Bloomfield Manufacturing Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 29, 1940

22 N.L.R.B. 83 (N.L.R.B. 1940)

In the Matter of BLOOMFIELD MANUFACTURING COMPANY, A CORPORA-
TION, AND SAMUEL BLOOMFIELD, HAROLD BLOOMFIELD AND DANIEL
BLOOMFIELD, DOING BUSINESS AS BLOOMFIELD MFG. CO., A PARTNERSHIP
and METAL POLISHERS, BUFFERS, PLATERS AND HELPERS INTERNA-
TIONAL UNION, LOCAL #6, AFFILIATED WITH AMERICAN FEDERATION
OF LABOR
Case No. C-1437.-Decided March 29,1940
Restaurant Equipment Manufacturing Industry-Employer: successor corpora-
tion and prior partnership found so interrelated as to be jointly and severally
liable under Act for unfair labor practices of both-Interference, Restraint, and
Coercion-Dtscrimznation: discharge of six of eight employees in appropriate
unit after request by them for union recognition ; refusal to reinstate while
they retained union membership ; discharge of one employee for union member-
ship and for testifying under the Act-Reinstatement Ordered-Back Pay:
awarded; from date discharged until date of offer of reinstatement; in case of
one employee, reinstated, from date of discharge until reinstatement-Unit Ap-
propriate for Collective Bargaining: metal polishers, buffers, platers and helpers,
excluding all other employees ; not contested on dates of refusal to bargain ;
functional, coherence,, experience in technical operations of their work, admitted
segregation from other employees, factors determinative of-Representatives:
proof of choice : membership cards and petition designating Union as bargaining
agency subscribed by majority in unit-Collective Bargaining: refusal to recognize
committee of union members or Union ; attempting to deal individually after
refusal to deal with committee ; wholesale discharge of union members after
request by them to bargain ; remedial order : bargain, upon request ; order based
on majority on date of refusal to bargain, although unit increased subsequent to
refusal to bargain and discriminatory discharges Union thereby presently repre-
senting a minority : unfair labor practices of respondents cannot preclude
Union from opportunity to secure as members some of additional employees in
unit.
Mr. Jack G. Evans, for the Board.
Landis and Landis, by Mr. Alvin Landis and Mr. Maxwell Landis,
of Chicago, Ill., for the respondents.
Mr. Charles White, of Chicago, Ill., for the Union.
Mr. Stanley D. Metzger, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon charges and amended charges, duly filed by Metal Polishers,
Buffers, Platers, and Helpers International Union, Local #6, affiliated
22 N. L. R. B., No. 10.
83
84 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
with American Federation of Labor, herein called the Union, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board, by the Regional
Director for the Thirteenth Region (Chicago, Illinois), issued its com-
plaint dated May 26, 1939, against Bloomfield Manufacturing ' Com-
pany, a corporation, Chicago, Illinois, and Samuel Bloomfield, Harold
Bloomfield, and Daniel Bloomfield, doing business as Bloomfield Mfg.
Co., a partnership, Chicago, Illinois, sometimes herein called, respec-
tively, the respondent corporation and the respondent partnership,
and collectively called the respondents, alleging that the respondents
had engaged in and were 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 and notice of the
hearing thereon were duly served on the respondents and the Union.
The complaint alleged in substance (1) that on March 6, 1939,
and at all times thereafter, the Union represented a majority of the
respondents' employees in an appropriate unit; (2) that on March 6
and 7, 1939, and thereafter, the respondent partnership, and after
May 3, 1939, the respondent corporation, refused to bargain collec-
tively with the Union; (3) that on or about March 6, 1939, the re-
spondent partnership discharged Carl McGath, John Nadelhoffer,
Everett 'A. Manring,' Willard E. Hart, and Harry L. Lick, and that
since said date the respondent partnership, and since May 3, 1939,
the respondent corporation, have refused to reinstate them because
they joined and assisted the Union and engaged in concerted' activities
with other employees for the purposes of collective bargaining and
other mutual aid or protection; (4) that by these and other acts the
respondents interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in
the exercise of the rights guaranteed them by the Act; and (5) that
by reason of the unfair labor practices on or about March 6, 1939,
certain employees went on strike on that day, and remained on strike
until March 18, 1939. ,
On June 8, 1939, the, respondents filed their joint answer denying
the allegations of the complaint with respect to the unfair labor
practices.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held in Chicago, Illinois, on June
19, 20, 21, and 22, 1939, before A. Bruce Hunt, the Trial Examiner
duly designated by the Board. The Board and the respondents were
represented by counsel, and the Union by a duly designated repre-
sentative; all participated in the hearing. During the hearing, subse-
quent to the filing of an amended charge, the complaint was amended,
without objection, to include the name of Joseph Kropidlowski as
having been discharged on or about March 6, 1939, because of his
' Referred to in the complaint as "Archie " ivianring.
BLOOMFIELD MANUFACTURING COMPANY 85
union membership and activity. The respondents waived further no-
tice of the amendment and moved that its answer as filed stand as the
answer to the complaint as amended. The motion was granted. Full
opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses,
and to introduce evidence bearing on the issues was afforded all parties.
During the course of the hearing the Trial Examiner made various
rulings on motions and on objections to the admission of evidence.
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner and finds
that no prejudicial errors were committed: The rulings are hereby
affirmed.
On September 15, 1939, the Union filed a third amended charge,
and on September 20, 1939, Jack G. Evans, Attorney, Thirteenth
Region, duly filed a motion to reopen the hearing for the purpose
of introducing said third amended charge and a proposed amendment
to the complaint, and to take further evidence in the proceeding.
Copies of said motion were duly served upon the parties. On October
10, 1939, pursuant to Article II, Section 30, of National Labor Relations
Board Rules and Regulations-Series 2, George O. Pratt, Chief Trial
Examiner, filed an order reopening the hearing, and ordering the
third amended charge and the proposed amendment to the complaint
filed. Copies of the order and the complaint as amended were duly
served on all parties.
The complaint, as amended, alleged in substance, in addition to the
allegations set forth above, that the respondent corporation, on June
27, 1939, discharged Louis K. Zdanowicz because he joined and assisted
the Union and engaged in concerted activities with other employees
for the purposes of collective bargaining and other mutual aid or pro-
tection, and because, on June 19, 1939, at the above-mentioned hearing,
he gave testimony under the Act. On October 23, 1939, the respond-
ents filed their answer denying the allegations of the complaint, as
amended, with respect to the unfair labor practices, and alleging
affirmatively that Zdanowicz was discharged because he was incompe-
tent, inefficient, and unsatisfactory.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held in Chicago, Illinois, on
November 13, 1939, before A. Bruce Hunt, the Trial Examiner duly
designated by the Board. The Board and the respondents were rep-
resented by counsel, and the Union by a duly designated representa-
tive; all participated in the hearing. Full opportunity to be heard,
to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence
bearing on the issues was afforded all parties. During the course of
the hearing the Trial Examiner made various rulings on motions and
on objections to the admission of evidence. The Board has reviewed
the rulings of the Trial Examiner and finds that no prejudicial errors
were committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed.
283033-41-vol. 22-7
86 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
On November 29, 1939, the Trial Examiner filed his Intermediate
Report, copies of which were duly served upon all parties, in which he
found that the respondents had engaged in unfair labor practices
substantially as alleged in the complaint, and in the complaint as
amended. He recommended that the respondents cease and desist
from engaging in such unfair labor practices; that, upon request, they
bargain collectively with the Union; that they reinstate with back
pay Carl McGath, John Nadelhoffer, Everett A. Manring, Willard E.
Hart, Joseph Kropidlowski, and Louis K. Zdanowicz; and that they
pay back wages to Harry L. Zick, who had already been reinstated.
He further recommended that the complaint be dismissed in so far as
it alleged that certain employees went on strike on March 6, 1939. On
January 10, 1940, the respondents filed their exceptions to the Inter-
mediate Report. Oral argument before the Board was waived by all
parties. The Board has considered the exceptions to the Intermediate
Report filed by the respondents and, except as followed herein, finds
them to be without merit.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENTS
Bloomfield Manufacturing Company is an Illinois corporation hav-
ing its main office and plant in Chicago, Illinois, where it is engaged
in the business of manufacturing and jobbing hotel, restaurant,
kitchen, and soda-fountain equipment. It received its corporate
charter on May 3,' 1939, having on that day assumed all the liabilities
and succeeded to all the assets of Bloomfield Mfg. Co., a partnership
of Samuel Bloomfield, Harold Bloomfield, and Daniel Bloomfield.
Samuel Bloomfield, Harold Bloomfield, and Daniel Bloomfield consti-
tute the board of directors of the respondent corporation and own all
its stock; they are, respectively, president and treasurer, vice president,
and secretary of the corporation. The business operations, the plant
and machinery, and the products of the respondent corporation are the
same as those of the respondent partnership which it succeeded. Both
are and were in the complete control of the Bloomfields. On the basis
of the facts set forth above, we find that, for the purposes of the Act,
the respondent corporation is a continuation of the respondent partner-
ship, and that each must be held responsible for the unfair labor
practices, if any, of the other. The change in legal structure resulted
in no material change in the employer-employee relationship. This
relationship is our chief consideration here, since it is all important in
BLOOMFIELD MANUFACTURING COMPANY 87
effectuating the purposes and policies 'of the Act.2 Under these
circumstances, therefore, we find that the respondents are one and
the same legal entity in so far as the Act is concerned, and in any
event are so interrelated as to be jointly and severally liable for the
unfair labor practices of both.
Approximately three-fourths of the respondent partnership's oper-
ations consisted of the production of napkin dispensers, straw holders,
potato cutters, sugar dispensers, egg slicers, counter set-ups, can open-
ers, ice-cream dispensers, spoons and ladles, glass washers and glass
display cases, service trays, and other similar products. The remainder
of the business of the respondent partnership was jobbing, which con-
sisted of purchasing, assembling, and selling articles such as trays and
glass jars. During 1938 the respondent partnership purchased raw
materials valued at approximately $114,953, consisting principally of
steel, brass, glass, die cast metal, and boxes, from points within the
State of Illinois. During 1938 the sales of the respondent partnership
amounted to approximately $178,000. Approximately 75 per cent, by
value, of the products sold were shipped to destinations outside the
State of Illinois. The methods of shipment, quantities, sources, and
distribution of raw materials and finished products as described above
with reference to the respondent partnership are applicable to the
operations of the respondent corporation since the latter's inception
on May 3, 1939.
Approximately 40 persons are presently employed by the respondent
corporation.
IT. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Metal Polishers, Buffers, Platers and Helpers International Union,
Local #6, affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, is a labor
organization. It admits to membership metal polishers, buffers, plat-
ers, and helpers employed by the respondents.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The refusal to bargain collectively; the discriminatory discharges of
March 6, 1939
1. The appropriate unit
The complaint alleges, and the Union contends, that the metal pol-
ishers, buffers, platers, and helpers employed by the respondents,
excluding clerical, supervisory, and all other employees, constitute a
unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining. The re-
spondents now contend that all the employees in the plant constitute
2 See Matter of Weinberger Banana Co , Inc, et at and United Dock and Fruit Workers'
Union, 18 N. L. R B., 786; ef. N. L. R. B. 1. Arthur L. Gotten, et at 105 F (2d) 179
(C C. A. 6, 1939), enf'g Matter of Arthur L. Cotten et at. and Amalgamated Clothing
Workers of America, 6 N. L. R. B. 355.
88 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
un appropriate unit, although they did not question the appropriate-
ness of the unit claimed by the Union on March 6 and 7, 1939, the
dates of the alleged refusal to bargain.
The respondents' plant is located in a building approximately 250
feet long by 100 feet wide, containing a main floor and a balcony 10
feet wide and extending over the width of the building. The office,
:stock, and shipping rooms are on the main floor, where various manu-
facturing operations are performed. Chrome and nickel plating, pol-
ishing, and buffing, essential processes in the respondents' operations,
take place on the balcony, which is partitioned into a plating room and
a dressing room. Prior to 1939 these processes were performed for the
respondent partnership by outside jobbers or platers. During the
early part of 1939 the respondent partnership decided to perform
these operations itself and for such purpose installed the necessary
machinery on the balcony. William Neul 3 was hired as a plater and
supervisor, and he in turn hired six polishers and buffers and two
plater's helpers in the latter part of February 1939. No other em-
ployees work on the balcony; these eight employees, exclusive of Neul,
are alleged in the complaint to constitute an appropriate unit.
The employees on the balcony, including the helpers,4 work in close
association with each other. Although the respondents denied that
there are departments within the plant, Samuel Bloomfield, president
of the respondent corporation, referred to the balcony employees as
the "polishing department," and Daniel Bloomfield quoted the former
as having termed it the "plating department." 5 All the employees
therein are under the supervision of Neul, who supervises no other
employees. Clearly, the respondents regard the balcony employees as
a separate department; so do the employees.
Metal is polished for various purposes at the respondents' plant.
The polishers on the balcony polish the metal to obtain a surface suit-
able for commercial sale, to remove scale and imperfections, and to
obtain a smooth and sanitary surface; it is polished and plated by them
to obtain a rustproof surface, and is buffed to obtain added luster. In
addition to the nine employees above mentioned, the respondent part-
nership employed on March 6, 1939, 28 persons , 10 of whom were listed
as being "polishers" in addition to their other appellations. These
employees work on the main floor . The respondents contend that the
3 Referred to in the record as "both "Neul" and "Noel "
4 The two helpers are hourly paid , earning 25 and 33 cents an hour respectively.
However , they work in close association with the polishers , buffers, and platers. See
Matter of Reinbrandt Lamp Corporation and Metal Polishers, Buffers, Platers and Helpers
International Union, Local No 6, Chicago, Illtnozs , affiliated with the American Federatson
of Labor, 13 N L R B 945, where it aaas held that polishers , buffers, platers , and helpers
by "function and association . . belong together "
5 The respondents ' assertion that there are no departments within the plant is further
disproved by Trial Examiner Exhibit No 1, a list of employees and their duties prepared
by the respondents , which shows that Joseph F. Haas is "Head of Tool & Die Department."
BLOOMFIELD MANUFACTURING COMPANY 89
work of these employees is similar to that done by the balcony polishers,
and that, therefore, the appropriate unit should be the entire plant.
The record does not support the respondents' contention. The so-called
"polishers" on the main floor perform principally, by hand, an opera-
tion calculated merely to remove grease and dirt from articles, pre-
paratory to final shipment. Many of these articles have already been
polished by the employees on the balcony. One employee engaged in
this work testified that "an ambitious housewife" could do her work.
These "polishers" were originally instructed in their duties by Harold
Bloomfield who designed the equipment necessary for that work, but
who testified "I don't claim to be a polisher." The balcony polishers
are paid piece-work rates, are experienced workmen, and are skilled
in the operation of the technical machinery necessary for the per-
formance of their work. In contrast, the employees engaged in polish-
ing on the floor are paid by the hour, are inexperienced, and are
required to perform many other operations in addition to "polishing."
They are not eligible for membership in the Union. Their earnings
are approximately 25 cents to 35 cents an hour, whereas the balcony
polishers earn approximately from 50 cents to 60 cents an hour. The
record clearly shows that the polishers on the balcony are engaged in
more technical and skilled operations than the "polishers" on the
floor .6
The Union contends that Neul should be excluded from the unit as
a supervisory employee. Neul had authority to hire employees and
power to recommend discharges. He assigned work, supervised it, and
signed work sheets as "foreman." Neul earned $50 a week, consider-
ably more than the men under him. We shall exclude Neul from the
unit as a supervisory employee.
We find that the metal polishers, buffers, platers, and helpers of the
respondents, excluding clerical, supervisory, and all other employees,
constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining,
and that such a unit insures to those employees the full benefit of their
right to collective bargaining and otherwise effectuates the policies
of the Act.
2. Representation by the Union of the majority in the appropriate unit
On March 6, 1939, the respondent partnership employed eight per-
sons in the appropriate unit. Prior to that time, five of the polishers,
all of whom were employed in the appropriate unit, had joined the
Union. In addition, a petition was presented to the respondent part-
nership on March 6, signed by the five polishers, and one helper, Joseph
See Matter of Wadsworth Watch Case Company and Metal Polishers, Buffers, Platers,
land Helpers International Union, 4 N. L R. B. 487; Matter of Zenite Metal Corporation
and United Automobile Workers of America, Local No. 4142, 5 N. L. R. B 509.
90 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Kropidlowski, designating the Union as their collective bargaining
agency.
We find that on March 6, 1939, and at all times thereafter, the
Union was the duly designated representative of the majority of the
employees in the appropriate unit for the purposes of collective bar-
gaining, and that pursuant to Section 9 (a) of the Act it was the ex-
clusive representative of the employees in such unit for the purposes
of collective bargaining with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of
employment, and other conditions of work.
3. The refusal to bargain; the discriminatory discharges of March
6, 1939
At about 2 p. m. on March 6, 1939, John Nadelhoffer, Carl McGath,
and Everett A. Manring, polishers, presented a petition to William
Neul, foreman, signed by themselves and by three other employees in
the polishing department.7 The petition stated that the three above-
named employees were "to represent us as a committee in all negotia-
tions pertaining to hours, wages, and all other conditions of employ-
ment," and that if the committee "cannot reach a satisfactory
settlement with the Company, the business agent of the Local Union,
or an international representative is authorized to act." The petition
was on union stationery, and Nadelhoffer, in presenting it to Neul,
said that he had a "telegram" or "message for you." There is a con-
flict in the evidence as to the ensuing events. According to the union
witnesses, Neul opened the envelope, read the petition, and said, "Well,
I'm afraid you're out, boys." Neul testified that he did not open
the envelope, but, having been "tipped off" as to its contents both by
the name of the Union on the envelope and his awareness of plant
affairs, said, "If this is what I think it is I'll have to talk to the boss."
He denied having told the employees that he was "afraid you're out."
Neul left the balcony and took the petition to Harold Bloomfield.
He testified that, upon giving the petition to Harold, he said, "Harold,
it looks like we have a little trouble up there, because the boys are
quitting." The record casts serious doubt on Neul's version of his
statement to the employees and to Harold Bloomfield. On cross-exami-
nation he testified as follows :
Q. Mr. Nuel, when a man stops working for a moment or two,
you do not generally say he is "quitting work," do you?
A. No; absolutely not.
Q. Tell me what you mean by the word "quitting."
A. Well, you know as well as I know that when something is
taking place in a shop you get to hear of it in an indirect way.
T Willaid E. Hart and Harry L. Zick, polishers , and Joseph Kropidlo« ski, helper.
BLOOMFIELD MANUFACTURING COMPANY 91
There is conversations that take place amongst the men, and that
there is always somebody listening in. I didn't happen to be that
one, although I was told about it.
Q. Do you mean that before this enyelope was handed to you,
Mr. Neul, you knew the men were going to quit .. .
A. I didn't know when.
Q. When you told Harold that the boys were quitting did you
mean that they were going to get better jobs and leave the plant?
A. That's right.
Q. Why did you think that?
A. When you turn around and see a group of fellows not
working and they come up and hand you something, why, it don't
look so good. Remarks had been made by a couple of the boys
for a few days there that they could go out and get other jobs for
90 cents an hour.
Q. Had they told you that?
A. No, sir.
Q. You testified you understood they were going to quit if
they did not get a raise ; and you testified also that you thought
that they had quit.
A. I testified that they quit, or that they said that they were
going to quit.
In view of the consistent and corroborated nature of the testimony
of Maliring, McGath, and Hart, and the confused and evasive testi-
mony of Neul, as well as the findings of the Trial Examiner based on
this conflicting testimony, we find that Neul, after ascertaining the
nature of the petition presented by the committee, told the committee
that he was afraid they were "out."
Harold Bloomfield testified that he read the petition which Neul
gave him. Neul testified, first, that Harold did not open the envelope,
and, second, that he could not say whether or not Harold opened the
envelope to read the petition. At conferences at the Regional Office
on March 17 and 18 Harold Bloomfield denied having read the petition.
This discrepancy affects seriously the credibility of his story as to
subsequent events.
After receiving the petition, Harold Bloomfield and Neul went to
the balcony. What occurred thereafter is in sharp dispute. Neul
and Harold testified that the five polishers who had signed the peti-
tion had ceased work at the time it was handed to Neul and that,
because of the importance of this department, they came to persuade
the polishers to return to work. They entered the polishing room and
continued through it into the plating room, where Harold talked to
92 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Kropidlowski, a helper. Harold testified on direct examination that
the five polishers were not working when he passed through the room.
He testified that he went directly to Kropidlowski without stopping,
because Kropidlowski had requested a wage increase that morning.
The four polishers," however, testified that they were at work when
Harold and Neul passed through the polishing room, and continued
at work until told by Harold and Neul to cease working; on cross-
examination Harold admitted that they "might" have been working.
No explanation was offered as to why Harold and Neul, having come
to the balcony because of the "trouble" caused by the "quitting" of
the polishers, should have passed through the polishing room in order
to talk to Kropidlowski about a requested raise. Harold's testimony
in this regard is illuminating :
Q. Why did you go direct to Joe? Why didn't you stop and
talk to the men who weren't working?
A. Well, Bill [Neul] had told me Joe [Kropidlowski] was
interested in getting more money.
Q. But your primary purpose was getting the men back to
work, isn't that right?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And Joe was working?
A. Yes.
Q. And the other five men weren't working?
A. That's right, yes.
Q. But you went to talk to Joe first?
A. I can't explain why I reacted that way; it is just one of
those things. I went back to talk to Joe first.
We credit the testimony of the polishers, as did the Trial Examiner,
and find that the polishers were working when Harold Bloomfield
passed through the polishing department to talk to Kropidlowski.
Harold testified that, although he had read the petition he did not
"understand" it and did not know that Kropidlowski had signed it; he
spoke to Kropidlowski for about 15 minutes. According to Harold,
he asked Kropidlowski if he was "happy here," and upon receiving
an affirmative reply, the conversation terminated by Harold saying
"that is what I wanted to know." No question of wages was discussed,
according to Harold's version of the conversation, even though he
gave that as the reason for the conversation. This is not surprising,
in view of Kropidlowski's testimony that he had not asked for a raise
on that day, but a week prior, and that the actual conversation was
as follows :
8 Nadelhoffer was not a witness , due to illness Also not called as witnesses by either
party were the polisher and the plater 's helper who did not sign the petition.
BLOOMFIELD MANUFACTURING COMPANY 93
Mr. [Harold ] Bloomfield came up to me and asked me if-he
said I had no reason at all to join the union because he never
heard of anybody joining a union in a plating department, and
he says he wouldn't have it; and he says if I do care to have my
job that I would either have to drop the fellows and go with him,
stay and work with him .. .
. : . he ...'asked me if I want to be with the boys, then , or else
I could go out , you see; that if I do he will give me notice to
finish my work . Then he told me if I am with him , if I care to
I should come down tomorrow , or if I am not I am through,
you see.
Kropidlowski continued at work the remainder of the afternoon
of March 6 , but never thereafter returned . We find, as did the Trial
Examiner, that the conversation between Harold Bloomfield and
Kropidlowski on March 6 occurred substantially as related by Kropid-
lowski.
Upon concluding the conversation with Kropidlowski , Harold
Bloomfield and Neul returned to the polishing room. According to
Harold, he asked the polishers , "What is wrong fellows? Why aren't
you working ?" and that the men replied . "We want you to recognize
the Union ." He testified that he offered to grant exclusive recognition
to the Union provided such recognition did not "mean a closed shop,"
but that the employees refused to discuss the matter, whereupon, be-
ing unable to persuade the five polishers to return to work, he went
to the office , brought Samuel Bloomfield, his father, to the balcony, but
that Samuel also was unable to persuade the employees to discuss the
matter or to return to work.
The respondents' story of the events on March 6, as testified to by
the three Bloomfields and Neul, is that they opposed a "closed shop,"
that they thought recognition of the Union would "mean a closed
shop," that they were willing to recognize the Union as exclusive bar-
gaining representative of the employees in the appropriate unit, pro-
vided such recognition did not entail a closed shop , but that the em-
ployees refused to discuss the matter and enlighten the respondents as
to the meaning of "recognition " and refused to return to work. They
assert that the five polishers changed their clothes, and at about 4: 30
p. m. came to the office and received their pay, voluntarily quitting
their jobs.
The employees ' account of the events of the afternoon of March 6 is
quite different . McGath testified that while Harold Bloomfield was
talking to Kropidlowski in the plating room, he "finished the particular
job" on which he was working and approached Neul, who was starid-
94 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ing in the doorway between the plating and polishing rooms. As
McGath approached Neul, Harold joined Neul in the doorway. Mc-
Gath asked Neul for another assignment, but Neul told him that, pur-
suant to instructions from Harold Bloomfield, "My orders are as fast
as the boys finish with their jobs they are through," and that McGath
was given no further work. McGath immediately told Manring and
Nadelhoffer that he had been discharged, adding "it looks like we was
all going to get it." Manring then approached Neul, was told the same
thing, and asked Harold Bloomfield the reason. Harold said that
Manring was discharged "for joining the union." - According to the
union witnesses, Nadelhoffer, Hart, and Zick were discharged in the
same manner immediately thereafter. Contrary to the respondents'
testimony, the polishers testified that they did not cease working until
ordered to do so by Harold Bloomfield and Neul.
They testified further that, while they were changing their clothes
preparatory to leaving the plant, Harold entered the dressing room
and offered to discuss the matter of wages and endeavored to persuade
them to return to work. At about this time Samuel Bloomfield also
appeared on the balcony and offered to discuss wages and urged the
men to return to work. The polishers, however, informed the Bloom-
fields that they were not requesting an increase in wages at that time,
but were simply asking for recognition of the Union as the exclusive
representative of the employees in the appropriate unit for the pur-
poses of collective bargaining, and would not return to work unless
their demand was met. Hart testified that both Samuel and Harold
Bloomfield asked the meaning of "union recognition" and that :
They were told that we were asking that the committee we had
appointed be allowed to bargain for polishers and buffers; and
in case that they could not reach an agreement with that com-
mittee, that ... [the Union] be allowed to bargain for us.
According to the polishers, both Samuel and Harold Bloomfield
stated that they would not recognize the Union, but wanted the men
to return to work. Manring testified that Harold Bloomfield said,
"I won't agree to bargain with any committee, and I will not recognize
no union. But I will deal individually ... If you want to leave
your union cards outside of the shop . . . I will put you back to work."
McGath testified that he told the Bloomfields at that time that "in the
event we went back to work without recognition of our demands we
had no reason to suppose we would not be let out one by one on some
pretext or another." Harold Bloomfield himself corroborated Mc-
Gath's testimony in testifying that ". . . one of the boys spoke up
and said, `Why, we can't go back to work, because if we do go back
to work now eventually you are going to weed us out one by one, and
BLOOMFIELD MANUFACTURING COMPANY 95
fire us.' I said . . . `I wouldn't weed any of you out."' McGath
testified further that he then stated that "we were just prolonging the
argument and we weren't getting any place; that we had been fired
and we so considered ourselves fired; that unless he recognized the
Union and the committee as the bargaining agent we would have to
stand on that." The polishers proceeded to wash and dress.
About 4 p. in. they went to the office to receive their pay checks.
While waiting, McGath was called inside the office ' and spoke to
Samuel, Harold, and Daniel Bloomfield. McGath testified :
I was asked if I was happy about the whole thing. I said "No,"
that I wasn't; and I wasn't. Then they made me a proposition
that I should come back to work the next morning and that I
should bring a couple of other men with me. I was assured that
I would be able to make my money and -in case I got a job
that wasn't right, a job that, I didn't think the price was right,
where I could not make the wages I thought I should have, that
I should see Mr. Harold Bloomfield and he would adjust it. I told
him I didn't know whether I would be able to get the kind of men
that they would want on that short notice. They said, "Do the
best you can and be here in the morning."
McGath testified that he then left the office and told Manring, "I just
had a proposition made to me." McGath's testimony in this respect
is uncontradicted. Samuel Bloomfield, admitting that he talked to
McGath, testified that his purpose was "to call them in one by one,
talk to them one by one, to find out if each one would want to come
back to work," and that, "I think I spoke to more than one." Apart
from this equivocal statement of Samuel Bloomfield, no evidence ap-
pears that he spoke in the same vein to any of the other polishers.
The polishers left the plant and informed Charles White, business
agent of the Union, of the occurrences of the day. At about 1: 30
p. in. of the following day, March 7, White, William Kaufman, inter-
national vice president and organizer of the Union, Nadelhoffer,
McGath, and Manring called at the plant and asked Harold Bloom-
field for reinstatement of the employees and recognition of the Union.
They were told to return later by Harold, who testified that he "wasn't
able to answer any of their questions." At about 5 p. in. the same
union representatives returned to the plant and conferred for about
3 hours with Samuel, Harold, and Daniel Bloomfield.
During the conference the Union submitted a proposed contract to
the Bloomfields, providing, inter alia, that only union members would
be employed regularly by the respondent partnership, that certain
6 ricGath testified he was called in by a person mentioned at the hearing whose name
he did not know, a "friend of the family ." The man referred to, in all probability, was
Azarow, who used space in the factory for the development of little motorcycles
96 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
rates of pay and hours of work would be established , and that arbi-
tration would be resorted to in the event of disputes between the
parties. Union witnesses testified that they requested immediate
reinstatement of the five polishers 1e and recognition of the Union,
but that they did not urge immediate consideration of the proposed
contract. According to White, whose testimony is corroborated by
Manring, McGath , and Kaufman , the Bloomfields refused to recog-
nize the Union , offered to reinstate the polishers only on condition
that they drop their union affiliation , refused to "sign any agree-
ment," and sought constantly to interject the question of wages. The
union representatives, with equal regularity, sought to bring the con-
ference back to its purpose : the reinstatement of the polishers and
recognition of the Union . Both Samuel and Daniel Bloomfield con-
firmed the testimony of the union representatives that the latter
opposed discussion of wages and , working conditions during the
conference.
However, Samuel Bloomfield testified that the union representatives
insisted throughout the conference that he sign the proposed contract,
to which he objected because of the closed -shop provision . He testified
that he was willing to reinstate the men and recognize the Union, but
that the conference terminated on his continued refusal to sign the
proposed contract containing the onerous closed -shop provision.
Harold Bloomfield's testimony regarding the conference of March 7 is
somewhat different from that of Samuel, his father. For, while
Samuel testified that the Union insisted on the proposed contract,
Harold stated that the union representatives were uncommunicative,
refusing to discuss their aims . He testified,
White and Kaufman were the spokesmen for the men . White said
to my dad, "Will you execute an agreement with the union?"
My dad said , "What kind of an agreement ?" And he wouldn't
say.
Sign up with the Union; and they continually asked us that.
And every time, my dad said, "What do you mean by signing up
with the Union? " And finally White seemed to have gotten a
little irritated; he said, "We 'll take it down to the Labor Board."
Daniel Bloomfield testified that the union representatives stated that
4, -we are here to sign an agreement and get the men back to work." On
the other hand, White testified that when the proposed contract was
discussed :
... Mr. [Samuel] Bloomfield raised the objection to the closed
shop and the 90 cents an hour scale as provided for in this pro-
lU Kropidlowski ' s reinstatement was not requested at this March 7 conference.
BLOOMFIELD MANUFACTURING COMPANY 97
posed, agreement, [and] we informed him that was more or less
of an standard type of agreement, and if there were any clauses
in there that did not meet with the approval of the company or
that they objected to, we would be perfectly willing to negotiate,
these clauses one by one.
White further testified that the conference terminated upon the
Bloomfields' suggestion that the Union "contact" counsel for the
respondents.
On the following day, March 8, White had a telephone conversation
with Maxwell Landis, counsel for the respondent partnership. Lan-
dis told White, "to quit pushing the company around," that the
respondent partnership did not intend to recognize the Union, and
that the polishers had quit their jobs and were no longer employees..
White informed Landis that if that was the final word he would have
to take the matter to the Board, whereupon he filed the originalt
'charges in this case.
On March 17 and 18, at further conferences held in the Board's
Regional Office, the Bloomfields refused to recognize the Union or to,
reinstate the polishers as "union men."
In a letter dated March 18 the Union again requested the reinstate-
ment of the five polishers. The respondent partnership replied on
March 24 that the "five men voluntarily left our employ . . . After
all our attempts to persuade them to remain at their jobs had failed,,
it became necessary for us to fill the positions formerly held by them,
with others. Consequently, we do not have any positions available
for these men at the present time. We will give full consideration toe
your application whenever any openings occur." Subsequently, in
May, the respondents employed more polishers but never gave "con-
sideration" to the polishers here involved.
4. Conclusions with respect to the discriminatory discharges
We have found that, immediately after reading the petition pre-
sented to him by the polishers, Harold Bloomfield approached Kro-
pidlowski, whose name appeared on the petition, asked him if he was
"with the others" so far as the Union was concerned, and informed
him that if such was the case he should not return to work. Kropid-
lowski, relying on Harold Bloomfield's statement, never returned to
work. We find that the respondent partnership, by informing Kro-
pidlowski that he need not return to work if he was "with the others,"
discharged him because of his activities in behalf of the Union.
With respect to the alleged discriminatory - discharges of the five
polishers, as we have discussed above, all five of the polishers were
members of the Union. The respondents' contention that they left
98 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
their jobs voluntarily on March 6 collapses under the weight of accu-
mulated evidence to the contrary. We credit the union witnesses' testi-
mony that these five polishers ceased work on March 6 only at the
direction of Neul and Harold Bloomfield, and that they were offered
reinstatement on March 7 only upon the condition that they revoke
their designations of the Union as their collective bargaining agency.
This they refused to do. Manifestly, the conditional and discrimina-
tory offer of reinstatement, if accepted, would have required the pol-
ishers to forfeit a legal right. It was, therefore, not a valid offer
of reinstatement, and the polishers, by spurning the offer, forfeited
none of their rights under the Act and remained in the status of
employees.- Moreover, on March 18, 1939, the polishers applied to
the respondent partnership for employment, and although vacancies
arose in the polishing department subsequent to that time, they have
been denied employment by both the respondent partnership and the
respondent corporation.
We find that the respondent partnership, and its successor and
assign, the respondent corporation, by discharging Carl McGath,
Everett A. Marring, Willard E. Hart, Harry L. Zick, John Nadel-
hoffer, and Joseph Kropidlowski on March 6, 1939, and by their sub-
sequent refusal to reinstate them, discriminated against said employees
in regard to their hire and tenure of employment because of their mem-
bership in and activity in behalf of a labor organization, thereby dis-
couraging membership in a labor organization. We also find that by
such discrimination the respondent partnership and its successor and
assign, the respondent corporation, interfered with, restrained, and
coerced, and are interfering with, restraining, and coercing their em-
ployees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
The five polishers above named were paid on a piece-rate basis. For
the week ending March 4,1939, McGath earned $19.89 for 321/2 working
hours; Nadelhoffer earned $15.96 for an undisclosed number of work-
ing hours; Manring earned $24.78 for 441/2 working hours; Hart earned
$22.32 for 441/2 working hours; and Zick earned $18.73 for 34 work-
ing hours. McGath, unemployed at the time of the hearing, earned
approximately $235 at temporary employment subsequent to his dis-
charge and up to the time of the hearing in June. Nadelhoffer was
not a witness, and his subsequent earnings, if any, are not disclosed.
McGath earned $354.51 at temporary employment subsequent to his
discharge and up to the time of the hearing in June. Hart earned
u See Al L R B v Carlisle Lumber Co, 94 F (2d) 138 (C C A. 9), cert denied 304
U S 575, enf'g Matter of Carlisle Lumber Company and Lumber d Sawmill Workers'
Union, Local 2511, Onalaska. Washington, et at, 2 N L. R B 248 . See also Matter of
Atlas Mills, Inc. and Textile House Workers Union No . 2269, United Textile Workers of
America, 3 N. L R. B. 10, wherein the Board held that to "condition employment upon
the abandonment by the employees of the rights guaranteed them by the Act is equivalent
to discharging them outright for union activities "
1
BLOOMFIELD MANUFACTURING COMPANY 99
approximately $251 at temporary employment subsequent to his
discharge and up to the time of the hearing in June. Zick, who ob-
tained W. P. A. employment subsequent to,his discharge, was offered
reinstatement during the course of the hearing on June 20, 1939, such
reemployment to begin on June 26, 1939; Zick returned to his former
position on June 26, 1939. Kropidlowski was earning 33 cents an
hour for a 501/2-hour week at the time of his discharge. Subsequent
to March 6, he obtained temporary employment at $25 per week, at
which he was working at the time of the hearing in June.
The record discloses that Manring spent $28.40 in seeking and
securing temporary employment subsequent to his discharge. His
transportation expense while thus employed was $2.50 per week as
compared to 50 cents per week while employed by the respondent
partnership. Hart spent $1.50 seeking and securing his temporary
employment. His transportation expense while thus employed was
$2.50 per week as compared with 92 cents per week while employed
by the respondent partnership.
5. Conclusions with respect to the refusal to bargain
We have found that on March 6 the polishers presented a petition
to the respondent partnership requesting recognition of their coin-
mittee or the Union as their exclusive bargaining agent. They testi-
fied that the Bloomfields refused to recognize the Union or the com-
mittee, and informed them that they could continue to work only
if they left their union cards outside the shop. The polishers denied
that they were requesting a closed shop on March 6, or that the subject
was mentioned. The polishers and their representatives testified that
on March 7 they again requested union recognition and reinstatement
of the men but were denied both. The respondents assert that they
were willing to recognize the Union as the exclusive representative
of their employees on March 6 and 7, that they were unwilling to grant
the Union a closed shop and that they thought "union recognition"
meant a "closed shop." The Bloomfields testified that the polishers
refused to enlighten them as to the meaning of recognition and
refused to return to work.
The only notice of the Union's demands received by the-respond.:
ents on March 6 was the petition. It contained nothing which could
lead to an inference that a closed shop was being requested. More-
over, the polishers testified that nothing was said about a closed shop
on the afternoon of March 6. This testimony was straightforward
and fully corroborated; the Trial Examiner, who observed the wit-
nesses, gave it full credence and so do we. We find that the question
of a closed shop was not raised on March 6. This finding alone would
warrant the rejection of the respondents' contentions with respect to
100 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the events of March 6. Other evidence leads us inescapably to the
conclusion that the respondents were at no time willing to recognize
the Union or the committee as the exclusive representative of its
employees in an appropriate unit, as required by the Act.
We have found that immediately after receiving the petition for
recognition the respondent attempted to coerce Kropidlowski into
terminating his association with the Union, and, upon his refusal,
discharged him. Thereafter, as we have seen, the respondent part-
nership discharged the five other employees who petitioned for rec-
ognition, solely because they requested such recognition. Such ac-
tions on the part of the respondent partnership clearly belie its
asserted willingness to recognize the Union or the committee. But
the respondent partnership did not stop with this. Later in the
afternoon of March 6, Samuel Bloomfield "propositioned" McGath
to return to work the next day with such men as McGath could pro-
cure. That action was in disregard of his duty, as well as his asserted
willingness, to meet with the committee which had been selected by
the employees. Moreover, it corroborated Manring's testimony,
which we credit, that Harold Bloomfield stated that the respondent
partnership was willing only to "deal individually" with the em-
ployees. We have often held that such action violates Section 8 (5)
of the Act.l2
The testimony of the polishers and their representatives concerning
the events of March 6 and 7 is further substantiated by the different
stories offered by Harold and Samuel Bloomfield. Samuel testified
that on March 7 the union representatives insisted on the closed-shop
contract, whereas Harold testified that they refused to divulge,their
desires. This latter assertion is in conflict with Harold's earlier
testimony that he "could not answer the questions" of the union repre-
sentatives earlier in the day when they asked for union recognition
and reinstatement of the polishers. Nor is Samuel's assertion that
the Union insisted on acceptance of the proposed contract consistent
with Daniel or Harold's version of the events of March 7, since they
stated that the Union veered away from specific consideration of any
terms of the agreement, but simply sought recognition and reinstate-
ment. Furthermore, Samuel's version of the termination of the con-
"See Matter of The Louisville Refining Company and International Association, Oil
Field, Gas Well and Refinery Workers of America , 4 N. L R. B. 844, enf ' d as mod. N. L.
R. B. v The Louisville Refining Company, 102 F. (2d) 678 (C C. A. 6), where the Board
said : " . . . the respondent . first rejected Stickel 's offer to bargain and then ap-
proached its men, not through the Union , which was requesting further negotiations, but
individually , and apprised them of its will . we can think of no more direct method of
destroying the possibility of collective bargaining than this complete disregard of the duly
selected representatives of the employees " See also Matter of Hopwood Retinning Com-
pany, Inc, and Monarch Re tanning Company , Inc., and Metal Polishers , Buffers, Platers
and Helpers International Union, Local No 8 and Teamsters Union, Local No. 584, 4 N. L.
R B. 922 , enf'd as mod N. L R . B. v. Hopwood Retinning Company, Inc , and Monarch
Retinning Company, Inc , 98 F. (2d ) 97 (C. C. A. 2)
A
BLOOMFIELD MANUFACTURING COMPANY 101
ference is flatly contradicted by the fact that White did speak to
Landis on March 8 pursuant to Samuel's suggestion. The uncom-
promising refusal by Landis to reinstate the men or recognize the
Union on March 8, the reiteration of such refusal by the respondent
partnership at the Regional Office on March 17 and 18, and the refusal
to reinstate announced in the respondent partnership's letter of March
24 complete the picture, and effectively negative the whole tenor of
the respondents' contentions with respect to the events of March 6,
and 7. We credit fully the testimony of the polishers and their repre=
sentatives as to the events of March 6 and 7, and reject the testimony
of the respondents.
We have often held that the obligation of an employer to bargain
collectively under Section 8 (5) of the Act entails, as an essential-
element thereof, the duty to recognize the representative chosen by a
majority of the employees in the appropriate unit as exclusive bar-,
gaining agency.13 Upon the entire record we find that the respondent,
partnership, on March 6, 1939, was requested to recognize the Union
as the exclusive representative of the employees in the appropriate
unit for the purposes of cgllective bargaining, and, being under no
misapprehension as to the import of the Union's demand, refused to
so recognize it. We further find that, on March 7, 1939, and there-
after, the respondent partnership again refused to grant to the Union
the recognition to which it was entitled, and seized upon the closed-
shop provision of the proposed contract, each term of which the
Union was willing to negotiate, as an afterthought in order to create
a semblance of justification for the refusal to recognize the Union.
We find that the respondent partnership and its successor and
assign, the respondent corporation, on March 6, 1939, and thereafter,
refused to bargain collectively with the Union as the exclusive repre-
sentative of their employees in an appropriate unit in respect to rates
of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other conditions of employ-
ment,' and that the respondent partnership and its successor and a&-
sign, the respondent corporation, have thereby interfered with, re-
strained, and coerced their employees in the exercise of the rights
guaranteed them in Section 7 of the Act.
B. The discharge of Louis K. Zdanowicz
Louis K. Zdanowicz joined the Union on March 24, 1939. On
April 21, 1939, after telling Neul, in response to Neul's question, that
Is N. L. R. B v. The Griswold Manufacturing Co., 106 F (2d) 713 (C. C. A. 3), enf'g
Matter of The Craswold Manufacturing Company and Amalgamated Association of Iron,
Steel and Tin Workers of North America, Lodge No 1197, 6 N. L. R. B 298; Matter of
McNeely & Price Company and National Leather Workers Association Local No. 30, of the
C. 1 0, 6 N. L. R B 800, enf'd as mod., N L. R. B. v McNeely & Price Co, 106 F. (2d)
878 (C. C. A. 3).
253033-41-N of 22--8
102 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
he was not a member of the Union, he was employed by the respond-
ent partnership as a polisher and buffer in the polishing department.
During the first part of the following June he quit for several days.
On June 14 he resumed work for the respondent corporation. On
June 19 he testified at the first hearing in this case that, at the time
of his initial employment, Neul had inquired regarding his member-
ship in the Union; he also testified in support of the allegations in the
complaint respecting the appropriate unit. On June 27 he was
discharged.
On June 19 Zdanowicz appeared at the first hearing in this proceed-
ing in response to a subpena which had been served by mail at his resi-
dence that morning while he was at work. Zdanowicz's wife, upon
receipt of the subpena, telephoned the respondents' plant and requested
that Zdanowicz be told to return to his residence, stating untruthfully
that she was ill. Thereupon Zdanowicz was excused from work, re-
turned to his residence where he received the subpena, and went directly
to the hearing. During the course of his testimony in behalf of the
Board it was disclosed that he was a member of the Union.
On the morning of June 27, when Zdanowicz reported for work, he
was called into the office by Harold Bloomfield. Samuel Bloomfield,
Harold Bloomfield, and Azarow, who was engaged in developing
motorcycles in a portion of the plant, were present. Zdanowicz testi-
fied that Harold Bloomfield gave him his wages, told him he was being
discharged but assigned no reason therefor. He testified that Samuel
Bloomfield said nothing to him, but that Azarow talked continually.
According to Zdanowicz Azarow chanted "his wife is sick, his wife is
sick," and "laughed at me, or joked about it, because I went to the post
office in reference to this matter [the first hearing in this proceeding
which was held in the Post Office building]." Zdanowicz denied that
the respondents had ever criticized his work.
- Harold Bloomfield did not testify regarding any remarks by Azarow,
and Samuel Bloomfield said that he did not "hear" Azarow say any-
thing. Azarow himself did not testify. Both Harold and Samuel
Bloomfield testified that they informed Zdanowicz that he was being
discharged for inefficiency and incompetency. The respondents' own
records, however, show that Zdanowicz earned more money per hour on
the average than did Ceynow, a polisher who, so far as the record
shows, is still in the respondents' employ. The record further shows
that after his temporary quitting of work for a few days early in June,
Zdanowicz, although allegedly incompetent, was put back to work on
June 14, almost 2 months after he was hired. We do not-credit the
respondents' testimony that Zdanowicz was discharged because of in-
competency. The Trial Examiner, who observed the witnesses, found
that ". . . Samuel and Harold Bloomfield definitely were evasive and
BLOOMFIELD MANUFACTURING COMPANY 103
unconvincing in their testimony" concerning this question. We affirm
and adopt his finding.
Harold further testified that Zdanowicz was frequently late to work
and absent therefrom and that his discharge had been considered for
some time before June 27. According to Harold ". . . one period out
of every week he [Zdanowicz] was absent from his work, one day, and
he would not report at the correct time for work; and on occasions he
was absent two days out of a week from work." However, on cross-
examination Harold Bloomfield admitted that Zdanowicz had worked
regularly except for one occasion when he quit temporarily for a few
days and except for the day when he testified at the first hearing in this
proceeding. Moreover, it does not appear that the alleged absences
and latenesses were advanced by the respondent corporation on June 27
as reasons for Zdanowicz's discharge. The belated appearance of these
"reasons," independent of their unconvincing quality, serves only to
increase our skepticism as to their merit. We again affirm the Trial
Examiner's finding, and do not credit the respondents' testimony that
Zdanowicz was discharged because of latenesses and absences.
We fully credit Zdanowicz's testimony that his work was never criti-
cized by the respondents and that at the time of his discharge and
in the presence of Samuel and Harold Bloomfield, Azarow "laughed
at" him and taunted him because he testified in behalf of the Board in
this matter.
Upon all the evidence we find that Louis K. Zdanowicz was dis-
charged because of his membership in a labor organization and because
he gave testimony under the Act, and that by his discharge the respond-
ent corporation has discriminated in regard to his hire and tenure of
employment, thereby discouraging membership in a labor organiza-
tion, and that by such act the respondent corporation has interfered
with, restrained, and coerced, and is interfering with, restraining, and
coercing its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in
Section 7 of the Act.
Zdanowicz, unemployed at the time of the second hearing, earned
$117.20 from May 1 to June 24, 1939, while employed by the respondent
corporation, and approximately $122 from his discharge until Novem-
ber 13, 1939, at temporary employment.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
We find that the activities of the respondents set forth in Section III
above, occurring in connection with the operations of the respondents
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 obstructing commerce and
the free flow of commerce.
104 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that the respondents have engaged in unfair labor
practices, we will order them to cease and desist therefrom and to take
certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the
Act and to restore as nearly as possible the conditions which existed
prior to the commission of the unfair labor practices.
Having found that the respondents engaged in unfair labor practices
by discharging Carl McGath, Everett A. Manring, Willard E. Hart,
John Nadelhoffer, Harry L. Zick, Joseph Kropidlowski, and Louis K.
Zdanowicz, we will order the respondents to offer to each of the above-
named persons, with the exception of Zick, who has already been re-
instated, reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent posi-
tions without prejudice to their seniority and other rights and privileges
and to make each of them whole for any loss of pay he may have suf-
fered by reason of his discharge by payments to him of a sum equal to
the amount which he normally would have earned as wages from the
date of his discharge to the date of the offer of reinstatement, less his
net earnings 14 during said period. We shall order the respondents
to give back pay to Harry L. Zick for the period from March 6, 1939,
until June 26, 1939, the date he was offered reinstatement.
We have found that the respondents have refused to bargain col-
lectively with the Union. This finding was based, in part, upon the
fact that on March 6, and thereafter, the Union represented a ma-
jority of the employees in the appropriate unit. The respondents'
unfair labor practices in refusing to bargain with the Union, dis-
charging the union members, and thereafter denying employment to
them cannot operate to change or nullify the bargaining representa-
tives previously selected by the untrammeled will of the majority.
Nor can this principle be subverted by the fact that, as of the June
1939 hearing, the unit had increased in size from 8 to 16 employees.
Upon reinstatement of the employees who were discharged because
of their union membership and activities, the Union will represent
7 of the 16 employees in the unit. If the respondents had not en-
gaged in the aforesaid unfair labor practices it is highly likely that
'4 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-
\%here than for the respondents , 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 and United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of
America, Lumber and Sawmill Workers Union , Local 2.590, 8 N L R B . 440 Monies re-
ceived for work performed upon Federal , State , county , municipal , or other work-relief
piojects are not considered as earnings , but as provided below in the Order, shall be
deducted from the sum due the employee , and the amount thereof shall be paid over to
the appropriate fiscal agency of the Federal , State , county, municipal , or other government
or governments which supplied the funds for said work -relief projects . See Republic Steel
Corporation v. N. L. R B, 107 F. ( 2d) 472 (C. C A. 3), enf'g as mod, Matter of Republic
Steel Corporation and Steel Workers Organizing Committee, 9 N. L. R B. 219.
BLOOMFIELD MANUFACTURING COMPANY 105
the Union would presently represent a majority in the unit, especially
since only two of the additional eight in the unit were needed to
secure a majority for the Union.15 In any event, it does not lie in
the mouth of the respondents to argue to the contrary, since their
own unlawful acts have prevented the Union from increasing its mem-
bership from among the ranks of the new employees. To permit the
respondents, by discharging union members en masse and by refusing
to bargain collectively with the Union, to preclude the Union from
the very real probability of obtaining as inembers at least some of
the newly hired employees would permit the respondents to evade
their duty under Section 8 (5) of the Act by the simple expedient
of violating other provisions of the Act. Such practice would make
a "merry-go-round" of the Act '1_6 and subvert its policies. In order
to effectuate the policies of the Act, we must restore, as nearly as
possible, the status quo before the unfair labor practices were com-
mitted and secure to the employees their right to bargain through
representatives they have selected with full freedom of choice. We
will, therefore, base our order upon the majority obtaining upon the
date of the refusal to bargain 11 and require the respondents to bar-
gain with the Union, upon request, in respect to rates of pay, wages,
hours of employment, and other conditions of employment.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the
entire record in the case, the Board makes the following :
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Metal Polishers, Buffers, Platers and Helpers International
Union, Local #6, affiliated with the American Federation of Labor,
is a labor organization, within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the
Act.
2. The metal polishers, buffers, platers, and helpers, employed by
the respondents, excluding clerical, supervisory, and all other em-
ployees, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective
bargaining, within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
15Cf. Matter of Benjamin Fainblatt and Majorie Fairblatt et at and Inteinational
Ladies' Garment Workehs' Union, Local No 1119, 4 N L. R. B 596, where the unit had in-
creased from 59 to 200 employees, and where the refusal to bargain had occurred 2 years
prior to the Board's Order.
10 International Association, of Machinists v. N. L R B , 311 U S. 72, enf'g Matter of
The Serricl, Corporation and International Union, United Automobile Workers of America,
Local No 5 19, 8 N L R B 621.
17 Cf. Matter of Moltridp Steel Products Company and Steel Workers Organizing Com-
mittee, Lodge No 1202, 19 N L R B 471; Matter of American Hair and Felt Company
and Textile Workers Unioa of America, Local 99 (C. 1. 0.), 19 N. L. R. B. 202; Matter
of Western Felt Works, a corporation, and Textile Workers Organizing Committee, Western
Local . 10 N. L R. B. 407; and many others to the sane effect.
106 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
3. Metal Polishers, Buffers, Platers and Helpers International
Union, Local #6, affiliated with the American Federation of Labor,
was, on March 6, 1939, and at all times thereafter has been, the ex-
clusive representative of all the employees in such unit for the pur-
poses of collective bargaining, within the meaning of Section 9 (a)
of the Act.
4. By refusing to bargain collectively with Metal Polishers, Buff-
ers, Platers and Helpers International Union, Local #6, affiliated
with the American Federation of Labor, as the exclusive representa-
tive of its employees in the appropriate unit, the respondents have
engaged in and are engaging in unfair labor practices, within the
meaning of Section 8 (5) of the Act.
5. By discriminating against Carl McGath, Everett A. Manring,
Willard E. Hart, John Nadelhoffer, Harry L. Zick, Joseph Kropid-
lowski, and Louis K. Zdanowicz, in regard to their hire and tenure
of employment and thereby discouraging membership in Metal Pol-
ishers, Buffers, Platers and Helpers International Union, Local #6,
affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, the respondents
have engaged in and are engaging in unfair labor practices, within
the meaning of Section 8 (3) of the Act.
6. By discharging Louis K. Zdanowicz because he gave testimony
under the Act, the respondents have engaged in and are engaging
in unfair labor practices, within the meaning of Section 8 (4) of
the Act.
7. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing their employees
in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the
respondents have engaged in and are engaging in unfair labor prac-
tices, within the meaning of Section 8 (1) of the Act.
8. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices
affecting commerce, within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of
the Act.
ORDER
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and conclusions of
law, and pursuant to Section 10 (c) of the National Labor Relations
Act, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the
respondents, Bloomfield Manufacturing Company, a corporation, and
Samuel Bloomfield, Harold Bloomfield, and Daniel Bloomfield, do-
ing business as Bloomfield Mfg. Co., a partnership, Chicago, Illinois,
and their officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Refusing to bargain collectively with Metal Polishers, Buffers,
Platers and Helpers International Union, Local #6, affiliated with
the American Federation of Labor, as the exclusive representative
BLOOMFIELD MANUFACTURING COMPANY 107
of the metal polishers, buffers, platers, and helpers employed by the
respondents , excluding clerical, supervisory , and all other employees;
(b) Discouraging membership in Metal Polishers , Buffers, Platers
and Helpers International Union, Local #6, affiliated with the
American Federation of Labor, or in any other labor organization
of their employees , by discharging or refusing to reinstate any of
their employees or in any other manner discriminating in regard
to their hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of
their employment;
(c) Discharging or otherwise discriminating against any of its
employees because he has given testimony under the National Labor
Relations Act;
(d) In any other manner interfering with, restraining , or coercing
their employees in the exercise of their rights to self-organization,
to form, join , or assist labor organizations , to bargain collectively
through representatives of their own choosing and to engage in con-
certed activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other
mutual aid or protection , as guaranteed in Section 7 of the National
Labor Relations Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Upon request, bargain collectively with Metal Polishers,
Buffers, Platers and Helpers International Union, Local #6, affil-
iated with the American Federation of Labor, as the exclusive rep-
resentative of the metal polishers , buffers, platers , and helpers
employed by the respondent , excluding clerical , supervisory , and all
other employees , in respect to rates of pay, wages , hours of employ-
ment, and other conditions of employment;
(b) Offer to Carl McGath , Everett A . Manring, Willard E. Hart,
John Nadelhoffer , Joseph Kropidlowski , and Louis K. Zdanowicz
immediate and full reinstatement to their former or substantially
equivalent positions , without prejudice to their seniority and other
rights and privileges , and restore to Harry L. Zick any seniority
rights and any other rights and privileges he may have lost by reason
of his discharge;
(c) Make whole the employees named in the preceding paragraph,
including Harry L. Zick, for any losses of pay they may have suf-
fered by reason of their discharges , by payment to each of them
respectively of a sum of money equal to that which each normally
would have earned as wages during the period from the date of his
discharge to the date of the offer of reinstatement , less his net earn-
ings," if any, during said period ; deducting , however, from the
amount otherwise due to each of them monies received by each of
1e See footnote 14, supra.
108 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
them during said period for work performed upon Federal, State,
county, municipal, and other work-relief projects; and pay over the
amount so deducted to the appropriate fiscal agency of the Federal,
State, county, municipal, or other government or governments which
supplied the funds for such work-relief projects;
(d) Immediately post notices in conspicuous places in the re-
spondents' plant at Chicago, Illinois, and maintain such notices for
a period of at least sixty (60) consecutive days from the date of
posting, stating: (1) that the respondents will cease and desist as
provided in paragraphs 1 (a), (b), (c), and (d) of this Order; (2)
that they will take the affirmative action set forth in paragraphs 2
(a), (b), and (c) of this Order; and (3) that the respondents' em-
ployees are free to become or remain members of Metal Polishers,
Buffers, Platers and Helpers International Union, Local #6, affiliated
with the American Federation of Labor, and that the respondents will
not discriminate against any employee because of membership or
activity in that organization;
(e) Notify the Regional Director for the Thirteenth Region, in
writing within ten (10) days from the date of this Order what steps
the respondents have taken to comply herewith.