NATIONAL LAB RELATIONS BOARD - National Labor Relations ...

52 FIFTH ANNUAL REPORT OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARDafter having announced a 10-percent wage cut only a month before,granted a 10-percent wage increase shortly before the revision wasfirst submitted to the employees, and [gave] the employee representatives* * * credit for obtaining the increase in the minutesof the Industrial Union meeting, copies of which were posted on therespondent's bulletin boards * * *" The Board found the revisedorganization to be company-dominated, and, in rejecting therespondent's contention that this finding would necessarily disqualifyall employee representatives under a company-dominated planfrom taking part in a revision to purge the plan of domination,said:We are of the opinion that such a deduction is entirely unwarranted anderroneous, because of additional material facts in this case. Here the employeerepresentatives produced a revision in effect dictated by the employer,which did not materially change the substance of the original plan or removethe employer's control. Moreover, we have heretofore held, and we now hold,that after an employer has dominated a labor organization for a considerableperiod of time and has thereby fostered among his employees the idea thatthe organization is the "official" representative favored by him, an effectiverevision of the dominated organization requires that this impression be removed,and that the employees be freed of the effects of the employer's pastinterference, restraint, and coercion in the exercise of rights guaranteed insection 7 of the act. In the instant case the respondent did nothing * * *to remove the employee's impression * * but, on the contrary, as wehave found, affirmatively acted to strengthen that impression.The Board has held that where "the entire record discloses agenuine desire on the part of a group of employees for an independentorganization," and "where the potency of this desire transcendedits possible conditioning by the history of company-dominated unionsin the respondent's plant," the fact that the organization followedupon two prior company-dominated organizations was not controlling.23 In Matter of E. T. Frain?, Lock Co., et al. and SteelWorkers of North America Lodge 1732 24 the members of a companyformed"inside" union obtained a charter from the American Federationof Labor. The Board held that the—identity of membership and officers between a labor organization affiliated withone of the national unions and an unaffiliated labor organization previouslyformed by the employer does not establish per Se illegality under the act withrespect to the affiliated labor organization * * * In a situation such asthat presented here, where it is alleged that the employer has supported orencouraged membership in a labor organization affiliated with a national union,for the employer to be found to have engaged in unfair labor practices inrespect to such labor organization and for an order affecting the employer'srelations with that organization to issue, it should appear either by way ofaffirmative proof or as a matter of persuasive inference, that membership inthat organization resulted from or was attributable to employer action illegalunder the act.Such affirmative proof appeared in Matter of Eagle-Pich,er& Smelting Company, etc., and International Union of Mine,Mill, & Smelter Workers, etc. 25 where the successor union was affiliatedwith a national organization. The employers formed, dominated,supported, and interfered with a labor organization known as21 Matter of Sprague Specialties Company and United Electrical, Radio ct Machine "Workersof America Local No. 29, 20 N. L. It. B., No, CO.la 24 N. L. R. B.. No. 13n25 16 N. L. R. B. 727 The complaint did not allege a violation of section 8 (2). TheBoard found that the employer's domination and support of, and interference with, thesuccessor organization infringed section 8 (1).