Hooven Letters, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 12, 1942

43 N.L.R.B. 1309 (N.L.R.B. 1942)

In the Matter , of HoovEN LETTERS , INCORPORATED and UNITED OFFICE
AND PROFESSIONAL WORKERS OFD AMERICA , LOCAL 16, C. I. O.
Case No. C-2159'.-Decided September 12, 194
Jurisdiction : printing industry.
Unfair Labor Practices
Interference, Restraint, and Coercion: charges of, sustained
Company-Dominated Union: charges of, sustained.
Discrimination: charges of, dismissed.
Remedial Orders : although respondent had complied with the Intermediate
Report, Board made customary 8 (1) and (2) orders.
Practice and Procedure : where no exceptions filed to 8 (1) and (2) findings and
conclusions of Intermediate Report, Board adopted and incorporated them by
reference into its decision.
Mr. George Turitz, for the Board.
Mr. Daniel Arvarn, of New York City, for the respondent.
Mr. Alvin D. Wigdor, of New York City, ,for the Association.
Boudirn-, Cohn cC Gliclestein, by M71r. Sidney Fox, of New York City,
for the United.
Dir. Raymond.J. Compton, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
ORDER
STATEMENT OF TIIE CASE
Upon a charge duly filed on February 21, 1942, by United Office and
Professional Workers of America, Local 16, CIO, herein called the
United, the National Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board,
by,,the Regional Director for the Second Region (New York City),
issued its complaint dated February 21, 1942, against Hooven Letters,
Incorporated, New.York City,,herein called the respondent, alleging
that the respondent had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor
,practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8 (1), (2),
and (3) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations
Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein called the Act., Copies of the complaint,
accompanied by notice of hearing, were duly served upon the respond-
ent, the United, Amalgamated Lithographers of America, Lettershop
43 N L R. B., No. 205.
1309
1310" DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Division, Local No. 1; AFL, herein called Local No. 1,1 and Hooves
Letters Employees Association,2 a labor oi'ganizatlon herein called the
Association.
With respect -to the unfair labor practices, the complaint alleged in
substance that the respondent : _(1) on or about April 9,'1941, initiated,
formed, and sponsored the Association and since that date has assisted,
dominated, contributed, support thereto, and interfered with its admin-
istration; (2) on or about June 9, 1941, entered into a contract with
the Association relating to terms and conditions of employment of the
respondent's employees, although at the time•of its execution the Asso-
ciation did not represent an uncoerced majority of the employees in
the unit covered by the said contract (3) from on or about June 30,
1941, to on or about October 1, 1941, discriminated against Benjamin
Cohen and Samuel Cohen by providing them with less employment, and
on or about October 2, 1941, discharged them and thereafter refused
to reinstate them because they did not become members of the Asso-
ciation, and because they joined and assisted Local No. 1 and the United
and engaged in other concerted activities for the purposes of collective
bargaining or other mutual aid or protection;, (4) since on or about
June 30, 1941, discriminated against Julian Waraska,3 by providing
him with less employment, because he refused to become a member of
the Association and because of his membership and activities in behalf
of Local No. 1 and the, United ; (5) urged, persuaded; and warned its
employees to refrain from aiding and becoming members of Local No. 1
or the United, and threatened them with discharge if they became or
remained members thereof, or if they did not become or remain mem-
bers of the Association; (6) caused to be distributed to its employees
pamphlets, circulars, and literature attacking and disparaging Local
No..1 and the United and the leaders and members thereof; and (7)
granted preference in employment to members of the Association.
On February 27, 1942, the respondent, filed its answer admitting
certain allegations of the. complaint as to the nature of its business,
but denying that it had engaged in or was engaging in the 'alleged
unfair labor practices. -
Pursuant to notice, a'hearing was held from February 26 to March
17, 1942, inclusive, at New York City, before Howard Myers, the Trial
Examiner duly designated by the Chief Trial Examiner. At the com-
mencement of the hearing, the Association filed an application for
leave to intervene, which the Trial Examiner granted. The Board,
the respondent, the Association, and the United were represented by
1 On or about October 1, 1941, by unanimous vote, the members of Local No 1 transferred
their affiliations to the United
2,Previous to May 12, 1941, the date of the adoption of its constitution, the Association
was known as The Employees' Council of Hooven Letters, Inc, herein called the Council.
3 Erroneously referred to in the complaint as Julian Woroska.
HOOVEN LETTERS, INCORPORATED , 1311
counsel and participated in the hearing.4 Full opportunity to be heard,
to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce, evidence
hearing on the issues was afforded all parties. During the hearing,
counsel for the Board moved to dismiss the complaint insofar as it
alleged that the respondent had discriminated against Julian' Waraska.
The Trial Examiner granted the motion. At the conclusion of the'`,,
Board's case and at the close of the hearing, counsel for the respond-
ent moved to dismiss the complaint in its entirety or; in the alternative,
to dismiss certain portions thereof. The Trial Examiner reserved
ruling upon the motions, which he later denied in his Intermediate
Report. - At the 'close of the hearing, the Trial Examiner granted
motions by counsel for the Board and counsel for the respondent to
conform their respective pleadings to' the proof. During' the course
of the hearing, the Trial Examiner ruled upon other motions and upon
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. At the close of the
hearing, counsel for the Board and counsel for the respondent argued
orally before the Trial Examiner. Although advised that they might
file briefs with the Trial Examiner, none of the parties availed them-
selves of the opportunity.
The Trial ,Examiner thereafter filed his Intermediate Report, dated
April 11, 1942, in which he found that the respondent had, engaged in
and was engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within
the meaning of Section 8 (1) and (2) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the
Act. He accordingly recommended that the respondent cease and
desist from engaging in the unfair labor practices and that it take cer-
tain affirmative action to effectuate the policies of the Act., The Trial
Examiner further recommended that the complaint be dismissed inso-
far as it alleged that the respondent had discriminated against Ben-
jamin Cohen and Samuel Cohen with regard to the terms and condi-
tions or hire and tenure of their employment. No exceptions to the
Intermediate Report were. filed by the respondent or by the United.
On May 1, 1942, the respondent informed the Board that it had com-
plied with the recommendations of the Trial Examiner in every
respect.
On April 30, 1942, Benjamin Cohen and Samuel Cohen filed excep-
tions to those portions of the Intermediate Report wherein the Trial
Examiner found that the respondent had not discriminated with re-
gard to the terms and conditions or hire and tenure of their employ-
ment, as alleged in the complaint. The Board has fully considered,
the exceptions to the Intermediate Report and, for the reasons set
forth below, finds tlieni to be without merit.
4 At the, close of the Board 's case, counsel for the Association withdiew fi om the heal mg.
Thereafter the Association was not represented
1312 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE , BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
The respondent, a New York corporation, has its principal office
and place of business at New York City, where it is engaged in the
business of duplicating, nmltigraphing, signing, addressing, and dis-
tributing letters, advertisements, and other similar material. In con-
nection with its operations, the respondent purchases annually raw
materials, consisting principally of paper, valued at approximately
$15,000, 60 percent of which is shipped to the respondent's plant from
points outside the State of New York. The respondent's gross annual
income from the operation of its business is in excess, of, $100,000.
Approximately 50 percent of the total volume of business consists of
material addressed and mailed in New York b y ' the respondent to
places located outside the State of New York. The respondent admits
that it is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act.
II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
United Office and Professional Workers of America, Local 16, is
a labor organization affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organi-
zations, admitting to membership employees of the respondent.
Amalgamated Lithographers of America, Lettershop Division, Local
No. 1,'is a labor organization affiliated with the American' Federation
of Labor, admitting to membership employees of the respondent.
Hooven Letters Employees Association is an unaffiliated labor or-
ganization, admitting to membership employees'of the respondent.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Interferenzce, restraint, and coercion; domination of and inter-
ference with the administration of the Association _
In his Intermediate Report the Trial Examiner, upon the subsid-
iary or evidential findings 'of fact which he there made, found and
concluded that the respondent had by various specified acts inter-
fered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of
the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, and that it had domi-
nated 'and interfered with the formation and administration of the
Association and contributed support to that organization. As stated
above, no exceptions to the Intermediate Report or to the record were
filed by the respondent or by the United, and the, exceptions filed by
Benjamin and Samuel Cohen did not relate to the foregoing findings
of fact and conclusions of the Trial Examiner or to the recommenda-
HOOVEN LETTERS ,_'INCORPORATED 1313
tions based thereon. As further stated above, the respondent noti-,
fied the Board that it had complied in every respect with the recom-
mendations of the Trial Examiner as set forth in the Intermediate
Report.
We have considered the record and find that the subsidiary or evi-
dential findings of fact, the ultimate findings of, fact, and the conclu-,
sions of the Trial Examiner contained in his Intermediate Report,
insofar as they relate to the'respondent's engaging in activities inter-
fering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise
of rights guaranteed under Section 7 of the Act, and to its domina-
tion and interference with the formation and administration of the
Association, and its contribution of support to it, are, and each of
said findings and conclusions is, supported by the evidence and cor-
rect. Accordingly, we approve said findings of fact and conclusions,
adopt them as the findings of fact and conclusions of the Board for
the purposes of this proceeding, and hereby incorporate by reference
into this Decision and Order, said findings of fact, and conclusions,
and each of them, to the same extent as if they were herein set forth.
Upon the findings of fad and conclusions incorporated herein, and
otherwise set forth herein, and upon the entire record in the case, we
find that the respondent dominated and interfered with the forma-
tion and administration of, and contributed support to, the Associa-
tion, and interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in
the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. '
B. Alleged discrimination against Benjamin and Samuel Cohen
with, respect to the terms and conditions of, their employment
The complaint alleged that from June 30 to on' or about October 1,
1941, the respondent provided Benjamin and Samuel Cohen with less
employment because of their membership and activities in the
United.'
Benjamin Cohen testified that for at least a year prior to June 30
lie and his brother had been given preference over the other operators
in the distribution of work in the Hooven night department where
they worked;' that when he and his brother reported for work on
June 30 they were told by Heise, night superintendent, that hence-
forth they would not receive any work until all Association members
in that department had been put to work, and that if any work
remained it would be divided among nonmembers; that from that
'As appears from the findings of fact relative to the respondent ' s domination of the
Association and its other actions of interference , restraint , and coercion , made by the Trial
Examiner in his Intermediate Report and above adopted by the Board , the Cohens were
well known as the leaders of the United 's organizing efforts in the respondent 's plant.
e In this department , the operators use a battery of four or six electric typewriters, in
the production of form letters.
481039-42-vol 43--83
1314 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
date until September 9, the. new policy was strictly enforced, and
that he, and his brother were never assigned work before. Association
members except on "rare occasions" when Heise knew that he had
sufficient work to give to all employees ; and that because of the new
policy of sharing the work, he and his'brother received less work
and earned less from June 30 to September 9 than they had there-
tofore. Cohen further testified that although they were given steady
employment from September 10 to October 4, the day on which he
and his brother were discharged, it was only because the department
was busy and needed all available operators. Samuel Cohen tes-
tified to substantially the same effect, except that he did not testify
that Heise told him that he and his brother would be put to work only
after all members of the Association had been assigned work.
At the hearing, the respondent contended that increased business
in the Hooven night department made it necessary to build up a
permanent staff ; that a change in the policy of distributing work
was necessitated thereby; and that the union activities of the Cohens
played no part in effecting such change, in policy. According to
the testimony of Horace Nahm, president of the respondent, he and
Stephen V. Petit, general plant manager, held several conferences
during the early part of June to determine what action was necessary
for the handling of the increased business and the elimination of
overtime pay in the Hooveh night department; that as a result of
these conferences they concluded that the best way to cope with the
situation was to share the work evenly among all the operators in-
stead' of assigning it to a few steady workers ;7 that this policy was
put into effect on June 30, and that it was still in force at the time
of the hearing; and that under the new arrangement the operators'
have earned approximately the same amount of money as thereto-
fore and have reported for work more regularl^. Petit's testimony
in this regard is in substantial accord with that of Nahm. The.
respondent, however, conceded that it did not inform any of its
employees, individually or otherwise, of its intention to equalize the-
work in the Hooven night department.
At the hearing, the contention was made by counsel for the Board
that the respondent invoked the policy of sharing the work in order'
fo discriminate against the Co-hens by depriving them of the prefer-
ential treatment allegedly accorded them prior to June 30, 1941.
We find, as did the Trial Examiner, that this contention is not sup-
7 Prior to June 30, 1941, the operators in the Rooven night depaitnrent were "ey-by-
mghteis", that is, they would report for work when ^o inclined or when there was work
for them The respondent , not being certain as to how many operators would report each
night, was forced to adopt what was essentially a "shape up" system, assigning work to
the operators as, and when , they-ieported The Cohens and two or three other operators,
however , weie "regulars " upon whom the respondent could rely to report for work at least
3 or 4 nights a week
1
HOOVEN , LETTERS, ,INCORPORATED 1315
ported.by the record. Katof, 'a "fly-by-righter," and Waraska, a
"regular," both witnesses for the Boii}d,, testified, that prior to June,
30 the' work, for the most -part, was divided as evenly as Heise could
distribute' it betiveen the Cohens and the other two or three "regu-
lars. " The documentary evidence, consisting in the main of the
respondent's employment records, clearly shows that on a great many
occasions during the year immediately preceding June 30 other opera-
tors were assigned to work prior to either or both of the Cohens;
,that especially during the fall of 1940, other operators earned more
money than either or both Cohens; and. that during this latter period
other' operators started work and worked longer hours than either
or both of these employees. , While it is true that during the period
from June 25, 1940; to June 27,,1941,,eacir of the Cohens earned more
money..than any'"other' operator; this was, due to the, fact- that they
reported for work more regularly than the other operators and, as
was true of the, other operators, were put to work as soon as they
reported." Only two or three employees, including Rose and New-
burg, were given more work than the Cohens in the summer and
fall of 1941, and the assignment of additional work to Rose. and
Newberg was attributable to their being groomed for other positions
,'to which they were subsequently appointed.
The further! contention that commencing on June 30 the respondent
assigned work to Association members in the Hooven night department
before non-members is likewise not borne out by the record. Although
Heise did not deny the testimony of Benjamin Cohen that Heise had
informed the latter on June 30 that such a policy was' to be followed
thereafter, we find, as did the Trial Examiner , that Heise did not make
the'statement attributed to, him by Cohen. As pointed out by the Trial,
Examiner, the testimony of the Cohens is replete with evasive,,
contradictory, and inconsistent statements , and is in conflict with docu-
mentary proof and -the more credible testimony of witnesses both for
the Board and fdr the' respondent. Other than the Cohens' testimony,,
there is no evidence that the respondent did, in fact, adopt the discrimi-
natory policy revealed by Heise's alleged statement to Benjamin Cohen.
Waraska, who was not a member of `the Association, testified that he of
all times received as much work as he desired , and that he was never-
advised of a change of policy with reference to non-membership in the
Association, and that on no occasion was he required to wait until all
members of the Association were first put to work. The record further
shows that McClellan, who did not become a member of the Association
'The fact that the Cohens and the other "regulars" were put to work as soon as they
reported was a source of complaint among the "fly-by -nighters" and, was - one of the main-
reasons why these operators did not report ' regularly ' This fact was well kno,wn ' to Nahm
and Petit and was a , motivating factor in the adoption of a share -the-work policy when
increased business made it necessary to build up a more or less permanent staff in the-
Hooven night department.
1316 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD'
until July 3, was put to work on June 30 and on July 1 and 2. before
members of the Association; that DuRex, who likewise did not join
the Association until July 3, was similarly assigned to work on June 30
and the following 2 nights; and that on July 1 and 2, and on a great
many occasions thereafter, either or both of the Cohens were given
work before members of the .Association. In view of the foregoing,
and other relevant evidence, we find, as did the Trial Examiner, that
the respondent did not, commencing on June 30, 1941, accord preferen-
tial treatment to members of the Association in the assignment of work
in the Hooven night department.
We find that the respondent has not discriminated against Benjamin
and Samuel Cohen by providing them with less employment from June
30 to on-or about October 1, 1941, because of their membership and
activities in the United and their non-membership in the Association.
C. Alleged discrimination with respect to the hire and tenure of
employment of Benjamin and Sanvttel Cohen
When Benjamin Cohen reported for work on October 1, and before
"punching in" and while waiting for Heise to give him an assignment,
he noticed an article posted on the bulletin board which attacked the
United as being "communistic." Cohen, according to his testimony,
started to copy this article for the purpose of giving it to the Board as
further evidence in support of the charges theretofore filed by Local
No. 19 While he was so engaged, Anderson, president of the Associa-
tion, came over and tore the article from the bulletin board. An'
argument ensued between Cohen and-Anderson, which soon developed
into a fist fight. After a typewriter had' been knocked to the floor and
badly damaged by the participants, the fight was, stopped by Heise,
Michael Pernice, day supervisor, and employee Giovannettone.
Heise ordered Anderson and Samuel Cohen, who had left his battery
to come to the scene of the scuffle, back to their work and instructed
Benjamin Cohen to "punch in" and go to work. Before "punching in" "
Benjamin Cohen went over to where Anderson was working and said
that,he would meet him outside at 11 o'clock, during the customary
lunch hour, and finish the fight. Anderson suggested going outside
immediately and finishing the fight. Cohen assented to this sugges-
tion, but before they had reached the exit, Cohen and Anderson engaged
in another scuffle. Again Anderson and Cohen were separated by
e Local No . 1 filed a charge on April 1, 1941 , alleging that the respondent had dominated
and interfered with the formation and administration of the Association in violation of
Section 8 ( 2) of the Act . This charge was subsequently amended on April - 30 and July' 2,
1941 . The second 'amended charge contained an additional allegation of discrimination
against the Cohens in the allotment of work . Within a few days prior to the issuance,of
the complaint herein, these charges were withdrawn by Local No. 1, with - the consent of
the Regional Director , and the complaint issued thereon was dismissed
HOOVEN LETTERS, INCORPORATED, 1317
Heise and others. Heise ordered Anderson and Samuel Cohen, who
had again left' his battery to come to the scene of the altercation,10 back
to their work and assigned Benjamin Cohen to his job. Heise then
rearranged the luncheon period so that the Cohens and, Anderson would
go to lunch at different times that night., ,
Upon. arriving at,his office the following morning, Petit found on
his desk a memorandum from Heise describing the incidents of the
previous night. The memorandum, in effect, put most of the blame
on the Cohens, and concluded by asking Petit whether the Cohens
should be put, to work the night of October 2. Petit thereupon showed
the memorandum to Nahm who, relying upon Heise's report in-
structed Petit to discharge Benjamin Cohen. When Benjamin Cohen
reported for work that night, he was discharged.
Later that evening, an altercation occurred between Samuel Cohen
and Anderson. While Anderson and Kantor, an employee, were
-standing in the aisle near Anderson's place of work, Samuel Cohen
nudged Anderson in passing him., Returning the same way, Cohen,
according to the testimony of Heise and Giovannettone, deliberately
shoved or lurched against Anderson so that the latter was 'thrown
off balance. Heise, who had witnessed both incidents, quickly went
over and ordered Cohen to leave the plant. Heise then prepared a
written report for submission to Petit. Cohen testified that he had
only "brushed" Anderson in passing him, and that he could not avoid
doing so on the second occasion because the aisle was narrow and
Anderson had his hands on his hips and his elbows outstretched.
Anderson did not testify. In view of all the evidence pertaining to
the incident, we do not credit Samuel Cohen's version and find, as'
did the Trial Examiner, that Cohen deliberately shoved or lurched
against Anderson in order to precipitate a quarrel.
On October 3, Nahm, after reading and discussing with Petit Heise's
written report of the incident of the previous night, instructed Petit
to discharge both Samuel Cohen and Anderson. Petit urged Nahm
not only to reconsider his decision about discharging Samuel Cohen
and Anderson, but to reinstate Benjamin Cohen, because all three men
were good workers and were-needed in the shop. Later in the day,
after receiving Petit's assurance that in the future he (Petit)' could
satisfactorily handle the situation, and after conferring with his attor-
ney,11 Nahm rescinded his order to discharge Samuel Cohen and Ander-
son 'and agreed to reinstate Benjamin Cohen. That afternoon, Petit
spoke to• Anderson arid the Cohens, individually, and upon securing
10 The record shows that on both occasions ocher employees also left their work to witness
the fights.
11 Nahm testified that he consulted his attorney about discharging the Cohens and
Anderson, because the latter was then negotiating with the United regarding a contract
covering the respondent's employees.
1318, DECISIONS "OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
their assurances that they would not "carry a chip on their shoulders"
and in the future would work peacefully and harmoniously with each
other, told them to report for workias usual.l2
, Wien the Cohens reported at the plant that night, Heise assigned
work to all the employee except them. Anderson also had "punched.
in" upon instructions from Heise and had been put-to work immediately.
When the Coheiis saw Anderson "punch iii" they likewise "punched in"
and waited for their assignments. - When Heise saw the Cohens he
did not know that they had already "punched in," and told,them to
wait until he could ascertain from Petit whether he was to put them
to work.13 While Heise was talking to Petit; Anderson left, his work
and went into the private .office where Petit and Heise were conferring
aiid informed them that the Cohens had "punched in" without per-
mission.14 Petit then went to the Cohens, reprimanded them for
"punching in" without permission and stated that -they had put him
"on the spot" with Nahm. He nevertheless permitted them to' go to
work. On October 4, after being informed by Petit of the events of
the previous night, Nahm concluded that the incident was a renewal
of the,, difficulties that had' already arisen between the Cohens and
Anderson and,decided that the only solution was to discharge all three
men. When the Cohens and Anderson reported for work that evening,
Petit discharged them.
'While there is evidence that Heise, who was a member of and active
in the formation of the Association, displayed. bias and prejudice
against the Cohens in his reports to Nahiii concerning the incidents of
October 1 and 2, we,are not convinced that Nahm likewise was moti-
vated by the United activities of the Cohens in effecting their ultimate
discharge. Petit, who was friendly toward the Cohens, had exerted'
his influence as plant manager by persuading'Nahm to reinstate Ben-
jamin Cohen and to rescind his order to discharge Samuel Cohen and
Anderson, thereby rectifying the, action previously taken by Nahm
pursuant to Heise's reports. Petit had assured Nahm that he would
be able to maintain peaceful relations between the Cohens and Ander-
son if Nahm would permit their retention, and it is understandable
that he would inform the Coheirs that they had put him "on the spot"
with Nahm by violating one of the ' respondent's well-known rules
immediately after he had secured their reinstatement. The fact that
12 On October 3 the United was informed of the discharge of Samuel Cohen and Anderson
'and of their reinstatement later that day The United also was informed on October 3
that Benjamin Cohen was reinstated Benjamin Cohen testified that at about 5 p m
on October 3 the United informed him that he , his brother , and Anderson were reinstated.
13 Heise at this time did not know that Nahm had decided to discharge Samuel Cohen
and Anderson , nor that Nahm had-changed his mind aiid had also ordered the reinstatement
of Benjamin Cohen
' 14 By "punching in" without being told to do so by Heise, the Cohens violated a strict
rule of 'the respondent , which prohibited operators in' the Hooven, night dep_aitnient from
"punching in" until told to do so by the supervisor in charge. •
` HOOVEN -LETTERS, ' INCORPORATED 1319
'Anderson. immediately reported to Heise and Petit that the Cohens
had "punched in" without permission made it reasonable for,Nahm to
conclude that the hostility between the Cohens and Anderson had not
ceased and was likely to continue , despite Petit's assurances to. the
contrary, and that in order to restore peace and prevent any further dis-
turbances in the plant it would be necessary to discharge all three
employees . The fact that Anderson 's position as president of the
company-dominated Association,did not deter Nahm from adopting
a solution to the problem as detrimental to Anderson as it was to the
Cohens, further indicates that Nahm's motive was non1 discriminatory.
We are convinced , therefore , as was the Trial Examiner ; that the'mem-
bership and activities of the Cohens in' the United played no part in
Nahm's determiliation to discharge them.
We find that the respondent has not discriminated with regard to
the hire aid tenure of employment of Benjamin Cohen and Samuel
•Cohen, thereby discouraging membership in a labor organization.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
We find that the 'activities of the respondent set forth in Section
III A, above , occurring in connection with the operations of the
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 obstructing
commerce and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
As stated above, the Trial Examiner in his Intermediate Report
recommended that the respondent cease and desist from the unfair
labor practices in which he found it to have engaged,'and that it take
,certain affirmative action to remedy the situation brought about by
these unfair labor practices and to effectuate the, policies of the Act.
Also, as stated above, the respondent has notified the Board that it has
complied with the recommendations of the Trial Examiner with respect
to the ' posting of certain notices to its employees and the disestablish-
ment of the Association as the collective bargaining representative of
its employees . We are of the opinion, and find, that a cessation of the
acts and conduct from which the Trial Examiner in his Intermediate
Report recommended the respondent should cease and desist , and its
taking .of the affirmative action which he recommended it should take,
were, and are , essential to an effectuation of the purposes and policy
of the Act and constitute an appropriate means of , removing and avoid-
ing 'the consequences of the respondent 's unfair labor practices as
found in the Intermediate Report and herein . We hereby approve the
recommendations of the Trial Examiner and shall make our Order in
1320 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
accordance therewith, except for certain modifications to be made in
view of the respondent's compliance with said recommendations.
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact incorporated and other-
wise set forth herein and upon the entire record in the case, the Board
makes the following :
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. United Office and Professional Workers bf America, Local 16,
affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations; Amalgamated
Lithographers of America, Lettershop Division, Local No. 1, affiliated
with the American Federation of Labor ; and Hooven Letters Em-
ployees Association are labor organizations within the meaning of
Section 2 (5) of the Act. '
2. By dominating and interfering with the formation and adminis-
tration of Hooven Letters Employees Association, and contributing
support to it, the respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices,
within,the meaning of Section 8 (2) of the Act.
3. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in
the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, ithe
respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices, within the meaning
of Section 8 (1) of the Act.
4. The' aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices
affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the
Act.
5. The respondent has not discriminated in regard to the hire and
tenure or terms and conditions of employment of Benjamin Cohen
and Samuel Cohen.
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 respondent,
Hooven Letters, Incorporated, New York City, and its officers, agents,
successors, and assigns shall:
1: Cease and desist from :
(a) Dominating or interfering with the administration of Hooven
Letters Employees Association, or- with the formation or administra-
tion of any other labor organization of its employees, and from con-
tributing financial or other support to Hooven Letters Employees
Association, or to any other-labor organization of its employees;
(b) Recognizing Hooven Letters Employees Association as the
representative of any of its employees for the purpose of dealing with
the'respondent concerning grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of
,pay, hours of employment, or other conditions of employment;
HOOVEN LETTERS, INCORPORATED 1321,
'(c) Giving effect to its contract of June 9, 1941, with Hooven Letters
Employees Association, or any revision, extension, renewal, or supple-
ment thereof, or to any' superseding contract which may now be in
`force;
(d) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing
its employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to form,
join; or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through rep-
resentatives of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted activities
for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or pro-
tection 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) Withdraw and withhold all recognition from Hooven Letters
'Employees Association as the representative of any of its employees
for the purpose of dealing with the respondent concerning grievances,
labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, or other con-
ditions of employment, and completely disestablish said Hooven Let-
ters Employees Association as such representative;
AND IT IS FIRT im ORDERED .that the complaint, insofar as it alleges
that the respondent, by discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure
or terms and conditions of employment of Benjamin Cohen and
Samuel Cohen; has engaged in unfair labor practices within the mean-
ing of Section 8 (3) of the Act, be, and it hereby is, dismissed.
CHAIRMAN MILLIS took no part in the consideration of the above
Decision and Order.