NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD

VII. PRINCIPLES ESTABLISHED 117
The union's committee had met with unyielding resistance on the part of
Ausehn, who had abruptly ordered from his office the "outside" representative
selected by the union to serve on its committee; the R. M. W. A. was welcomed
and readily granted recognition. The union had been denied the use of the
respondent's bulletin boards for announcements of meetings; this favor was at
once bestowed upon the R. M. W. A. An attempt had been made to poison the
union ranks by the injection therein of a labor spy; far from using espionage
against the R. M. W. A., the respondent granted it the use of the Company
building and furnished it free typing and mimeographing services. The prior
drive to induce the employees to abandon the union in favor of an employee representation
plan quite naturally had no counterpart when the R. M. W. A., an
organization modelled to comply with the respondent's desires, appeared on the
scene. In general, the contrast between the respondent's well-publicized animosity
toward the union and its open affection for the R. M. W. A. was so clear
and striking that it must necessarily have prevented freedom of choice by the
employees.
The written constitution and bylaws of an organization may likewise
reveal extensive control of the organization by the employer.
In Matter of H. E. Fletcher Co.," an employees' representation plan
introduced m March 1934 by the respondent provided for a works
council consisting of six employee representatives and six representatives
of the management to engage in collective bargaining
and to handle grievances. The Plan permitted only employees of the
respondent to be candidates for election. It provided that the elections
were to be supervised by a committee of three, two of whom
were selected by employee representatives and one by the management.
The respondent was to furnish suitable places for meetings
of the council and its committees. The constitution also provided
that "representatives in attendance at any meeting of the works
council or its committees, and employees required to attend any meetings
at the request of the works council or any of its committees,
shall receive their regular pay from the Company for such time
as they are necessarily absent from work for these purposes." It
appeared that the works council could act only by a two-thirds vote
of its members. In holding the plan to be company-dominated, the
Board concluded :
The works council is plainly the creature of the respondent, subject to its
desires and checked by the procedural restraints embodied in the plan. Composed
of equal numbers of representatives of both employer and employees,
the works council is limited in its activity to the requirement of a two-thirds
vote of its membership. Nor can the employees, through their elected representatives,
amend, alter, or repeal the plan, since such action would require
a three-fourths vote of the council. Any action of the works council is therefore
always predicated upon the approval of the respondent's representatives who
can frustrate the employees' desires whenever they are so instructed by the
respondent.
" See also Matter of the Triplett Electrical Instrument Company, The Diller Manufacturing
Company, doing business under the firm name and style of Readrite Meter
Works, and United Electrical and Radio Workers of America, Local No. 714, 5 N. L. R. B.
835, where the Board said :
"The respondents contend that the participation of snbforemen and clerical employees
in the formation of the Committee of 17 and the association had no more significance
than the participation of those employees in the formation of the union. But such participation
is significant and does implicate the employer unless the employer makes clear
that it has no connection with such activities. In the case of the union, the respondents
so dearly indicated their hostility to it that no employee would be intimidated into Joining
it to save his job merely because a clerical employee or a subforeman was soliciting for
the union. The respondents repudiated the actions of those employees on March 11, and
again on March 15, and many times thereafter by making no secret of their attitude
toward the union. This same attitude was not displayed in the case of the Committee of
17 and the association."
"Matter of H. E. Fletcher Co. and Granite Cutters' International Association of America,
5 N. L. R. B. 729.