B. B. Crystal Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 30, 1946

70 N.L.R.B. 985 (N.L.R.B. 1946)

In the Matter of PROSPER BROZEN, INDIVIDUALLY , AND DOING BUSINESS
AS B. B . CRYSTAL COMPANY and WHOLESALE & WAREHOUSE WORKERS
UNION, LOCAL 65, C. I. O.
Case No. PC-5815.-Decided August 30, 1946
Mr. Jerome I. Macht, for the Board.
Goldwater d Flynn, by Mr. Joseph E. O'Grady, and Newman cfi
Bisco , by Mr. Nathan Waxman, all of New York City, for the respond-
ent.
Messrs. Peter Stein and Irving Lebold, of New York City, for the
Union. -
Miss Melvern R. Krelow, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
ORDER
On April 25, 1946, Trial Examiner Martin S. Bennett issued his
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the
respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor
practices and recommending that he cease and desist therefrom and
take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the Inter-
mediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the respondent filed ex-
ceptions to the Intermediate Report and a supporting brief. On July
30, 1946, the Board heard oral argument at Washington, D. C. Only
o the respondent appeared- and participated in the argument.
The Board has reviewed the Trial Examiner's ruling made at the
hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rul-
ings are hereby affirmed, except as hereinafter indicated. The Board
has considered the' Intermediate Report, the respondent's exceptions
and brief, and the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the find-
ings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner with
the additions and exceptions hereinafter set forth.
.1. The Trial Examiner has found that the respondent discharged
Tony Greco because of his union activities, and that the incident of
April 23, 1943, discussed below, was seized upon by the respondent as a
pretext. The record shows that on April 9, 1943, Greco, while dis-
cussing the discharge of two employees, raised his hand to Brozen and
70 N. *L. R. B., No. 75. -
985
986 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
said, "If you were not such an old mall ..." On April 20, 1943, an
employee, Schlissel, was creating . disturbance by whistling loudly.
While Brozen was reprimanding Schlissel for the second time, Greco
intervened and asked Brozen, "Are you telling me people are slowing
down in production and you are going around bothering a man working
and doing his work? If he is whistling, so what?" Greco ordered
Schlissel to whistle, and turning to Brozen said, "You have nothing
to do in the factory. Go back to the office." Brozen told Greco, "You
might find I will have to discharge you if you continue to do that," and
Greco. replied, "I am shop chairman. You will never be able to dis-
charge me." On April 23, 1943, an employee, Newman, after several
days' absence from the plant, reported for work. He was prevented
by Foreman Heinen from- clocking in. Thereupon, Newman reported
to Brozen. Brozen told Newman that he knew Newman "had another
job and that there was no sense in having two jobs at one time." New-
man approached Greco, told him 'that he had been ill for the past sev-
eral days,' and requested Greco to take up his discharge with Brozen.
Greco immediately went to, Brozen and demanded that Newman be
reinstated. Brozen refused, asserting that Newman had another job.'
Greco promptly assembled the union shop committee and approached
Brozen.in the outer factory office. In the discussion which ensued,
Brozen again told Greco that Newman had another job, and that he
actually, quit. Greco, in the presence of the shop committee and other
persons gathered around, said, to Brozen, "You are a liar." Brozen
immediately discharged Greco stating, "I have taken all that I am
going to take from you, and now you are fired." One of the employees
then asked Brozen if he and Greco could get together, and Brozen said,
"We will if he apologizes to me, he called me a liar." Greco refused to
apologize, contending that he had not called Brozen a liar.
Under the circumstances, we are of the opinion that the respondent
discharged Greco because of insubordination, and not because of his
union activities. The Trial Examiner's finding that Greco was dis-
charged in violation of Section 8 (3) of the Act is hereby reversed. -
2. During the hearing, the Trial Examiner denied the respondent's
motion to strike the testimony of Daniel House, a former Field Exami-
ner in the Board's Second Regional Office. We agiee with the Trial
Examiner, and hereby affirm his ruling.
3. The Trial Examiner has found, and we agree, that the respondent
has refused to bargain with the Union. In so concluding, however,
we do not rely upon, nor do-we affirm, the Trial Examiner's subsidiary
finding that the,respondent's conduct in discharging two employees on
1 The respondent applied for a subpoena addressed to L. Heller in order to prove that
Newman had worked for Heller during the period he contended he was ill, which application
-was denied by the Trial Examiner- Thereupon the respondent formally offered-to prove
these facts. The offer of proof was rejected by the Trial Examiner. We do not agree
with the ruling made by the Trial Examiner. 'However, in view of our holding that Greco
was not discriminatorily discharged, we find 'that no prejudicial error was committed.
B. B. CRYSTAL COMPANY 987
May 6,1943, without prior consultation with or notice to the Union, and
thereafter in refusing, although requested by the Union, to submit
these discharges to arbitration, constituted a violation of Section 8 (5)
of the Act.
4. We are of the opinion that the conduct on the part of the respond-
ent, set forth in the Intermediate Report under Section III, 2, coupled
with -the respondent's refusal, which we have heretofore found, to
bargain collectively with the Union, digcloses a purpose to defeat self-
organization among the respondent's employees. Because of the re-
spondent's unlawful conduct and its underlying purpose, we are
convinced that the unfair labor practices found are related to the other
unfair labor practices proscribed by the Act, and that danger of their
commission in the future is to be anticipated from 'the respondent's
conduct in the past. In order, therefore, to effectuate the policies of
the Act, and to protect the rights of the employees thereunder, we shall
order the respondent-to cease and desist from in any manner infringing
upon the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
ORDER
Upon the entire record in the case, and pursuant to Section 10 (c)
of the National Labor Relations Act, the National Labor Relations
Board hereby orders that the respondent, Prosper Brozen, individu-
ally, and doing business as B. B. Crystal Company,I New York, New
York, and his agents, successors, anct assigns shall :
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Refusing to bargain collectively with Wholesale & Warehouse
Workers Union, Local 65, C. I. 0., as the exclusive representative of
all his production, maintenance, and factory clerical employees, ex-
cluding office employees, members of the firm, and supervisory em-
ployees with authority to hire, promote, discharge, discipline, or other-
wise effect changes in the status of employees, or effectively recommend
such action, with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment,
and other conditions of employment;
(b) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing
his employees in the exercise of the right to self-organization, to form
labor organizations, to join or assist Wholesale & Warehouse Workers
Union, Local 65, C. I. 0., or any other labor organization, to bargain
collectively with representatives of their own choosing, and to engage
in concerted activities for the purpose 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) Upon request, bargain collectively with Wholesale & Warehouse
Workers Union, Local 65, C. I. 0., as the exclusive representative of
all his production, maintenance, and factory clerical employees, ex-
988 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
eluding office employees, members of the firm, and supervisory em-
ployees with authority to hire, promote, discharge, discipline, or other-
wise effect changes in the status of employees, or effectively recommend
such action, with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment,
and other conditions of employment;
(b) Post at his plant at New York, New York, copies of the notice
attached hereto, marked "Appendix A." Copies of said notice, to be
furnished by the Regional Director for the Second Region, shall, after
being duly signed by the respondent's representative, be posted by the
respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and maintained by him
for sixty (60) consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, on
the seventh and eighth floors of his factory, and including all places
where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps
shall be taken by the respondent to insure that notices are not altered,
defaced, or covered by any other material ;
(c) Notify the Regional Director for the Second Region in writing,
within ten (10) days from'the date, of this Order,' what steps the
respondent has taken to comply therewith.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint, insofar as it alleges that
the respondent has discriminated against Tony Greco, within the
meaning of Section 8 (3) of the Act, be, and it hereby is, dismissed.
MR. JAMES J. REYNOLDS,.JR., took no part in the consideration of the
above Decision and Order.
APPENDIX A
NOTICE To ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to a Decision and Order of the National Labor Relations
Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
-Relations Act, we hereby notify our employees that :
WE WILL NOT in any manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce
our employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to
form labor organizations, to join or assist WHOLESALE &
WAREHOUSE WORKERS UNION, LOCAL-65, C. I. 0., or
any other labor organization, to bargain collectively through rep-
resentatives of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted
activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual
aid or protection. All our employees are free to become or remain
members of this union, or any other labor organization.
WE WILL BARGAIN collectively upon request with the above-
named union as the exclusive representative of all employees in the
bargaining unit described herein with respect to rates of pay,
hours of employment or other conditions of employment, and if
an understanding is reached, embody such understanding in a
signed agreement. The bargaining unit is :
a
B. B. CRYSTAL COMPANY 989
All production , maintenance , and factory clerical employees,
excluding office employees , members of the firm , and supervisory
employees with authority to hire, promote, discharge , discipline,
or otherwise effect changes in the status of employees , or effectively
recommend,such action.
PROSPER BROZEN , individually and'doing
business as B . B. CRYSTAL COMPANY,
Employer.
Dated----------- By------------------------------------------
(Rpresentative ) ( Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof,
and must not be altered , defaced, or covered by any other material.
INTERMEDIATE REPORT
Mr. Jerome I. Macht, for the Board. -
Goldwater & Flynn, by Mr. Joseph E. O'Grady and Newman & 'Bisco, by Mr.
Nathan Waxman, all of New York City, for the respondent.
Messrs. Peter Stein and Irving Lebold, of New York City, for the Union.
STATEMENT Or THE CASE
Upon a second amended charge duly filed on January 29, 1946; by Wholesaled
& Warehouse Workers Union, Local 65, C. I. 0., herein called the Union, the
National Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board, by its Acting Regional
Director for the Second Region (New York, N. Y.), issued its complaint dated
January 30, 1946, against Prosper Brozen, individually, and doing business as
B. B. Crystal Company, herein called the respondent, alleging that the re-
spondent at its plant in New York, N. Y., had engaged in and was engaging in
unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8 (1),
(3), and (5) and -Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act,
49 Stat. 449, herein called the Act. Copies of the complaint, accompanied by
notice of hearing thereon, were duly served upon the respondent and the Union.
With respect to the unfair labor practices, the complaint alleged, in substance,
that respondent : (1) on or about April 23, 1943, discharged and thereafter
refused to reinstate Tony Greco because he joined or assisted the Union or
engaged in other concerted activities; (2) in or about April, May, and October,
1943, and on numerous dates thereafter, refused and continues to refuse to
bargain collectively with the Union as the exclusive bargaining representative of
respondent's employees within an appropriate bargaining unit, although a
majority of the employees in such unit, in an election conducted under the
supervision of the Board on April 16, 1943, had designated and selected the Union,
and the Union was certified by the Board on April 2, 1943, as the exclusive
bargaining representative of the employees in said unit; (3) in or about April
and May, 1943, and thereafter, expressed disapproval of the Union, interrogated
its employees concerning their union affiliations, warned its employees against
joining and belonging to the Union on penalty of discharge or other reprisals, and
on April 28, 1944, promised and subsequently granted a unilateral wage increase
to his employees; and (4) by such conduct engaged in and is engaging in unfair
labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (1), (3), and (5) of the Act.
3 The original charge in this proceeding was flied on April 3, 1945.
990 ' DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Respondent's answer, filed at the hearing on February 18, 1946, admitted
several of the allegations in the complaint with respect to the nature of respond-
ent's business, admitted that respondent "has not since April 23, 1943, employed
Tony Greco," admitted that on April 16, 1943, a majority of his employees in the
unit set forth in the complaint, designated the Union as their collective bargaining
representative, but denied the appropriateness of the unit set forth in the com-
plaint. The answer further alleged that, respondent, during-April and May 1943,
did engage in collective bargaining with the Union in good faith but that the
Union refilsedrto proceed- with collective bargaining and'caused the matter to be
certified to the National War Labor Board as a dispute concerning wages. The
answer further alleged that in October 1943, respondent's employees repudiated
the Union as their collective bargaining representative and that.the Union has-
not, since that date, been the representative of the employees in the unit set forth
in the complaint. The answer denied the commission of any unfair labor
practices.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held on February 18, 19, 20, 27, and 28, and
on March 1, 4, and 5, 1946, at New York, New York, before the undersigned Trial
Examiner, Martin S. Bennett, duly designated by the Chief Trial Examiner.
The Board and respondent were represented by counsel and the Union by repre-
sentatives. Full opportunity was afforded all parties to be heard, to examine and
cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing upon the issues.
During the hearing, a motion by counsel for the Board to conform the pleadings
to the proof with respect to formal matters was granted. Counsel for the Board
argued orally before the undersigned at the conclusion of the hearing and all
° parties were afforded an opportunity to file briefs. A brief has been submitted by
respondent.
Upon the entire record in the case and from his observation of the witnesses,
the undersigned makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
Respondent, Prosper Brozen, individually, and doing business under the trade
name and style of B. B. Crystal Company, has his principal office and place of
business at New York, New York, where he is engaged in the manufacture, sale,
and distribution of watch crystals.'- During the year 1945, respondent purchased
sheet glass and other materials, valued in excess of $10,000, of which approxi-
mately 90 percent was transported to its plant from States of the United States
other than the State of New York. During the same period, the value of watch
crystals manufactured by respondent was in excess of $250,000, of which approxi-
mately 90 percent was transported to States of the United States other than the
State of New York.
Respondent admits that he is engaged in commerce within the meaning of'the
Act. -
II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Wholesale and Warehouse Workers Union, Local 65, is a labor organization
affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations, admitting to membership
employees of respondent. -
0
2 For many years Prosper Brozen was associated with his brother Leon Brozen, as co-
partners . doing business under the trade name and style of B. B. Crystal Company. Upon
the death of Leon Brozen, on or about June 9, 1945, Prosper Brozen became the successor
to said business and has continued to operate it as an individual.
B. B. CRYSTAL COMPANY 991
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
1. Background and preliminary events
Prior to February 1, 1943, there was no labor organization representing re-
spondent's employees. On the morning of February 1, 1943, Prosper Brozen re,
ceived two separate letters from employees of the bending department, in each
a wage increase was requested. He arranged a conference with a committee of
employees from that department and stated that he was unable to raise wages
without War Labor Board approval. While the conference was on, there was a
work stoppage in the bending. department and approximately 70 employees of
that department and the polishing department went on strike. Division Director
Bernstein, of the Union,-was informed of the strike and was told that the em-
ployees were looking for a union organizer. He promptly dispatched an organizer,
Louis Kalb, to the scene. The latter found a number of respondent's employees
in the street and obtained signed membership applications for the Union from
them. He also went into the plant' and endeavored to get the remainder of the
workers to join those already on strike. Approximately 60 to 70 additional em-
ployees then left the plant, making a total of approximately 130 on strike of the
180 rank and file employees then in respondent's employ. The strikers met that
afternoon and elected a committee to represent them in negotiations with re-
spondent The following day, some workers reported for work, but left prior to
10 o'clock and joined the strikers'
On February 2, Kalb, Bernstein, and the committee met the two Brozens and
their secretary, Mildred Coval. They stated that the Union represented a
majority of respondent's employees, that it wanted to negotiate a contract, and
offered to prove the union majority by card check. After the Union proposed
that an interim method of arbitrating grievances be established, Prosper Brozen
stated that lie would have to consider the matter and that he intended to con-
sult an attorney ; he retained Daniel D. Trause that day. That evening, a state-
ment was mailed to respondent by the Union wherein the Union requested a
union shop, and indicated that it desired negotiations concerning seniority, vaca-
tions, holidays, sick leave, changes of jobs in the plant, an arbitration clause, and
salary adjustments. The tollowing day, the union representatives had a telephone
conversation with Trause wherein the latter stated that he lacked familiarity
with the field of labor relations and requested definite proof of the union ma-
jority The Union filed a'Petition for Investigation and Certification-of Rep-
resentatives on February 3.°
The Board held a hearing on March 4, 1943, and on March 29 ordered an election
held among respondent's employees' The election was held on April 16, and of
113 eligibles, 110 voted. Of the 109 valid ballots, 100 were cast for the Union.
On April 28, 1943, the Union was duly certified by the Board. as the collective
bargaining representative of respondent's production, maintenance and factory
clerical employees.
2. Interference, mcstrain,t, and coercion
Tony Greco, an employee since September 1942, was elected shop chairman on
or about March 26, 1943. The following morning, lie informed Prosper Brozen
3 The plant is located on the seventh and eighth floors of an office building. All plant
departments and company offices are on the eighth floor with the exception of the beveling
department which is located on the seventh floor.
,'The strike terminated on February 8, 1943 ; an undisclosed number of the strikers did
not return to respondent 's employ.
Case R-4974.
4 48 N. L . R B. 701.
992 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
of his election, as he testified, and offered to cooperate with him, should Brozen
find a lack of cooperation among any workers. Brown then told him that he was
foolish to join the Union, accept the responsibility of shop chairman, and represent
the workers; that the workers would turn against him eventually; and that
he (Greco) would suffer by it as he would not have the opportunity to earn the
same money as others in the shop.
That noon, respondent stopped overtime work in the bending department, claim-
ing that production had fallen off, that the men ignored his requests to speed
up production, and that this was a disciplinary measure.'
On several occasions in April 1943, both prior to and after the Board ordered
election held on April 16, but prior to April23,8 Brozen discussed the Union with
Greco, as the latter testified, and stated that "his own personal investigation of
the union showed that they were Communists, and that all unions were racket-
eers." On one occasion, Brozen said "he would never sign a contract with the
union because he wouldn't have anything to do with any Jewish Bolshevik
organization-when we [the employees] joined the union it would cost us money,
we would have to pay dues, we would be assessed, we would have strikes."
Brozen further stated that "he didn't have to be in the manufacturing business"
but could buy ready-made crystals elsewhere and need only maintain a sales
office wherever he chose in the country. He added that "he would go,'out of
business if he was forced to sign a contract with the union," that he could make
a profit by sub-leasing his factory space, and showed Greco a letter whose writer
offered to sublet the seventh floor of the factory. He concluded by saying that
he could sublet his factory at any time.
Greco, as shop chairman, was also a member of a shop committee chosen by the
employees. After the stoppage of overtime on March 27, they conferred on two
or thrre occasions with Brozen and Trause. At these conferences, which appear
to have been prior to the election on April 16, the principal issue was the restora-
tion of overtime work. After discussing that issue at the first meeting, Brozen
said, as Greco testified, "he wouldn't have anything to do with the union, he
was running his business, -would stop overtime when he wanted to . . ." ; that
both Brozen and Trause said that they did not see how the Union could obtain
wage adjustments for the employees, as they had been unsuccessful in the attempt
and that the Union was "just fooling" the employees.
Greco testified that at the other two meetings of the committee with Brozen
and Trause conversation followed a similar pattern, and that at one of them,
when the Union asked permission to have their representative present, Brozen
said, "there was no contract in the shop, we had no union, and he wouldn't have
any union organizer sit in with us, he would never have him come up to the
shop" ; that at all of these.meetings Brozen said the men "had no business joining
the union."
The undersigned finds that Brozen and Trause made the statements set forth
above,8 and that respondent thereby interfered with, restrained, and coerced
his employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7-of the Act.
7 The employees normally would have worked until 4: 30 p. in that day.
8 Greco was discharged on April 23. , The circumstances of his discharge are hereinafter
discussed in Section 4..
e This finding is based upon the credible testimony of Greco. Brozen denied making most
of the statements attributed to him by Greco, but admitted having approximately eight
talks with Greco after his election as shop chairman. He was not asked questions con-
cerning several of the statements, aq e. g , Greco's testimony that Brozen threatened to go
out of business if compelled to sign a contract with the Union and that he (Brozen) could
sublet the fgctory. The testimony of Greco on these matters was clear and forthright , his
recollection of the events was good. On the other hand, Brozen's recollection was refreshed
by memoranda on a number of occasions and, in the opinion of the undersigned, he was an
B. B. CRYSTAL COMPANY 993
3. The refusal to bargain; additional interference, restraint, and coercion
(a) The appropriate unit
Pursuant to a petition duly filed by the Union, the Board, on March'29, 1943,'
issued its Decision and Direction of Election,10 in which it found that a unit
composed of all production, maintenance, and factory clerical employees of re-
spondent at his New York plant, excluding all office employees, members of the
firm, and all supervisory employees, was an appropriate unit for the purposes of
collective bargaining.
The undersigned finds that the above-described unit at all times material
herein constituted and now constitutes a unit appropriate for the purposes of
collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
(b) Representation by the Union of a majority in the appropriate unit
On April 16, 1943, pursuant to said Decision and Direction of Election, an
election, duly conducted, was won by the Union. No objections to the election
were filed by any of the parties and on April 28, 1943, the Board issued its
Certification of Representatives, certifying the Union as the exclusive representa-
tive of all the employees in the aforesaid appropriate unit.
The undersigned finds that on April 28, 1943, and at all times thereafter, the
Union was, and now is, the duly designated representative of a majority of the
employees in the aforesaid appropriate unit, and by virtue of Section 9 (a) of
the Act, the Union at all such times was and now is the exclusive representative
of all the employees in the aforesaid appropriate unit for the purposes of col-
lective bargaining with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours, or other conditions
of employment"
(c) The election; the case goes to the War Labor Board
As heretofore set forth, the Board, pursuant to its Decision and Direction
of Election, conducted an election on April 16, 1943, at respondent's plant which
was won by the Union. i
Daniel House, who was employed by the Board as a Field Examiner during
4943 and 1944, conducted the election among respondent's employees. He testi-
fied that immediately after the election the ballots were counted and a "Certifi-
cate of Counting and Tabulation" was prepared by him and handed to Prosper
Brozen ; Biozen then asked him what the result of the election meant., House
replied that Brozen was expected to sit down, negotiate, and bargain with the
Union, whereupon Brozen stated "I could bargain from now until doomsday, but
that wouldn't mean I would sign an agreement." House informed Brozen that
this would be a violation of the law and then left 12112
evasive witness . Brozen's testimony on this matter is rejected . Trause was not asked
whether he made the statements attributed to him by Greco.
20 48 N. L. R. B. 701.
"The contention of respondent that a shift of majority had taken place prior to the
hearing in the subject case will be discussed later in this report. The Union offered no
other proof of its majority at the hearing.
u Brozen admitted having a conversation with House after the election but denied stating
that he would not sign an agreement with the Union. Mildred Coval, Brozen ' s assistant,
testified that she heard the end of a conversation between House and Brozen after the
election and did not hear the remark attributed to Brozen by House. Trause testified that
he was in Brozen's presence during the entire period after the election while House was
on the premises and did not hear the statement attributed to Brozen by House
Brozen has heretofore been found to have been an evasive witness Coval admitted that
she did not hear the entire conversation. Not only did House impress the undersigned as a
994 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
As found above, during April 1943, Brozen told Shop Steward Greco that he
would never sign with the Union and that he would go out of business if forced
to sign a contract On April 23, 1943, as is hereinafter set forth in more detail,
Greco was discharged 14 and a work stoppage followed. On April 24, Organizer
Kalb of the Union, and the then Division Director of the Union, Leo Bernstein,
together with a committee of workers, met with respondent and Trause, at a con-
ciliation meeting conducted by Commissioner Dougherty of the U. S. Conciliation
Service in an effort to cease the work stoppage, arbitrate the Greco and Newman
discharges, and set up temporary arbitration machinery for grievances, existing
and future. No decisions were arrived at and the Union immediately took steps
to get the case certified to the War Labor Board as a dispute case. On or about
April 29, 1943, another meeting was held with the same parties attending. Re-
spondent refused to reinstate Greco as the Union requested and no decisions were
arrived at. _
On or about- May 6, 1943, respondent discharged two employees named Grogan
and the Moncayo The Union was not consulted concerning these discharges
nor was it notified prior to their execution. Kalb, upon learning of the dis-
charges, telephoned Trause and told him that the parties "must have a method
of determining the question 'of the discharges." Trause claimed that "all of the
discharges that had taken place . . . were all justified." Kalb "contended oth-
erwise." Trause "refused ... to submit to arbitration ..." 15
The Union was notified on May 3, 1943, by the U. S Conciliation Service that
the case was being prepared for submission to the War Labor Board. On May
7,'the work stoppage which had commenced on Ap'it 23 was terminated. Two
additional meetings were held between representatives of the Union and respond-
ent on May 11 and May 17, at which the Union's request for recognition, for
clauses to be placed in a contract, for a union shop, and for the reinstatement of
Greco and Newman were discussed No decisions were arrived at and a third
meeting was scheduled for May 25. On May 20, the parties were notified that
the case had been certified by the Secretary of Labor to the War Labor Board.
Shortly prior to the meeting scheduled for May 25, the Union notified Trause
that it was unwilling to continue negotiating without the War Labor Board in
the picture as it felt that respondent was not bargaining in good faith. Trause
contended that respondent was bargaining in good faith. He further indicatedo
that respondent desired that the Union withdraw the case from the War Labor
Board and proceed directly with negotiations with respondent.1d The Union
refused to proceed without the War Labor Board in the picture. The meeting
scheduled for May 25-was not held and there were no further meetings between
clear and forthright witness but , in addition , the statement attributed to Brozen by House
Is consistent with Brozen ' s almost identical statement to Greco at approximately the same
time, heretofore found to be violative of the Act. The testimony of Brozen, Coval, and
Trause Is rejected where inconsistent with the testimony of House.
18 At the close of the hearing , respondent moved to strike from the record any testimony
by House with respect to a conversation held by House with Brozen on April 16 , 1943, im-
mediately subsequent to announcement of the result of the election , alleging that under
Article VII , Section 2 , of the Board 's Rules and Regulations , Series 3 , as amended , House's
testimony might not be given without the written consent of the Board or the Chairman
of the Board The motion was denied . See Matter of South Texa8 Produce Company, 66
N. L. R B. 1442.
14 Employee Newman was also discharged on April 23.
'- This finding is based upon the credible testimony of Kalb, supported in part by that
of Coval. Trause was not questioned concerning this incident
16 This finding is based on the credible testimony of Bernstein , undenied by Trause.
B. B. CRYSTAL COMPANY 995
the parties until hearings"before it panel of the Regional War Labor Board in
New York commenced in September 1943."
(d) Proceedings before the panel and the War Labor Board
The Regional War Labor Board in New York appointed a panel to hear 'the
dispute case involving respondent and the Union. Its first hearing was held
on or about September 22, 1943. Division Director Stein, of the Union, testified
that respondent's attorney, Nathan Waxman, at this time contested the juris-
diction of the War Labor Board on two grounds: (1) "that the Union did not
represent the workers in the plant" and respondent refused to 'recognize them
as the employees' bargaining representative, and (2) that respondent was not
subject to the War Labor Disputes Act. Stein testified that Waxman also
reserved the right, in the hearing before the panel, to check cases so that he
might determine whether the panel had a right to hear the dispute and "going
to the very essence of recognition of the Union . . as the duly elected or
collective bargaining representative of the employees in the plant" Waxman
admitted stating to the panel "that the Company was not engaged in any war
contiacts" but denied placing this statement in writing in respondent's Statement
of Position which was filed with the panel at that time."B Waxman testified
that he did not refuse to recognize the Union at this meeting on the basis that
they did not represent the workers and stated that he,first challenged the juris.
diction of the War Labor Board on October 8. He admitted taking exception
to any issues other than wages being considered by the panel on September 22.
Both he and Stein testified that he (Waxman) confined his Statement of Posi-
tion to wages and matters involving wages, such as vacations, holidays, and
sick leave; that Waxman contended that other issues were not before the panel.
An analysis of the above testimony shows that Waxman admitted most of
the matters credibly testified to by Stein as occurring at the panel meeting held on
or about September 22, 1943. In addition, as will be shown, the statement that
respondent refused to recognize the Union, attributed to Waxman by Stein, is
consistent with identical statements made by Waxman on October 8, as herein-
after found The undersigned credits Stein's testimony.
The panel took the position that all issues before the parties were before it
for decision and recessed the hearing pending further discussion and clarification
of the number of issues by the parties.
On October 6, the War Labor Board wrote to the parties requesting that it be
advised as to any new developments in negotiations between the Union and
respondent.
On October 8, 1943, Stein, Waxman, and Brozen met in Waxman's office in
accordance with the panel's recommendation Stein testified that the conference
opened with Waxman "making inquiries of me with regard to the Union's strength
in the shop, directly asking me how many members I thought we had in the
plant and whether we represented the workers or not" and that Waxman claimed
the Union did not represent the majority of respondent's employees and refused
to recognize them as their collective bargaining representative. Waxman ad-
initted stating to Stein at this meeting "that if we get together there would
11 Trause was inducted into the Army on June 14 , 1943 In August Nathan Waxman
replaced him as counsel for respondent in dealings with the Union and in the case certified
to the War Labor Board , Case No. 111-1662-D. On September 1, Peter. Stein replaced Leo
Bernstein=as Division Director of the Union.
18 This Statement of Position was not introduced in evidence in'the instant case.
712344-47-vol. 70-64
996 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
be a gentlemen's agreement" and that by this he meant an agreement that "if
we could agree that because our people simply did not want the Union and if
we did not want to saddle a Union on them, then the understanding, if any,
reached by us would have to be the subject of a gentlemen's agreement and not
a formal agreement" ; that by this he meant an oral agreement and not a written
agreement ; and that "so far as we could see, the members-the employees, were
not interested in the Union ; that if that was so we weren't going to saddle a
Union on them." . '
Stein attempted to discuss the Greco discharge at this conference and Brozen
said "I will deal with you if you can organize an equivalent number of workers
in this industry." Stein rejected this offer, stating that the Union could not
subject its dealing with respondent to the restriction of organizing the rest of
the industry.1B
Stein felt that no progress was made at this meeting and the matter was
referred back to the panel.
On October 11, five employees approached BrQzen after work and stated that
they desired to discuss a wage increase with him as "they were tired of waiting
for it"; they told Brozen that they did not want to be represented by the Union.
According to Brozen, he refused to discuss the matter with them and stated that
the Union was the bargaining agent of his employees. The group then handed
him two documents," copies of which were introduced in evidence, one purporting
to be signed by 37 employees and stating that the signers were no longer members
of the Union and did not want it to represent them. The other, purporting to be
signed by 8 employees, stated that the signers had never designated the Union as
their bargaining representative and that they did not want it to represent them n
On October 21, 1943, a representation petition was filed with the Regional
Office of the Board by the same five employees who had brought Brozen the two
petitions on October 11. On November 19, 1943, the Regional Director refused to
issue a notice of hearing and so notified the five petitioners, stating that further
proceedings did not seem warranted. They appealed the matter, and on January
19, 1944, the Field Director of the Board notified the five petitioners that the
decision of the Regional Director was sustained.`'
The next panel meeting was scheduled for October 28, 1943, at which time the
parties submitted their respective Statements of Position concerning the issues
between them. Although a formal meeting was not held because of the absence
of one of the three panel members, the parties and the other two panel members
discussed the .issues. Waxman testified, and the undersigned finds, that, he
"factually and legally challenged the right of the Union to speak for our em-
ployees." A discussion ensued on this point and Waxman stated that he would
iB The undersigned finds that Brozen and Waxman, on October 8, 1943, made the state-
ments credibly testified to by Stein Brozen did not deny Stein's testimony herein. Wax-
man's testimony agrees substantially with Stein's as to what transpired at the October 8
meeting. -
21 The documents bear the date of October 9, 1943.
21 Coval testified that the two documents contained the names of all of respondent's fac-
tory employees at that time, except one, and that she compared the names with those on the
pay roll. The only evidence adduced from signers of the documents was that of former em-
ployee Esther Potak. She had a poor recollection of the circumstances surrounding the
alleged signing of the documents but recalled that she had signed the petition bearing 37
signatures
23 This finding is based upon a stipulation of the parties and testimony in the minutes of
a subsequent W. L. B. hearing held on January 10, 1945, and herein introduced in evidence.
Waxman admitted to the W. L. B. panel that respondent knew of this representation
petition.
B. B. CRYSTAL COMPANY 997
"Insist on the position we took." A meeting was arranged for November 12 but
was postponed to, November 23.
On November 14, respondent received by mail from the Union a copy of a
proposed agreement, which was introduced in evidence. Waxman and Brozen
both testified and the parties stipulated that another proposed agreement, also
introduced in evidence, was prepared by respondent as a reply to the Union's
proposed agreement and submitted to the Union.
The agreement prepared by the Union deals with recognition of the Union,
union security, seniority rights, handling of discharges, hours of work, wages,
holidays, sick leave, and the handling of disputes. Clause 1 of the agreement
submitted by the Union states in part:
11
1. The Employer recognizes the Union as the only union representing its
employees and agrees to deal collectively only with this union for and on
behalf of its employees. The bargain unit shall be : all production, main-
tanence [sic], factory and clerical employees, exclusive of office, supervisory,
and executives of the Company. This bargaining unit having been estab-
lished by the National Labor Relations Board in the certification dated
April 28, 1943, which came about as a result of a secret ballot election con-
ducted by the N. L. R. B., in which the above Union received 100 votes to
9 which were cast for no union. [Italics supplied.]
In reply, Clause 1 of the counter-contract submitted by respondent states:
1. With respect to proposed clause 1, it is objectionable . There would be.
no objection to reciting "that on April 28, 1943, the National Labor Relations
Board certified the union as the representative of production, maintenance
and factory clerical employees of the company, but excluding all office em-
ployees, supervisory employees and members, of the firm for the purpose of
collective bargaining with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employ-
ment and other conditions of employment." [Italics supplied ]
Neither agreement contains any other clauses pertaining to recognition of the
Union by respondent as such. A reading of the two clauses shows it to be obvious,
and the undersigned so finds, that the respondent in its counter-agreement found
objectionable a clause recognizing the Union as the collective bargaining repre-
sentative of his employees.
The meeting scheduled for November 23 was postponed to November 29, on which
occasion the meeting was held. Respondent brought approximately 20 to 25
of the company's employees to this meeting and offered to prove by the workers
that the Union did not represent the workers in respondent's plant. Waxman
stated to the panel, in the presence of the assembled workers, that the Union was
holding up approval of wage increases for the workers and refusing to cooperate
with the company in getting out an interim report by the War Labor Board
on wages, and that the Union was standing in the way of wage increases for the
workers. He stated that the respondent did not recognize the Union as a rep-
resentative of his employees and that the employees did'not want the Union.'
as This finding is based upon the testimony of Stein and Brozen. Brozen admitted that
the purpose of bringing the workers to that meeting was to show that the Union no longer
represented them . Waxman admitted that "some witnesses that were present that night
were there at the instance of the employ er" ; said that some of them were supervisors ; and
stated that he did not recall the number of employees present that evening In addition,
Waxman admitted, at a Compliance hearing of the W. L. B., held on^January 10, 1945, min-
utes of which are in evidence , that "we had every member of the shop present and it was
our intention to call them to show repudiation by them of the Union. In other words, to
make formal proof of the fact. We did not get beyond calling two of these employees who
repudiated the Union . . .
998 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
On or about December 15, 1943, respondent submitted another proposed con-
tract to the Union which was rejected by it on or about January 10, 1944. This
proposal was introduced in evidence and it is similar to the prior agreement
submitted by respondent in November in that it contains no clause recognizing
the Union as the bargaining representative of respondent's employees'
After a number of postponements, a final panel meeting was held on April 28-
1944 At this meeting the Union asked for a panel decision on the many issues of
the case. Waxman thereupon stated that the Union did not represent respondent's
employees and asked that the panel deny this request. In addition, he accused
the Union of delaying the case so as to prevent the workers from receiving a wage
increase and asked that the War Labor Board dismiss the case so that respondent
could later apply for a voluntary wage adjustment for his employees. 'vVimuan
then stated to the panel that respondent refused to recognize and bargain with
the Union ; that as something had to be done with respect to the urgent wage sit-
uation in the plant, the company was willing to reach an "accord" with the Union
on wages, but not based on recognition of the Union or upon collective bargaining
with it zs The parties, on this occasion, (lid work out a wage scale between them
while the hearing recessed, and it was agreed that it would be incorporated in a
Directive Order
On June 6, 1944, the War Labor Board panel issues its Report and Recom-
mendations wherein it noted that the parties had never had a bargaining agree-
ment, and then proceeded to discuss issues between the parties, including union
seciurity. -Although noting that the question of representation was not for it to
decide, the panel recommended that the Union be granted maintenance of mem-
bership On July 21, 1941, the National War Labor Board, Second Region, issued
a Directive Order and on July 31, 1944, an amendment thereto. The Directive
Order contained, inter alia, the standard maintenance of membership clause pro-
em-viding for retention of membership in good standing in the Union of all'
ployees who were members of the Union on August 5, 1944, thus establishing a 15-
day escape period. The parties were instructed in the Order to incorporate the
terms and conditions of`the Order in a signed agreement Respondent, after
receiving the Directive Ordei, filed a petition for review as provided in the terns
of the Directive Order and asked permission to put into effect Sections 3, 5, and
6 of the Directive Order of July 21, dealing with wages, holidays and vacations,
respectively.
Respondent duly posted the escape notice form submitted by the War Labor
Board. Brozen's assistant, Coval, testified that between July 21 and August 5,
4 of the plant employees brought, in 42 letters, all signed by employees. These
were introduced in evidence. Twenty-nine, most of which were addressed to
the company, stated that the respective signers no longer belonged to the Union:
of these, 18 bore the date-of July 26. 4 were dated July 27, 3 dated July 31, 1 dated
August 1, and 3 were undated Thirteen letters stated that the signers had not
belonged to the Union and of these 9 were dated July 26, 3 dated July 27, and 1
dated, July 31. Both groups were of a generally similar pattern as to-context.
Coval testified, and the undersigned finds, that at that time respondent had 50
rank and file employees.
The Directive Order of July 21 had authorized a new wage scale for respondent's
plant. On or about August 5, respondent, without contacting or consulting the
24 In January 1944 Stein was inducted into the Armed Services,and Irving Lebold replaced
him as Division Director of the Union.
's The findings in this " paragraph are based upon the testimony of both Lebold and Wax-
man which is in substantial agreement . Waxman admitted at the hearing in the subject
case that respondent , on April 28, 1944, wanted to grant its employees a wage increase but
was unwilling to ilo so through recognition of the Union
E
B. B. CRYSTAL COMPANY 999
Union. put the authorized wage increase into effect 2° No agreement was signed
with the Union.
frri November 22, 1944. the National War Labor Board denied respondent's peti-
tion for review and reathrmed its Directive Order of July 21, 1944, as amended
.July 31. It further directed the parties to incorporate the terms and conditions
of employment, as set forth in the Directive Order, as amended, into a written
agreement. Within 5 days Lebold telephones Waxman and asked him to "sit
down and work on an agreement." Waxman replied that he did not recognize the
Union and that "this is not the end' of it.,, 27
The Union turned to the War Labor Board again and, on January 10, 1945,
the Regional War Labor Board held a Compliance hearing to show cause why
its Directive Order should not be sully complied with. This was a formal hear-
ing-attended by both parties" At that hearing, respondent contended that its
understanding on wages with the' Union was not an agreement and was not based
,on recognition by respondent of the Union or on collective bargaining, but was
merely an "accord" respondent had with the panel established by the Regional
-War Labor Board 29
As the minutes of that meeting indicate, Waxman' admitted that respondent
`declined to comply with that portion of the War Labor Board's Order which would
require respondent to establish a contractual relationship with the Union or
otherwise recognize it as the collective bargaining representative of respondent's
employees. He then stated that "we took the precaution of'm,aking sure that any
accord reached on the subject of wages would not be termed a recognition of the
union ." [Italics supplied ] The following additional excerpts from the min-
utes of the War Labor Board Compliance hearing of January 10, 1945, shed con-
siderable light on the instant proceeding:
Air. WAXMAN ". . . so that it is our contention that this Union is no
longer the representative of our employees. It is a perfect stranger and it
is not, as we understand this order, the intention of the Board or the con-
templation of the Board that we should enter into contractual relations with
anybody that does not represent our employees." (Page 16)
The CHAIRMAN. "It is the intention of the order that you should enter
into contractual relations with the duly certified representative of your em- i
employees and this Union was so duly certified by the NLRB . . . (Page
16).
Mr. WAXMAN. ". . . it is the position of the B. B. Crystal Company
that it will not enter into a contract with any stranger. Local 65 is a stranger
and nothing that this Regional Board or the National War Labor Board
can say on the subject can alter that fact" (Page 18)
Mr. WAXMAN. "And in order to make it appear that there was no formal
agreement or recognition of the Union [on April 28, 1944] as the represen-
tative of our employees I specifically asked the Panel how should this be sig-
nified to you . . ." (Page 26)
.. in November 1943 we had an all night hearing ... We had every
member of the shop present and it was our intention to call them to show
repudiation by them of the Union." (Page 28)
The CHAIRMAN "What you have told us today is that in essence you [re-
spondent] used the dispute proceeding as an alternative device to present,
29 The undersigned finds that by putting this wage increase into effect unilaterally, re-
spondent has violated the Act. May Department Stores v. N. L. R. B., 326 U. S 376, dd-
cided 12/10/45.
2' This finding is based upon the uncontroverted testimony of Lebold.
28 A copy of the minutes of that hearing was introduced In evidence.
29 This finding is based upon the testimony of Lebold and Waxman.
1000 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
what I am sure the Board regarded then, as its order indicates, it regarded
as an agreement of the parties-of the employer and of the Union and;.
in fact, it has not been an agreement at all. As you tell it to us now, it is
a proposal in which the employer and the Union separately concurred but
not as a partner to a bargain." (Page 32)
The CHAIRMAN. "What I have said is that the Board seems to have felt that
the company recognized the status of the union as a representative of its em-
ployees by making an agreement concerning wages. You now tell us that the
company had no such intent, that it made no agreement with the union as the
representative of its employees ... (Page 34) --
Mr. WAxMAN. "... I say' that my brief which this Board had before it
at the time that it made.its decision in its Directive Order could not have
misled it as to the position which the employers and their counsel were taking
because it is clear from the reading of that brief that we reject that union
as the representative of our employees and that our employees have rejected
them as their representatives." (Page 35)
On January 11, 1945, the Regional War Labor Board issued a "Compliance
Direction" directing respondent to comply with the Board's Directive Order of
July 21, as amended July 31, and as affirmed by the National Board on November
22. On February 8, 1945, a hearing was held before a panel of the Regional War_
Labor Board to show.cause why the provisions of the Directive Order should not
be rescinded. No decision was issued. On September -f1, 1945, a hearing was
held before the National War Labor Board in Washington to show cause why the
Directive Order should not be complied with.
On September 13, 1945, the National War Labor Board notified respondent
that "the National War Labor Board has determined that the company has not
fully complied with the Second Regional Board's Directive Order dated July 21,
1944, as amended July 31, 1944, particularly in'that it has failed to sign an agree-
ment indicating its intention to be governed by the terms and conditions of
employment set forth in said Directive Order." [Italics supplied.] The let-
terdirected compliance with that provision "without -prejudice to the right of
either party to request appropriate modification of the Directive Order in the
event of an order of the National Labor Relations Board or any court of competent
jurisdiction- affecting the status of the collective bargaining representa-
tive . " 30
(e) Conclusions as to the refusal to bargain
Respondent's contentions
Respondent contends that -the withdrawal petition received on October 11,
1943, indicates that his employees were no longer interested in the Union. It has
previously been found - that respondent engaged in illegal conduct by coercing
and restraining his employees by anti-union statements and threats of economic
reprisals ; that on or about May 6, 1943, respondent discharged two employees
without prior consultation with or notice to the Union , and thereafter , although
requested by the Union , refused to submit these discharges to arbitration, all
of which is hereinafter found to constitute a refusal to bargain with the Union ;
and that respondent refused to recognize the Union on September 22 and October
8, 1943, as the collective bargaining representative of respondent 's employees
Assuming that this petition constituted repudiation of the Union , it was ineffective
to destroy the majority status of the Union following on the heels of respondent's
unfair labor practices , found to have previously taken place. This contention
80 The National War Labor Board has passed out of existence. See Executive Order 9672,
issued December 31, 1945. °
B. B. CRYSTAL COMPANY 1001
is rejected. "The unfair labor practices of the respondent cannot operate to
change the bargaining representative previously selected by the untrammelled
will of the majority." n
Respondent coptends that he receded from his position of non-recognition of
the Union when he offered the Union two separate contracts in November and
December 1943. It has heretofore been found that the agreement submitted by
respondent in November was a counter-proposal to one previously- submitted by
the Union and that this contract found objectionable ahd deleted a clause pro-
posed by the Union which recognized the Union as the collective bargaining repre-
sentative of respondent's employees. A subsequent agreement submitted by
respondent on or about December 15 was also silent as to recognition of the
Union. This contention is rejected.
Respondent contends that he bargained in good faith with the Union on April
28, 1944. Respondent has admitted that he refused to grant a wage increase on
that date through recognition of the Union and it-has previously been found that
respondent stated on that occasion to the War Labor Board panel that he refused
to recognize the Union. This contention is rejected.
respondent contends that the Union no longer represents his employees and
relies on the purported letters of resignation received from the Union in July 1944
after posting the escape clause provision contained in the Directive Order of
the War Labor Board. Assuming that these letters constituted a repudiation of
the Union, they were ineffective to destroy the majority status of the Union fol-
lowing, as they did, upon the heels of respondent's previous conduct found to be
violative of the Act 82 °
Conclusions
It is well settled that a certification resulting from a secret ballot conducted
under the auspices of the Board continues in effect for a reasonable period and
the undersigned finds that the certification of April 28, 1943, was valid and out-
standing on May 6, September 22, and October 8, 1943, and at all material times
thereafterSB
On April 28, 1943, the Union was certified as the collective bargaining repre-
sentative of respondent's employees. Shortly thereafter, on or about May 6, 1943,
respondent discharged two employees without prior consultation with or notice to
the Union, and thereafter, although requested by the Union, refused to submit
these discharges to arbitration. On September 22, 1943, less than 5 months sub-
sequent to the certification, respondent ,categorically refused to recognize the
Union, as heretofore found. Again on October 8, 1943, less than 6 months subse-
quent to the certification, respondent not only refused to recognize the Union, but,
in addition, stated that he would not sign an agreement with the Union. In
fact, respondent at no time recognized the Union. The undersigned finds that
on May 6, September 22, and October 8, 1943, respondent refused to bargain
collectively with the Union as the exclusive representative of his employees in
the aforesaid appropriate unit.
81N. L. R. B. v. Bradford Dyeing Association, 310 U. S. 318 ;, see Franks Bros. Co. v.
N. L. R. B., 321 U. S. 702; National Licorice Company v . N. L. R. B., 309 U. S. 350;
N. L. R. B. v. Grieder Machine Tool d Die Co., 142 F. (2d) 163 (C. C. A. 6) ; Valley
Mould d Iron Corp . v. N. L. R. B, 116 F. (2d) 760 (C C. A. 7).
as See footnote 31 ; Matter of Joe Hearin , Lumber, 66 N. L. R. B. 1276.
13 N. L. R. B. v. Century Oxford Mfg Co., 140 F. (2d) 541, (C. C. A. 2), cert. den. 323
U. S. 714; N. L R. B. v. Appalachian Electric Power Co., 140 F. (2d) 217 (C. C A. 4) ;
Matter of Simmons Engineering Co , 65 N L. R. B. 229; Matter of Marshall, Meadows and
Stewart, 63 N. L. R. B. 233 (Supplemental Decision and Order). Matter of Bohn Alumi-
num and Brass Corporation, 57 N. L. R. B. 1684. ,
I
1002 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Subsequently, respondent further demonstrated his unwillingness to recognize
the Union by the contract proposals submitted by him in November and December
1943, wherein he refused to include clauses of recognition of the Union. In
addition, on numerous subsequent occasions, respondent challenged the Union's
right to represent his employees. Respondent knew that the Regional Director of
the Board had on November 19, 1943, dismissed the petition by the dissident group
in the factory. Although he was thus aware that his position of non-recognition
of the Union was untenable, he clung to his previously expressed decisions and
continued to refuse to recognize the Union 34 The undersigned finds that respond-
ent, in November. and December 1943, further refused to bargain with the Union
as the exclusive representative of his employees in the aforesaid appropriate
unit."
The record is clear, and it is so found, that respondent on May 6, September
22, 1943, and on numerous subsequent occasions refused to recognize the Union
as the exclusive representative of his employees It is accordingly found that
on May 6, 1943, and at all times thereafter, respondent refused to bargain with
the Union as the exclusive representative of all his employees in the aforesaid
appropriate unit, thereby interfering with, restraining, and coercing his employees
in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
4 ^The discrinainatol y disehai ge of Tony G) eco
(a) His work record
0
Tony Greco commenced his employment with respondent in September, 1942,
as an apprentice crystal grinder at 50 cents an hour. He received two or three
wage increases while undergoing his apprenticeship and was promoted to the
position of stick grinder. He requested that he be assigned to piece work and
this was done. At the time of his discharge on April 23, 1943, his average earn-
ings were $1.00 per hour. The only remarks made by foremen about his work
was that it was satisfactory 30
I
(b) His activities as shop chairman
Greco joined the Union on February 2, 1943, the day following "the strike of
February 1, and was not immediately active in its behalf. The shop chairman
at that time, George Affee, was inducted into the armed services during the latter
part of March 1943, and Greco was elected by the union membership to replace
him on or about March 26. The following day, he notified Prosper Brozen of his
election and stated, as he testified, that Brozen "should not take anything in his
own hands in order to aggravate the situation in the shop since we were in the
process of organization and we expected an election to determine the bargaining
agency . .." 37
As heretofore found, Brozen, on this occasion, told Greco that he was foolish
to join the Union, to accept the responsibilities of shop chairman, and to represent
the workers; that the workers would turn against him (Greco) eventually; and
that Greco would suffer by it as he would not have the opportunity to make the
same earnings as others in the shop.
34 See Matter of Sterling Steel Castings Co., 66 N. L R. B 974.
35 McQuay -Norris Mfg . Co. v. N. L. R B., 116 F. (2d) 748 (C. C. A. 7), cert. denied 313
IT. S. 565, N L . R. B. v. Louisville Refining Co ., 102 F. ( 2d) 678 (C. C. A. 6), cert. denied
308 U. S. 568 ; N. L R. B. v. Crtiswold.Mfg. Co., 106 F. (2d) 713 (C. C. A. 3).
3e Findings in this section are based on Greco ' s uncontroverted and credible testimony.
31 As heretofore found, there had been unrest in the shop and dissatisfaction concerning
wage rates which resulted in a work stoppage on February 1.
i
0
B. B. CRYSTAL COMPANY 1003
Biozen admitted that he had eight talks with Greco during March and April of
1943, the first being the occasion set forth above when Greco informed Brozen of
his election as shop chairman. He admitted that Greco approached him during
the ensuing weeks, on approximately six occasions, as shop chairman, in behalf
of the employees, namely, March 29, April 2, April 12 (two occasions), April 20,
and April 23 Brozen's denial of coercive anti-union statements attributed to
him by Greco on these occasions has heretofore been rejected and his conduct has
been found to be violative of the act.
Brozen and Coval testified that on one occasion, Greco. while protesting the
discharge of two employees that day by Brozen, raised his hand and said, "If you
were not such an old man." This took place on April 9, according to Coval, and
the undersigned so finds Brozen admitted that there was no physical contact
between them.
As set forth above, a Board-ordered election was conducted on April 16 , and was
won by the Union. Greco acted as an observer for the Union at this time and was
so observed by Brozen.
On jr about April 20, 1943, Coval, while working in the office, noticed that an
employee, Schlissel, was whistling loudly. She went into the shop and instructed
him to be less noisy. After she left, the whistling was resumed by Schlissel and
Coval complained to Brozen. Brozen promptly went over to the place where
Schlissel was working at this time and engaged in a heated discussion with him;
he reprimanded him for his loud whistling This took place near Greco' s machine
and Greco- approached Schlissel and asked what the trouble was. Greco-testified
that Schlissel informed him that Brozen objected to his whistling and had told
him (Schlissel) to join the Union where no one worked :inc] that he could then
whistle. Schlissel resumed his whistling and Brozen returned to again repri-
mand him Greco intervened and asked Brozen "are you telling me people are
slowing down in production and you are going around bothering a man working
and doing his work? If he is whistling, so what?" Brozen ordered Greco back
to work, as Greco testified, and said "go back to work or I will fire you or dis-
charge you " Greco testified that he felt Brozen was provoking Schlissel ; that
he therefore attempted to rationalize the matter with Brozen ; and that he re-
turned to work after instructing Schlissel to resume work. Brozen testified that
after he had reprimanded Schlissel, Greco asked him to let Schlissel alone, stating
that Schlissel had a right to whistle ; that Greco then ordered Schlissel to whistle ;
that he (Brozen ) then told Greco "you might find I will have to discharge you
if you continue to do that" ; and that Greco replied "I am shop chairman. You
will never be able to discharge me."
According to Brozen , Greco also said "you have nothing to doiin the factory.'
Go back to your office." Greco admitted telling Brozen not to bother people who
were doing their work. The testimony of Brozen is supported for the most part
by Greco's testimony with respect to this incident, and is credited by the under-
signed.
(c) The discharge of Greco on April 23, 1943 •
On April 22, Brozen instructed Foreman Heinen not to permit an employee,
Newman, to work if he reported for work on April 23."' Newman did report
for work on April 23 at about 8:,00 a. in ; Foreman Heinen prevented him from
3' Respondent contended that Newman, who had been absent for several days , ostensibly
ill, was in fact working during that period for another manufacturer in the same industry.
Assuming that this contention were true, it is not germane to the issue of the discharge of
Greco, in the opinion of the undersigned.
0
1004 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL-LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
going to his bench and instructed him to see Brozen3B Newman immediately'
reported to Brozen and claimed that he had been ill for three days; Brozen told
him that he knew he "had another job and that there was no sense in having two
jobs at one time." Newman, who was an active member of the shop committee,
then asked for his pay and was told to wait for the bookkeeper to appear at 9: 00
a. m.90 At- approximately 8: 30 a. m., Newman approached Greco and asked him,
as shop chairman, to take up his discharge with Brozen. He told Greco that he
had been ill for-the past several days and had not worked elsewhere that week,
as Brozen contended. Greco testified that he believed and accepted- Newman's
version of the story of his illness.
Greco immediately went over to Brozen in the factory, and asked that New-
man be reinstated. Brozen refused, asserting that Newman had another job.
Greco, as Brozen testified, wanted to talk to the other men in the shop com-
mittee and left. Greco promptly assembled the union shop committee and the
group approached Brozen in the outer factory office. Greco, as shop chairman,
was apparently regarded as spokesman for the group and presented the Union's
position with respect to the discharge. -
Greco, with the committee present and in the background, asked Brozen to
meet with him and the Committee for the purpose of discussing the Newman
discharge." He took the position that Newman had been employed by re-
spondent for a number of years, that'he had been absent previously, and that
there was another reason for the discharge. Brozen refused to meet with the
committee, stating that Newman could not hold two jobs and that he, Brozen,
did not want him there ; Brozen told the committee to return to work or be
docked in pay. Greco told Brozen, as he testified, "this was very urgent since we
had won the election [on April 16] with the union and we didn't think it was
proper for him [Brozen] at that time to fire a man without consulting the com-
mittee or notifying us "
There was considerable commotion in the plant by this time and as a result,
Coval called on the police. At about 9: 00 a. in , Sgt. James Kenealy of the New
York Police Department, was notified, as• he testified, that there was a disturb-
ance on the 8th floor of respondent's factory and went to the scene ;. he entered
the plant with 4 other policemen and discovered a group of employees arguing
with Brozen, with Greco primarily doing the talking. Brozen called the Ser-
geant into the office, and then called iii Greco. Brozen stated that Greco was a
newcomer, that he was representing a bunch of people who would eventually
desert him, that he was jeopardizing his chances in the industry, and that he was
a family man and should be interested in the future. Sgt. Kenealy urged
Greco to go back to work and take it up later with the Union. Greco refused,
claiming that the matter was a serious one as Newman was a member of the
shop committee and again asked that Brozen meet with the committee. • Brozen
krefused and Greco reported that fact to the committee."
as Newman did not testify. Except where otherwise indicated , the findings concerning
his activities that day are based upon the uncontroverted testimony of Brozen and Greco.
40 Respondent contends that Newman voluntarily quit his job. The undersigned rejects
this contention inasmuch as Brozen admitted that he decided on the previous day to prevent
Newman's return to work and, in fact, did so.
41 At a grievance meeting held on February 19, 1943, Bernstein agreed that in the future,
committee meetings on grievances should be held after working hours.
42 This finding is based upon Greco's testimony. Brozen denied making the statements
to Greco, as well as similar statements heretofore quoted in this report. His denial has
been previously rejected and is also rejected here. Kenealy denied that he was in Brozen's
office. His recollection of these events was -spotty ; he had a clear recollection of some
events which transpired but had no recollection of others. In addition , he appears to have
confused what was known in the plant as the outer office with the shop itself where he
B. B. CRYSTAL COMPANY 1005
The committee refused to return to work and insisted on a committee meeting
with Brozen, who still insisted that Newman had another job and refused to
.discuss the matter with the committee. There was considerable argument back
and forth between the committee, Greco, Newman, and Brozen. Brozen ulti-
mately turned to Newman and said, as he testified and as the undersigned finds,
"so I told Greco again that Newman had another job, he had actually quit and
he called me a liar He said `you are a liar .' " Brozen then, as Greco testified,
stated "you called me a liar. You are fired." Sgt. Kenealy attempted to get
Greco to apologize as Brozen had indicated that he would reinstate him if he
would apologize. Greco refused, contending that he had not called Brozen a
liar. Brozen then instructed everyone to leave the plant or return to work.
All workers, including Greco, left.
(d) Conclusions
The record is clear that at the time of his discharge, Tony Greco was attempt-
ing, in his representative capacity as shop chairman of the union, to obtain'Bro-
zen's consent to hold a meeting. of the shop committee for the purpose of dis-
cussing the discharge of employee Newman earlier that morning.' It is also clear
that in the midst of this discussion Brozen made a statement about Newman, to
which Greco replied "you are a liar" and that upon the utterance of this state-
ment, Greco was immediately discharged"
This discharge was that of a shop steward who was attempting to act in his
representative capacity of presenting union grievances to management. In ask-
ing Brozen to meet with the union shop committee, which Brozen knew was the
representative chosen by his employees, Greco was performing a function which
the Act is designed to foster. Under the Act, representatives of employees are
chosen, among other reasons, for the purpose of providing a direct means of com-
Inuutcation, expression of opinion, and peaceful negotiation machinery for em-
ployees and management. As respondent knew, the Union had, on April 16, 7 days
previously, been designated by his employees. The discharge of Newman, an
employee and member of that shop committee, was considered by the rest of the
committee to be a serious matter requiring prompt settlement, and in the opinion
of the undersigned, rightly so, in view of the fact that it took place at a time
when the Union was making its initial attempts to deal with'the respondent sub-
to proving its majority at a Board-ordered election. Brozen, who hassequent
been found to have engaged in other conduct violative of the Act, at approxi-
mately that time, and who has also heretofore been found to have endeavored-to
avoid recognition of the union for many months, and in fact, years after the
testified discussions took place between Greco and Brozen. His testimony on this point is
also rejected.
Is There was considerable testimony in` the record as to the remarks that passed between
Greco and Brozen at this moment. Greco contended that he had said in reply to Brozen
"That is a lie." Sgt . Kenealy, Mildred Coval and employee Reissman , in part, supported
Brozen 's version, as set forth above, and the undersigned so finds. Brozen testified that in
discharging Greco he referred to the Schlissel incident and another incident one week
earlier, when he alleged Greco attempted to strike him. Neither Greco nor Kenealy testified
as to Brozen's making such a statement Employee Reissman testified that Brozen , in dis-
charging Greco„ said , "I have taken all that I am going to take from you and now you
are fired." Coval's testimony substantially supported Reissman 's and the undersigned
credits the latter's version of what transpired.
" Respondent offered to show that Newman had, in fact , worked elsewhere during the
period of his absence . This offer was rejected by the Trial Examiner on the theory that
it was not material to the issue at hand. Assuming, however , that this were true, never-
theless Brozen' s statement was one-half false inasmuch as he also said in the same sentence
that Newman "quit" his job . The undersigned has heretofore found that Newman wag dis-
charged by Brozen that morning. , i
1006 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
election, knew or should have known that Greco, as shop chairman, was pursuing-
a legitimate union activity. This was not the first time he was presented with a
request to meet with the shop committee. In fact, Greco, as shop chairman, had.
approached him on 5 separate occasions in the preceding weeks, in his repre-
sentative capacity.
Greco was neither a parlor speaker-nor a trained negotiator ; neither was
Brozen Greco was zealous and forthright in his activities on behalf of the Union.
The situation here falls within the category so well described by former Chan:-
man Millis in his concurring opinion in the Howard Foundry Company case, 45
where he said:
This case presents a pointed. illustration of the need for special care and
forbearance in administration of collective bargaining relationships, es-
pecially in initial years when experience, awkwaidness and presumption are
most evident.
In the instant case, 'the entire picture was further clouded, not only by unrest
among the employees, but also by the contemporaneous conduct of Brozen hereto-
fore found violative of the Act. It is true that Greco used language to Brozen on
April 23 which the undersigned does not condone, although it was the language
of the factory. However, the undersigned is of the opinion that Brozen's state-
ments to Greco which commenced immediately after Greco was selected as shop
chairman and which have heretofore been found to be violative of the Act, would
constitute justification of Greco's criticism of him. Although Greco had been a
member of the Union since approximately February 2, Brozen made no anti-
union and coercive statements to him until Greco assumed office as shop chair-
man on March 26, whereupon Brozen's conduct underwent a considerable change.
In fact, Greco had been cautioned by Broien against his union activities
immediately upon being elected shop chairman, and some minutes prior to his
discharge, was again told by Brozen that his union activities would cause him
economic hardship, as heretofore found.
Although it has been found that Greco used inflammatory remarks in address-
ing Brozen 3 days earlier in the Schlissel incident, and on Aprrl 9 as well, these
did not cause the discharge of Greco. The fact is that the incident of April 23
alone brought about Greco's immediate discharge, and at an arbitration con-
ference held the following day, both Trause and Brozen stated that Greco was
discharged for calling Brozen a liar. Trause admitted that at this conference
"that was the only reason I gave them at that time."
Under all the circumstances and upon the entire record, the undersigned =finds
,that Greco, as the chosen representative of the men in the shop, energetically
pursued the duties of hi's office ; that because of his activities on behalf of the
Union he became obnoxious to Brozen, that the incident of April 23 was seized
upon by Brozen as an excuse for the discharge, whereas the actual cause of the
discharge was Greco's zeal and aggressiveness in fulfilling his duties as shop
chairman for the Union's I
The undersigned finds that Tony Greco was discharged on April 23, 1943,
because of his membership in and activities on behalf of the Union,-and that by
discharging Greco, respondent thus discriminated with regard to his hire and
tenure of employment, thereby interfering with, restraining, and coercing his
employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
45 59 N. L. R. B. 60.
46 See N L R. B v Illinois Tool Works, 119 F. (2d) 356 (C C. A 7), decided 2/27/40
N. L. R. B. v. Arcade-Sunshine Co., Inc., 118 F. (2d)`49 (C. A. D. C.). Matter of Howard
Foundry Company, supra; Matter of Davis Precision Tool Machine Company, 64 N. L. R. B
529. 1
B. B. CRYSTAL COMPANY
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
0
1007
The activities of respondent, set forth in Section III, above, occurring in
connection with the operations of respondent described in Section-I, above,
have a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce
among the several States, and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and ob=
structing commerce and the free flow of/commerce.
, V. THE REMEDY
Having found that respondent, by independently violating Section 8 (1) of the
Act and also Section 8 (3) and Section 8 (5) thereof, has committed unfair labor
practices, the undersigned will recommend that he cease and desist therefrom
and take certain affirmative action in order to effectuate the policies of the
Act. The recommended cease and desist order is predicated upon the following
findings :"
In addition to the fact that respondent engaged in illegal conduct by coercing
and restraining his employees by anti-union statements and threats of economic
reprisals, his entire course of conduct constituted an effective attempt to destroy
self-organization among his employees. Thus, after peing warned that adherence
to the Union would result in economic hardship, the shop chairman of the Union
was summarily discharged while attempting to obtain a promise from respond-
ent to discuss a union grievance. Approximately two weeks later, on or about
May 6, 1943, respondent discharged two employees without prior consultation
with'or notice to the Union. Furthermore, not only did respondent fail to recog-
nize the Union although duly certified by the Board, but less than 5 months after
its certification, respondent challenged its right to represent his employees, and
repeatedly did so. In fact, on one occasion, respondent admittedly brought a
number of his employees to a War Labor Board panel meeting, and in their
presence and hearing accused the Union of preventing the employees from getting
a wage increase.
Because of respondent's unlawful conduct and its underlying purpose, the
undersigned is of the opinion that the unfair labor practices heretofore found are
persuasively related to the other unfair labor practices proscribed by the Act
and that danger of their commission in the future is to be anticipated from
respondent's conduct in the past." Unless the order is coextensive with the
threat, the preventive purpose of the Act will be thwarted. In order, therefore,
to make more effective the interdependent guarantees of Section 7, to prevent a
recurrence of unfair labor practices, and thus minimize industrial strife which
burdens and obstructs commerce. and thus effectuate the policies of the Act,
the undersigned will recommend that respondent cease and desist from in any
manner infringing upon the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
It has been found that respondent discriminated with respect to the hire and
tenure of employment of Tony Greco. In order to effectuate the policies of the
Act, it will be recommended that respondent offer him immediate reinstatement to
his former or substantially equivalent position, without prejudice to his seniority
or other rights and privileges. It will be further recommended that respondent
make whole Tony Greco for any loss of pay 48 lie may have suffered by-reason of
41 N. L. R. B. v. Express Publishing Company, 312 U. S 426.
48 As heretofore found, the original charge in this proceeding was not filed until April 3,
1945. Lebold testified that the Union did not file the charge until that time because the
case was before the war Labor Board and the issues were under litigation ; that the Union
came to the conclusion that respondent would not comply with the Directive Order of the
War Labor Board and that the latter would be unable to enforce its order ; and that the
1008 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
respondent's discrimination against him by payment to him of,a sum of money
equal to the amount he normally would have earned as wages from the date of
his discharge to the date of reinstatement or offer of reinstatement, less his net
earnings' during that period.49
In addition, having found that respondent has refused to bargain collectively
with the Union as the exclusive representative of the employees in the aforesaid
appropriate unit, the undersigned will recommend that respondent, upon request,
bargain collectively with the Union. ,
As heretofore noted, respondent operates a plant on the seventh and eighth
floors of the same building. The undersigned will recommend that the notice
appended to this report be posted on both floors of respondent's plant.
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact, and upon the entire record, the
undersigned makes the following :
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Wholesale & Warehouse Workers Union, Local 65, C. I. 0, is a labor organ
ization within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
2. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing his employees in the exercis,
of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, respondent has engaged in
and is engaging in, unfair labor practices, within the meaning of Section 8 (1) o
the Act.
3 By discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of Tony
Greco, respondent has engaged in, and is engaging in, unfair labor practices within
the meaning of Section 8 (3) of the Act.
4. All production, maintenance, and factory clerical employees of Prosper
Brozen, individually, and doing business as B. B. Crystal Company, New York,
New York, excluding office employees, members of the firm, and supervisory
employees, constitute a'unit appropriate for the purposes of Collective bargaining
within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
5. Wholesale & Warehouse Workers Union, Local 65, C. I. 0., was, on April 28,
1943, and at all material times thereafter has been, the exclusive representative
of all employees in the aforesaid appropriate unit for-the purposes of collective
bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (a) of the Act.
6. By refusing on May 6, 1943, and at all times thereafter, to bargain collec-
tively with Wholesale & Warehouse Workers Union, Local 65, C. I. 0., as the
exclusive representative of all employees in the aforesaid appropriate -unit,
respondent has engaged in, and is engaging in, unfair labor practices within-the
meaning of Section 8 (5) of the Act.
7. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting
commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
charge was then filed. In view of the chronology of events and upon the entire record, the
undersigned is of the opinion , and so finds, that the Union did not delay unduly in the filing
of the charge . See Valley Mould and Iron Corp . v. N. L. R. B , 116 F. (2d) *760 (C. C. A. 7) ;
N. L. R. B . v. Cowell Portland Cement Co ., 148 F. (2d) 237 (C. C. A. 9), cert. denied,
326 U. S. 735.
to 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 his unlawful -
discharge and the consequent necessity of his seeking employment elsewhere . See Matter
of Crossett Lumber Company , 8 N. L. R . B. 440. Monies received for work performed upon
Federal , State, county , municipal , or other work-relief projects shall be considered as earn-
ings. See Republic Steel Corporation v. N. L. R B., 311 U. S. 7.
B. B. CRYSTAL COMPANY 1009
RECOMMENDATIONS
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and conclusions of law, and upon
the entire record in the case, the undersigned recommends that Prosper Brozen,
individually , and doing business as B. B. Crystal Company , New York, New York,
his officers , agents, successors , and assigns shall :
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Discouraging membership in Wholesale & Warehouse Workers Union,
Local 65 , C. I. 0., or any other labor organization of his employees , by discharg-
ing or refusing to reinstate any of his employees , or in any other manner dis-
criminating in regard to their hire , or tenure of employment or any term or con-
dition of their employment ;
(b) Refusing to bargain collectively with Wholesale & Warehouse Workers
Union, Local 65, C. I . 0., as the exclusive representative of all production, main-
tenance, and factory clerical employees of Prosper Brozen, individually , and doing
business as B. B . Crystal Company , New York, New York, but excluding office em-
ployees, members of the firm , and supervisory employees;
(c) In any other manner interfering with, restraining , and coercing his em-
ployees in the exercise of the right to self -organization , to form labor organiza-
tions, to join or assist Wholesale & Warehouse Workers Union , Local 65, C. I. 0.,
or any other labor organization , to bargain collectively through representatives
of their own choosing , and to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of
collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection , as guaranteed in Section
7 of the Act. o
2. Take the following affirmative action which the undersigned finds will ef-
fectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Offer Tony Greco immediate and full reinstatement to his former or
substantially equivalentposition without prejudice to his seniority or other rights
and privileges ;
(b) Make whole Tony Greco for any loss he may have suffered , by reason of
respondent 's discrimination against him in the manner set forth in the section
above entitled "The remedy" ; .
(c) Upon request, bargain collectively with Wholesale & Warehouse Workers
Union, Local 65, C . I. 0., as the exclusive representative of all his employees in
the aforesaid appropriate unit;
(d) Post immediately at his plant at New York , New York , copies of the notice
attached hereto, marked "Appendix A." Copies of said notice , to be furnished
by the Regional Director of the Second Region, shall , after being duly signed by
respondent 's representative , be posted by respondent immediately upon receipt
thereof and maintained by him for sixty ( 60) consecutive days thereafter , in con-
spicuous places, on the seventh and eighth floors of his factory and including
all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps
shall be taken by respondent to insure that said notices are not altered , defaced,
or covered by any other material; o
(e) Notify the Regional Director for the Second Region ( New York, New
York ), in writing, within ten ( 10) days from the date of the receipt of this Inter-
mediate Report what steps respondent has taken to comply herewith.
It is further recommended that unless on or before ten ( 10) days from the date
of the receipt of this Intermediate Report, respondent notifies said Regional Di-
rector in writing that he has complied with the foregoing recommendations, the
1010 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR- RELATIONS BOARD
National Labor Relations Board issue an order requiring respondent to take the
action aforesaid.
As provided in Section 33 of Article II of the Rules and Regulations of the
National Labor Relations Board, Series 3, as amended, effective November 27, 1945,
any party or counsel for the Board may, within,fifteen (15) clays fiom the (late
of the entry of the order transferring the case to the Board, pursuant to Section 32
of Article II of said Rules and Regulations, file with the Board, Rochambeau
Building, Washington 25, D. C., an original and four copies of a statement in
writing, setting forth such exceptions to the Intermediate Report or to any other
part of the record or proceeding (including rulings upon all motions or objections).
as he relies upon, together with the original and four copies of a brief in support
thereof. Immediately upon the filing of such statement of exceptions and/or
brief, the party or counsel tot ;the Board filing the same shall serve i copy thereof
upon each of the other parties and shall file a copy with the Regional Director.
As further provided in said Section 33, should any party desire permission to
argue orally before the Board, request therefor must be made- in writing to the
Board within ten (10) days from the date of the order transferring the case to the
Board.
I
Dated April 25, 1946.
APPENDIX A
9OTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
MARTIN S. BENNETT, °
Trial Examiner.
Pursuant to the recommendations of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor
Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, we hereby notify our employees that:-
We will not in any manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees
in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to form labor organizations,
to join or assist Wholesale & Warehouse Workers Union, Local 65, C. I. 0.
or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively through representa-
tives of'their own choosing, and to engage in concerted activities for the
purpose of collective bargaining or other-mutual aid or protection.
We will offer to the employees named below immediate and full reinstate-
ment to their former. or substantially equivalent positions without prejudice
to any seniority or other rights and privileges previously enjoyed, and make
them whole for any loss of pay suffered as a result of the discrimination.
We will bargain collectively upon request with the above-named union as
the exclusive representative of all employees iii the bargaining unit described
herein with respect to rates of pay, hours of employment or other conditions
of employment, and if an understanding is reached, embody such under-
standing in a signedagreement. The bargaining unit is:
All prgduCtion, maintenance, and factory- clerical employees excluding
office employees, members of the firm, and supervisory employees.
The Employee to be reinstated and made whole is:
Tony Greco
' AlL our employees are free to become Or remain members of the above-named
union or any other labor organization. We will not.discrim4nate in regard to
Lire-or tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment against
0
B. B. CRYSTAL COMPANY 1011
any employee because of membership in or activity on behalf of any such labor
organization.
PROSPER BROZEN , individually, and doing
business as B. B . CRYSTAL COMPANY,
Employer.
Dated--------------------
By ---------------------
(Representative)
-----------------
(Title)
NOTE: Any of the above-named employees presently serving in the armed forces
of the,United States will be offered full retastatement upon application in accord-
ance with the Selective Service Act after discharge from the armed forces.
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof, and must not
be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
712844-47-vol. 70-66