West Virginia Glass Specialty Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 12, 1942

43 N.L.R.B. 1322 (N.L.R.B. 1942)

In the Matter Of WEST VIRGINIA GLASS SPECIALTY COMPANY , and
AMERICAN FLINT GLASS WORKERS ' UNION OF NORTH AMERICA
(A. F. OF L.)
Case No. C-2177.-Decided September 12,1942
Jurisdiction : glassware manufacturing industry.
Unfair Labor Practices -
Interference, Restraint, and Coercion: hostility to "outside" union and preference
for '"inside" union.
Company-Dominated Union: formation following "outside" union's refusal to
accede to wage reduction and during strike called by such organization ; attempt
to induce return of striking employees by offering to sell them stock ; and sug-
gestion that employees form their own union, in which case they could have
representation on respondent's board of directors-participation in formation
of : assisting in organizational plan of organization and its branches, and
promptly recognizing them without any check or inquiry as to majority repre-
sentation-interference with administration of and contribution of support to:
automatically including all eligible employees as members, checking off dues,
permitting use of company facilities, electing members to board of directors.
Remedial Orders : cease and desist unfair labor practices; dominated organiza-_
tion ordered disestablished ; contracts with dominated,organization abrogated.
Mr. W. G. Stuart Sherman and Mr. T. Lowry Whittaker, for the
Board.
Mr. Herbert M. Blair, of Weston, W. Va., and Mr. William G.
Stathers, of Clarksburg, W. Va., for the respondent.
Mr. John B. Wyatt, of Clarksburg, W. Va., for the Union.
Mr. Robert R. Hendricks, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND '
ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon an amended charge duly filed by American Flint Glass Work-
ers' Union of North America, herein called the Union, the National
Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board, by the Regional Di-
rector for the Sixth Region (Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania), issued- its
complaint dated February 26, 1942, against West Virginia Glass Spe-
cialty Company, Weston, West Virginia, herein called the respondent,
'43 N. L. R. B, No. 206.
1322
WEST VIRGINIA GLASS SPECIALTY COMPANIY 1323
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 Rela-
tions Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein called the Act. Copies of the complaint,
accompanied by notice of hearing, were duly served upon the respond-
ent and the Union, and upon Independent Glass Decorators Union of
West Virginia, herein called the Independent, and, Branch .1 and
Branch 2 thereof.
With respect to the unfair labor practices, the complaint alleged,
in substance, that the respondent:, (1), in and about January and
February 1940, and thereafter until the issuance of the complaint
herein, authorized statements tending to discourage membership and
activities in the Union; (2) in and about March, April, and May 1940
and thereafter, made inquiries of its employees to ascertain whether
they were continuing their affiliation with the Union while it was
engaged in a strike against the respondent; (3) since on or about
February 1940, has dominated and-interfered with'the formation and,
administration of the Independent and Branches 1 and 2 thereof by :
(a) statements and conduct of its officers; (b) posting a notice on
its bulletin board; (c) permitting the circulation of petitions for mem-
bership in the Independent on the respondent's property during work-
ing hours; and (d) approving and entering into working agreements
with the Independent a,nd, with Branches 1 and, 2 thereof and recog-
nizing these organizations as the collective bargaining representatives
of its employees'ui the spring of 1940, when the Union was on strike
against the respondent. The complaint further alleged that, by the
above acts, the respondent interfered with, restrained, and coerced its
employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the
Act.
On March 12, 1942, at the hearing, the respondent filed its answer
admitting that it had approved the agreements, submitted by, and
that it had given . exclusive recognition to, the Independent and
Branches 1 and 2 thereof, but denying that it had engaged in any of the
unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held at Weston, West Virginia,
from March 12 to March 20, 1942, before J. J. Fitzpatrick, the Trial
Examiner duly designated by the Chief Trial Examiner. The Board,
the respondent, and the Union were represented by counsel and par
.ticipated in the hearing; the Independent entered no formal appear-
ance, although officers of the Independent and of Branch 1 thereof
were' present at.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 opening of the hearing,
the respondent filed a "Demand for Disclosures," requesting that, cer-
tain allegations in the complaint be made more definite and certain and
1324 DECISIONS- OF NATIONAL' LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
that the respondent be granted a.continuance for a reasonable time
thereafter. The "Demand for Disclosures" was denied by the Trial
Examiner on the ground that granting the request would, in effect,
require the Board to reveal the evidence it expected to produce, at
the hearing. At the close of the-Board's case, and again at the close
of the hearing, counsel for the Board moved to conform the pleadings
to the proof as to names, dates, and other minor details. 'Both motions
were granted without objection. Rulings on- other motions and on
the admissibility of evidence were made by the Trial Examiner during
the course of the hearing. The Board has reviewed the rulings of the
Trial- Examiner and finds that no prejudicial- error was committed.
The rulings are hereby affirmed. At the conclusion of the hearing,
all parties were afforded an opportunity to argue orally before, and
to file briefs with, the Trial Examiner. No argument was made.
After-the hearing, the respondent filed a brief with the Trial Examiner.
On April 28, 1942, the Trial Examiner issued his Intermediate
Report, copies of which were duly served upon the respondent and the
Union. He found that the respondent had engaged in and was en-
gaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce, within the mean-
ing of Section,8 (1) and (2) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act,
and recommended that the respondent cease and desist therefrom, and
that it withdraw recognition from and disestablish the Independent
and its two branches., The respondent filed its exceptions to the Inter-
mediate Report on May 28,1942, and a brief on May 30, 1942.
Thereafter, pursuant to notice duly served on the parties, a hear-
ing for the purpose of oral argument was held before the Board in
Washington, D. C., on June 16, 1942. The respondent and the Union-
were represented by counsel and participated in the `argument; the
Independent did not appear.
The 'Board has considered the respondent's exceptions and brief
and, insofar as the exceptions are inconsistent with the findings, con-
clusions, and order set forth below, finds them without merit.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
The respondent, West Virginia Glass Specialty Company, is a West
Virginia corporation with its office and plant located near Weston,
West Virginia. It is engaged in the manufacture, sale, and distribu-
tion of pressed and hand-blown glassware, both, decorated and tin-
decorated. The principal materials used by the respondent in the
manufacture of glassware are sand, soda ash, lime, salcineum, arsenic,
salt cake, feldspar, barosil, borax-, and cobalt. During the year 1940,
'WEST VIRGINIA' GLASS -SPECIALTY COMPANY 1325
the respondent purchased. raw materials, for use in the manufacture
of its products, valued at $10,691.86.' Of this amount, $7,843.88 was
expended for raw materials purchased outside the State of West Vir-
ginia.- - During the same period, the respondent, produced finished
glassware valued at $394,331.72, approximately 99 percent of which
was sold to persons and transported to points outside the State of
West Virginia.
II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
American Flint Glass Workers' Union of North America-is a labor
organization affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, admit-
ting to membership employees of the respondent. Skilled workers in
the respondent's decorating department are admitted to membership,
iii Local 76 thereof, skilled workers in the respondent's hot metal
department to Branch 520, and "miscellaneous employees" of the vari-
ous departments in the respondent's plant to Branch 527.
Independent Glass Decorators Union of West'Virginia is an unaffili-
ated labor organization admitting to membership employees of the
respondent. When it was originally formed, only employees in the
respondent's decorating department were admitted to membership.
Thereafter, two branches were formed : Branch 1, which admits to^
membership the skilled workers in the hot metal department, and
Branch 2, which admits to membership "miscellaneous employees" in
various departments.,
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
Interferrevice, restraint, and coercion; domination and support of the
Independent
A. Events 'prior to the wage reduction of March 4, 1940
For several years prior to and until the summer of 1939, the respond-
ent, as a member of the National Association of Manufacturers of
Pressed and Blown Glassware, herein called the Association, recog-
nized the Union as,the collective bargaining agency for its employees
and accepted and paid the wage rates agreed to annually by the
Union and the Association.' In 1938 and 1939, due to adverse market.
conditions and severe foreign and domestic competition, the respond-
ent's business diminished to such an extent that it operated at a loss.
The loss of business was reflected particularly in the stemware section,
in-which work became very irregular. In February and again in April
1939, John C. Weber, Jr., secretary and assistant sales manager of
'At a joint conference at Atlantic City each summer, the Association and the Union
agreed upon uniform wage scales and working conditions for the employees of all members
of the Association . Each agreement became effective the following September 1 and
remained in force until the end of the ensuing August.
1326"J' DECISIONS OF` NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
1 11
the respondent,2 called meetings 'of the skilled stemware workers and
the factory committee of Local 76' of•.the Union and urged them to
accept a flat rate daily wage which, in effect, would have resulted in'
a 20 to 25 percent reduction in the` union rate for that department.
He said that, under such an arrangement, he would be able to guarantee
employees in that department a full week's work,3 but that if the
reduction was rejected the stemware section would have to shut down.
This request for a reduction was rejected on the 'ground that Local 76
could do nothing to change the then prevailing rates established in the
agreement between the Union and the Association.
In the summer of 1939; several months after the 'respondent had
failed in its attempt to induce the stemware' workers to accept a wage
,'reduction, the Union protested to the respondent that John H. Good-
win, a gardener and' general outside utility man, was working occasion-
ally in the factory. Goodwin testified that, in a conversation with him
concerning this protest, John C. Weber, Sr., first vice president and
general manager of the respondent, said, "Well, Popeye,4 you are work
ing for me; you will work wherever I put you; I 'Will bust this damn
union yet." Weber, Sr., testified that he told Goodwin he would have
to "go home" if the Union would not let him work inside. Weber, Sr.,
denied that he, had threatened " to 'break the Union. The Trial
Examiner, who heard and observed the witnesses, was not impressed
with Weber, Sr.'s reliability as a witness. In view . of the Trial
Examiner's appraisal of the credibility of Weber, Sr., as a witness,
and of the other evidence in the record, as hereinafter found, of the
opposition to'the Union of Weber, Sr.; and other officers of the respond-
ent, we find, as did the Trial Examiner, that Weber, Sr., made the
statement attributed to him by Goodwin. ,
At the annual conference between the Association and the Union
in the summer of 1939, Weber, Sr., unsuccessfully urged that the wage
schedule for the ensuing year be revised downward so as to give the
respondent and other manufacturers of -hand-blown glassware relief
from the foreign and domestic competition. The conference rejected
Weber's plea and extended the then existing wage rates for another
year. Thereupon the respondent. resigned from the Association and
Withdrew from the conference.5
Between September 1, 1939, and' January 29, 1940, numerous con-
ferences were held between officials of the respondent and the Union
concerning the wage scale. Th&esp'ondent continued to take the posi-
' John C. Weber, Jr, became sales manager in January 1942 ^Prior'to that time Louie
wohinc was sales manager and John C Weber, Jr, was his assistant
Employment in the stemware department at that time was very unsteady One or 2
days of work per week was the average.
4 Goodwin was known in the plant as "Popeye."
5 The respondent, however, as hereinafter appears, continued' to pay the union wage
rate until the following February. ' + '
WEST, VIRGINIA GLASS, SPECIALTY COMPANY 1327
tion that it could not pay the union wage scale and remain in business.
On January 29, 1940, the respondent wrote M. J. Gillooly, national
president of the Union, that, between January 1 and November 1, 1939,
the respondent had lost $50,000.because of competitive markets; 6 that
the respondent's stockholders and officials working in- the plant had
voluntarily taken a 70 percent cut in their wages; and that it wanted
Gillooly to advise the respondent how it could continue to operate and
pay the union wage scale. 'Receiving no reply, the respondent, on
February 12, 1940, again wrote to Gillooly, stating that the directors
of the respondent had devised a plan whereby "we can continue to
keep our factory going and our employees working." The plan, the
letter stated, provided for a cut of 25 percent in the wages paid in
the decorating department,' a cut of 20 percent- in the wages paid- in
the punch hand-made department, and a cut of 10 percent in the wages
paid to the miscellaneous unskilled workers and in the semi-automatic
paste mould'department. The respondent, in its letter, further stated
that it had lost its entire reserve and that "if you don't want to lose
this factory we advise you to get busy and find some method by which
this cut can be put into effect and thereby retain the men you now
have working in our factory," The letter also announced that the
plan would be submitted to all employees of the respondent and that
the respondent's factory would not operate after 2 weeks from the date
of the letter unless the employees agreed to the wage reduction. On
February 19, 1940, the respondent posted in the plant a notice to its
employees stating that, in attempting to operate under the existing
wage scale, the respondent had suffered severe losses during the pre-
ceding 2 years, and that, in order "to keep our factory" and "remain
in business," a wage cut as above outlined would become effective on
Monday, February 26, 1940.
Between February 19 and 24, 1940, there were a number of con-
ferences between the repondent's officials and the union committee in
an effort to reconcile their differences. On, February 26, as a result
of telephone conversations between President Gillooly of the Union
and the' respondent's officials, the, respondent voluntarily shutdown its
factory for 1 week for the purpose, of attempting to reach an agreement
on the wage dispute. During this week, conferences were held
between the respondent and the Union, but no agreement was reached.
On the evening of March 3, 1940, the day before the scheduled re-
opening of the respondent's plant, the factory committee of Local 76;
consisting of Thomas H. Armstrong, Clyde Dutton, Wilbur Jakeway,
and other employees, met with Weber, Sr., Weber, Jr., and John Pertz,
the respondent's assistant general manager, and announced that the
6 The respondent's records show an operating gain of $5,796 46 in 1937, an operating
loss of $16,550 32 in 1938, an operating loss of $43,476 73 in 1939, and an operating gain
of $8,257 .14 in 1940..
1328 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS' BOARD,
Local would not accept the proposed wage reduction. Jakeway
testified that Weber, Sr., then said, "I am getting good and tired' of
having the Flint 7 run my business ... why don't you guys get next
to yourselves . . . [and] form a union of your own." Weber, Sr.,_
'testified Jakeway, then- announced that the plant would be reopened
the next morning with the reduced wage rates, and added, "You would
be surprised how many we are going to get, how many have told me
they are going to start to work." Dutton, whose testimony in part
corroborated that of Jakeway, testified, in addition, that Weber, Sr.,
also said, in connection with the suggestion that the employees. form
their own union, than the employees could purchase shares of stock
and have a representative on the respondent's board of director's.
Jakeway, however, could not recall at the hearing whether Weber, Sr.,
had offered any "stock proposition" at the meeting of March 3, 1940:
He did testify, however, that Weber, Jr., had suggested a stock pur-
chase proposition at a conference previously held in August 1939,
and, as hereinafter appears, that sale of stock was offered at a subse-
quent meeting held on March 27, 1940. Armstrong, the spokesman
for Local 76, testified that nothing was said at the March'3 conference,
as he recalled, concerning the Union or the, formation of a new union.
He did testify, however, that at a subsequent conference on March 23,
1940, which is more fully described below, one of the Webers offered'
a stock purchase proposition, suggested the formation of an "inside"
union, and offered to allow the employees to have "one director to sit
at .their meetings." 8 The Webers and Pertz denied that the Union
was disparaged at the March 3 conference, or that any statements were
made concerning the formation of a new union, the sale of stock, or
employee representation on the respondent's board of directors.
Later the same evening, March 3, committees representing Branches
520 and 527 of the Union met with Weber, Sr., and informed him that
the skilled hot metal employees and the miscellaneous employees would
not accept the proposed wage reduction. According to Adrian Weibel,
Chairman of Branch 520, Weber, Sr., then announced that the respond-
ent could not meet its pay roll under the union wage schedule; that,
if the plant remained closed, it would work a hardship on the em-
ployees; that he was going to reopen the plant without delay; and that,
if the employees would come back to work, they could have their own
union, but not the "Flint," and that "we would get along like a big
family." Weibel further testified that Weber, Sr., stated that "if
they could not get ... [the plant] started any other way ... they
would sell stock and try to start a cooperative plant there." Willard
7 The Umon is frequently referred to in the record as the "Flint" or "Flints
s Armstrong also testified, as hereinafter appears, that sale of stock was offered at a
,subsequent conference between representatives of the respondent and Local 76, held on
March 27
WEST VIRGINIA GLASS SPECIALTY COMPANY 132'
Lough, a member of the committee from Branch 527, testified that, at
this meeting, Weber, Sr., said to the committees, "Well, why do you
want to go up along the road and picket? The Union will not take
care of you." Lough's testimony generally corroborated that of
Weibel, except that he did not recall any mention at that meeting, of a
cooperative plant. Weber, Sr., denied having made the statements
attributed to him by Weibel and Lough., In this he was corroborated
by Edgar Simons, Chairman of Branch 527, who was present at the
March 3 meeting and who testified on behalf of the respondent.9
In his findings as to the first of the two meetings on the evening of
March 3, 1940, the Trial Examiner credited the testimony of Jake-
way and Dutton and found that Weber, Sr., had made the statements
attributed to him by them; as to the second of the two meetings that
evening, the Trial Examiner similarly found that Weber, Sr., had
made'the statements attributed to him by Weibel and Lough. The
respondent contends that the Trial Examiner's resolution of the con-
flicting testimony as to what Weber, Sr., said at these meetings of
March 3, 1940, is without foundation. But the record shows that,
following the meetings of March 3 and ' as more fully described
below, some of the respondent's stock was in fact sold or given to
several employees who returned to work while a strike called by the
Union was, in -progress; that an "inside',! union was in fact estab-
lished ; and that representation on the respondent's board of direc-
tors was in fact given to employees who returned to work. The
respondent also contends that Jakeway, Dutton, Weibel, and Lough
are to some extent at variance with each other in their testimony as
to the statements made by Weber, Sr., at the meetings of March 3,
1940, and that their testimony is, therefore, not entitled to credence.lo
In view of the numerous meetings of the local union' representatives
with officers of the respondent in 1939 and 1940, some inconsistency
and lack of agreement as to what occurred at any particular meeting
are understandable.
The respondent also points to the fact that Dutton, one of the wit-
nesses called by the Board, in testifying at a hearing in 1940 before
an examiner of the Board of Review of the West Virginia Unemploy-
ment Compensation Commission, said nothing about Weber, Sr.'s
9 Simons, who had been employed by the respondent as a miscellaneous worker, admitted
on cross-examination that he had been denied •"a skilled card and $11 a week strike benefits
on the picket line" by the Union on the ground that he had not had enough "skilled experi-
ence." He further admitted that he had returned to work for the respondent several months
after the strike described below , as a skilled worker.
19 This same contention is made by the, respondent with respect to. the testimony of
certain Board witnesses , including Armstrong , Dutton, and Takeway, regarding subsequent
conferences on March 23 and 27, hereinafter more fully discussed. For the reasons above
stated, we find the contention to be without merit. The testimony of the Board's witnesses
regarding the statements made by the respondent 's officials at the meetings of March
3, 23, and 27 , shows no major variance , as a whole.
4810 39-42-vol 43-84
1330, DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
having evinced" hostility toward the Union and having suggested the
formation of an "inside" union at the first meeting on March 3,
1940. Dutton testified in the present proceeding that he had not
thought "it was necessary" to include such testimony at the State
hearing. It appears that the State hearing was - held for the 'pur-
pose of determining whether the respondent's striking employees were
eligible for State unemployment compensation benefits, and that the
issue involved in the State proceeding was whether the unemployment
of the employees in question had "resulted from a "labor dispute" or
,strike" Since that was the only issue before the State Board- of
Review, Dutton's failure to testify there as to the statements which
he testified in the present proceeding were made by Weber, Sr., on
March 3, 1940, does not in our opinion reflect upon the credibility of
his present testimony.
In view of the considerations above stated and of the Trial Exam-
iner's appraisal of the credibility of the witnesses in question, we'
find, as did -the Trial Examiner, that Weber, Sr., on March 3, 1940,
made the statements attributed to him by Jakeway, Dutton, Weibel,
and Lough.
B. The-wage reduction, the strike, and the "working agreement" of
March 13, 1940
On March 4, 1940, the respondent reopened its plant at the reduced
wage scale. The Union immediately called a strike and, placed a
picket line around the plant. However, some 15 or 20 of the em-
ployees in the decorating department,12 including Frank Coslick,13
returned to work under the reduced wage scale.
During the period immediately following the beginning of the
strike, a group of employees in the hot metal department, led by
Victor Melphis, discussed among themselves, according to Melphis,
the advisability of returning to work at the reduced rate. Some-
time prior to March 12, 1940, Melphis, a personal friend of Weber,
Jr., told the latter that the, hot metal department group, which' nun
bered 10 or 11 employees, were considering returning to work.'4 On
the afternoon of March 12, a "Workers' Agreement" which, accord-
ing to Melphis, had been drawn up by the group, was given to Weber,
11 The West Virginia Unemployment Compensation Law provided that no individual was
eligible for unemployment ' compensation benefits during any week in which his unemploy-
ment was due to a stoppage of work caused by a labor dispute west Virginia Code, Chap
21-A, Art. VI, Sec 4.
11 Prior to March 4, 1940 , there had been 30 to 35 employees in the decorating department.
All were members of the Union
13 Coslick , as hereinafter appears, was the leader of the movement to organize and
establish the Independent.
14 Melphis testified that he and two others had been appointed a committee by the- above
group of hot metal workers with full power to act for the group
WEST VIRGINIA GLASS - SPECIALTY ; COMPANiY 1331
Jr., by Melphis with the request that Weber, Jr., have copies of it
made and- that he arrange a meeting of the respondent's board of
directors the next clay for the purpose of accepting or rejecting the
agreement. On the evening of March 12, Weber, Jr., went to the
home of Melphis with typewritten copies of the proposed agreement'
in which he had made certain minor changes. The form of agree-
ment finally agreed upon that evening between Melphis and Weber,
Jr., provided for a wage schedule substantially the same as the
one set forth in the respondent's notice of February 19, 1940; for
attendance at all meetings of the respondent's board of directors of
a representative of the employees; for a "workers' committee"' to
investigate controversies arising out of the agreement and to pass
on applications for employment; and for a grievance procedure. It also
stated that the employees "shall have the right to join or form a
union of their own." On March 13, 1940, the respondent's board of
directors met and agreed to accept the working agreement. On the
same day, a copy of it was posted in the decorating department.
On March 19,1940, the respondent sold one share of its capital stock
to each of 11,union members who had agreed to return to work under
the above-mentioned working agreement. No down payment for the
stock was required, and the respondent gave each of the employees a
year to pay for his share.' 6 Weber, Sr., admitted that, at the time the
stock was sold to these employees, they told the respondent that "they
were going to cooperate 100 percent so that we could build the stem-
ware department up again." Melphis testified without contradiction,
and we find, that he did not return to work until, March 23 and that,
"when we [the group" of returning hot metal department employees]
went in there to work we were pretty near all stockholders."
Following his return to work, in late March or early May 1940,
Clarence Tawney, one of the hot metal department employees who had
acquired a share of stock on March 19, became the first employee repre-
sentative on • the respondent's - board of directors. According to
Melphis, Tawney served in this capacity until the end of 1941.16
During the Month of March 1940, numerous further and "unsuccess-
ful conferences were held between representatives of the Union and
the respondent in an effort to settle the strike. One of these meetings,
arranged through the efforts of the Chamber of Commerce of Weston,
was held on March 23. Weber, Sr., Weber, Jr., August Weber, the
15 The price quoted was $100 per share , but little , if anything, was paid thereon. None
of the stock was ever paid ' for in full . The following December, as a "bonus " for each
of the above individuals still in its employ, the 'respondent canceled the balance due on
the stock.
is As hereinafter appears, Tawney, Dennis Leioy, and Melphis, all members of the return-
ing hot metal department group, were sold a second share of the respondent 's stock on
November 19, 1941. ' Each , year thereafter , two of them were "elected 'by,the stockholders"
to the respondent 's board of directors as employee representatives.
1
I
1332 DECISIONS, OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
respondent's second vice president, and John Pertz represented, the
respondent, while Local 76 was represented by Armstrong, Dutton,
and another union member. According to Dutton, whose testimony
was generally corroborated by Armstrong, Weber, Jr., sought to
induce the return of the striking employees by offering to sell them
stock for which they would have a year to pay, and also suggested that
the employees form their own union, in which case they could have rep-
resentation on the respondent's board of directors. Weber, Jr., denied
that he had made these statements. In this he was corroborated by, the
other Webers and Pertz. Other than denying that Weber, Jr., had
made the statements attributed to him by Dutton and Armstrong, how-
ever, none of the respondent's representatives who were present at the
meeting of March 23 undertook to testify at the hearing as to what
actually did take place at the meeting. A few days later, on the
morning of March 27, another meeting was held at the respondent's
plant.' Louie Wohinc, president and general sales manager of the
respondent, the three Webers, Pertz, and a number of the respondent's
stockholders represented the respondent. Armstrong, Dutton, and
Jakeway represented Local 76. Wohinc, who presided over the meet-
ing, commented on the losses suffered by the respondent and its inability
to meet the union wage scale. He suggested to the committee that the
Union deposit $50,000 in a local bank, and stated that, if this was done,
the respondent would pay the full union wage rate, but that the losses,
,if any, sustained by the respondent as a result, would be deducted
from the $50,000. Wohinc also offered to call a stockholders' meeting
and sell the factory to the Union. The union representatives rejected
both proposals on the ground that Local 76 had no authority to speak
for its national organization, and suggested that the respondent take
up the matter of the loan with the national officers of the Union.
Dutton testified, and Wohinc did not specifically deny, that the latter
during the conference stated that the Union "never did do any good for
the men." Armstrong, Dutton, and Jakeway all testified that the
respondent at the meeting of March 27 again offered to sell some of '
its stock to employees ; this was denied by witnesses for the respondent.
The Trial Examiner ha's credited' the testimony of Dutton, Arm-
strong, and Jakeway as to what took place at the'meetings of March 23
and March 27, 1940. -In view of the Trial Examiner's appraisal of the
witnesses, the similarity between the position taken by the respondent's
representatives at the meeting of March 3 and the position-they are
said to have taken at the meetings of March 23 and March 27, and
the fact that the respondent did in fact "sell" some of its stock on March
19 to returning employees and did in fact grant representation on' its
board of directors to returning employees, we find, as did'the Trial
Examiner, that officers of the respondent, at the meetings of :March
WEST VIRGINIA 'GLASS ' SPECIALTY' COMPANY • c 1333
,23 and 27, 1940, made the statements attributed to them by Armstrong.
Dutton, and Jakeway.17
The respondent's plant was again closed down on March .28, 1940,
except- for the decorating department which continued in operation.
The plant was reopened on May 15, 1940, and has since continued to
operate, although,at the time of the hearing herein the Union had not
yet terminated its strike.
• r
Formation and recognition of the, Independent ; other events
During the latter part of March 1940, the 15 or 20 employees in the
decorating department who had returned to work discussed among,
themselves, according to Frank Coslick, the advisability of organizing.
Coslick was the leader of this movement. As a result- of conversations
with Weber, Jr., and Foreman Erbe during the year prior to the strike,
Coslick had become convinced, he testified, that a downward revision
of the union wage scale was necessary. Since the Union refused to
consider any reduction in the wage scale, he proposed to his fellow
employees, in the decorating department that they, affiliate with some
established independent union or organize a new union of their own.
Following an unsuccessful attempt early in April 1940 to affiliate with a
labor organization at the Louie Glass Company plant in Weston,18
known as the Progressive Union, Coslick decided to organize an inde-
pendent organization. At a meeting of the employees of the decorat-
ing department a day or two later, Coslick presided and was appointed
a member of a committee which was instructed to prepare a working
agreement- between the proposed independent organization and the
respondent. Upon completion of a rough draft, the committee retained
a local lawyer who put the proposed agreement in legal form. On or
about April 6, 1940, Coslick presented this agreement to Weber, Jr.,
stating that the new organization represented all the skilled decorators
who were then working. Neither then nor afterwards did-the respond-
ent request any proof of the organization's representation among the
decorators. A day or two thereafter, Weber, Jr., after making some
minor changes and additions in the proposed agreement, returned it
to Coslick. Sometime between April 15 and April 25, the agreement, as
thus changed, was approved at a membership meeting of the organiza-
17 As in the case of Dutton's testimony with respect to the meeting of March 3 , '1940,
the respondent ;attacks Armstrong 's and Dutton 's testimony with respect- to the meetings
of March 23 and March 27, 1940, on the ground that both these men testified as to these
meetings in a hearing held in 1940 before the West Virginia Unemployment Compensation
Commission without mentioning the facts to which they testified in the present proceeding.
For the reasons stated in our discussion above, of Dutton's testimony as,to the meeting
of March 3 , we find that Armstrong 's and Dutton's failure to state these facts in their
testimony at the State hearing does not reflect upon the credibility of their testimony
in the present proceeding. '
1s The Louie Glass Company was, apparently , controlled by Louie Wohinc, president of
the respondent . It operated under a wage scale below that of the Union.'
1334 DECISIONS OF. NATIONAL 'LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
tion.19 On April 23, a certificate of incorporation was issued by the
State of West Virginia to the Independent Glass Decorators Union
of West Virginia, the new organization . On April 29, the Independent
advised the respondent that its members had approved the revised
working. agreement , and asked the respondent to recognize •it^as the
representative of the employees in the decorating department.20 Recog-
nition ^ was granted by the respondent, in writing, on the same day.
Beginning in May 1940, the respondent, at the request of Coslick, de-
ducted monthly dues and a 1 percent sick-benefit assessment from the
wages of the employees in the decorating'department.21 On May 1,
1940, the Independent wrote to a national representative of the Union,
advising the Union of the incorporation of the Independent, and of
its recognition by the respondent as the sole collective bargaining rep-
resentative for the decorating department employees. The letter
concluded : "We bring this to your attention and request the American
Flint Glassworkers Union of North America and their members to
refrain from any activity that may be discriminating or detrimental
to our organization." 22 -,
Robert A. McCray, was one of the few union members in good stand-
ing working for the respondent, in March and April 1940. He testified
at the hearing that, towards-the end of March or early in April, when
the Independent was in process of formation, Weber, Sr., asked' him
to join the Independent and subsequently invited him to come to the
office and "talk it over." McCray refused to do either. Weber, Sr.,
denied ever having talked to McCray about the, latter's joining the
Independent. In view, however, of Webers unreliability as a witness
and of the manner in which he urged the formation of an "inside"
union, we do not credit his denial, but find, as did the Trial Examiner,
that Weber made the statements attributed to him by McCray.23
About the end of May 1940, after the plant had resumed operations,
Victor Melphis, Clarence Tawney, and Nick Leroy 24 arranged a meet-
19 The working agreement provided , among , other things , that : ( a) no employees should
be hired or discharged unless approved by the management and shop committee , except
that the management could discharge for cause ; (b) the decorating department would be
operated' on an equal -division -of-time basis , but only as - among members of the organiza-
tion; ( c) after a probationary period, new employees were to be accepted as members by
the organization ; (d) grievances were to be referred to the management and shop com-
mittee for settlement , and, if no satisfactory agreement was reached by them, were to be
"referred to the Local Union for discussion ." The working agreement contained no wage
schedule.
20 Originally , only employees in the decorating department were eligible for membership,
in the Independent
21 The Independent discontinued the 1 percent assessment after February 1941. -
22 The Union was then on strike.
23 McCray, a night watchman , was not then eligible for membership in the` Independent,
but there is no showing in the record that Weber , Sr., was aware of that fact.
24 At the time the group of employees in the hot metal department , headed by Melphis,
first returned to work on or about March 23, under the reduced wage scale , they appointed
a committee consisting of Meiphis , Tawney, and Nick Leroy with "full power to organize
things, contact the Company , and report to them every once in a while at a meeting
Melphis testified that "the function of this little committee * * * was to cooperate
with the Company , also in the selection of new employees."
WEST VIRGINIA GLASS SPECIALTY COMPANY 1335
ing of the skilled employees then working in the hot metal department.
• At this meeting , which was held in the plant and, was attended by
about 20 employees , it was voted to affiliate with the Independent.
Another committee , including Melphis, Tawney, and Nick Leroy, was
:selected- at-this 'meeting to arrange the details. This conimittee,.meet-
ing at the homes of Melphis and other employees , prepared bylaws of
the proposed organization , using the working agreement of March 13,
1940, and the bylaws of the Uhion as a basis . On June 4, 1940, the
committee` representilig the hot metal department employees applied
for admission into the Independent . , On June 17, the Independent
accepted the application and designated the skilled workers in the hot
metal department as Branch 1 of the Independent . Coslick, to whom
the application for affiliation was first directed, admitted that neither
he nor the other members of the Independent knew how many members
the hot metal department group claimed or what the object or purpose
of their organization was. He testified that the members of the Inde-
pendent simply thought it "was -okay to take them in." On June 17,
Melphis went to the office of Weber , Jr., during working hours, and
gave him a typewritten copy of the bylaws of Branch 1 and a written
request, signed by the committee of Branch 1 and by Frank Coslick,
president of the Independent, for recognition by the respondent of
Branch 1.' Within a day or two thereafter , the respondent formally
recognized Branch 1 as the exclusive bargaining agency for its em-
ployees in the hot metal department , and agreed that the bylaws of
Branch 1 would constitute the working agreement between Branch I
and the respondent . 25 The respondent made no request for a showing
of application cards or other evidence of the claimed-membership of
Branch 1. Nevertheless , the respondent , at the request of Melphis;
immediately instituted a check-off each pay day of one-half of one
percent of the wages of the members of Branch 1, as provided in the
bylaws. After it had secured recognition from the respondent , Branch
1 held a ,meeting in the respondent 's.plant at '-which'officers were elected.-
Sometime after May 15, 1940, a group of women among the mis-
cellaneous employees in the respondent's plant, including Alice M'.
Smith, discussed among themselves , informally , the question of or-
ganizilig the miscellaneous employees . On May 22, after working
hours, a meeting , attended by, practically all the 50-odd miscellaneous
employees, was held in the finishing department . The meeting was
called by word of mouth during and after working hours. Mrs. Smith,
who was elected president of the meeting, appointed an organizing cbm-
mittee which later conferred with a. local attorney and outlined their
25 These bylaws, so far as material here, followed generally the provisions of the working
agreement with the Independent; except that seniority was 'to prevail during slack periods
instead of equal division of work, and that there were no provisions' for the handling
of grievances or for the acceptance of new employees.
1336 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
objectives to him. The next day; May 23, during working hours, Smith
secured from Frank Coslick a printed copy of the Independent's work-,
ing agreement with the respondent. Using it as a model, she prepared
a rough draft of a working agreement for the miscellaneous employees,
which she submitted that same evening to the attorney for redrafting
into legal form. About 3 days after Smith had received the final draft
of the proposed 'agreement from,the attorney, she presented it, to
Weber, Jr.26 She told him that the miscellaneous employees had
decided to organize, and requested that the respondent accept the
agreement on their behalf. Weber, Jr., took the agreement, saying,
""It is a very good idea." 27 Neither then nor later did the respondent
,request proof of the new organization's membership. Sometime, prior
to June 29, Smith presented to the Independent 2 petitions, signed by
63 miscellaneous employees of the respondent, asking leave to, become
a branch of the Independent. Coslick, president of the Independent,
admitted that, no membership cards or other authorizations were pre-
sented by Smith, and that the Independent was not advised of the
nature of the miscellaneous employees' working agreement or bylaws.
At the next meeting of the Independent, acceptance of the application
was voted, and on June 29 the miscellaneous employees were formally
notified by the Independent that they had been accepted into the Inde-
pendent and would be known as Branch 2 thereof. On August 16,
Branch 2 was formally notified by the respondent of its recognition
as the sole `collective bargaining agency for the respondent's mis-
cellaneous employees 28 Shortly thereafter, at the request of Branch 2,
the respondent began checking off 1 percent from the salaries of all
miscellaneous employees who were members of Branch 2; the check-off
continued until the date of the hearing herein.
The working agreements of the Independent and of Branch 2 re-
quired them to accept as members all eligible new employees who
completed a probationary period with the respondent. No such pro-
vision appears I in the working 'agreement of Branch 1, but the record
,is clear that all new employees who were eligible automatically became
members of the Independent or one of its branches after serving the
required probationary period .211
Other incidents, which occurred during and after the formation and
recognition of the Independent and its branches, tend to throw further
m The record does not disclose on what date Smith presented the working agreement to
Weber, Jr., but it is clear that it was sometime in June 1940.
17 This agreement followed generally the terms of the working agreement of the Inde-
pendent for the decorating department employees, including the provision for the handling
of grievances and the acceptance , as members , of eligible new employees who had served
the probationary period.
28The record shows that recognition was granted as to the miscellaneous employees in
the hot metal and finishing room departments.
At the time of the , hearing, according to Weber , Jr., the Independent and Branch 1
and Branch 2 thereof included in their membership all the employees of the respondent,
except supervisory , clerical , and maintenance employees.
WEST VIRGINIA GLASS SPECIALTY COMPANY 1337
light on the respondent's attitude toward the Union and the Independ-
ent. On or about May 1, 1940, Clyde Dutton, George Pettit, and
another employee, all of whom were on strike, returned to the respond-
ent's plant for Pettit's.tools. Dutton testified that, while they were in
the plant, both Weber, Sr., and Weber, Jr., told Pettit and himself
that they were foolish not to return to work, form their own union,
and have a representative on the respondent's board of directors.
Dutton also testified that, when.he and Pettit answered by saying that
they were members of the Union, the two Webers retorted that the
Union had never done anything for the men.. Neither of the Webers
recalled the conversation, and both denied having made the,statements
attributed to them by Dutton. In view of the fact that the employees
in the respondent's decorating department were then organizing the
Independent and were thereafter given representation on the respond-
ent's board of directors, and in view of the respondent's opposition to
the Union, we do not credit the denials of the Webers, but find, as did
the Trial Examiner, that they urged Dutton and Pettit to abandon
the strike, return to work, and form a new union in the plant.
In Jufie 1940, Weber, Jr., went to the home of Gottfried Weinberger,
the respondent's only mold maker. Weinberger- had not worked since
the strike. Weinberger testified that Weber, Jr., asked him at that,
time to return to work at his old' wages and, when Weinberger said
that he would lose his union card if he did, replied, "We have nine
shops going around there ; everything is running good and we have
our own union." Weber, Jr., admitted going to Weinberger's home,
but testified that he went there to find out if Weinberger would con-
tract to make molds for the respondent. He denied, however, having
made the statements attributed to him by Weinberger. Later, in
November 1940, Weber, Sr., visited Weinberger at his home to find
out .from Weinberger the location of an old waterline. Weinberger
testified that, during the course of their conversation, Weber, Sr.,
asked him if he wanted to work and offered him his old fob at the
plant, adding, "We have our own union there." Weber, Sr., recalled
the occasion, but testified that he had offered Weinberger nothing
other than assistance in finding a location for a proposed mold shop.
He denied the statements attributed to him by Weinberger. The Trial
Examiner did not credit the denials of the Webers, nor do'we'. We
find that, in June and November 1940, respectively, Weber, Jr., and
Weber, Sr., made the statements attributed to them by Weinberger.
In the summer and fall of 1940, the Independent held picnics at the
country home of Mrs . Anna Kraus, the respondent's, office manager,
and at _ a ' picnic grove near Weston. On both these occasions, the
respondent permitted the use of its truck for the transportation to the
picnics of benches and tables owned by it. These picnics were attended
1338 DECISIONS ^ OF, NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS' BOARD
by a number of the respondent 's officials and their families,, and
Weber , Jr., made a speech at one of them . Later in the fall of the
-same year, Branch 2 of the' Independent held" an outing which was
,also attended by some of the respondent 's officials. Weber, Jr., ordered
a round of drinks for those present at the outing , the bill for which,
amounting to about $11 , was later paid by an unidentified person in
the respondent 's office. -
Clyde Dutton testified that, about , January 1 , 1942, while he was-
on picket duty at the -entrance to the respondent 's plant, someone on
the picket line called to Weber, Sr .; as he came out of the plant and
,inquired how he was getting along ,_ and that Weber, Sr., responded,
"Our union 'is getting along nice ; we don't have any quarreling or any-'
thing." William Green, who was also on-the picket line at the time,
corroborated . Dutton. Weber, Sr., denied having made this state-
ment. In "view of Weber's unreliability as a witness , we find, as did the
Trial Examiner, that Weber, Sr., on this occasion made the statement
attributed to,him by Dutton and Green.
On November 19, 1940 , Clarence Tawney, Dennis Leroy, and Victor
Melphis; employees in the hot metal department , each purchased an
additional share of the respondent 's stock for $69.73. None of these
.employees had at the time paid in full for,, the share of stock bought by
him in March 1940, just prior to their return to work at the respond-
,ent's reduced wage scale. Subsequent to their second purchase of
stock, in November , Tawney, Leroy, and Melphis were elected to the
respondent 's board of directors.
D. Conclusions
The-facts found above plainly show'that the respondent; in 'order
to rid itself of the Union, encouraged the formation of, and dominated,
interfered with, and supported the Independent and its branches.
The respondent was losing money in 1938 and, 1939. It sought for
months to obtain the Union's consent to a reduction of the wage scale.
Not succeeding in this, it decided to rid itself of the Union by the
simple device of sponsoring a union inside the plant. The respondent,
through its managing officials, made known to-the employees its hos-
tility to the Union and its preference for an "inside" union. This was
particularly true of the statements made by General Manager Weber,
Sr. As above found, Weber, Sr., told Goodwin as early as the summer
of 1939 that "he would "break this damn union yet." On March 3,,1940,
in talking to Armstrong, Dutton, Jakeway; Weibel, Lough, and other
employees, he criticized the Union and urged the formation of an
"inside" union. He promised to sell the employees stock and to, give
them representation on the respondent's board of directors if they
formed an "inside" union. A similar-promise was made to employees
WEST -VhRGINIA GLASS;'SPECIALTY.,COMPANY, 1339
by Weber, Jr., the respondent's secretary and assistant sales manager.
.President Wohinc and Weber, Jr., also criticized the Union to em-
ployees. By assisting 'in the preparation of, and entering into, the
working agreement of March 13, 1940,- with -Victor Melphis- and the
10 other employees in the hot metal department, and by promptly post-
ing a copy of the agreement in the plant, the respondent laid the foun-,
-dation for an "inside" union. By selling this group of employees stock
on March 19, for which it never required full payment; by assisting in
the organizational plan of the Independent and its branches; 30 and
by promptly recognizing and accepting the plan of each' as its work-
ing agreement, without any check or inquiry as to majority representa-
tion, -the respondent supported and interfered with the formation- of
the Independent and its branches. By automatically including-all
eligible employees as members, by checking off dues, by permitting
use of company facilities, and by electing Independent members to its
board of clirectors under the circumstances found above, the respond-
ent interfered with the administration of, and contributed support to,
the Independent and its branches.
We find,. as did the Trial Examiner,, that the re: pondent, by the
above-described course of conduct, dominated and ini erfered with the
formation and administration of, and contributed support to, Inde-
pendent Glass Decorators Union of West-Virginia, and Branch 1 and
Branch 2 thereof. By thus dominating, interfering with, and sup-
porting the Independent and its branches, and by the above-described
anti-union conduct and statements of its officers, the. respondent inter-
fered 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 respondent
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 prac-
tices, we shall order it to cease and desist therefrom and to -take certain
affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act and'
to restore as nearly as possible the conditions which, existed prior to
the commission of the unfair labor practices.-
so Matter of Delaware -New Jersey Ferry Company and United Marine Division, Local
No 333, affiliated with the A. ,P L and the I. L. A., 30 N L. R. B. 820 -
A340 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
We have found that the respondent dominated and interfered with
the formation and administration of, and contributed support to, the
Independent and Branches 1 and 2 thereof.' In order to effectuate
the polieies of the Act, we shall order the respondent to withdraw all
recognition from the Independent, and from Branches 1 and 2 thereof,
as the representatives of its employees for the purpose of dealing with
the respondent concerning grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of
pay, hours of employment, and other conditions of employment, and
completely to disestablish the Independent, and Branches 1 and 2
thereof, as such representatives.
We have found that the respondent, iii 1940, entered into working
agreements with the Independent and with Branches 1 and 2 thereof.
These agreements were part of, and tend to perpetuate the effects of,
the respondent's unfair labor practices. We. shall therefore order the
respondent to cease and desist from giving effect to these agreements,
or to any extensions , renewals , modifications, or supplements thereof, or
to any superseding contracts which may now be in force, relating to
rates of pay,, wages, hours of employment, and other conditions of
employment. Nothing in our Order shall be taken, however, to require
the respondent to vary or abandon the wage, hour, or other-substantive
features of its relations 'with the employees which the respondent has
established in performance of the agreements or any extensions, re-
newals, modifications, or supplements thereof.
Upoxrthe basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire
record in the case, the Board makes the following :
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. American Flint Glass Workers' Union of North America and
Local 76 and Branches 520 and 527 thereof, affiliated with the Ameri-
can Federation of Labor, and Independent Glass Decorators Union
of West Virginia and Branches 1 and 2 thereof, are labor organizations,
within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
2. By dominating and interfering with the formation and adminis-
tration of Independent Glass Decorators Union of West Virginia,
and Branches 1 and 2, thereof, and by contributing support thereto, the.
respondent has engaged in and 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 meaning 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.
WEST VIRGINIA GLASS SPECIALTY COMPANY 1341
ORDER
Upon the basis of the foregoing 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, West Virginia Glass Specialty Company, Weston, West
Virginia, and its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Dominating or interfering with the administration of Inde-
pendent Glass Decorators Union of West Virginia or Branches 1 and 2
thereof,`or with the formation or administration of any other labor
organization of its employees, and from contributing, support to Inde-
pendent Glass Decorators Union of West Virginia or Branches 1 and 2
thereof, or to any other labor organization of its employees;
(b) Recognizing Independent Glass Decorators Union of West Vir-
ginia and Branches 1 and 2 thereof as the representatives of any of its
employees for the purpose of dealing with the respondent concerning
grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employment,
and other conditions of employment;
(c) Giving effect to the working agreements entered into in 1940
with Independent Glass Decorators Union of West Virginia, and
with Branches 1 and 2 thereof, or to any extensions, modifications, or
supplements thereof, or to any superseding contracts or agreements
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 form,
join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through repre-
sentatives of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted activities
for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid and 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 Independent Glass Decorators
Union of West*Virginia, and from Branches 1 and 2 thereof, as the
representatives of any of its employees for the purpose of dealing with
the respondent concerning grievances, labor disputes, rates of pay;
wages, hours of employment, and other conditions of employment, and
completely disestablish Independent Glass Decorators Union of West
Virginia, and Branches 1 and 2 thereof, as such representatives;
(b) Post immediately in conspicuous places in its plant at Weston,
West Virginia, and maintain for a period of not less than sixty (60)
consecutive days from the date of posting, notices to its employees stat-
ing: (1) that the respondent will not engage in the conduct from which
it is ordered to cease and desist in paragraphs 1 (a), (b), (c), and (d)
1342 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL' LABOR RELATIONS BOARD ,
of this Order; and (2) that the respondent will take the affirmative
action set forth in _paragraph 2 (a) of this Order;
(c) Notify the Regional Director for the Sixth Region in writing
within ten ( 10) days from the date of this Order what steps the
respondent has taken to-comply herewith.
O
C'
l