NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD

VII. PRINCIPLES ESTABLISHED 121
provisions to be embodied in the proposed contract. He then produced
a letter to the respondent, likewise prepared by Balleisen, for
signature by the employees and urged them to sign it. It was stated
in the letter that the employees had elected a bargaining committee
and authorized it to sign a contract containing provisions outlined
"by the management." Thereafter, pursuant to the respondent's
plans, the employees signed the letter of authorization and selected
a collective bargaining committee. So great was the dissatisfaction
of the employees with the terms of the proposed contract, however,
that they left work. The respondent then selected a second bargaining
committee to succeed the first committee, which had ceased to
function after the employees left work.
The nature of the respondent's domination of, and interference
with, the two "collective bargaining committees" formed among its
employees and the relation of the respondent and Balleisen to these
labor organizations were described by the Board in the following
language :
This second "collective bargaining committee" may be looked upon as an
outgrowth or continuation of the first. One is tainted with the illegality
of the other. They are both part of a plan, devised by Balleisen. and the
respondent, to circumvent the respondent's duty to bargain collectively with
the union. We find that the respondent's instigation and sponsorship of the
two "collective bargaining committees," and all its activities in connection
therewith, constitute domination and interference with the formation and
administration of a labor organization or plan of its employees. The respondent
encouraged and, in fact, ordered these committees to confer with it, and to
call meetings of all the employees, in the plant during working hours ; fu r
-nished for their use its stenographer and its office; and bore all the expenses
incurred for mimeographing the various forms supposedly issued by the committees,
for postage, or otherwise, thereby contributing its financial support to
a labor organization. The nature and purpose of the respondent's conduct is
emphasized by the fact that its activity in connection with these committees
followed so closely after the respondent had been approached for the purpoRP
of collective bargaining by the union organizer, representing a clear majority
of its employees as we find below, whom the respondent had obviously put off
upon a false pretext in order to have an opportunity to undermine and dissipate
the union's strength."
In other cases, the employer's range of conduct leading to his
interference with a labor organization has been more limited in scope.
In Matter of Ingram, Manufacturing Company," the Board found
that on numerous occasions the respondent's supervisory employees
disparaged and discredited the genume.union, and during the same
period solicited employees to join the council. On the other hand, the
respondent had not interfered with the formation of the latter union
and had refrained from bargaining collectively-with it because it was
not satisfied that it represented a majority of its employees. The
board concluded :
In any event, where the Board finds interference, domination, and support
of the character set forth above, the absence of employer influence at the crea-
" See Matter of The Jacobs Bros. Co. Inc., and United Electrical and Radio Workers of
America, Local No. 1226, 6 N. L. R. 620, also involving a Ballelsen client, where the
Board described the conduct engaged In by the respondent as follows:
"The actions of the respondent's agents, both officials and supervisory employees, in
advising the employees to elect representatives, prepare demands, and meet with the management,
initiated the organization of the plan of representation. The respondent prepared
the authorization for the representatives, directed the time and method of the circulation
among the employees, directed and assisted its circulation and procurement of
the employees' signatures, and secured its return. The respondent summoned the representatives
to meetings with its officials, described their powers and duties, ordered them
to present demands, and dismissed their meetings."
Matter of Ingram Manufacturing Company and Textile Workers Organizing Committee,
5 N. L. R.. B. 908.