a
committee , herein called the Committee, consisting of representatives
from each department in, the plant, was established. Until May or
June 1937 the Committee held monthly meetings in the "boarding
house," a building owned by the respondent and situated across the
street from the plant. Under the Plan the Committee met bi-monthly
with representatives of the respondent.
Early in 1937 the members of the Committee became of the opinion
that the Plan had been "outlawed by the United States Government"
and the Committee therefore decided to conduct an election among
the respondent's employees "to get their opinion of what they wanted
in the plant in the way of labor representation."
On June 28 the Committee caused the following notice to be posted
at the respondent's time office :
NOTICE !
TOMORROW, TUESDAY, JUNE 29TII, THERE WILL BE PLACED ON THE
TIME CARD OF EACH EMPLOYEE OF THE BURLINGTON WORKS A BALLOT
ON WHICH EMPLOYEE WILL MARK WITH AN "X" HIS DESIRE AS TO
WHETHER IIE APPROVES OF THE FORMATION OF AN EMPLOYEES' UNION
OF THE BURLINGTON WORKS UNDER THE PROVISION OF THE WAGNER-
CONNERY RELATIONS ACT.
A BALLOT BOX WILL BE PROVIDED ON THE 'PHONE POLE ON THE
LABORATORY CORNER AND EACH EMPLOYEE IS ASKED TO DEPOSIT HIS
BALLOT IN THE SAME AS HE LEAVES THE PLANT.
EMPLOYEES' REPRESENTATIVES,
ROBERT COMMONS, Chairman.
Pursuant to the notice the election was held on June 29. At the
hearing, Commons was unable to recall details concerning the source
and contents of the printed ballots that were used. It was estab•
' 48 Stat. 195.
U. - S. PIPE & FOUNDRY COMPANY 1307
fished, however, that the ballots, which contained a space for the
name and address of the voter, provided for the choice of "an inside
or an outside" organization. Commons and other members of the
Committee stationed themselves on the respondent's property outside
the time office and passed the ballots to employees as they were leav-
ing the plant. After the ballots had been placed in the box described
in the notice of election, and which was on the respondent's property,
the Committee took them to the respondent's "boarding house" and
,counted them. According to Commons, the election resulted in a
vote of approximately 340 "in favor of some independent union" and
260 against it, with 240 employees not voting.
Shortly after the election, Commons and Philip McGrath, another
employee and member of the Committee, called a meeting of the
respondent's employees for July 19. Some 400 employees attended.
The meeting was addressed by speakers from the Employees' Com-
mittee Union at the Radio Corporation of America plant in Camden,
New Jersey, who explained the nature of that organization and urged
the establishment of a similar one at the respondent's plant. At this
meeting the E..C. U. was formally established. Commons read and
the meeting adopted a set of bylaws. No constitution was then or
has since been adopted. Under the bylaws, the E. C. U. functioned
through a committee consisting of one representative from each depart-
ment in the respondent's plant. Such representatives were nominated
at the July 19 meeting and elected at a subsequent meeting of the
employees held on July 23.6 At least three members of the Plan
Committee were successful candidates for election as E. C. U. repre-
sentatives. Upon the establishment of the E. C. U. the Plan ceased
to function.
After the meeting of July 23, the EX. U. commenced a vigorous
membership campaign. Representatives freely and openly solicited
membership and collected dues in the plant during working hours,
without interference from the respondent's supervisory staff. In
addition, supervisory employees were active on behalf of the E. C. U.
in the.early stages of its organization. In July 1937, during working
hours and on the respondent's property, George Parker, a foreman,
asked John C. Gannakos, an employee, "Jimmie, have you signed the
company union?" Gannakos replied that he had not, whereupon
Parker said: "You better ... if you don't join the company union
you will just be out of work." On several occasions prior- to Novem-
ber 1937 Parker and Linwood Hutton, a subforeman, asked James L.
Boyd, an employee, to join the E. C. U. Louis Renzi, an S. W. O. C.
member, testified that he joined the E. C. U. because he had heard
0 One member of the E. C. U . testified that its bylaws provide for election of officers by
the membership but that they were actually elected by the representatives and, in at least
one case, appointed by the president.
1308 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
rumors in the plant that he would lose his job or be laid off if he
failed to join. The evidence that the respondent's supervisory em-
ployees made the foregoing statements is uncontroverted. It is
apparent that such statements encouraged not only those employees
to whom they were made but also others who heard of them to join
the E. C. U.
In its brief the respondent urges that statements of supervisory
employees such as those mentioned above are not binding upon the
respondent. However, the evidence indicates that the statements were
those of foremen or subforemen in charge of various departments in
the plant. We find that, with respect to them, the doctrine of
respondent superior applies and that the respondent is responsible for
their statements.°
The immediate success of the E. C. U. membership drive thus
assisted by the respondent's supervisory employees is indicated by
the fact that within 10 days after its formation the E. C. U. claimed
as members approximately 723 of the 860 employees at the plant.
On or about July 28 the E. C. U. representatives met with Harry
Reitinger, the respondent's resident manager, and advised him that
they were going to prepare a contract between the E. C. U. and the
respondent which he would be asked to sign. Reitinger asked the
representatives whether the E. C. U. had "proper authority .. .
to bargain for the men" and was told that it represented a majority
of the respondent's employees. No action relative to the E. C. U.'s
proposal was taken by Reitinger at this first conference. However,
at its conclusion, the E. C. U. representatives drafted a proposed
contract, by the terms of which the respondent would recognize the
E. C. U. as the exclusive representative of all employees at the
plant for the purposes of collective bargaining. `It contained no
provision other than for such recognition. On the following day,
July 29, the E. C. U. representatives met with Reitinger in the lat-
ter's office. At that time the representatives produced and counted
in Reitinger's presence 723 cards which they represented to be ap-
plications for membership in the E. C. U. signed by employees of
the respondent.. Reitinger examined only one of such cards, then
stated : "Well boys, that is all the proof I need." The contract which
the representatives had previously drafted was then presented and,
without discussion, was signed by Reitinger and the E. C. U. rep-
See International Association of Machinists, Tool and Die Makers Lodge No. 35, affil-
iated with the International Association of Machinists , and Production Lodge No 1200,
affiliated with the International Association of Machinists v. N. L. R. B., 110 F. (2d) 29
(C. A. for D. C) (cert. granted, 311 U S 72), aff'g Matter of The Serrack Corporation
and International Union, United Automobile Workers of America, Local No. 459, 8 N. L.
It. B. 621; Swift & Co v. N. L. R. B, 106 F. (2d) 87 (C. C A. 10), enf'g as mod. Matter
of Swift & Company, a corporation and Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Butcher Workmen
of North America, Local No. 641, and United Packing House Workers Local Industrial
Union No. 300, 7 N. L. It. B. 269.
U. S. PIPE & FOUNDRY COMPANY 1309
resentatives. The contract, dated July 30, 1937, was, by its terms,
to be in effect for 1 year.
John Brennan, the E. C. U. president, testified that after the execu-
tion of this contract, the E. C. U. made an oral agreement with the
respondent relative to wages, hours, and working conditions. He
did not, however, disclose the terms of this agreement. On several
occasions after the signing of the original contract the E. C. U. con-
ferred with the respondent and in some instances proposed con-
tracts were discussed. However, no further written contracts ma-
terialized and, according to Commons, the E. C. U. never did "get
anything that meant anything" from the respondent.
Shortly after the signing of the contract of July 30, the re-
spondent installed a bulletin board in the plant for the exclusive use
of the E. C. U. This board, approximately 5 feet square, having a
glass front and a lock, the key to which was in the possession of
the E. C. U., bore the full name of the E. C. U. on its front. Neither
the cost of erecting the board nor rent for its use was paid by the
k" •C: "•U. On or about September 17 Reitinger advised the E. C. U.
that it could have the use of the "boarding house" for its meetings.
Meetings were subsequently held there and the E. C. U. paid nothing
for its use.
During the last half of 1937 the E. C. U. posted numerous notices
relating to its affairs on its bulletin board, on the respondent's time
office, and at many other places throughout the plant, all with the
respondent's knowledge and, at least, its tacit consent. The notices
urged membership in and payment of dues to the E. C. U., gave
notice of meetings, advised employees of the results of the election
of officers, and otherwise publicized the affairs of the E. C. U.
By July 1938 employee interest in the E. C. U. was on the wane.
In an attempt to remedy this situation the E. C. U. conducted a vig-
orous poster campaign in the plant. The posters, displayed openly
throughout the plant, contained language of which the following is
typical : "One year ago 735 men of this plant signed to become mem-
bers of the E. C. U. The total cost to each member to this date is
50 cents. What would it have cost in another union? What proof
have we they could have done more? . . . Show us another union
that will do this for 50 cents. The E. C. U. will not cause you lost
time or suffering of your family caused by strikes of another plant.
You make your own rate of dues in the E. C. U. but not in others ;
they tell you what you pay."
The last meeting of the E. C. U., attended by only 6 members, was
held in September 1938, at which time the E. C. U. claimed a mem-
bership of only 277 employees. No dues have been collected since
that time, nor have there since been negotiations of any kind between
the E. C. U. and the respondent.
1310 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
B. Interference, restraint, and coercion
Some of the respondent's employees joined the S. W. O. C. soon
after it started its activities in June 1937. By September 2 a charter
had been issued to Local No. 2026, Amalgamated Association of Iron,
Steel and Tin Workers of North America, which comprised employ-
ees of the respondent. During the summer and fall of 1937 the
respondent displayed its antipathy to the S. W. O. C. through the
statements of several of its supervisory employees.
Hutton told James L. Boyd, an employee and S. W. O. C. member,
that "if the C. I. O. comes in here, if they belong to the C. I.. O.
union, all the sons-of-bitches ought to starve." On another occasion
Hutton told Boyd, without assigning any reason therefor, that if,
the work got slack he would "be the one to be laid off."
At about the same time Carbey, a subforeman, told Hutton in the
presence of several employees that "if the C. I. O. got,in there [the
plant] all the work would be shipped down south-they [the re-
spondent] get the work done down there cheaper."
George Jansen, a foreman, after asking William R. Kemble, an
employee and S. W. O. C. member, how the organizational efforts of
the S. W. O. C. were progressing, told him that "if the C. I. O. came
into the plant we would close down, and when we started up, we
would go back to the old rate." 7
William Key, a foreman, told Stanley Petroski, an employee and
member of both the S. W. O. C. and E. C. U. that "if the C. I. O.
got into the plant" the respondent would shut down part of the
plant. He asserted that he had obtained that information from
King, the respondent's plant superintendent.
On one occasion Parker questioned Gannakos as,to his whereabouts
on a certain evening on which an S. W. O. C. meeting had been held
and asked him whether he belonged to the S. W. O. C.
On October 13, 1937, John Potts, the head of the respondent's
blacksmith shop, told John M. Renshaw, an employee and S. W. O. C.
member, that "unions are no good" and that "Lewis 8 is a radical.
He is a racket . . . What becomes of the dues you pay?"
Some 2 weeks prior to the hearing in this case, James Sozio, a sub-
foreman, having discovered that Louis Renzi, an employee, had been
requested to confer with the Board's attorney regarding this proceed-
ing, told him, "you watch when you go down there what you tell to
the lawyer, because if you say something against the company maybe
they will try to lay you off, Mr. King will try to lay you off. You
tell them you know nothing about it."
' In explanation of the "old rate" referred to, Kemble testified that at the time he was
receiving 44 cents an hour and that he had formerly received 371/2 cents.
s Referring to John L. Lewis, the president of the Congress of Industrial Organizations.
U. S. PIPE & FOUNDRY COMPANY 1311
The evidence that the respondent's supervisory employees made the
foregoing statements is uncontroverted.
On October 6, 1938, after the E. C. U. had become inactive, a meet-
ing was held between S. W: O. C. representatives and Reitinger pur-
suant to a request of the S. W. O. C. At the conference the S. W. O. C.
sought to obtain from the respondent those concessions which had
theretofore been granted by it to the E. C. U., and in particular re=
quested that the respondent either grant it the use of the respondent's
or the E. C. U.'s bulletin board or provide one for the exclusive use of
the S. W. O. C. It also asked for proof of the E. C. U.'s representation
of a majority of the respondent's employees and inquired whether the
respondent would recognize the S. W. O. C. upon presentation of
application cards signed by a majority of the respondent's employees-,
and whether such recognition would be granted by the respondent
upon the S. W. O. C.'s presenting it with an affidavit of majority
representation. At the meeting Reitinger gave the S. W., O., C. no
definite answers to these requests and inquiries, but on October 12,
1938,, he wrote a letter to the S. W. O. C. in which he said : "We .. .
wish to advise that the company takes no position on the question of
who should represent its men; that it is entirely willing to abide by
any decision reached through proper channels ... In view of our
position, as stated above, we are compelled to refuse your request on
the questions involved."
C. Conclusions with respect to the unfair labor practices
From the foregoing it is clear that the respondent fostered and
encouraged the organization and administration of the E. C. U. and
encouraged its employees' membership therein. In contradistinction
to the favorable treatment it accorded the E. C. U., the respondent
discouraged membership in the S. W. O. C., not only by the anti-union
statements of its supervisory employees, including threats of loss of
employment in the event that the S. W. O. C. successfully organized
the employees, but also by the refusal to grant to the S. W. O. C. the
concessions and assistance granted to the E. C. U. By this discrimi-
nation in favor of the E. C. U. the respondent indicated to its em=
ployees its preference for the E. C. U. rather than the S. W. O. C. as
a labor organization representative of its employees-a preference the
indication of which under these circumstances is proscribed by the Act.
We find that by permitting the E. C. U. to conduct its organizational
election and to post notices on the respondent's property, by the acts
of its supervisory employees in encouraging and soliciting member-
ship in the E. C. U. and discouraging membership in and activity on
behalf of the S. W. O. C., by providing the E. C. U. with a bulletin
board and meeting place for its use, by permitting it to solicit member-
1312 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ship, collect dues, and disparage other unions on the respondent's time
and property, and by contracting for exclusive recognition of the
E. C. U. within 10 days of its organization, with but a cursory, if any,
examination of the evidence upon which its claim to majority repre-
sentation was based, withholding from the S. W. 0. C. such conces-
sions as were granted to the E. C. U. although demand therefor was
made, the respondent dominated and interfered with the formation
and administration of the E. C. U. and contributed financial and other
support thereto.
We further find that the respondent, by the foregoing and by the
statements of its supervisory employees discouraging membership in
the S. W. 0. C., 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 re-
spondent described in Section I above, have a close, intimate, and
substantial relation to trade , traffic , and commerce among the sev-
eral States and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and ob-
structing commerce and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that the respondent has engaged in certain unfair
labor practices, we shall order it to cease and desist therefrom. In
addition we shall order the respondent to take certain affirmative
action which we find necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act.
We have found that the respondent dominated and interfered
with the formation and administration of the E. C. U., and con-
tributed financial and other support thereto. In order to effectuate
the policies of the Act we shall order the respondent to withdraw all
recognition from and disestablish the E. C. U. as a 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.
Since the contract of July 30, 1937, was an integral part of the
respondent's unlawful campaign of encouraging and assisting the
E. C. U. and was entered into with an organization dominated by
the respondent, we shall order the respondent to cease and desist from
giving effect to the contract of July 30, as well as any extension, re-
newal, or modification thereof, or supplement thereto, and any super-
seding contract or agreement which may now be in force.
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and upon the entire
record in the case, the Board makes the following:
U. S. PIPE & FOUNDRY COMPANY 1313
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Steel Workers Organizing Committee, for Lodge No. 2026,
Amalgamated Association of Iron, Steel and Tin Workers of North
America, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2
(5) of the Act.
2. Employees Committee Union is a labor organization within
the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
3. The respondent, by dominating and interfering with the forma-
tion and administration of Employees Committee Union and by con-
tributing financial and other support thereto has engaged in and is
engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section
8 (2) of the Act.
4. The respondent, by interfering with, restraining, and coercing
its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed by Section 7
,of the Act, has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices
within the meaning of Section 8 (1) of the Act.
5. 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 Relations
Act, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the
respondent, United States Pipe & Foundry Company, Burlington,
New Jersey, and its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Dominating or interfering with the administration of Em-
ployees Committee Union, or with the formation or administration
of any other labor organization of its employees, and from con-
tributing financial or other support to Employees Committee Union,
or any other labor organization of its employees;
(b) Recognizing Employees Committee Union as the representa-
tive 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;
(c) Giving effect to its contract of July 30, 1937, with Employees
Committee Union, or to any extension, renewal, or modification
thereof, or supplement thereto, or to any superseding contract or
agreement which may now be in force;
(d) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing
its employees in the exercise of the right to self-organization, to
iform, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively
through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in
1314 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other
mutual aid or protection, as guaranteed in Section 7 of the National
Labor Relations Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action, which the Board finds
will effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Withdraw all recognition from Employees Committee Union
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 Employees Committee
„Union as such representative;
(b) Post immediately in conspicuous places at its Burlington,
-New Jersey, plant, and maintain for a period of at least sixty (60)
,consecutive days from the date of posting, notices to its employees
stating: (1) that the respondent will not engage in the conduct from
-which it is ordered to cease and desist in paragraphs 1 (a), (b),;.(sc),,
and (d) of this Order; and (2) that the respondent will taket'he
affirmative action set forth in paragraph 2 (a) of this Order. '''