Aintree Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 12, 1942

43 N.L.R.B. 1 (N.L.R.B. 1942)

In the Matter of. AINTREE CORPORATION and INTERNATIONAL LADIES'
GARMENT WORKERS' UNION, LOCAL NO. 373,, AFFILIATED WITH THE
AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR
Case No. C-214O.-Decided August 12, 194,
Jurisdiction : underwear manufacturing industry.-
Unfair Labor Practices.
Interference; Restraint;; and Coercion: posting of notice stating. that two em-
ployees were laid off because they had distributed; union literature in respond-
ent's plant, where, respondent had never before posted notices concerning
]ay-offs .or the reasons therefor.
Disci t ninat'ion: lay-off of two employees for two weeks for -union membership
and activity ; alleged reason for-lay-offs that employees violated respondent's
neutrality and caused disorder by distributing union literature in respondent's
plant-rejected.;.,
Remedial Orders : employer ordered to cease and, desist from unfair labor prac-
tices, and to make whole laid-off employees the amounts they would have
earned during the 2-week lay-off period.
Mr. Bertram Diamond, for the Board.'
Mr. flynan G. Stein and-Mr. Philip Gallop, of St. Louis, Mo., for
the respoi deiit.:.. '
Mr. Morris J. Levin, of St. Louis, Mo., for the Union.
Mr.-Gerard J. Manacle, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon-charges duly filed by International Ladies' Garment Workers'
Union, Local No. 373, affiliated with the American Federation of Labor,
herein called' the Union, the National Labor Relations Board, herein
called the Board, by the Regional Director for the Fourteenth Region
(St. Louis, Missouri), issued its complaint dated February 18, 1942,
against Aintree Corporation, herein called the respondent, alleging
that the respondent had engaged in and was, engaging in unfair labor
practices affecting commerce, within the meaning of Section 8 (1) and
(3) and Section 2 (6) .and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act,
49 Stat. 449, herein called the Act. Copies of the complaint, accom-
panied,by'. notice of heating, were duly served upon the respondent
,and-the Union.
43 N. L. R. B., No. 1.
481039-42-vol. 43-1 1
2 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
With respect to the unfair labor practices, the complaint alleged,
in substance, that the respondent: (1) on August 27, 1941, laid off
employees Mamie Eichem and Josephine Keagy for a period of 2 weeks
'because of their union membership and activities; and (2) by the
foregoing act and by posting a notice on August; 27, 1941, announcing
that the two employees were laid off for their concerted activities,
interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise
of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. Thereafter the
respondent filed-an answer in which it admitted the allegations of the
'complaint as to its business, denied the jurisdiction of. the Board,
denied that it had engaged in any unfair labor practices, and alleged
certain affirmative defenses. -
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held at Fairfield, Illinois, on
March 2 and 3, 1942, before C..W. Whittemore, the Trial Examiner
duly designated by the Chief Trial Examiner. The Board, the re-
.spondent, and the Union were represented and participated in the
.hearing. Full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross- examine
witilesses,'and to introduce evidence bearing upon the issues was af--
forded all parties. At the opening of the hearing and at the close of
the Board's case, motions by counsel for the respondent to dismiss the
.complaint were denied by the Trial Examiner. The same motion. was
renewed at:tlie.close of the hearing.. The Trial Examiner reserved
ruling but denied the motion in his Intermediate Report., . Also at
the close of the hearing, a. motion of counsel for the Board. to' conform
the pleadings to the proof was granted without objection. Various
rulings were made by the Trial Examiner on other motions and on
objections to the admission of'evidence during the course of the hear-
ing. The Board has reviewed the rulings and finds that no prejudicial
errors were committed. The rulings of the Trial Examiner are hereby
affirmed.
On March 20, 1942,- the Trial- Examiner filed his Intermediate
,Report,-copies of which were duly served upon the parties. The'trial
Examiner found that the respondent had engaged 'in and was engag-
ing i'n unfair labor"practices within the meaning of Section 8 (1) and.
(3) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act, and recommended that the
respondent cease and desist therefrom, and take certain - affirmative
action deemed necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act, including
the payment of wages lost by two employees who were laid off. There-
after the respondent filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and
^ The respondent contended that the local union was not capable of filing charges or of
,representing the respondent 's employees because the International Union was without
authority , under its constitution, to charter the local union . There is no merit to the
contention . 'Cf: Pueblo - Gas & Fuel Company , a corporation v. N. L. R. B.,-118 F. (2d)
304, enf 'g Matter of Pueblo Gas & Fuel Company and International Brotherhood of Elec-
trical Workers, Local Union No. 667-B, 23 N. L. R. B. 1028.
AINTREE CORPORATION 3
a brief in support thereof. No request for oral argument was received.
The Board has considered the respondent's exceptions and brief, and
insofar as the exceptions are inconsistent with the findings, conclu-
sions, and order set forth below, finds them to be without merit. `
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT .
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
The respondent, an Illinois corporation' with its principal office and
plant at. Fairfield, Illinois, is engaged in the manufacture and sale 'of
men's underwear. During the, year 1941, the respondent purchased
and used materials valued at more than $170,000; approximately 90
percent of which was secured from points outside, the State-of Illinois,
During the same period, approximately 82 percent of the finished
products manufactured by. the respondent, valued at more than
$435,000, were 'shipped to points outside the State of Illinois. The
respondent admits that it is engaged in commerce within the meaning
of the Act.
II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union, Local No. 373, is a
labor. organization, affiliated with the American Federation of Labor,
admitting to membership employees of the respondent.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES .
In May 1941.a hearing was held in a former. proceeding before: the
Board, involving the same parties as in the instant case., On August 8,
1941, the Trial Examiner filed his Intermediate Repoit On'December
31, 1941, the Board issued its decision and order ,2 wherein it found 'in
conformity with the findings of the Trial Examiner, that the-respond-
ent had engaged in unfaii labor practices within the meaning of. Sec-
tion 8 (1), (2), and (3) of the Act, in that, inter alma, it had interfered
in the formation and administration of The Better Union, herein
called TBU, an unaffiliated labor organization. At' the time.. of the
hearing in the instant proceeding, the respondent. admittedly, had' not
complied with the prior order of the Board.
On the morning of August 27, 1941, shortly after the issuance of the
Intermediate Report in the prior proceeding, employees Mamie Eichem
and Josephine Keagy brought union leaflets into-the plant bearing the
following text :
2Matter of Aintree Corporation and International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union,
Local No. 373, affi liated with the American Federation of Labor, 37 N. L. R. B. 1174.
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Tune in To.
"The Labor Board Decision"
Station WEBQ
Harrisburg, Illinois
Wednesday, August 27
7:00-7:30 P. M.
What will be the results of the Labor Board Decision? Under the
law what will the Company .have to. do.? How will it effect the
Company Union? ' Hear a' complete discussion of the Labor Board
Decision and the Union. Hear Union members in other towns.
Eichem and Keagy worked in the same room. Before 7 o'clock, when
power was turned. on and'work began at the respondent's plant, Eichem
distributed a few of these' leaflets-to other employees in her room: • Also
before 7 o'clock, and in response to an inquiry-from an employee at an
adjacent machine as-to why-she had come to work "all dressed up,'-"
Keagy laid one of the leaflets before her. At the same time Keagy gave
,her neighbor a copy of "Justice," a•union periodical which frequently
had been distributed among employees in the plant.
According to the undenied testimony the following events occurred
thereafter. At about 7:15 the power was turned' off and all employees
in the sewing department, numbering about 200, were instructed, by
the forelady to go to the-front of the room. Manager Gilton addressed
the employees, declaring that someone had passed out union literature
that morning, and that when he, found out'who had' done so, he would
discharge them. Many of the employees cheered loudly, a demonstra-
tion which neither Gilton nor the forelady undertook to curb. There-
after one or more of the supervisory employees urged employees to
report to the office if they knew who had distributed the leaflets.
Soon after 7:30 Eichem and Keagy were instructed to report to
Gilton. 'There is no conflict in the testimony as to what occurred in
his office. When they arrived, they found a number of other workers
assembled, most of them members of TBU. In response to Gilton's
questions, Keagy admitted having shown one of the leaflets, in the
manner above described, but said that she did not know she should not
have done so. Eichem likewise admitted that she had distributed two
or three leaflets, but denied, that she knew of any instruction forbid-
ding it, or that she had "littered the floor with them." 3 Gilton asked
the forelady if the girls had been instructed against such conduct. The
forelady replied that she believed so, went upstairs, returned, and re-
ported to Gilton that the "girls did know," and that the "bulletin" was
still posted.4 Gilton remarked that the employees did• not appreciate
The forelady had so charged to Gilton.
The bulletin referred to is 'presumably the alleged neutrality notice of January 15,
discussed hereinafter.
AINTREE CORPORATION 5
what lie was doing for them. One of the TBU members replied, "That's
why we're fighting so hard," a remark understood by Keagy to refer to
-TBU's fight against the Union. Gilton further stated that it was not
yet a "union shop," and that if and when it was, "it would be a horse
of a different color." Thereafter all the employees returned. to work.
At about 9: 30 a. in., Keagy and Eichem were again called. to the
office, where Gilton informed them that they were to be laid off for 2
weeks because they had distributed union literature. Eichem pro-
tested that they had done nothing "worse" than Evelyn Matthews who
had exhibited similar literature in the plant on the previous afternoon.'
Matthews, who had been present at the earlier conference with TBU
members and had been asked by Gilton if she had seen Keagy, and
Eichem distributing leaflets, was again - summoned to his office. Ac-
cording to the uncontradicted testimony of Keagy and Eichem, which
we credit, as did the Trial Examiner, Gilton told Keagy and.Eichem,
prior.to Matthews' arrival, that if Matthews-had shown the leaflet she
would be laid off also. Keagy and Eichem testified that when 'Mat-
thews came into the office she admitted to. Gilton, in their presence, that
she had shown the leaflet, which she had received by mail, to another
employee on the floor of the plant during working hours. , At the
hearing, however, Matthews denied that she had shown the leaflet to
anyone or that she had admitted doing so to Gilton. She testified that
she had gone to the post office on August 26, and had taken her mail
to the plant to read; that the mail included an invitation to a union
meeting;' that-she had placed her purse on the bench beside her ma-
chine; that Mrs. Lang, an employee who worked on the machine next
to Matthews, "just took it and read it"; and that she did not object
to Mrs. Lang, "very good friend," reading her - mail. Matthews
further testified that both. Eichem and Keagy were leaving Gilton's
office as she entered and were not present at any time during her
explanation to Gilton. Gilton was not called as a witness. - , ..
. The testimony ofd Eichem and Keagy appears more credible than
that of Matthews; for, unless they were present, we deem it unlikely
that they would have testified, as they did, that they heard Matthews
explain that she had 'shown a union document received by mail. The
record does not indicate that Matthews made this explanation to any:
one else or at any other, time prior to the hearing. Moreover, Matthews
testified,.as stated above, that the union document was an invitation
to a union meeting, whereas both Eichem and. Keagy testified that it
was the same leaflet that Keagy and Eichem had . shown.. Eichem
further testified that her machine was located close to that of Matthews'
and that she had witnessed the whole incident. Her testimony-follows :
Q. Just tell us what she did or said that, you saw?
A. I just saw her [Matthews] put it down by.her and I saw
DECISIONS OF -NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
other girls go down to bet it and the next thing I knew she had it
before her reading it.
Q. The ``it" you are referring'to is
A. One of those [indicating]. . V
5.Q: Leaflets like Board's Exhibit Number 5?
A. Yes, and whenever she was reading it she said to the girl
sewing next to me, she asked her "Jeannette, have you a radio?"
. .Q. -Who said that?
A.-Evelyn [Matthews]. While this other girl was reading it,
she said, "Jeannette, have you got a radio?" and Jeannette said,'
'Yes," and she said, "Well, you want to tune in WEBQ tomorrow -
- .,night," and I said, "You haven't time, have you, Jeannette ?.. You
have to.go to the'fair." . I j'ust.passed it. off in a joking way..
Matthews did-not deny that this conversation occurred. The Trial
Examiner, who'observed the'witnesses, also credited the testimony.of
Keagy and Eichem. , Under all the circumstances, we find that Mat-
thews,- upon being 'questioned by. Gilton, admitted having shown the.
leaflet to 'employees.-on, the previous 'day. However,' Matthews was
not laid off dr disciplined in any manner. V
At noon'on-the 'same day, the respondent posted a notice in the plant
stating that Keagy and Eichem
have this day been laid off for two weeks on account of their
_having distributed union literature in the company's plant this
morning. Any, repetition,of such conduct by any.. employee -in
.the future will result in such employee being promptly discharged.
At'the conclusioli•of.the 2-week period,'Keagy and Eichem were rein-
stated by the, respondent..
The respondent.contends; .in its .pleadings,6, that 'both Eichem= and
Keagy "did engage in union organizational'activities, and distribute
union literature in the respondent's plant, both before the commence,
meat of" aid ; during: working hours," and "did thereby undertake to
and did breach plant discipline, promote and create inter-union con-
troversy in respondent's plant and on respondent's time, impugn and
violate respondent's aforesaid 'neutrality, create and cause, disorder and
uproar among respondent's employees in the plant, arid' interfere with
and disrupt the proper^.and orderly conduct of respondent's said plant
and the operations thereof."
The evidence supports only the contention that the two employees
distributed union literature in the plant before working hours. The
testimony. of the witnesses is undirsputed, and we find, as did the Trial
Board's Exhibit. Number 5 is one, of the union leaflets, for the, distribution of which
Eichem and Keagy were laid off, -
-- 6 Other ' than calling and questioning Matthews , the respondent caned: no witnesses to
testify concerning the merits of the case.
AINTREE, CORPORATION
Examiner, that no leaflets Were shown or distributed by Eichem or
Keagy after the workday began.
The testimony of numerous witnesses is likewise undisputed, -and
we find, that the distribution of the leaflets caused no commotion or
disorder. Whatever disruption of operations occurred, followed and.
was the direct result of the shutting off of power, the assembly of all
employees in the shop; and the threat of Gil"ton to discharge distribu-
tors of the leaflets when their identity became known to him. Since
this disruption; if any, was caused solely by the respondent it may
not; with validity, be urged that the two -employees were responsible.
The respondent further contends that the aforesaid activity of
Eichem'and Keagy breached plant discipline, because it violated"the
respondent's neutrality as established by a notice posted in the' plant
on January 15, 1941.7 According to the respondent,' this notice im-
posed a 'rule,- of conduct upon.all employees which prohibited theln
from engaging in any union activity-on company property; and that
since "great bitterness and hostility" existed between the Union and
TBU,B any organizational activity in the plant by either organiza-
tion would tend to produce violence, disorder; and disruption of work,
and,that,.therefore;_ythe.respondeiit had the right to prohibit any such
actiyity in its plant. Irrespective of the respondent's right .to estab-
lish. such rules of conduct; it ,is clear that no such rule was. imposed
by,`the. respondent: The neutrality' notice by its terms, applied-to
activity - which: might be interpreted as -indicating' the respondent's
opinion and policies. That the notice was so- interpreted- by the re-
spondent, as . well. "as the employees, is .established by the uncontra-
dicted testimony that in the period between January 15 and August
27, 1941, employees openly brought union literature into the plant
and distributed it; that members of the Union wore"union buttons
in the plant;.-that members of both organizations openly discussed
organizational matters in the plant before working hours and during
the lunch period;-and that all of these activities-had been carried . on
without reprimand. or discipline by the management. ''Under these
NOTICE
JANUARY 15-, 1941.
The charge has been , made that certain employees of this company have made state-
ments which are interpreted as reflecting the opinion and policies of this company. This
company has been, and will continue to be neutral , and will not take sides - in any differ-
ences that may exist between different unions and organizations.
Any employees , regardless of. the position they hold , either' operator , presser, cutter,
forelady, foreman, office help-or any other employee of this company , found guilty of
such practice will be instantly dismissed.
This company has no ' connections in any way , manner , shape or form with any of the
organizations ' iavolved 'in this .controversy. We are neutral , and we intend to remain so.
". _ AINTREE CORPORATION.
By IRVING p'LAMBERG. .
8 The parties stipulated that' on July 2, 1941 , two organizers . of the Union , not em-
ployees, were . " mobbed in front of the plant by 2 or 3 dozen employees ," who were not
members of the Union.
.
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
circumstances, the respondent cannot seriously contend that the leaflet
distributed by Keagy andEichem violated the neutrality notice of
-January 15. No other rule governing union activity by the employees
or the distribution of union literature was alleged or shown to have
been promulg'ated.9 In the absence of -any rule forbidding what had
been common practice, the respondent's action in laying off Keagy
and Eichem for the distribution of union literature, was.. dis-
-criminatory.lo .
That the respondent's motive was solely to discourage union activity,
is further established by its failure .to impose a similar penalty on
Matthews.. Keagy and Eichem were active union members. Keagy
joined the Union in November 1940; Eichem in April 1941. Both
attended union meetings regularly and solicited union members: Just
prior to the lay-offs, Keagy was elected financial secretary of, the Union:
Both wore their union buttons .in the plant regularly. Matthews,
whom the respondent failed to lay "off, although advised that she had
engaged in similar activity, was, a member of the company=dominated
TBU.iI
In view of the respondent's failure to .object to the distribution: of
other' union literature. in the plant, it is a fair .inference and we find;
as did the Trial` Examiner, that the respondent objected to: the par-
ticular literature distributed.. by Keagy and Eichem, because of its con-
tent, which called attention to the respondent's sponsorship. of TBU
and its other .unfair labor. practices. This inference is further' sup-
ported by Gilton's remarks.to the .employees in his office'that if and
when a union shop was established "it would be a hoise• of a different
color."
Since the respondent discriminated against Keagy and Eichem by
imposing a disciplinary. lay-off because of .thei-r<:.union' activity,' it
follows that the' posted notice, announcing that it had'taken.this action,
was also violative of the Act. Aside from this however, it is clear that
the respondent intended.by the notice to discredit Keagy and Eichem
and their activities to, their fellow-employees. ' The testimony is un-
contradicted that never before had the respondent posted notices con
'It is clear that the testimony of Jewell Elliott in the prior. proceeding that a super-
visor had warned her in-October 1940 that "we had better not catch you talking it [the
Union] does not establish the existence of a rule relating to union activity in the plant.
"'10 N. L . R. B. v. Oregon Worsted Company , 96 F. (2d) 193 (C. C. A . 9)' enf 'g Matter of
Oregon Worsted Company, a corporation and United Textile Workers of Americ a, Local
2435, 1 N. L. R. B. 915 ; N. L. R. B. v. Botany Worsted Mills, 106 F. (2d) 263 (C. C. A. 3)
en'fg a 's mod. Matter of Botany ' Worsted Mills and Textile Workers Organizing Commit-
tee, 4 N. L . R. B. 292; Matter of Paragon Die Casting Company, a corporation and Na-
tional Association of Die Casting -Workers, : affiliated with Congress ' of, Industrial Organi-
zations , 27 N. L. R. B. 878.
11 The respondent asserts that Matthews was a member of the Union . It is true that
Matthews signed a card for union membership in the forepart of 1941, but she never paid
any,dues or.. attended union meetings . Moreover , the secretary of TBU testified , and we
and, that Matthews was a member of the latter organization in 'August 1941.
AINTREE CORPORATION 9
cerning lay-offs or, the reasons therefor. Had the respondent merely
intended to establish a rule for future conduct, as to the v-_alidity..of..
which we express no opinion, it would not have inserted the reference
to Keagy and Eichem in the notice.
Upon all the evidence and in conformity with the findings of the
Trial Examiner, . we - find that the respondent, by laying off Eichem
and Keagy for a 2-week period beginning August 27, 1941, discrimi-
nated in regard to their hire and tenure of employment; thereby dis-
couraging membership in the Union, and by such discrimination and
by posting the notice of August 27, 1941, in connection therewith,
interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise
of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE.
The activities of ' the respondent set forth in Section III above,
occurring in connection with the - operations of the respondent de-
scribed in Section I above , have a close , intimate , and substantial rela-
tion to trade , traffic, and commerce among the several States, and tend
to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the
free flow of. commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that the respondent has engaged in certain ' unfair
labor practices we shall order it to cease and desist from such practices
and to take certain affirmative action which we deem necessary to
effectuate the policies of the Act.
We have found that the respondent has discriminated in regard to
the hire and tenure of employment of Mamie Eichem and Josephine
Keagy: We shall therefore order that the respondent make Eichem
and Keagy whole for any loss of pay each may have suffered, by -reason
of the respondent's discrimination against her, by payment to each of a
sum of money equal to the- amount that each -normally would have
earned as wages during the 2-week period' following August 27, 1941,
less the net earnings of each during the said period.12
We have found that the respondent, by acts other than' the lay-offs
of Eichem: and Keagy, has interfered with, restrained, and coerced its
employees in the! exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the
Act: We have also found, in a prior proceeding' that the respondent
'has previously engaged in- other unfair labor practices, which at the
12 By "net earnings" is meant earnings less expenses , such as for transportation , room,
.and board , incurred by an employee in connection with obtaining work and working else-
where than for the respondent , which would not have been incurred but for the discrimi-
nation and the consequent necessity of his seeking employment elsewhere . Sec Matter of
Crossett Lumber Company and United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America,
Lumber and Sawmill Workers Union, Local 2590, 8 N. L. R .,B. 440.
13 See footnote 2, supra.
10 DECISIONS OF' NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
time of the hearing had not yet been remedied. Thus it is established
that the respondent is engaged in a course of conduct designed to'defeat
self-organization.14 In order to effectuate the purposes of the Act;
we deem it necessary and shall direct that the respondent cease and
desist from in any manner infringing upon the rights of self -organniza-
tion guaranteed to employees by Section 7 of the Act.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record in
the case, the Board makes the following :
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union, Local No. 373;
affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, is a labor organi-
t, Ization; within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act. -
2. By discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of employment
of Mamie Eichem and Josephine Keagy, thereby discouraging meni-
bership in International Ladies' Garment Workers' U nion,'Local No.
373, the respondent has engaged . in and'is engaging in unfair laboi
practices; within the meaning of Section 8 (3) of the" Act.
3. By interferiing with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the
exercise of the rights'guaranteed in Section 7 of the At, the respond-
ent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices, within
the meaning of Section 8.: (1) of the Act-
4. The aforesaid unfair labor - practices are unfair labor practices
affecting commerce, within the. meaning of Section 2 (6) and. (7), of
the Act.
Upon-the basis of the foregoing findings offact',and;conclusionsof
law., and.-pursuant to Section 10. (c) of;the National Labor Relations
Act,_ the National. Labor._ Relations Board' hereby orders that the, re-
.spondent, Aintree Corporation, and _its officers, agents, successors, and
assignsshall:
1. Cease and desist from.:
(a) Discouraging membership in International Ladies'.. Garment
Workers' Union; Local. No. 373, affiliated, with the American Federa-
tion of Labor; or any other labor organization of its employees, by
-laying off or in any other manner discriminating against employees
with. regard to their hire or tenure of employment -or any term or
condition of their employment;
14 See Natioizal Labor Relations Board v. Bradley Lumber Company of Arkansas, a cor-
poration (C. C. A. 8, decided June 26, 1942), enf'g platter of''Bradley.Luiniber Conipdny
of Arkansas and United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America , Local 2645,
A. F. L., 34 X. L. R. B. 610.
AINTREE CORPORATION 1.1
(b) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing
its employees in the exercise of the right to self-organization, to form,
join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through .rep=
resentatives of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted activi-
ties for the purposes of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or
protection, as guaranteed in Section.7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Make whole,Mamie Eichem and Josephine Keagy for any-loss
of pay they may have suffered by reason of the respondent's discrimi-
nation against them by payment to each of them of a'sum of money
equivalent to the amount she would normally have earned as wages
'during the 2-week period following August 27, 1941, less her net earn-
ings during said period;
(b) Immediately 'post notices to its employees in conspicuous places
throughout its plant in Fairfield, Illinois, and maintain such notices
fora period of at.least.sixty (60) consecutive days. from the date of
posting, stating: (1) that the respondent will not engage in the con-
duct from which it is ordered to cease and desist in paragraphs 1 (a.)
and (b) of this Order; (2) that the respondent'-will' take the-affirma-
tive action set forth in paragraph 2 (a) of this Order;: and (3) that
the respondent's employees are free to become or remain members ^of
International Ladies' Garment Workers'. Union, Local No. 373, affili-
ated with the American Federation of Labor, and that the respond-
ent will not discriminate against any employee because of membership
in or activity on behalf of said labor organization; -
(c) Notify the Regional Director for the Fourteenth Region in
writing within ten (10) days from the date of this. Order what steps
the respoiidenthas taken to comply herewith.
MR. GERAan D: REILLY took no part in the consideration of the above
Decision and Order..