# Appendix — Western Cartridge Co. v. National Labor Relations Board > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA34086415_1670%3A10 ## Record - **Collection:** Supreme Court brief - **Document type:** Appendix - **Published:** January 1, 1943 - **Citation:** 320 U.S. 746 ## Text INDEX. Answer of National Labor Relations Board and Re- quest for Enforcement in 8142.................... Answer of National Labor Relations Board in 8155... Appearances Exhibit 3-A Exhibit : Exhibit 3-C Exhibit ¢ Exhibit 3-K exhibit 5-F Exhibit ¢ Exhibit 3-H Exhibit ¢ exhibit ¢ Exhibit ¢ Exhibit : Exhibit & Kxhibit 11 Exhibit 13 Exhibit 21 Exhibit 23 exhibit Board Board Board Board Board Board Board Board Board Board Board Board Board Board Board Board Board Board Olds, Fred Hopper, Earl Rela te eis 5 yu avd woe kk es Carroll, Robert SS Ge OR, C0 Se 88 EE ee eee eS Se AD ON ee Bunzy, Francis .......00: secre ccceeeecccerscccens Jones, Lowell .........c.seeeeeecereeserecceccesess Chapman, Jay Du... 2... cc cece seer er neerenccerees Frisson, Blanche .........seeesesreeseseeeeeeeeeese Po | ewe rere ere Or Gent, Jr., William...........seecceeeereeveceenens Wilkt,. Jolin Bon ccc ec cc cde reese veeeceeer eens nes Chapman, Jady B.......--.00ecceser cece ese ceeeeees Meisenheimer, Chris ......--...seeeee reece eee eees Billiott, William .......-.5-ccercecceneceenvocsncnss Clark, Raymond ....... ccc ccc yerccrec cence esreres ne Se) See ee eo eee Ee hae ee dd McPherson, Bllis ..........--ee eee rreeeeeeed has Womack, Charles .......--ccceecereerecesereeeees Weishaupt, Elden ........... eee eee ee erect eeerees Witnesses ror RESPONDENT. aAb, CU ae Ao oh So eee eee ee es Coe eons Arnold, Arthur ......6c0scccecenssennateceee arenes Wortz, Thomas L..........-cseecereeeeercereeeces 82, Krinard, Albert Biv... 6... ee eerie rien: Hamilton, Orlan S...........-c eee ee rere ee eeeeeeees Andrus, Charles .......:.sseseecseeceersecceeceees a, RON a ei Goessman, Gale ......0scrscccrecverececscevereces Wie CUE dansk ccs e seeps connersierses threes teas Kratschmer, Frank ©........e0eec eee eereeeeseecees Monical, Forest .......-.ssceeeecseeeeeceerecereces 80 81 92 83 84 86 87 87 88 90 93 —_ In THE Unitep States Crrcuir Court or APPEALS For the Seventh Circuit. No. 8142. Western Cartridge Company, Petitioner, vs. National Labor Relations Board and American Federation of Labor and Its Affiliated Organizations, Respondents. On Petition to Review and Set Aside an Order of the National Labor Relations Board. ANSWER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD AND REQUEST FOR ENFORCEMENT. To the Honorable, the Judges of the United States Cireuit Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit: Comes now the National Labor Relations Board and, pursuant to the National Labor Relations Act (49 Stat. 449, 29 U.S. C., See. 151, et seq.), files this answer to the petition to review an order of the Board, filed herein, and this request for enforcement of the Board's order. (1) Answering the allegations of the petition to review on pages 2 and 3 entitled, ‘‘Statement of the Nature of the Proceedings,’’ the Board prays reference to the certified transcript of the entire record of the proceedings before the Board filed herein for a full and exact statement of the pleadings, evidence, findings of fact, conclusions of law, and order of the Board, and all other proceedings had in this matter before the Board. | | . | RUS SweNwAy SE a en at ace ae ae eae ee ee ae ETRE. EIS a AN 2S NIE ERAN AE DN RIG LOA LO: NMA BIRDS AE LY RNS OAS DL PS MING EEA UT, BUTE . a - - . A EIR AAI PEPE NLM SEB FEE ES ASE Fm sGse CE RETR 2 Answer of N. L. R. B. and Request for Enforcement. (2) The Board admits the allegations on pages 3 and 4 of the petition to review entitled, ‘‘ Venue.’’ (3) The Board denies each and every allegation of error set forth under the caption ‘‘Statement of Points”’ on pages 4 to 11, inclusive, of the petition to review. Wherefore, having answered each and every allegation contained in the petition to review, the Board requests this Honorable Court to deny said petition insofar as it requests that the order of the Board be set aside. Further answering, the Board, pursuant to Section 10 (e) of the National Labor Relations Act, respectfully requests this Honorable Court for enforcement of its order against petitioner dated September 16, 1942, entered in the pro- ceeding before the Board entitled, ‘‘In the Matter of West- ern Cartridge Company, a corporation, and American Fed- eration of Labor and its affiliated organizations,’’ which proceeding is designated in the records of the Board as Case No. C-2123. In support of its request for enforcement of this order, the Board alleges: (a) Petitioner, a Delaware corporation, transacts busi- ness and has a manufacturing plant in the City of Kast Alton, Illinois; and the unfair labor practices occurred at that plant. (b) Upon the proceedings had before the Board in Case No. C-2123, including, without limitation, the complaint, the answers, the hearing for the purpose of taking testimony, the Trial Examiner’s Intermediate Report, the exceptions filed thereto, and the oral argument before the Board, more fully shown by the transcript of the entire record filed herein, to which reference is hereby made, the Board, on September 16, 1942, duly stated its findings of fact and conclusions of law and issued an order directed to peti- tioner, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, as fol- lows: Order. Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and con- clusions of law, and pursuant to Section 10 (c) of the Ietional Labor Relations Act, the National Labor Re- lations Board hereby orders that the respondent, West- a SUE FRESE ER. RID SN AE RO SANIT CAO IN DTS ROTI NS Case No. XIV-C-469. American Federation of Labor and its Affiliated Organiza- tions. City Hall, Kast Alton, Lllinois, q Monday, December 8, 1941. 4 SAE ERA The above-entitled matter came on for hearing, pursu- ant to notice, at 10 o’clock a. m. Before: Horace E. Ruckel, Trial Examiner. Appearances: Jack G. Evans, U. S. Court House, St. Louis, Mis- souri, appearing for National Labor Relations Board. Fred Olds, 207 West Main Street, East Alton, Illi- nois, appearing for American Federation of Labor and its affiliated organizations. Bryan, Williams, Cave and McPheeters, Boatmens Bank Building, St. Louis, Missouri, by R. H. Me- Roberts, appearing for the respondent. Wayne Ely, 10th Floor Commerce Bldg., St. Louis, Missouri, appearing for Western Cartridge Em- ployees Independent Union. * * * * * 13 Mr. Evans: Mr. Examiner, with respect to the reference to the corporation referred to on page 2 of the complaint, the first paragraph, the parties hereto stipu- late that the name of said corporation is the East Alton 10 Witness for N. L. R. B. Manufacturing Company; that it was incorporated under and by virtue of the laws of the State of Maryland on or about July 8, 1941; that said corporation has the same officers and directors as the respondent corporation and that those same men direct the labor relations policies of the East Alton Manufacturing Company. Mr. McRoberts: It may be so stipulated. * * * * 14 FRED OLDS, called as a witness by and on behalf of the National Labor Relations Board: * * * * * Direct Examination. * * #* * - 15 Q. Was the local ever formed? A. Yes. We had another meeting with Bunzy and Anderson on January 24, 1941, and I gave them a number of application blanks, and then on January 31, 1941, we had a mass meeting at Wood River, Lllinois, at which time a great number of men joined the union to be formed and known as the Chemical Workers Union. The charter was applied for on February 4, 1941, and on February 5 the charter was granted to the Chemical Workers Local Union No. 22574. Q. Was that a Federal Labor Union? A. That is a Federal Labor Union. Q. By whom was that union chartered? A. By the American Federation of Labor. That charter was installed on February 17 and the permanent officers were elected. Q. Thereafter did you ever meet with management? A. Yes; I did. * * * * * 16 You met on February 17, is that right? The Witness: We met on—our organization? Trial Examiner Ruckel: March 13. The Witness: March 13 we met. ” * * ~ e Rg REA 2 OAS PE IRATE REAR . Ba SSE AEE PR IED OE NET ITIE - Testimony of Fred Olds. 11 Q. (By Mr. Evans.) At that meeting was any request made for recognition or collective bargaining? A. At that meeting we requested the company to recog- nize the union as the sole collective bargaining agency for all of its employees coming into the jurisdiction of the union, which was defined as the Chemical Workers in the Smokeless Powder Division. * * * * * 17 Mr. Schotters stated that he had no authority at this time to go into that phrase until he could take it back to his Board of Directors. Q. You mean that phase? A. That phase of recognition. We submitted to Mr. Schotters or offered to submit to Mr. Schotters our application cards, and he said he would have to take it up with his Board of Directors and meet with us at a later date. A later date was set for March 20. Q. Did you meet on that date? A. We did meet on that date? Q. Where? A. At the company’s office; the same place we met the previous meeting. Q. Whom did you see at that time? A. At that meeting we met with Mr. Schotters and Mr. Trish. Q. And was a request made for recognition and collee- tive bargaining at that time? A. We again requested recognition of collective bar- gaining and we offered to submit our applications to the company to check against their payroll, or in whatever—to check against their payroll or against cancelled checks, and Mr. Schotters asked: Could he see one of the applica- tions. * * * * * A. I stated ‘‘Yes’’ and handed him Emmert F. Anderson’s application, and Mr. Schotters stated that this was only an intent, and was not an application. He passed it over to Mr. Trish, and Mr. Trish looked at the card and handed it back to Mr. Schotters, and Mr. Schotters then handed it back to me. 19 ® : ii PEA NRE Y See IIE CAS SAE! SRY Argos: BSS peepee Oe Baer, ME PE « P * « 59 Q. Did you colleet dues for the organization ? A. Yes; I collected some dues. . * . * a Q. Where did vou pay your dues to Wilmering? A. Wherever I would see him; if it was any place in the plant, I came in. Q. Did you ever pay him outside of the plant? ratte a | Se AEF ER PERE AIIM LI ENR PL ION ILS 2 Beesrreeeeanaegerenep gana ey cee 16 Witness for N. L. R. B. A. No; not as I remember. There might have been, but I don’t remember. * * * * * 60 Q. (By Mr. Evans.) Did any foreman ever tell you to stop activities on behalf of this inside union at any time? A. No. 65 Recross Examination. Q. (By Mr. McRoberts.) Mr. Hooper, are you a 66 member of the Chemical Workers Union? A. That is right. * * * * * Q. (By Mr. MeRoberts.) When did you become a member, approximately? * ” * * * A. Well, I would say in February or March, 1941. * * * * . 67 VIRGIL KEEFH, called as a witness by and on be- half of the National Labor Relations Board, * * * * > Direct Examination. * * * * . Q. In 1937 did you work for Western Cartridge Com- pany? A. Yes, sir. * * * * * Q. Were you solicited to join? A. Yes, sir. Q. By whom? 68 A. Kenneth Ladd. (). Who was he? A. He was on the organizing committee of this organ- ization. Q. Did you observe whether or not he went to other emplovees? Testimony of Virgil Keefe. 17 A. Yes, sir. * * * * * 69 Q. (By Mr. Evans.) Where did that oceur, Mr. Keefe? A. I worked on the header line, and that is a row of machines. Q. Did he come to you or did you go to him? A. He came to me. Q. Was it during working hours?. A. Yes, sir. Q. Did you observe whether or not he talked to other employes? A. Yes. (). About the same time? A. Yes. Q. Did he have cards with him at the time? A. Yes. Q. Were those cards similar to Board’s Exhibit Num- A. Yes. Q. Did he have a copy of the constitution? A. He gave us all a copy—all over the department, be- fore we joined the union, I believe. They passed them out. (Q). Were they like Board's Exhibits 6 and 7? A. Yes. Q. Did Mr. Ladd collect dues at the time he signed the emploves up? 70 A. When you signed the card up vou were sup- posed to pay him a quarter. Q. Did anybody else solicit employes that vou saw? A. Leo Ferguson, from the Plant Department, he was over in our department quite a bit. Q. Is the Plant Department the Maintenance Depart- ment? A. Yes, sir. * * o * . Q. About how many were in your department at that time? A. Approximately 100 or 125. : 18 Witness for N. L. R. B. Q. Of that number about how many did you see Ladd and Ferguson solicit? Mr. McRoberts: Just what you saw yourself, Mr. Keefe. A. I saw about twenty-five. Q. Did you become representative of the union at some time? A. Yes, sir. * * * * + 71 Q. Did any foreman or boss make any statement to you with respect to the petition that was going around in your behalf? A. No, sir. * * * * * 77 Q. I hand you Board’s Exhibit 10, for identifica- tion, and ask you to tell what that is. A. That is the basic agreement. Q. That is dated August 12, 1937? A. Yes. Q. And you signed that agreement? A. Yes. * * * *. * Q. Where did vou sign that? A. Down in the main office cafeteria of the Western Cartridge Company. Q. Who ealled you down to the cafeteria on that ocea- sion? A. We had been talking by telephone conversation to the Company and asking for a meeting, and they called 78 this meeting, and Mr. Williams—I believe Senator Williams they called him, attorney for the Company, presented this agreement. * * * * * Q. At that meeting was there any discussion as 79 to whether the union represented a majority? A. No, sir. * 85 Q. Were the petitions in your division after the time that vou held office passed around in the plant? A. Yes, sir. Q. Like it was for vour petition? Testimony of Virgil Keefe. 19 A. Yes, sir. Q. Was that the system used for all of the divisions? * * * * * A. Yes, my answer is ‘‘yes’’. * * * Cross-Examination. * * * * * 89 Q. (By Trial Examiner Ruckel.) As I understand your testimony, Mr. Keefe, it is that Board’s Exhibit 8, a letter dated July 22, 1937, to Mr. Olin, was sent by your organization: is that correct? A. Yes, sir. Q. And you stated that you tried to get a representa- tive of management on the phone to get together in a meeting ; was I correct in that understanding? A. I don’t believe it was referring to this letter; no. It was referring to these demands here. (). Well, you wanted a meeting with the company ? ; A. With the company; yes, sir. i Q. To talk over these demands; that is, to make a con- tract, is that right? A. Yes, sir. i Q. How did you try to establish contact with the com- pany? A. Well, we phoned them. Q. And you finally had a meeting; is that right? A. Yes, sir. Q). Or you did have a meeting? A. We had a meeting; ves, sir. 90 Q. And that meeting was held long after July 26, 1937, do vou recall? A. No; I don’t recall the exact date. Q. Approximately? A. * * A. Yes, sir. Q. (By Mr. Evans.) What organization? A. TheC. I. 0. * 153 Q. (By Mr. Evans.) Anybody ever solicit you to join the Independent Union? A. Yes, sir. Q. About when was that? A. When they first started. I think it was around in 1937. Q. Who solicited you? A. Huck Imel. * * * * 154 Q. Where were you solicited by Imel? A. In the cap department. Any other employees solicited by Imel at that time? Yes, sir. About how many others did you observe? Oh, I would say around 50. Did he have ecards at that time? Yes, sir. . Were they cards similar to Board’s Exhibit 4, which lL hand you? A. Yes, sir. Q. Did Imel work in your department at that time? A. Yes, sir. Q. Was the foreman present when this activity was going on? A. Yes, sir. Q. Did it take place during working hours? A. Part of it did and part of it didn’t. * * * OPOPOPO 155 QQ. Were you ever elected a representative? A. Yes, sir. Q. And when did that occur? A. It was in 1933. I am sure it was in 1933. * * * * Testimony of Francis Bunzy. 25 Q. Was there a petition passed around for your nom- ination as representative? 156 * * a * 300 JOHN B. WILDT, a witness, called by and on behalf of the National Labor Relations Board: Direct Examination. * * * * * Q. You work for the East Alton Manufacturing Com- pany? A. That is correct. Q. And you have worked in the Smokeless Division for about how long? A. Since December 31, 1940, (). Shortly after you were hired there and started to work did you have any conversation with any foremen about unions? A. When the A F of L started in the smokeless powder division, at the time,—that was in January—my fore- man—supposed to be a supervisor or foreman, I don’t know just what title he does have. Q. (By Mr. McRoberts.) What was his name? Q. (By Mr. Evans.) Tell us his name. A. I. Canhan. 46 Witness for N. L. R. B. Q. C-a-n-h-a-n? A. That is right; he came to the office in the storeroom and called the boys that were working on the store- 351 room floor in one by one, and the foreman was in there, Bill Jones, and he asked us to think it over before joining any organization. Q. (By Trial Examiner Ruckel.) He called you one at a time? A. One at a time, yes. Q. From where? A. From off of the stockroom floor. Q. And called you to where? The office? A. The storeroom office. (). The storeroom office? A. Yes sir. Q. Who was present there? A. Bill Jones. Q. Canhan called you and told you to go to the office? A. No, he ealled us in the office.. The office is right off the storeroom floor. Q. The foreman there is Jones? A. Yes sir. Q. (By Mr. Evans.) What did you say Jones’ position was? A. Jones was foreman of Number 5 storeroom. Q. How many employes at that time were called into the office? A. There were three of us. Q. You say there were three of you? A. Yes sir. 352 “Q. Were you asked to sign an individual contract after you started to work for the company? A. I was; yes. Q. About when was that? A. That was the first of May, 1941. * * * * * Q. And when you returned did you have any conver- sation with anybody about it? A. Not that day; no. Q. Did you at any time? Testimony of John B. Wildt. 47 A. Yes; I had a conversation with my foreman, Mr. Canhan, about the contract and about the union. Q. About how long after your signing of the con- tract? 353. A. Well, I would say that was about two or three days. Q. Where did that conversation with Canhan take place? A. The conversation with Canhan took place at No. 5 storeroom. Q). Who else was present? A. There was three boys on the floor but I don’t think they heard any of the conversation. Q. What was said at that time? A. Mr. Canhan asked me if I had signed my individual contract, and I told him yes. Q. What else was said? A. And Mr. Canhan and I discussed the union, or the A. F. of L., and I told him I joined the A. F. of L. And, he asked me if I thought it would do me any good. And I told him I wasn’t sure; that I belonged to the A. F. of L. organization once before in Wood River and I didn’t think very much of it, but being as how the rest of the boys in the storeroom had joined the A. F. of L., why I wasn’t going to be one to stay in there and not join it. | Then the conversation just went from one thing to the next. Q. Well, tell us what else was said. A. Well, Mr. Canhan went ahead to tell about his brother-in-law in Washington that works in a lumber mill, and he said that they were out on strike out there 354 about six months out of the year, and he asked me if I wanted to be like that; be out on strike about half of the time. And I told him, no. Q. Anything else said? A. Mr. Canhan asked me if I thought the A. F. of L. would do me any good, and I told him yes, I did. And Mr. Bunzy at the time was—they had a wage scale at the Monsonto Chem‘ -al Company, and he showed me the rate seale for the stockroom clerks of that company, which 48 Witness for N. L. R. B. was 92 cents an hour, and I told Mr. Canhan that I would join any organization for 92 cents an hour. Q. Anything else said? A. That is about all I recall. We discussed this indi- vidual contract. Q. What was said about that? A. And Mr. Canhan showed me where if I had this con- tract, where it would mean about five cents more on the hour, by having this individual contract, than if I joined an organization and lost it. Q. Was anything said about the Independent Union? A. No, sir—or, wait a minute; I will take that back. Mr. Canhan said that he thought the Independent Union could do more for me than an outside union. Q. Did you wear an A. F. of L. button in the plant? A. I did; yes. + * * * * 371 JADY B. CHAPMAN, thereupon resumed the witness stand: Direct Examination (Continued.) * * * * * 388 Q. After the election on May 6, 1941, did the Com- pany continue to deduct dues for employes in the smokeless powder division and include those among the dues turned over to you each month? A. After the election? Q. After the election in the smokeless powder division on May 26th, 1941? A. Yes sir. Q. Is the Company still deducting dues for employes in the smokeless powder division and turning those dues over to you each month? A. I think so, yes. Q. Do you have the financial statement of the union for August, 1941? A. Yes sir. Q. Does the financial report reflect certain amounts paid to individuals for obtaining members? Testimony of Jady B. Chapman. 49 A. May I ask again just what month you said? Q. August. 389 A. To August 1 or from August 1? Q. From August 1 to September 1. Does the finan- cial report for that month indicate such names? A. Yes sir. Q. Will you read to us the amounts that were paid to various individuals for the month of August? A. Rudolph S. Hale, $3.60. Frank Pfeiffer, $23.75. Morris Medford, $30.25. Raymond Hutchins, $3.00. Earl (reeling, $29.50. Willie Holder, $10.25. Melvin Taylor, $50.05. Lois Franklin, $9.25. Edith Brenner, $8.00. (). What were these amounts paid for—I beg your par- Did you have some more there? Yes. Read the rest of them, please? A. James Carroll, $7.25; Leslie Britton, $3.25. Emil Lang, $3.25. Ed. Nolan, $4.25. Gilbert Clark, $10.25. Harry Frazer, $3.50. Q. What were those payments for. A. They were listed as miscellaneous expense incurred in obtaining memberships. Q. What was the agreement with the individuals as to how much they would get for that work? A. The Board knew— Q. That is the Union board? A. Yes, the Executive Board of. the union knew 390 there would be quite a bit of expense in obtaining mem- bers, so they arrived at twentyfive cents each would be fair reimbursement. Q. So these wage assignment statements and applica- tion cards were distributed to various persons, beginning August 1941, with the understanding that those returned, signed, they would get twentyfive cents for each such state- ment signed, is that correct? A. That is correct. Q. (By Trial Examiner Ruckel.) Your records then show Melvin Taylor ob‘ained approximately two hundred new members? A. Yes sir. Q. Fifty some odd dollars? Ray Cae Naar ES Ye GS Rly EE Pee! UE or . 50 Witness for N. L. R. B. A. Yes, for the month of August. Q. 1941? A. That is right. (By Mr. Evans. ) Did that proposition continue up to the present time? A. Yes sir. Q. And your subsequent financial statements indicate similar amounts paid to those and other employees for later months? A. Not near as much. Q. August was the big month, is that it? A. Yes sir. Q. Did the representatives and committeemen like- 391 wise receive twentyfive cents commission for each new member? A. The committeemen did; the representative did not. Q. So in addition to the ones indicated in August 1941, for those you have read, there were additional ones which the representatives obtained? A. Yes sir. Q. (By Trial Examiner Ruckel.) What department does Melvin Taylor work in—Melvin or Melville, which is it? A. M-e-l-v-i-n. Q. What department did he work in in August 1941? A. As far as I know it was in the metalic department. Q. Metalic manufacturing? Yes sir. Q. (By Mr. Evans.) Was there any instructions given as to where the employes would solicit these new member- ships and wage assignments? A. I don’t know what the other fellows did, but any that I instructed I told them not to do it on company time or property. They were instructed that way. Q. You do not know whether they followed your in- structions or not? A. I ecouldn’t say, no sir. * * * * * Testimony of Jady B. Chapman. 51 394 Cross-Examination. Q. (By Mr. McRoberts.) Your union, the independent union, still has some members over in the Smokeless Powder Division who are now working for the East 3895 Alton Manufacturing Company, does it not? A. Yes sir. Q. Just a few members still over there? A. Yes sir. Q. And it is their dues that have still been collected and their wage assignments which have not been canceled? A. That is right. Q. And their dues have been remitted to you during the last few months? A. Yes sir. Q. About how many of them are there? A. Twentyfive or thirty. Q. With respect to this booklet, Mr. Chapman, Exhibit number 14, I believe the representatives of the Company advised the representatives of the independent union some- time ago that they were going to put out some such a book- let as this? A. Yes. Q. And you suggested to them it would be helpful if they included in that booklet a copy of these contracts, is that correct? A. May I answer it this way: That the union intended to make a booklet with all contracts and working agree- ments so each employe would have one that they could carry with them, and our methods of distributing had 396 been so bad, and when the Company suggested putting out a booklet, that they were going to put out a book- let stating from the founding of the Company, we asked would they insert the working agreement and the contract. Q. And they inserted not only the working agreements, but grievance procedure and this basic agreement as well? A. Yes sir. Q. And you on several oceasions—and by you I mean representatives of the union, on several occasions had meeting with the Company representatives and asked them when these booklets were going to come out? fA | bo Witness for N. L. R. B. A. Yes sir. Q. You wanted them and you asked for them? A. Yes. Q. And they were eventually issued a short time ago, is that correct? A. Yes sir. Q. Within the last month or two? A. Yes, within the last month or two. + * * * * 400 . I believe you testified yesterday in June 1941 the Company did not demand to see any evidence as to the number of members which the union had? A. I don’t think they did. Q. But I think you testified that you left the impres- sion—the union representatives left the impression with the Company you did have a majority? A. Yes sir. * + . ” * 435 CHRIS MEISENHEIMER, called as a witness by and on behalf of the National Labor Relations Board: + * * . * Direct Examination. * * * * * 436 Q. You work for the Western Catridge Company? A. Yes, sir. Q. What department do you work in? A. Casting shop. Q. About how long have you worked for the company? A. I hired in in 1933. . Do you hold any office or position with the Inde- pendent Union? A. I am a representative of that department on our shift. Q. How long have you been representative? A. Since last spring, along in February, I think, the latter part of February, I think, I was appointed repre- sentative or elected representative. or te Testimony of Chris Meisenheimer. Q. Elected by the group in the cast shop? A. On our shift. Q. What shift was that? A. No. 1. * * * 7 * 439 QQ. Mr. Williams, Burdette Williams and Mr. Wil- liam Elliott worked in the same department you did? A. They worked in the same department I do or did. Q. After their discharge did you discuss that matter with Mr. Day? A. Yes. We held a meeting in the brass mill office and I told Mr. Day according to our working agreement that the Independent Union had, that they had no right to dis- charge them men without taking it up with the union repre- sentatives first. Q. I show you Board’s Exhibit No. 15 and ask you to state whether or not that is the agreement to which you refer, or a copy of it? A. This is a copy of the agreement, and I based my argument on ‘*‘When management wants to remove a man from the job they must show the union representative be- yond a reasonable doubt the man has failed in one of the following—”’ Q. That is Paragraph No. 9? A. No. 9. Q. Then it sets forth the A, B, C, D, and E provisions? A. Provisions. And, I told Mr. Day that he should have taken that up with the representatives before he dis- charged them men. Trial Examiner’ Ruckel: Before he discharged whom? 440 The Witness: Mr. Williams and Mr. Elliott. Q. (By Mr. Evans.) What did Mr. Day say? A. He said he realized that it was a mistake; that it would never happen again. * * * * * ie Me ES ROR SRR CN Pe IED ‘ Pp $a ease 7" 54 Witness for N. L. R. B. 449 PROCEEDINGS. * * * * * 480 WILLIAM ELLIOTT, called as a witness by and on behalf of the National Labor Relations Board: * * * * * Direct Examination. . * * * * Q. Did you work for the Western Cartridge Company at some time? A. About 13 years, I guess. Beginning when and to when? A. Well, the first time was in 1925, and I guess I worked a year and a half. Then, later, about the latter part of 1927, I think I worked something like a year; probably a year and a half. Then, the last time I worked from November of 1930 until July, 1941. Q. In 1937 you were working at the plant? A. Yes. 481 Q. Was there an effort by the C. L O. to organize sometime during that year? A. Well, there was. They were soliciting and passing out handbills along about that time. Q. Did that begin before or after the beginning of the Independent Union? A. Before. Q. Did you sign a card for the union at that time? A. I did. Q. The C. I. O. union? A. Yes, sir. Q. And did you attend meetings of that union? A. I attended several meetings. Q. Thereafter did anybody solicit you to join the Inde- pendent? A. Oh, yes. Q. And who was that? A. GQus Robinson was the first man that ever solicited me to join the Independent. Testimony of William Elliott. 5d Who was he? He was an employee that worked in the casting shop. Did that take place in the shop? It took place in the shop; yes. Anybody else solicit you? Yes; Bill Keil. * * * 7 * 483 Q. Did you later sign a card for the Independent Union? A. Qh, yes; later I did. * * * * * Q). Had you ever become a department committeeman for the Independent Union? A. Yes. Q. About when did that oceur? 484 A. I think it was last February, probably the last of last February, 1941; somewhere along about that time. al * * * oe Q. Did you ever have any conversation with Mr. 485 Day about the Independent Union last spring? A. Several times; several different occasions. (). When, approximately, was the first time? A. Well, I would say it was probably in the latter part of February. Q. Where did the conversation take place? A. In the brass mill office; in his office. Q. Anybody else present at the time? A. I don’t think se, no. Q. What was said at that time? a About the Independent Union—well, Mr. Day at different times called me up to the office, his office, and asked me about different things, work and the union, and we discussed unions and the work and the kind of work and the qualifications and all of the men that worked there, and some way to better conditions. And he talked to me abou! the Independent Union and he asked me—he told me—he said that he didn’t see any reason why the Independent Union couldn’t be made to work. He says, ‘‘Now, Bill, you are the only man back there can put the union inside or out.”’ NER LE MEN SE PRL RS GR POSER PNT CTR OMI 5 56 Witness for N. L. R. B. Now he said, ‘‘It is up to you, and I am counting on you to help me.’’ Well now, I said, ‘‘Mr. Day,’’ I said, ‘‘I never solicited any union of any kind.’’ I said, ‘‘I would not ask a 486 man to join any union; I never have and I don’t expect to. But,’’ I said, ‘‘it is not up to me to help these men make their minds up.’’ I said, ‘‘They don’t especially like that union for different reasons. They have been told it is a company union.’’ * * * * . Q. (By Mr. Evans.) Go ahead. A. I told him that the employees had been told by different representatives of the union it was a company union, and I said, ‘‘I don’t know whether it is or not, but I have been told it is.’’ And I said, ‘‘You ean’t expect me to go out there and try to sell that union to those fellows if they don’t want it.” Well, he said, ‘‘You can do it. You are the only man out there that can do it.’’ Well, I said, ‘‘ Maybe I am, but I can’t do it. I won’t do it,’ I said. ‘‘I don’t want anything to do with it, no more than if there is anything I can do to help you out and these men out at the same time, I am perfectly willing to do it. But,’’ I says, ‘‘when it comes to the question of putting the union over,’’ I says, ‘‘you can count me out.”’ 487 . You say this conversation took place the latter part of February, 1941? A. The latter part of February. Q. Was that shortly after you had become the commit- teeman for that department ?- A. Committeeman. Q. Later on did you sign for the A. F. of L.? A. Yes; I did. Q. About when was that? A. I think that was sometime in July. I signed the card sometime in July; I am not sure. Q. Did you resign from the Independent Union at any time? A. Yes; 1 resigned from the Independent Union along the first of July. Q. 1941? A. 1941. Testimony of William Elliott. Gr “I Q. And did you stop your wage assignment? A. I stopped the wage assignment. Trial Examiner Ruckel: How did you do that? The Witness: I had to go over to the Independent Union office over here and sign a card authorizing them—the eom- pany, to stop the wage assignment. * * * 488 Q. (By Mr. Evans.) After Gruner became the com- mitteeman from that department, did he solicit em- ployees there to join the Independent Union? A. Yes, sir; most every day. (). Did he do so in the presence of foremen? A. Yes. I happened to be standing right next to him, talking to the foreman, when he was talking to a new em- ployee there, trying to get him to join the union. (). What was the name of the foreman? A. Otis Cooper. * * 489 Q. Were you ever elected to any office in the A. F. of L. union? A. Financial secretary. Q. When did that occur? A. The 23rd of July, 1941. Q. What local was that for? A. 333 International Molders and Foundry Workers Union. Q. About that time did you have some discussion with some foreman about a shift change? A. Yes; with Orville Carlton and Terry, Clyde Terry. (). What was Carlton’s job? A. I am not sure at the time, but I found out after- wards he was assistant superintendent out at the mill 490 at night; in the brass mill at night. Q. What was Terry’s job? A. He was foreman in the casting shop on my shift. Q. Tell us what this was about; what was said. A. Well, it was about a change in shifts. They hed a shift bulletin up on the board and they wanted to change for a new one, so they brought them up and hung them up on the bulletin board, and wanted all the men to look at it to see what they thought of it. So, we all decided, that is, the majority, that they didn’t 58 Witness for N. L. R. B. want anything to do with it; they didn’t want the new bulletin, after we had been told that it lost us money. Mr. McRoberts: What? The Witness: That we would lose money. Trial Examiner Ruckel: That you would lose money by reason of what? The Witness: By reason of the change in the shift. Trial Examiner Ruckel: When you say you didn’t want the bulletin, you mean you didn’t want the change that the bulletin notified you of? The Witness: That is right. Q. (By Mr. Evans.) Were you to sign this bulletin notice if you were in favor of it? A. Yes, sir. Q. Who told you that? 491 O Fie OTC ON Pease oe ae we Testimony of William Elliott. 65 what I thought it all amounted to, and he said ‘‘I am sorry, there is not a thing I can do. I don’t know, what seems to be going on, to tell me this, and during the last war everybody was crazy’’, and he said ‘‘The same thing this time, everybody acts crazy to me’’, and I said ‘‘ All right’? and he said ‘‘There is nothing I ean do”’ and I said ‘Thank you.’’ Q. Did you go to see anybody else? A. Mr. Schotters, the general plant superintendent. D103 Q. Did you see him? A. Yes. Q. Where? A. In the main office, in the lobby. Q. Was anyone else there at that time? A. There was no one in the conversation. There were several in the building, but not in the conversation. Q. What was said at that time? A. I went in ano I said ‘I am Bill Elliott; I did have a job out in the casting shop, but I just got fired’’ and he said ‘‘Oh, yes, this man Olds called me about you about five minutes ago’’, and I said ‘“What has he got to do with firing me?’’ and he said ‘‘T don’t know, you will have to find out’’. I said ‘Oh, you are firing me for union activities’? and he said ‘‘T didn’t know you belonged to the union’’, and I said ‘‘That is funny, you just got through telling me that Olds called you up about me and he is the union organizer’’, and he said “I am not firing you for that’’, and I said ‘‘What are you firing me for?’’ and he said ‘‘For making insinuating remarks about the manage- ment’’ and I asked him what kind of remarks I had made, and he said ‘About the Company beating you out of money”’, and I said ‘‘Well, didn’t they?” and he said “The Company doesn’t owe you a damned cent?’ and I said ‘‘Oh, yes, they do”’ and he said they didn’t do business that 904 way, and I said ‘‘May be they don’t, but they did’; and he said ‘‘I am new here, I have only been here since January’’ and IT explained to him the bonus system we worked under for several years, and he said “‘I am new here, and I don’t know anything about it, and I would have to look it up’? and I said “‘You are new, and still “WL MORN aE AD ETUC NE TI A i PELE LE LL EOL ELS GLUES SLEEVE MIRE NODE EAE DL GIES BEML TE IEE OEE ES AIAG 66 Witness for N. L. R. B. you say the Company doesn’t owe me a damned cent?” and he said ‘‘I would have to go into that.’’ Q. Was anything else said? A. He told me that no one—that he was not firing me for union activities, but he said ‘‘Anyone that has any remarks to make about the management will be fired’’, and I said ‘‘What are you going to do, fire everybody that works for you’’, and he said ‘‘No’’ and I said ‘‘You say that is the reason for firing me, I have heard several people making remarks about the management’? and I said “I have been here a long time, and I know several people, and I don’t know any yet that didn’t have some remark to make about the management”’ and he said ‘‘Who were they?’’ and I said ‘“‘I didn’t say’’ and I said ‘‘T heard some monthly salaried men make remarks about the man- agement’’, and he said ‘‘Who were they?’’ and I said ‘‘I didn’t say’’, and he said ‘‘Anybody who makes remarks about the management will be fired’’, and I said ‘‘You had better fire all of them then’’ and I said ‘‘I have heard people make remarks about the management 505 I wouldn’t begin to think of.’’ Q. Have you ever been called back to work since that time? A. No, I never have. Mr. Evans: That is all. * * #* * * 518 Q. I think you said you had several conversations with Mr. Day? A.° I did; I had several conversations with him. Q. In which the independent union was discussed? A. We discussed working conditions, and the work, and the metal, independent union, and various other sub- jects. 519 Q. How many discussions did you have with him in which the independent union was discussed? A. Practically every one I had with him we got around to discussing the independent union. Q. Over what period of time? A. I would say a period of two months, may be once or twice a week. a a RELIES STELIOS ae aes Oro 76 Witness for N. L. R. B. are not—the company don’t like for the Independent—or, for the foremen to belong to the union.”’ Then I said, ‘‘I don’t want to be contrary,’’ but I said, ‘‘You haven’t promised me anything if I withdraw.’’ And I said, ‘‘If the union comes, I will probably have to be- long.’’ And he said, ‘‘If you withdraw, you probably can’t get back in.”’ 639 And I said, ‘‘Until something else is done, I won’t withdraw. I will just stay where I am.’’ Q. Do you know Mr. Monical? A. Ido. Q. What was his job about that time? A. He was supervisor over our shift. There was four different shifts—there is still four shifts out there, and he was our supervisor. Q. Did you ever have any conversation with him about the union; the A. F. of L. union? A. Yes;I did. Q. About when was that? A. Two days later. That was Friday evening, Mr. Arnold and myself. That was on Sunday evening, two davs later. Q. Where did that conversation take place? A. Right outside of the hardening house, right at the rolls. The rolls are in the same building that the harden- ing is. Q. Anybody else present at that time? A. No, sir. Q. What was said? A. He asked me which I thought could do the most for me, the company or the union. Well, I told him, ‘‘T am not in a position to say right now,’’ but I will tell you just exactly what I told Mr. Arnold, ‘‘I will stay where I am until they offer me 640 something, or there is something else doing.’’ Q. Thereafter did they change your job or any part of your job? A. He did. Q. How soon after? SO IRE. 00 eRe ray ear — on ose Ane * ae a A ai SA ep pro eoR REAR SAY BERS mee 3 Testimony of Ellis McPherson. 77 A. Well, I judge it was two months after that time before they had taken me off of that job. Q. You are not just a production worker? A. Just a moment. It was later than two months. It was longer than that; probably four months. About when was that? That was in May, the first one. I had different con- versations with him. Q. Where was the conversation? A. In Mr. Wortz’ office. Q. What was said at that time? A. He sent for me to come in, and I went in his office and he told me that all of the men was mad at me, and some of them didn’t want to work with me. And he asked what I thought he ought to do with a man like that. 641 Q. This was still while you were an hourly fore- man? A. Yes; it was. So I told him—I says, ‘‘I didn’t know that anyone was made at me,’’ and he knew what he could do with me. So then he begin on me. I had the A. F. of L. button on. He said, ‘‘I can’t tell you not to belong,’’ and he pointed at the button, and I can’t tell you how to vote.”’ And he told me about the Labor Board had granted a hearing for the A. F. of L., and it was just a few days before that hearing. And he told me that the job I was on also paid more than I was getting, and if I would go along with him and the company, he would get me a raise right away, and then later on he would get me up to the top of the bracket, and also during the summer we would get beer and get out and have a party and have a good time. * * * * * Q. You are not just a production worker? A. Yes;I am. Q. Did you ever have any conversation with Mr. Wortz? A. I did. Q. A. Spates LECCE NE AGES ATE, OREN EE SRE RTE He EES ITS TES 78 Witness for N. L. R. B. 643 Cross-Examination. * * * * * 645 Q. Mr. Wortz, you say, pointed to this button in this conversation before the election and said, ‘‘I 646 can’t tell you which way to vote.’ A. That i is right, ‘‘I can’t tell you not to belong, or how to vote.’ bod * * * * 648 CHARLES WOMACK, a witness, called by and on behalf of the National Labor Relations Board: Direct Examination. * * * * * Do you work in the smokeless powder division? I do. About how long have you worked in the plant? Since about April 4, 1934. What is your job? Truck driver. Did you ever join the A. F. of L. union? I did. About when? About February. Of this year? Yes, sir. (By Trial Examiner Ruckel.) What union was OPOrOPOPOPOre that? A. The A. F. of L. Q. The Chemical Workers Union or some other? A. Yes, sir, the Chemical Workers. Q. (By Mr. Evans.) Was a man named Pivoda 649 vour boss at any time? A. Yes, sir. He is my boss now. Q. He is your boss now? A. Yes. _ How long has he been your boss? A. I think he took over about the middle part of April of this year. Testimony of Elden Weishaupt. 79 Q. Did vou ever have any conversation with him about the union? A. I did. Q. About when? A. It was just a few days after he started taking the trucks over. Q. Where did the conversation take place? A. In front of Fred Olsen’s office in the Smokeless Pow- der. Q. Was anyone else present at the time? A. No. Q. What did he say? A. He told me I had better lay low on union talk, they had spotters in the plant; and he went on to tell me he has two brothers who belonged to the union and he thought one had made a horse’s ass out of himself, and the other he thought he had bettered himself a little bit, but he hadn’t made up his mind. Q. Were you wearing a union button at the time? 650 A. I was. 657 ELDEN WEISHAUPT, a witness, called by and on behalf of the National Labor Relations Board: * * * * * Direct Examination. * * * * s 658 ©. You work for the Western Cartridge Company? A. For the East Alton Manufacturing Company. Q. You work in the Smokeless Powder Division? A. Yes, sir. Q. How long have you worked in the plant? A. February 22, 1941. Q. Did you ever sign a card for the Chemical Workers, A. F. of L.? A. Yes. Q. About when? A. About a week later. Q. After you were hired? &( — Witness for Respondent. After I was hired. Did you wear a button around in the shop? Yes, sir. And that was an A. F. of L. button? That is right. About when did you start wearing that? As soon as the A. F. of L. first came out with a but- ton, ‘and for some days they didn’t have them, and right after they got them I wore it. POrPOPOD Q. Do you know Mr. Shindle? és A. Yes, sir. Q. What is his position with the Company? 659 E Western Cartridge Company and ~Case No. R-2494. Chemieal Workers, Local Union No. 22574, A.F.L. CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVES. On May 15, 1941, the National Labor Relations Board issued! its Decision and Direction of Election in the above- entitled proceeding. Pursuant to the Direction of Election, an election by secret ballot was conducted on May 26, 1941, under the direction and supervision of the Regional Di- rector for the Fourteenth Region (St. Louis, Missouri). On June 2, 1941, the Regional Director, acting pursuant to Article III, Section 9, of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations—Series 2, as amended, issued an Election Report, copies of which were duly served upon the parties. No objections to the conduct of the ballot or to the Election Report were filed by any of the parties. As to the balloting and the results thereof, the Regional Director reported as follows: Total number eligible to vote................00.. 527 Total number of ballots cast.................... 459 i Number of ballots challenged.................... 0 4 a eee 0) é SUMNIOY OE FONE TRIE oon os eect c ie ivncaceasnanen 0 4 Total number of ballots counted.................. 459 é Total number of ballots for Chemical Workers, Local Union No. 22574, affiliated with the Ameri- CO POGOTOUOR OF LADOF.. ow ic ic cece cs eenecs 377 Total number of ballots against Chemical Workers, Local Union No. 22574, affiliated with the Ameri- cam Pederation of GO00F....... 0.06. cece seecces 82 1, 31 N. L. R. B., No. 148. 110 Board Exhibit No. 3-k. By virtue of and pursuant to the power vested in the Na- tional Labor Relations Board by Section 9 (c) of the Na- tional Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, and pursuant to Article III, Sections 8 and 9, of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations—Series 2, as amended, It Is Hereby Certified that Chemical Workers, Local Union No. 22574, affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, has been selected by a majority of hourly paid production and maintenance employees of the smokeless powder division of Western Cartridge Company, Hast Al- ton, Illinois, including hourly paid foremen, technical em- ployees, and maintenance clerks, but excluding superin- tendents, general foremen, watchmen, and office employees, as their representative for the purposes of collective bar- eaining, and that, pursuant to the provisions of Section 9 (a) of the National Labor Relations Act, Chemical Workers, Local Union No. 22574, affiliated with the Ameri- ‘an Federation of Labor, is the exclusive representative of all such employees for the purposes of collective bar- eaining with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of em- ployment, and other conditions of employment. Signed at Washington, D. C., this 13 day of June 1941. Harry A. Millis, Chairman, Edwin S. Smith, Member, Wm. M. Leiserson, Member, (Seal) National Labor Relations Board. Board Exhibit No. 3-F. 111 BOARD EXHIBIT NO. 3-F. United States Conciliation Service. Re: Western Cartridge Company, Alton, Illinois. Agreement dated June 23, 1941, between Fred Olds, Francis Bunzy, Jack Otten, and C. Crosnoe, representing Chemical Workers Local Union #22574 affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, and R. R. Casteel, As- sistant Secretary, representing the Western Cartridge Company : The company recognizes Local Union #22574 as sole bargaining agent for the employees in the Smokeless Powder Division except those exeluded by the National Labor Relations Board in its decision and direction of election in Case +R-2494, with the understanding that any contract agreed upon shall be for one year and that as a part of such contract, there shall be provided as fol- lows: ‘*By signing this contract, neither the union nor the company waives its right to contest the appropriateness of the unit for collective bargaining covered herein at or after the termination of this contract.’’ For Local Union #22574, Fred Olds, Francis Bunzy, Cecil Crosnoe, Jack Otten. For the Company: 112 Board Exhibit No. 3-G. BOARD EXHIBIT NO. 3-G. (Form of Western Union Telegram.) OPB LD268 IM 3 MINS GOVT TWS OPB Washington DC June 24, 1941 602P Fred Olds General Organizer (RPT DLY IMMY) American Federation of Labor, Anapolis Hotel Wash., D. C. The Seeretary of Labor under the authority of the executive order of March 19, 1941, has certified to this Board that the dispute between the Western Cartridge Company and the Chemical Workers Union Local 22574 AFL threatens to burden or obstruct the production or transportation of materials or equipment essential to National Defense and cannot be adjusted by the Commis- sioners of Conciliation of the Department of Labor. The Board is setting this matter for hearing before a division of its members at ten A. M. Est. on Friday June Twenty- Seventh 1941, in room 3522 New Social Security Building Washington, D. C. You and your committee are requested to be present at this hearing. In the meantime in view of the present unlimited national emergency recently pro- claimed by the president the Board calls upon both parties to see that there is no interruption of production pending the Boards consideration of this matter. Please Reply. William Hammatt Davis Acting Chairman National Defense Mediation Board. 613P BOARD EXHIBIT NO. 3-H. (Letterhead of Western Cartridge Company, Kast Alton, Tllinois.) July 3, 1941. To All Western Employees: We desire to acquaint our employees with the full facts in connection with the controversy that has existed between the Company and Chemical Workers’ Union, Local No. Board Exhibit No. 3-G. 113 22574, which has been given much prominence in the daily press, For nearly three weeks, the Company has been trying to find out what this union wants. They have told us they have a contract they want us to sign, but beyond the fact that they are demanding recognition, no other information has been given us. As most of you know, this Company has entered into an individual contract with practically every eligible hourly-paid employee in every department of its East Alton plant. We believe these individual contracts are a great benefit both to the Company and to our employees, and that they constitute a legal obligation between the Company and the employee. However, we have been told that one of the objects of the Chemical Workers’ Union is to do away with them. The Company also considers as a valid and binding con- tract its agreement to recognize the Western Cartridge Company Kmployees’ Independent Union as the sole bargaining agent for all its employees at the East Alton plant, this agreement also covering vacations, seniority, overtime, grievance procedure, absence on military service, and other conditions. Accordingly, when notified of a recommendation of the National Defense Mediation Board that the company recognize the Chemical Workers’ Union as bargaining agent for the small unit called the ‘‘Smoke- less Powder Division,’’ the company, in an attempt to end this controversy and maintain peace and harmony among all its people, replied in part as follows: In your Findings and Recommendations you recommend ‘that the Company should now bargain in good faith with the Chemical Workers’ as the exclusive representatives of the employees in the unit certified by the National Labor Relations Board as appropriate.’’ If by that reeommenda- tion you mean that this Company should bargain in good faith with the representatives of the Chemical Workers’ Union, at the same time preserving its legal right to Court review in the event that an agreement eannot be reached, then we beg to advise that the Company has ever been and is now ready to engage in such bargaining. If, on the con- trary, the Board means that the Company must forever 114 Board Exhibit No. 3-G. waive its legal right to a Court review of the decision of the National Labor Relations Board which it believes to be arbitrary, éapricious, and not supported by adequate legal evidence, then this Company finds it impossible to comply with the recommendation. ‘‘We most seriously urge the Mediation Board to con- sider our problem from the standpoint of efficient manage- ment. It is our deep desire to continue the business of this Company and at the same time to perform its best function for the Government in this national emergency. If the decision of the National Labor Relations Board as to the appropriateness of the proposed bargaining unit is cor- rect, then it necessarily follows that the manufacturing operations performed in the so-called Smokeless Powder Division should be divorced from the remainder of the Company’s operations at Kast Alton and be disposed of by appropriate legal steps to a new and independent cor- poration. If it is an appropriate bargaining unit it should also be an appropriate economic unit. ‘Tf it is necessary for this Company to bargain sep- arately for this unit, then we are prepared to explore the possibilities of reorganizing the operations of the Com- pany’s plant and business and of taking the necessary steps to create a separate integrated economic unit for the so- called Smokeless Powder Division. The implications of the problems which would follow such action by this Com- pany are obvious but not so insurmountable as to take the step which the Board recommends. Obviously, these prob- lems cannot be solved on a moments notice but we are prepared to seek such solution promptly if the Mediation Board and Chemical Workers’ Union are willing to accept such a solution and are prepared to cooperate. If this sug- gestion appears to afford a means of settling the con- troversy, please advise us at your earliest convenience.’’ The foregoing offer of cooperation indicates clearly the Company’s sincere desire to maintain uninterrupted pro- duction on National Defense contracts, and at the same time to preserve its own legal rights, to safeguard the legal rights of its employees holding individual contracts, and to fulfill its legal responsibilities under its contract with the Independent Union. i: Board Exhibit No. 3-l. 115 We have been advised this afternoon by the National Defense Mediation Board that the foregoing proposal on the part of the Company is acceptable and the Company is proceeding with arrangements in accordance therewith. e The Kast Alton plant will resume operations as usual ‘ with the shift commencing at eight o’clock next Monday morning, July 7, 1941. Western Cartridge Company. BOARD EXHIBIT NO. 3-1. (Form of Western Union Telegram.) AAM 204 6 MIN GOVT TWS-WUX Washington D. C. 3 558P. 1941 Jul 3 PM 5 18 & Fred Olds, (Report DLY IMMY)- : 309 Church St. East Alton, TIl.- I have today wired J. M. Olin President Western Cart- ridge as follows: Quote. Relet July 2. The Mediation Board expresses no opinion as to whether by such bargain- ing as the Board recommends your company waives or retains any supposed legal rights to a court review of the decision of the National Labor Relations Board. The Board now suggests to you and it is making the same suggestion to the Union that you meet with the represen- SENET Ce tatives of the Chemical Workers at ten o’clock Saturday : morning July 5, 1941 for the purpose of entering into 4 negotiations as to wages, hours and conditions of employ- ment of all the employees in the bargaining unit found appropriate by the National Labor Relations Board it being understood and agreed: one that if either party decides that no worthwhile progress is being made in the negotiations and so notifies the chairman of the Mediation Board then the Mediation Board will call the parties back to Washington for continuation of the collective bargain- ing before the Board in accordance with the full procedure laid down in the executive order of march 19, 1941. Two that production will be continued without stoppage dur- ing and throughout the negotiations and the further pro- as ees? 116 Board Exhibit No. 3-J. ceedings before the Mediation Board if the case is brought back to Washington. The Union has been notified that your company proposes to reorganize the operations of the company’s plant and business and to take the necessary steps to create a separate integrated economic unit for the socalled Smokeless Powder Division. End quote. Please let me have your reply by telephone and confirma- tion by telegram immediately upon receipt of this. William Hammatt Davis, Chairman National Defense Mediation Board. 2 5 1941 19 1941. BOARD EXHIBIT NO. 3-J. (Form of Western Union Telegram.) July 5, 1941. Mr. William H. Davis, Chairman National Defense Mediation Board, New S. 8S. Board, Washington, D. C. Chemical Workers, local No. 22574 at East Alton, Illi- nois, met in conference with representatives of the Western Jartridge Company today. And we do not feel that we can or have accomplished anything. We therefore request as per your telegram of July 3, 1941 that the Company and the Union representatives be required to return to Wash- ington, before the Mediation Board to complete negotia- tions as to wages, hours of employment and other conditions of employment. And take up this question of the individual contracts. Copy sent Frank A. Schotters, General Supt. Western Cartridge Company. Fred Olds, Org. A. F. of L. - Board Exhibit No. 3-L. 117 BOARD EXHIBIT NO. 3-K. (Form of Western Union Telegram.) EB 143 GOVT TWS PAID 3-VIA EB NHLN-Washington D. C. 7 649P. Fred Olds (RPT DLY IMMY)- Organizer AFL, 605 North 28 St., East St. Louis, Il. (DLY STL)- Delr 8830AM This will acknowledge your request of July 6, 1941 that the negotiations between the Western Cartridge Company and Local 22574 of the Chemical Workers Union, AFL, be continued before the National Defense Mediation Board in Washington. In view of this request the Board has scheduled a further hearing in this case on Friday July 11, 1941 at 10:00 AM EST in room 3522 New Social Se- curity Building, Washington, D. C. You and such of your associates as you desire are requested to be present at this hearing. In the meantime the Board urges both parties to continue negotiations in an effort to arrive at a complete agreement before the scheduled hearing. If such an agree- ment should be reached you are requested to notify me at once. Ralph T. Seward, Executive Secretary National Defense Mediation Board. 6 1941 22574 AFL 11 1941 10:00 AM EST 3599. BOARD EXHIBIT NO. 3-L. Agreement. This Agreement, made by and between the East Alton ‘ Manufacturing Corporation, a corporation of the state 4 of Maryland, with its principal office and place of business in East Alton, Illinois, its subsidiaries, successors and as- signs, Party of the first part, hereinafter called the ‘‘Com- pany’’ and the Chemical Workers Local Union, No. 22574, LAR iy IIE LES IAPS ME LLG DL © GABA IER BALA pos VEIL OOOH AG ab LE LL RLY YOO SED OR LB LEDS IONE LE LOE LLA Mp br te as 118 Board Exhibit No. 3-L. an affiliate of the American Federation of Labor, and of the International Council of Chemical and Allied Industries Unions, Party of the Second part, hereinafter called the ‘‘Union,’’ Witnesseth That: Article 1. Term. This agreement shall be effective as of August 1, 1941, and continue in full force and effect for a period of one (1) year thereafter, and shall be automatically extended for each subsequent yearly period unless either the Company or the Union shall give notice in writing not less than thirty (30) days nor more than (60 days prior to the expira- tion of any such yearly period that they wish to amend or terminate this agreement. In the event either party serves such notice of intention to amend within thirty-five (35) days of the expiration of any such yearly period, the other party shall have five (5) days within which to serve a like notice of intention to amend or terminate this col- lective bargaining agreement, any limitations above to the contrary notwithstanding. If such amendments are proposed, the notice shall designate the article or articles it is desired to amend and all other articles of this agree- ment not so designated shall automatically continue in full foree and effect. Negotiations with regard to the subject of any such notice will start not less than twenty (20) days prior to the expiration date of the yearly period. Article 2. Recognition. The Company recognizes the Union as the sole and ex- clusive collective bargaining agency for its employees now or hereafter performing the work now being performed by its hourly-paid production and maintenance employees, in- cluding hourly-paid foremen, technical employees, and main- tenance clerks, but excluding superintendents, general fore- men, watchmen and office employees. The Company further agrees that all working regulations as set forth in this agreement with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment and other conditions of employment shall apply to all of its employees above mentioned. — RIM Le leacaiad — Board Exhibit No. 3-L. 119 Article 3. Grievance Procedure. It is agreed that the Union, through its accredited rep- resentatives, may meet and adjust with the Company any discharges, suspension or other grievance which may arise concerning employees of the Company represented by the Union. If an agreement with respect to such discharge, suspension or other grievance is reached between the rep- resentatives of the Company and the accredited representa- : tives of the Union, such agreement shall be reduced to writing, signed by, and be binding on both parties thereto. + ‘ ie % 4 : Any grievance arising under the terms of this contract shall be handled in the following manner: i The aggrieved employee shall first discuss his grievance a with the foreman or supervisor of his department. Should they fail to reach a satisfactory adjustment of the grievance the employee may, within not more than five (5) working é days thereafter, together with an accredited Union rep- S resentative or representatives, take the matter up with the f authorized representative of the Company, having first F stated in writing the facets with respect % his alleged s grievance. If the result of such discussion is unsatisfactory ; to the employee involved, a duly authorized grievance : committee for the Union will, within not more than five (5) s working days thereafter, meet with a committee appointed ‘ by the Company to attempt settlement of the grievance. § Except in emergency, a notice of any grievance to be ie discussed with the grievance committee shall be submitted to the Company in writing at least two days prior to the day on which a conference is requested, in order that the necessary information may be available without loss of time on the part of the grievance committee or the Com- pany. When any employee has been discharged for cause the Company, upon request of the Union, will join the Union in making an investigation with respect to the cause of such discharge. If pursuant to such joint investigation, it shall be agreed by both the Company and the Union that such cause is insufficient to warrant discharge or that there is not suf- ficient proper evidence of the alleged cause of such dis- # 120 Board Exhibit No. 3-L. charge, then and in that event such employee shall be reinstated to his position, with uninterrupted seniority, and with pay allowed for the period of his suspension. In cases in which the Company and the Union may agree merits such action, such employee may be reinstated with- out pay allowance. If the Company and the Union shall fail to adjust a grievance under the procedure above provided for it may be arbitrated, with the consent of both parties, in any manner which they may both agree upon; provided, how- ever, that nothing herein contained shall be construed as requiring either party to arbitrate such grievance. Noth- ing herein contained shall prevent the Union from ex- ercising the right to strike because of any such grievance which has not been adjusted if the procedure for the adjust- ment of grievances hereinabove set forth has been carried through to completion without an adjustment having been reached, and if the Union shall give five days written notice of its intention to call the strike and the reason therefor. Article 4. Reporting for Work. Employees required to report at regular starting time and place and who, through no fault of their own, are not permitted to work on their regular job, shall be given, whenever possible without affecting any regular employee, a full days work. In no ease shall such employee receive less than four (4) hours pay regardless of the actual time worked; provided, however, that the Company shall not be required to make any such payment if failure to provide work is due to a cause or causes entirely beyond the con- trol of the Company. Article 5. Leave of Absence. No Union representative shall lose pay by reason of being required to attend conferences between the Company and Union representatives during working hours. No other business for the Union except such conferences shall in- terfere with the regular duties of employees, except that accredited representatives of the Union shall be given leave ci Board Exhibit No. 3-L. 121 of absence without pay, not exceding ten (10) working days consecutively, to attend conventions or other official busi- ness of the Union. It is agreed that ten (10) days’ notice of each request for such leave of absence will be given to the Company, except in emergencies, and that not more than five (5) employees shall be absent at any one time for such purpose or purposes. Any employee whose continued absence over a longer period of time is necessary because of his duties as an elected or appointed onficer of the Union or by reason of any Governmental appointment will be given leave of absence, without pay, for such purpose. Upon his retire- ment from such office or appointment he shall be entitled to return to his old position, or a position of the same class, if available, upon condition that he shall report within thirty (30) days from the time his term in such Union office or his Governmental appointment shall expire. Article 6. Military Service. Kmployees with established seniority who are called and inducted into service under the Selective Service Act, or as members of the National Guard, Officers’ Reserve Corps, or Naval or Marine Reserve Corps, shall accumulate with- out interruption all seniority rights during the period of such service. Upon completion of such service, each em- ployee shall be restored to his former position (or, if this has been discontinued, to a like position) according to his seniority rights, unless circumstances have so changed as to make it impossible or unreasonable to do so; provided that such employee has not voluntarily reentered such serv- ice after being offered an opportunity of demobilization that he makes application within forty (40) days after he has been honorably discharged from such service, and that his physical and mental condition is such that he ean satis- factorily handle such job. This provision shall be further extended to include em- ployees subject to call under the Selective Service Act who may elect to volunteer for their required training in ad- vance of actual call by their local board and to employees who have been called but rejected prior to induction. PR RENE PERETTI SN PEWS RAT EERE R AMERY a . oe FH ORAL ORE IA INIT) CGI IUD pW LR A AE IES 122 Board Exhibit No. 3-L. Article 7. Bulletin Board. A bulletin board shall be provided in a conspicuous place within the confines of the plant proper where notices of Union meetings and other official Union business may be posted from time to time; provided, however, that such notices shall contain nothing political, or derogatory to the Company, the Western Cartridge Company, any of the Company’s or the Western Cartdrige Company’s em- ployees, or any labor organization among the employees of either of them. Article 8. Management Functions. The management of the plant, including, but not limited to, the direction of the working forces, the right to hire, promote, demote, suspend, or discharge for cause, and to relieve employees from duty because of lack of work, and to transfer employees from one section or duty to another, is vested exclusively in the Company. The foregoing man- agement functions shall not be used for the purposes of discriminating against any employee because of member- ship in the Union or for the purpose of violating any of the provisions of this agreement. Changes on Company rules and orders affecting em- ployees shall be posted on official bulletin boards provided for that purpose and signed by the proper officials of the Company, with the understanding, however, that such rules and orders shall not conflict with the terms of this agree- ment. Article 9. Disabled Employees. Employees who have rendered faithful and honest serv- ice to the Company and who have become unable to handle heavy work to advantage will be given consideration for such light work as may be available from time to time. = Board Exhibit No. 3-L. 123 Article 10. Seniority. In cases of promotions, transfers, and lay-off, where the factors of (a) ability to do the job in question, (b) atti- tude toward safety, and (¢) skill, are approximately equal, seniority shall govern. Any dispute in regard to qualifica- tions other than those listed above which the Company be- lieves necessary to consider, shall be handled through the grievance procedure. The Company agrees not to tolerate any favoritism by foremen or supervisors and to make available to qualified employees such opportunities for advancement as may arise from time to time, even though such employees are particu- larly qualified for their current jobs. All employees laid off shall be returned in the reverse order of having been laid off, before new employees are taken on. Kmployees shall be regarded as probationary employees during the first three (3) months of their initia] employ- ment, or re-employment after breaking of seniority. After three (3) months of continuous employment, employees shall be entitled to seniority rating, and their length of seniority rating shall date from their date of employment. Seniority shall be broken for the following reasons: (a) If the employee quits; (b) If the employee is discharged for cause: (ec) If the employee is absent for three (3) working days or fails to return to work within five (5) working days after being notified to report for work, unless a satisfactory reason is given; or (d) If the employee is laid off for twelve (12) months. Article 11. Union Membership. The Company agrees that any present employee who on June 24, 1941, was a member of the Union or who has be- come a member of the Union since June 25, 1941, shall, as a condition of continued employment, maintain membership on good standing; and any employee who hereafter, during the life of this agreement, becomes a member or is rein- EE are 124 Board Eahibit No. 8-L. stated as a member of the Union shall, as a condition of continued employment, maintain membership in good standing. Article 12. Individual Contracts. There are now in existence approximately 423 individual contracts of employment between Western Cartridge Com- pany and certain of the employees of the Company. The said contracts shall not be transferred to or assumed by the Company nor shall the Company offer to its employees and such individual contracts. Western Cartridge Company or the Company will repay as of August 1, 1941, to each of the employees of the Com- pany holding one of such individual contracts the amount he personally has paid to Western Cartridge Company un- der his contract, upon the signing by each such employee of a receipt and release in full of all further rights there- under. Neither the Western Cartridge Company nor the Company will take any other steps to enforce such indi- vidual contracts with respect to any claims against the employees of the Company accruing after August.1, 1941. The Company shall have the right to require as a condi- tion of employment that each of its employees shall sign a contract of employment in the form’ of which a copy is at- tached hereto, and marked exhibit A. Article 13. Accident Reserve Fund. Both the Company and the Union agree that it is nee- essary to maintain such conditions and follow such work- ing practices as may best be suited to produce safe plant operation and prevent accidents which might result in per- sonal injuries, fatalities and loss of property. Accordingly, the Company agrees to award to its hourly-paid produe- tion and maintenance employees, including hourly-paid foremen, technical employees, a Bonus in accordance with the following plan: An Accident Reserve Fund will be created by the Com- pany by setting apart each month, commencing with the month of Aueust, 1941, and concluding with the month of July, 1942, a sum equal to... per cent of the Company’s PL Raa seme tres oe, Board Exhibit No. 3-L. 125 payroll for the said classes of employees during each pre- ceding month. During the months of August, 1942, the Company will determine the balance, if any, left in this Accident Reserve Fund, after deducting the expenditures, and reserves for expenditures, in replacing property dam- age and in payment of personal injury and compensation liability claims resulting from accidents at the Company’s plant during the period from August 1, 1941 to July 31, 1942. The balance then remaining in the Accident Reserve Fund shall be divided among the said classes of employees who are in the employ of the Company at the time of such distribution, together with those who have been laid off during said period. The percentage of such Accident Re- serve Fund to which each such employee shall be entitled will be determined by dividing the total earnings of each said employee for the said period from August 1, 1941 to July 31, 1942 by the total of the Company’s payroll dur- ing said period for all of such employees so entitled to par- ticipate in the distribution. The Company agrees that regardless of the total actual payments or reserves for payment from said Accident Re- verve Fund the Company will guarantee that the minimum distribution to said employees shall be equal to at least 1|% of the total wages paid to each such employee by the Company during the said period. In the event of the non-operation of the plant of the Company due to any cause, the Company may, at its op- tion, terminate the further operation of said Accident Reserve Fund, provided, however, that in the event of such operation termination the balance then remaining in said Accident Reserve Fund shall become due and pay- able immediately. There shall be established a Joint Safety Committee cofisisting of representatives of the Company and of the Union which shall be charged with the duty of consulting and advising on safety problems for the mutual benefit of the Company and its employees. Said committee shall have the right to be kept advised with respect to the opera- tion of said Accident Reserve Fund and to inspect the books and records in connection therewith. we Sree ragcempngetees ores ate hs VSM RPE ALBEE Res 1S RM RS Ree RD SR LATE CATES LI ULE AR TM S02 ar ENR, CCN AR ES SOC CNA AP TINT Aan MA MERE IR HER MO 15a a 126 Board Exhibit No, 3-L. Article 14. No Suspension of Work. There shall be no suspension of work through strikes or any other stoppage, total or partial, on the part of the Union or any member of the Union, (except that the right to strike following the failure to adjust a grievance is reserved as set forth in Article 3 hereof), nor through lockouts on the part of the Company, during the term of this agreement. Article 15. Wage Rates and Vacations. The transfer of the employees formerly employed by Western Cartridge Company in its so-called smokeless powder division to the Company shall be deemed to have been made effective as of August 1, 1941. The Company agrees to take over and adopt the appli- cable wage brackets which were in effect in said smokeless powder division of the Western Cartridge Company on August 1, 1941, and to advance each employee one full step in his bracket, the average wage increase effected thereby being approximately 5%; the said increase to be retroactive to July 13, 1941. The Company further agrees that it will proceed forth- with, in consultation with appropriate representatives, committees and subcommittees of the Union, to make a thorough study and analysis of the said wage brackets and of each of the jobs to which they are applicable, and of wages being paid by others for similar work, in an en- deavor to arrive at an agreement with the Union for the adjustment and correction of such inequalities and incon- sistencies, if any, as may be found in said wages structure and for such further wage increases, if any, as may be justified. Any such adjustments, corrections, and in- creases, if any, shall be retroactive to July 15, 1941. At the same time the Company and the Union will endeavor to arrive at an agreement with respect to vacations and vacation pay. If no such agreement shall have been reached by Au- gust 31, 1941, and if both parties hereto shall not agree prior to said date to an extension of time for the continu- Board Exhibit No. 3-L. 127 ation of such negotiations, then the negotiations with re- spect to such adjustments and corrections of inequalities, if any, and further wage increases, if any shall be deemed to have failed. In such last named event this agreement shall be and remain in full force and effect with respect to each and every other term and provision hereof, but neither the execution and delivery hereof nor anything herein contained shall be deemed to divest the National Defense Mediation Board of any jurisdiction over the Company, the Western Cartridge Company or the Union, which it may have heretofore acquired. Article 16. Physical Examinations. In the case of periodical physical examinations of em- ployees conducted by the Company, the Company agrees to furnish the employee with an aecurate summary of the physician’s report, if any. In Witness Whereof, the parties hereto have duly exe- cuted this agreement this 2nd day of August, 1941. Kast Alton Manufacturing Company, By J. M. Olin, Vice-President. Chemical Workers Local Union No. 22574, By Francis Bunzy, President. Jack Otten, Recording Secretary. Cecil Crosnoe, Committeeman. Fred Olds, Representative of American Federation of Labor. H. A. Bradley, President of International Council of Chemical and Allied Industries Unions. Attest: Spencer T. Olin, Secretary. a 128 Board Exhibit No. 3-L. BOARD EXHIBIT NO. 3-L. Exhibit A. This Agreement, made this ............... neem ‘ 19... by and between the East Alton Manufacturing Company, a corporation organized under the laws of the State of Maryland, as Party of the First Part, herein- after called ‘‘Company’’, and... ‘ Party of the Second Part, hereinafter called ‘*Himployee’’, Witnesseth That: Whereas, Employee desires to enter to continue em- ployment in the employment (as the case may be) of the Company under an oral contract of employment and the Company is unwilling to permit Employee to do so unless Employee is willing to enter into this agreement. Now, Therefore, in consideration of such employment of the Employee, and of the sum of One Dollar ($1.00) paid by the Company to the Employee, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, it is hereby agreed: 1. That inventions and discoveries relating to the man- ufacture of explosives, or any products made by the Com- pany, or any appliances connected therewith or applicable thereto, which shall be conceived, made, developed or per- fected by, or which shali result in whole or part from the efforts of the Employee during the term of his em- ployment by the Company and during a period of one year thereafter, shall be conclusively presumed to have been conceived, made and developed or perfected men- tally or by research or experiment or ‘arried on in whole or in part with material or apparatus owned or furnished by the Company and at the expense of the Company and, accordingly, any and all such inventions and discoveries shall belong solely to the Company and, upon its request, and at its expense, Employee shall make full disclosure thereof and sign, acknowledge and verify all applications, petitions, specifications, claims, powers of attorney and other instruments necessary, proper or convenient for the making of application for letters patent and the prosecu- tion of such application or applications, and shall assign all such inventions and discoveries and letters patent to Board Exhibit No. 3-L. 129 be issued thereon to the Company, except as listed below. The Employee’s obligation to execute the papers above referred to shall continue beyond the termination of the period of employment with respect to any and all of the inventions and discoveries hereinabove referred to and such obligation shall be binding upon the administrators, executors and assigns of Employee. The Company may, in its discretion, compensate or reward Employee for any such inventions or discoveries in any manner as to the Company may seem fit and proper. 2. Any other inventions and discoveries made, devel- oped or perfected by or which shall result in whole or in part from the efforts of Employee during the term of his employment, which are not covered by the foregoing para- graph, shall be fully disclosed by the Employee to the Company and the Company shall have a reasonable time in which to investigate such inventions and discoveries and to negotiate with Employee for the purchase of the right to use the same, before Employee discloses or offers said inventions or discoveries to anyone else. 3. The Company declares and Employee acknowledges that by action of the Board of Directors the business of the Company has been declared a secret business and Kmployee agrees not to disclose to others not a party hereto any of the trade secrets, details or processes of manufacture or equipment or other information concern- ing or relating to the Company’s business. In Witness Whereof, the Company has caused its cor- porate name to be hereunto subscribed and its corporate seal to be hereunto affixed by its authorized officers and Employee has hereunto subscribed his name as of the day and year first above written. Kast Alton Manufacturing Company, Attest: Secretary. Exceptions. ee RANE AN RELEASE URNS » és iz @ bidet 1 DETER GAD DPE Case No. 44. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS. 1. The Secretary of Labor certified this Case to the Board June 24, 1941. 2. A panel of the Board composed of Charles E. Wy- zanski, Jr., representing the public, Roger D. Lapham, representing employers, and Edward J. Brown, represent- ing employees heard this case June 28, 1941. 3. The principal issue raised was whether the Western Cartridge Company would now recognize Chemical Work- ers, Local Union 22574 (AFL) as the exclusive representa- tive of the hourly paid production and maintenance em- ployees of the Company’s smokeless powder division at East Alton, Illinois. 4. The Company operates a plant at East Alton where it manufactures small arms ammunition, explosives, brass, brass specialities, traps and targets. It employs a total of about 6500 employees in the plant as a whole and about 650 in the smokeless powder division. 5. The Company has had individual contracts with em- ployees at various times since 1914, and continuously since 1933; and has had so-called basic and working agreements since 1937 with the Western Cartridge Employees Inde- pendent Union covering production, maintenance and other employees throughout the Company. 6. In January 1941 the Chemical Workers Local Union No. 22574 began organizational activities among the em- ployees of the smokeless powder division of the Company. The Chemical Workers claimed a majority in that division of the Company, and asked for exclusive bargaining rights 144 Board Exhibit No. 28. for the production and maintenance workers in that divi- sion. The Company refused to grant such recognition on the ground that the employees of the smokeless powder division do not constitute a proper unit and on the ground of an outstanding contract with the Independent Union. 7. March 28, 1941 the Chemical Workers filed with the National Labor Relations Board a petition asking to be certified as the exclusive representative of the production and maintenance employees of the smokeless powder divi- sion of the Company. The National Labor Relations Board held hearings. At the Company’s request the National Labor Relations Board subpoenaed officers of the Inde- pendent to appear. They did so. In writing they had previously stated that they did not object to the unit claimed by the Chemical Workers and that they waived any bargaining rights they might have for the employees in the Smokeless Powder Division. The National Labor Relations Board on May 15, 1941 issued a decision ruling that the smokeless powder division was an appropriate unit and directing an election therein. 8. May 26, 1941 the National Labor Relations Board conducted an election in that unit. In that election 527 were eligible to vote, 459 voted, 377 voted for the Chemical Workers and 82 voted against them. Thereupon the Na- tional Labor Relations Board on June 10, 1941 certified that the Chemical Workers are the exclusive representa- tives of the production and maintenance employees in the Company’s smokeless powder division. 9. June 10 the Chemical Workers asked the Company to enter collective bargaining negotiations. In reply the Company, after repeating that the unit was inappropriate and that other contracts were obstacles, wrote ‘‘that the Company does not recognize * * * Chemical Workers, Local Union No. 22574, affiliated with the American Federa- tion of Labor, as the representative for the purpose of col- lective bargaining under the provisions of the National Labor Relations Act of any of its employees within said proposed bargaining unit.”’ 10. Commissioners of Conciliation conferred with the parties in Washington June 23. The Company’s lawyers drafted or participated in the drafting of a proposal to be submitted to their client which provided for the Company recognizing the Chemical Workers as the exclusive repre- sentative in the Smokeless Powder Division. The union negotiators, duly empowered for that purpose, executed the draft. The Company’s executive officers refused to execute. They stated that unless the directors and per- haps the stockholders of the Company acquiesced they would not abandon the Company’s right to a review in the courts of what was the appropriate unit. 11. In the hearings before the National Defense Media- tion Board it at once became apparent that the principal . issue which was dividing the parties was whether the . Company would now recognize the Chemical Workers as the exclusive representative in the unit found by the Na- tional Labor Relations Board to be appropriate, or whether the Company would insist on proceeding to seek court review of that determination. s 12. That this was the principal issue became undeniable & when the panel asked the Vice-President of the Company whether the Company would execute a contract with the Chemical Workers which had in it only two clauses, the first providing that wages, hours, and working conditions shall be the same as those now prevailing under the Com- pany’s contract with the Independent Union, and the sec- ond providing that the Chemical Workers shall be the exclusive bargaining representative of the employees in the unit certified by the National Labor Relations Board as being appropriate. To this inquiry the Company an- swered that it would not agree to the second clause. 13. In trying to persuade the Company to change its position the panel presented various considerations. The panel pointed out that the Supreme Court of the United States in Pittsburgh Plate Glass Company and Crystal City Glass Workers’ Union vs. the National Labor Relations Board, decided April 28, 1941, and the Circuit Court of Appeals in a uniform series of cases had indicated that a ruling of the National Labor Relations Board on what is an appropriate unit is virtually conclusive unless there has been a lack of procedural due process of law. Hence there is no substantial probability that an appeal to the courts on this issue would accomplish any purpose except delay. The panel also pointed out that only yesterday this Board had in a similar case recommended that a labor or- Board Exhibit No. 23. 145 a SLEEP LIER LG TERE LALO OLLIE TNL OIE FEL ED LL TIGA EMA BRLMR AEDES BEI LEST EAL OCA BE DEE ARETE ING 2 TT 146 Board Exhibit No. 23. ganization should not seek a judicial review of a determina- tion by a state labor relations board. Duquesne Light Company, Case No. 42. See also the first point ‘n the settlement of Minneapolis Honeywell Regulator Company, Case No. 22. 14. Not having been able to secure any agreement from the parties we are authorized by the Executive Order to make recommendations in this case. 15. In making recommendations it should be clearly understood that our purpose is not to pass upon the cor- rectness of any decision of the National Labor Relations Board. It is not our function to determine appropriate units. But it is our duty under the Executive Order to aid in the establishment of industrial peace in defense in- dustries. In aecordance with that duty we recommend that the Company should now bargain in good faith with the Chemical Workers as the exclusive representative of the employees in the unit certified by the National Labor Relations Board as appropriate. Signed at Washington, D. C., this 28th day of June, 1941. Charles E. Wyzanski, Jr., Charles E. Wyzanski, Jr., Representing the Public. Roger D. Lapham, Representing Employers. Edward J. Brown, Representing Employees. — Board Exhibit No. 24. 147 BOARD EXHIBIT NO. 24. Nationa Derense Mepiation Boarp. In the Matter of 7 Western Cartridge Company and East Alton Manufactur- ing Company \ Case No. 44. and Chemical Workers’ Union, Lo- cal 22574—A. F. L. J Before a panel composed of Charles E. Wyzanski, Jr., rep- resenting the public, Roger D. Lapham, representing employers, and Edward J. Brown, representing employ- ees. Hearings held July 11, 12, 14 and 15, 1941. PRELIMINARY RECITALS. 1. This is the same case which was the subject of hear- ings, findings and recommendations on June 28, 1941. 2. At that previous hearing the Board, acting through the same panel as is now sitting in this case (that is, Charles EK. Wyzanski, Jr., representing employers, and Edward J. Brown, representing employees,) recommended that Western Cartridge Company should bargain in good faith with Chemical Workers’ Union Local No. 22574 (AFL) as the exclusive representatives of the employees in the unit certified by the National Labor Relations Board as appropriate. That unit included ‘‘all hourly paid pro- duction and maintenance employees of the smokeless pow- der division of the Company, including hourly paid fore- men, technical employees, and maintenance clerks, but excluding superintendents, general foremen, watchmen, and office employees.’’ 3. The Western Cartridge Company, under date of July 2, wrote the Board a letter in which it took exception to these recommendations but stated that ‘‘If it is neces- SEAMASTER ENRON EP a 148 Board Exhibit No. 24. sary for the Company to bargain separately for this unit, then we are prepared to explore the possibilities of reor- ganizing the operations of the Company’s plant and busi- ness and of taking the necessary steps to create a separate integrated economic unit for the so-called Smokeless Pow- der Division.’’ 4. The Board, insisting that its recommendations should be complied with, on July 3, telegraphed the West- ern Cartridge Company that it recommended that its representatives should meet in East Alton with the Union’s representatives July 5; that if no progress were made, the parties should be free to return before the Board in Washington and that production should be con- tinued throughout the negotiations and proceedings before the Board. The Board also relayed to the Union the Western Cartridge Company’s proposal to organize a new corporation to carry on the work of the Smokeless Powder Division. 5. July 5, the Western Cartridge Company telegraphed that its representatives would on that day meet the Union representatives. The telegram further stated that ‘‘Nego- tiations contemplated on our part shall be for and on behalf of contemplated corporation to be formed representing re- organization of operations of Company’s plant and busi- ness comprising a separate integrated economic unit for the so-called Smokeless Powder Division.’’ 6. At about the same time persons associated with the Western Cartridge Company formed a wholly owned sub- sidiary East Alton Manufacturing Company. The princi- pal officers of the two companies are expected to be sub- stantially identical. Western Cartridge has not vet trans- ferred but plans to transfer, to Kast Alton the jobs which were performed by the hourly paid production employees of the Smokeless Powder Division except magazine store- keepers and probably junior physicists and junior chem- ists. It also plans to have East Alton assume (so far as may practically and lawfully done) obligations and con- tracts affecting production, sales and employment in the Smokeless Powder Division. Furthermore, it plans to transfer to East Alton the Smokeless Powder plant and ge r such other assets as will enable East Alton in good faith to carry out the obligation its assumes and incurs. 7. On July 5 the parties met for collective bargaining in East Alton. Some progress was made. The Union, however, regarding as improbable any further accomplish- ments through negotiations in Illinois, asked the Board to take the case back to Washington, in accordance with the Board’s telegram of July 3. 8. July 7, the counsel for the two companies stated to the Board that he was surprised at the sudden interruption in the Illinois negotiations, as at the conclusion of the July 5 session all parties had joined in making to the press a statement of progress and a date had been set for a fur- ther hearing. He suggested that the Board encourage fur- ther negotiations in Illinois. 9. The Board, by telegram dated July 7, urged the par- ties further to negotiate in Illinois and if they could not agree, to return to Washington for a hearing July 11. 10. Further negotiations in Illinois proved fruitless. The Companies charged the Union with being responsible by insisting on disposing first of a union shop demand made by the Union. The Union charges the Companies with being responsible by refusing to bargain in good faith regarding the more critical questions which divided them, including not only the type of shop, but also wages and the so-called ‘‘individual contracts”? later to be discussed. The Union also complained that shortly after the opening of the conference on July 5, the Companies were repre- : sented only by a plant superintendent and by lawyers and : that Mr. John Olin and Mr. Spencer Olin withdrew. In this connection the Union pointed out that the direction of the two companies rested primarily with these two men : and their father, Mr. F. W. Olin, who are the principal officers and the principal common stockholders as well as a majority of the board of directors. As a rejoinder to this contention, the Messrs. Olin emphasized the extent to which all of them were engaged in other corporate affairs affecting not only their own but also the national interest. Moreover, they stresses the fact that they had given broad powers to those who were engaged in the actual negotia- tions. Board Exhibit No. 24. 149 ESS OE 150 Board Exhibit No. 24. 11. The Board reopened hearings in Washington July 11. The three members of the original panel were present. The Union sent its local committee and also its regional officers who were given by the membership the power to make a final commitment without the necessity of return- ing for ratification. The companies sent a plant superin- tendent and three lawyers, (two of whom were connected with different private firms, and one of whom was a cor- porate secretary who in prior negotiations at the Depart- ment of Labor did not have the power to commit the Com- pany.) The three Olins informed the panel that these persons were at this time adequately empowered to act. However, the panel, in line with the discussion at recent Board meetings, in accordance with the precedent in the Utica & Mohawk Cotton Mills case (Case No. 23), and in the light of its own best judgment as to how a settlement in the instant case could most fairly and rapidly be achieved, requested that one or more of the Olins partici- pate in the proceedings and further requested that in the meantime those who had assembled should continue (in the absence of the panel but in the presence of the panel’s secretary) to carry on negotiations with the hope of nar- rowing 12. These requests were honored. The parties nego- tiated some relatively minor matters Friday afternoon, July 11 and Saturday, July 12. The three Olins and a labor relations counsellor arrived on Monday, July 14. There- upon the panel reconvened the hearings and extended dis- cussions occurred on that day and the day following. 13. At the outset of the session of July 11, the Union agreed that it would be prepared to negotiate its labor con- tract exclusively with East Alton on the understandings (a) that all the jobs included by the National Labor Rela- tions Board in its finding of an appropriate unit at West- ern Cartridge should be transferred to East Alton, (b) Western Cartridge should furnish East Alton with ade- quate assets to fulfill appropriate labor obligations, (c) neither the NLRB nor this Board lost such jurisdiction and power as either tribunal might have with respect to matters in controversy affecting the parties, and (d) Hast Alton would recognize the Union as the exclusive repre- eee Me ee ate eee te ee Board Exhibit No. 24. 151 sentative of the employees in the jobs embraced in the NLRB’s certificate. The Company agreed to (b) and (d). The panel informed the Union that no steps here taken could prejudice any jurisdiction and power the National Labor Relations Board might have, particularly in view of the second sentence of Section 10 (a) of the N. L. R. Act; and that the National Defense Mediation Board would not release such jurisdiction as it might have over Western Cartridge but would merely add to the already included parties the name of the East Alton Manufacturing Com- pany. As to condition (a), the transfer to East Alton of all hourly paid production jobs in the Smokeless Powder Division, more is said below. 14, At the outset of the July 14 session, the parties agreed that the principal issues which still divided them were: (a) the individual contracts, (b) the type of shop (sometimes called the ‘‘union security issue’’), (¢) wage rates, (d) vacations, (e) the extent to which Western Cartridge would be relieved of a duty to bargain for such employees of the Smokeless Powder Division as were not transferred to East Alton, and (f) seniority. (It should be added that at this stage there also was some difference of opinion as to whether an employee should be given a copy of any medical report on his health. That issue, however, was subsequently negotiated to a mutually satis- factory conclusion and requires no further statement here.) 15. The session on July 14 brought none of these six issues to a conclusion. Much time was spent on general discussions of wages and an attempt to inform the panel of the practices on wages presently prevailing in the Smokeless Powder Division. 16. In that Division, all of the 550 employees within the coverage of the National Labor Relations Board’s cer- tificate are hourly paid. That is, there is no bonus, piece or incentive system. 17. Most of these employees have been taken on within the last year to meet the sudden expansion principally consequent upon orders placed with Western Cartridge by Great Britain. Thus the Division’s payroll has risen in one year from 110 to 550. i MORES ESS a te th OS i a an, ORAL sae ERAT Kore iE en! * ESTEE TD ah EPID REE EM AT RIOR ALES GS OW IN 152 Board Exhibit No. 24. 18. The minimum rate among these 550 employees is 52¢ an hour. The average rate is 71.8¢ an hour. 19. These employees fall into three main divisions: roughly 330 in production, roughly 125 in laboratories, and roughly 95 in maintenance. Production subdivides itself into 7 classifications, laboratories into 4 classifications, and maintenance into 20 classifications. 20. The Company’s practice as to wages is illustrated in the following rough break-down of the production divi- sion. In this breakdown the figures were derived from the Companies’ oral testimony. An accurate, detailed state- ment of the wages is set forth in the Companies’ Exhibit C, but these details are too complicated to be repeated here. An employee is hired at a learner’s rate, 58¢ an hour. All learners (of whom there are now about 20 in produc- tion) are paid that rate. It is expected that after about three months a learner will step up another grade, and that on due time, if he has ability and efficiency and if there is an opening, he may be given a personal inerease or up- graded as the case may be. The grades and pay scales above learners in the production division are: truck driv- ers’ helpers 58¢ to 62¢ an hour; truck drivers (who to- gether with helpers are about 30 in number) 63¢ to 75¢ an hour; helpers (about 75 in number) who are paid 60¢ to 66¢ an hour; powder operators B (about 75 in number) 69¢ to 72¢ an hour; powder operators A (about 75 in number) 75¢ to 79¢ an hour; and hourly paid foremen (about 12 in number) 83¢ to 91¢ an hour. 21. After the general exploration of the wage issue, the panel and the parties on July 14 discusses principally the individual contracts and the type of shop. After formal adjournment that day, there was further informal dis- cussion between the parties on these and other subjects. 22. On July 15 the parties appeared as requested at the Board’s offices again. In the hope of securing greater progress, the panel conferred with each group separately in the morning. These conferences plainly disclosed that further collective bargaining would not be successful un- less the issue of the individual contracts were first re- solved. In vies of this impasse and in view of the im- portance of continued production at this plant to effectuate Board Exhibit No. 24. the national policy of supplying Great Britian with arms and ammunition necessary for its and our national de- fense, the panel is of the opinion that this case is appro- priate for findings and recommendations pursuant to See- tion 2 (d) of the Executive Order creating the Board. Findings and Recommendations. A. Individual Contracts. 23. Issue: The first issue on which the panel makes findings and recommendations related to individual con- tracts. 24. Facts: Beginning in 1914 and continuing to date, with the exception of an intervening period from 1920 to 1923, Western Cartridge Company has offered each of its em, ‘oyees, after he has served a probationary period, an inci. ‘dual contract. The full text of that contract in its preset form is attached hereto and lettered ‘A’. Ap- prox? ately 5,100 employees of Western Cartridge have exece +d contracts of this type. These contracts were ex- ecuted at different times, but in each ease the contract ex- pires one year after execution. Included in these 5,100 are 428, or all but two, of the employees here involved for whom this Union is the certified collective bargaining agent. 25. Union’s contentions: The Union claims that these individual contacts are invalid as a matter of law, par- ticularly in view of the National Labor Relations Act and the decisions thereunder, and in view of the certificate is- sues by the National Labor Relations Board. The Union points to paragraphs 3, 4, 6, 8 and 9 which it interprets as permitting the Company to discharge an employe who goes out on strike and as permitting the. Company to withhold a promised 6% annual bonus if during the year he strikes. The Union also places some reliance on the point that these contracts were not signed voluntarily since they were pre- sented to employees for signatures by the Company, and the Union asserts that the mere employment relationship puts the employee in such a position that on matters of this sort an employee does not act with complete free will 10 1 BP NTA SMR 154 Board Exhibit No. 24. which the Union says the law guarantees him. Some ref- erence is also made to the fact that some of the terms in- eluded in the contract so plainly relate to general wages, hours and working conditions as not to be appropriate for individual negotiation once a collective bargaining repre- sentative has been certified. Furthermore, legal argu- ments aside, the Union asserts that these individual con- tracts are in their spirit contrary to and hence subversive of sound collective bargaining relationships. For these reasons the Union seeks to have this type of contract, so far as it affects employees in the Smokeless Powder Di- vision, terminated by Western Cartridge, not assumed by Kast Alton, and not hereafter offered by East Alton. 26. Companies’ Contentions: The Companies’ conten- tion is that these individual contracts are lawful and are conducive to a sound employment policy. The Companies stress the thrift features of the contracts, and the concern of the Companies in protecting their patents and trade secrets. The Companies assert that the contracts were ex- ecuted voluntarily that an employee who does not want such a contract can (like the two present non-signatories) decline to execute such a contract without loss of his job, and that (as Western Cartridge’s contract with an unaf- filiated union shows) these contracts are not repugnant to collective bargain. Western Cartridge also draws to our attention the indirect impact of any disposition of the 428 contracts in the Smokeless Powder Division upon the bal- ance of the approximately 5,100 similar contracts. Both Companies contend that the contracts are not terminable at the will of the employer alone. In making this contention, Kast Alton does not assert that it, as distinguished from the Western Cartridge Company, is now bound by such contracts, and moreover neither Company contends that if it were directed by a governmental agency to disclose such contracts it would not be protected by the force majuere clause in Article 9 of these contracts exonerating the Com- pany for ‘‘causes beyond the control of the Company’’. Both Companies also suggest that if the contracts were unlawful, there are available appropriate judicial processes to test the matter. It is not clear whether the Companies take the position that, despite the second sentence of See- Board Exhibit No. 24. 155 tion 10 (a) of the National Labor Relations Act, a judicial tribunal cold properly pass on the question in any way except upo. review of an order of the National Labor Re- lations Board. 27. Proposals advanced during the collective bargain- ing process under Section 2 (a) of the Executive Order; During the collective bargaining stage of those proceed- ings, the panel suggested three alternative solutions for consideration and bargaining by the parties. Succinctly stated, these were the alternative proposals: (1) that the question of the legality be referred for final determination by the Chairman of the Board or by any neutral qualified person mutually acceptable; (2) that neither company should take steps to carry out those individual contracts with any of the employees of the Smokeless Powder Divi- sion until and unless required so to do by a court of com- petent jurisdiction; and (3) that all parties should submit to the National Labor Relations Board the question of law upon an agreed statement of facts and upon a stipulation for expeditious consideration and that pending judicial review, if any, of that Board’s order, the parties abide by that order. The Union was willing to accept any one of those alternatives. The Companies were unwilling to ae- cept any of these proposals or, during the course of the collective bargaining in Washington, to suggest any al- ternative course. On Wednesday, July 23, after these ree- ommendations were in draft form, Mr. John Olin informed the panel that he had in a confidential letter to a third party for transmission to the panel indicated three possible methods of dealing with individual contracts. The rele- vant parts of this letter are quoted in Exhibit ‘‘C”’ at- tached hereto. ; 28. Recommendations: Regardless of whether the in- dividual contracts are or are not valid under the National Labor Relations Act, the panel regards these contracts in their present form as being inconsistent with a sound collective bargaining relationship between East Alton Manufacturing and this Union. We, therefore, recom- mend that Kast Alton Manufacturing should not assume or offer to its employees any such individual contracts ; that Wesfern Cartridge Company or East Alton Mannu- 7 cl RE Recap a RSA SR — Ee RS Sison ll [MU rea anor 156 Board Exhibit No, 24. facturing Company should repay as of August 1, 1941, to each employee in the unit represented by this Union the amount he personally has paid to the Companies under his contract; that Western Cartridge Company and East Alton Manufacturing Company should take no other steps to enforce the individual contracts with respect to em- ployees in the unit represented by this Union; and that the Union execute on behalf of those it represents whether members or not, a release from liability on these individual contracts. This recommendation does not preclude the East Alton Manufacturing Company from exacting from each employee an appropriate personal pledge confined to the non-disclosure of patents and trade secrets. B. Type of Shop. 29. Issue: The second issue on which the panel makes findings and recommendations relates to the type of shop, or as it is sometimes called, ‘‘Union security.”’ 30. Union’s contentions: The Union seeks a union shop in which every present employee within the unit, whether or not he is now a member of the Union, must be and remain a member of the Union in good standing as a condition of employment, and in which every new em- ployee in the unit must, after a probationary period of 30 days, become and remain a member of the Union in good standing as a condition of employment. The Union agrees that it will take into membership every present employee of the Smokeless Powder Division but it will take in only such future employees as meet the standards of the Union. In support of its position, the Union em- phasizes the special facts in this case. The Unions asserts that the Western Cartridge Company and East Alton Manufacturing Company in their dealings with the Union in Illinois and in Washington and in what the Union claims are the Companies’ dilatory tactics before this Board have shown an obvious hostility toward collective bar- gaining which reasonable ground for fear that unless the Union is protected by some form of union security pro- vision the management will undermine and seek to elimin- ate it. Among other indicia of the attitude of the manage- Board Exhibit No. 24. 157 ment, the Union makes reference to the following: West- tern Cartridge’s refusal promptly to honor the National Labor Relations Board’s certificate or this Board’s recom- mendations of June 28, 1941; Western Cartridge’s crea- tion of East Alton as part of what the Union fears is a devise for checkmating its normal growth; the Olin’s refusal to adopt a formula evolved at the Department of Labor by Western Cartridge’s own lawyers (acting ad- mittedly only as lawyers, not as corporate officers); the withdrawal of the Olins personally from negotiations in St. Louis, coupled with their delay in coming to and their promptness in withdrawing from hearings before this Board; the conferences which supervisory officials of Western Cartridge had with individual employees in St. Louis to secure their views on individual contracts at the very time that issue was the subject of collective bargain- ing negotiations in Washington before this Board; the grant by Western Cartridge to the unaffiliated union of a wage increase averaging 5% effective July 3, despite the fact that earlier in the same week both Western Cartridge and East Alton had not made any offer or concession to the American Federation of Labor union in the hearings before this Board in this case; and the charges (as yet untried) filed before the National Labor Relations Board to the effect that Western Cartridge has violated the Na- tional Labor Relations Act by discriminating against union members. 31. Companies’ contentions: Despite Western Cart- ridge’s earlier position of going to court to contest the National Labor Relations Board’s certification, East Alton has now recognized the Union as the exclusive representa- tive of the employees of the company in those classifica- tions which that Board grouped together as an appropri- ate unit. The Companies are not ready to grant volun- tarily a closed shop or union shop. In their brief, the Companies stress their objections to the Union’s pro- posal: (1) ‘‘This proposal of the Union would mean that approximately two hundred employees in this separate unit, *vho have up to now refused to join the Union, would be compelled to become members! (Co. Br. 9); (2) There is an ‘‘obvious inappropriateness of such (closed or union “this agreement, becomes a member or is reinstated as c.g Wee ore Or 158 Board Exhibit No. 24. shop) restrictions upon a man’s right to work and an employer’s right to select his employees in the present emergency, particularly having in mind the occupational responsibility of the employees by reason of the character of the work’’ (Co. Br. 10); and (3) in view of the Com- panies’ willingness to recognize individual assignment of wages for Union dues, there is no need for the union to ‘fear a loss of its present membership and hence to insist upon the ‘freezing’ of such membership for the duration of the contract’’. The Companies also allege that the Union’s demands in this case and its attitude during ne- gotiations in St. Louis were such as to indicate that a union shop would not work satisfactorily. 32. Recommendations: The panel recommends that East Alton Manufacturing Company and the Union in- clude in a collective bargaining contract the following provisions: ‘‘The Company agrees that any present employee who on June 24, 1941, (the date this case was certified), was a member of the Union or who has become a member of the Union since June 24, 1941, shall as a condition of con- tinued employment maintain membership in good stand- ing; and any employee who hereafter, during the life of a member of the Union shall as a condition of continued employment maintain membership in good standing.’’ In making this recommendation, the panel notes that it in no way impinges upon the freedom of any individual who has nor chosen to join the Union. It does not exer- cise the type of compulsion specifically adverted to in the Companies’ brief. It does not restrict the employer in the choice of his employees,—a restriction to which, as noted above, the employer expressed particular opposi- tion. It goes only so far as to preserve the Union in the status it has already achieved and may achieve through voluntary adherence of employees. It protects the Union in its capacity to fulfil its contract, and makes certain that those who authorized the Union to act for them will aid their agent in performing its obligations. This case seems to us to present strong evidence that some formal assurance of a stable status of the parties Board Exhibit No. 24. 159 is necessary here. In the hearings before this Board the Companies showed what at best must be described as a complete unfamiliarity with the realities of collective bargaining. Hither by accident or by design, the manage- ment resorted to practices which undermined the con- fidence of others sitting at the same table with them. If the management’s tactics were not deliberately dilatory they at any rate gave that impression. If by wage in- creases to others than those represents before the Board the management meant merely to carry on in good faith bargaining with the independent union, the management nonetheless gave the appearance of discrimination. A workman might reasonably conclude that these Companies did not want and were going to try to eliminate the mem- bers of this Union. Against this fear, based upon the recent record, the Union members are, we believe, en- titled in this case to be protected. We add that we hope that there are no grounds for the fear the Union has expressed and that the effect of our recommendation will be to make for better relations by the removal of suspicion. C. Wage Rates. 33. Issue: The third issue on which the panel makes findings and recommendations relates to wage rates. 34. Facts: As already noted, the present hourly rates for the Smokeless Powder Division are at a minimum of 52¢ an hour and an average of 71.8¢ an hour. We are not informed whether this figure of 71.8¢ is calculated on the basis of the basic rate for a 40-hour week or whether [Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.] --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA34086415_1670%3A10. Public record. Not legal advice.