Jahn & Ollier Engraving Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 21, 1940

24 N.L.R.B. 893 (N.L.R.B. 1940)

In the Matter Of JAHN & OLLIER ENGRAVING COMPANY and CHICAGO
PHOTO-ENGRAVERS UNION, LOCAL #5
Case No. C-1535.-Decided June 21, 1940
Photo-engraving Industry-Interference, Restraint, and Coercion: anti-union
statements and activities of supervisory employees and officials ; posting of :one-
sided data about the Act ; posting notice of continuation of anti-union policy ;'
execution of individual profit-sharing contract with employees ; respondent
ordered to- notify employees that profit-sharing contract invalid.
Mr. Charles F. MIIeErlean, for the Board.
Messrs. Fyffe c6 Clarlc, by Mr. Albert J. Smith and Mr. John Har-
rington, of Chicago, Ill., for the respondent.
Mr. Irwin Bloom, of Chicago, Ill., for the Union.
Mr. Herbert B. Galton, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon charges and amended charges duly filed by Chicago Photo-
Engravers Union, Local #5, herein called the Union,' the National
Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board, by the Regional
Director for the Thirteenth Region (Chicago, Illinois), issued its
complaint dated January 18, 1940, against Jahn & Oilier Engraving
Company, Chicago, Illinois, herein called the respondent, alleging
that the respondent had engaged in and was engaging in unfair
labor "practices affecting commerce, within the meaning of ' Section
8 (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations
Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein called the Act. Copies of the complaint were
duly served upon the respondent and the Union.
With respect to the unfair labor practices, the complaint alleged
in substance that the respondent, from November 1936 to the date
of the complaint, by attempting to induce employees to spy on em-
ployees' union activities, by questioning employees as to their union
1 The name of the Union, as it appears in its constitution and bylaws , is "Chicago Photo-
Engravers' Union No. 5 of the International Photo-Engravers ' Union of North America."
24 N. L. R. B., No. 94.
893
1
894 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
activities, by asking employees whether union organizers, solicited
them to join -the Union, by informing employees that it would never
sign a contract with the Union, by advising employees that it would
go out of. business before it would sign a contract with the Union,
by threatening employees with loss of employment or less employ-
ment.if they joined the Union, by forbidding employees to mention
the Union while working but not restricting other matters and con-
versations not pertaining directly to its `business, by advising em-
ployees that there was no reason for them to join the Union, by, stat-
ing. to employees that if the Union organized the shop the Union
would close down the plant by calling a strike, by threatening to.
cause-work normally done at the plant to be transferred to other
engraving plants in the event the employees joined the Union, by
stating to employees that the union leaders were organizing em-
ployees.merely for the money they received,. by posting a bulletin
misinforming the employees as to their rights under the Act,by'so-
liciting employees to enter into individual contracts of employment;
by interfering with employees in their selection of a bargaining rep-
resentative during an election conducted by the Regional Director,
by, urging employees to vote against, the Union, by stating to em-
ployees that if they were faithful to the respondent in voting that
they would win in the long run, by. asking employees how they
voted, by advising apprentice employees that they would lose their
jobs if the Union won the election,-by stating to employees that a
strike would be called if the Union won the election, and by prom-
ising to promote employees if they voted against the Union, inter-
fered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of
the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. The respondent filed
a motion with the Regional Director for a bill of particulars and
thereafter an answer in which it' admitted the allegations of the
complaint concerning the nature of its business but denied that it
had engaged in the alleged unfair labor practices. The respondent
in its answer asserted that "such information and statements as were
given and made Wits employes were for the purpose of advising
the' employes of the respondent's intention. to continue to operate' its
business in such manner that membership in a labor organization
would not be a requirement for employment and for the further
purpose of answering untruthful, misleading and vicious statements
and attacks, written and verbal, made against the respondent and
its officers, by labor organizations," including the Union andits
organizers and officers. .
Pursuant to notice .duly.,served upon the respondent and the Union,
a hearing was held at Chicago,; Illinois, on January 29, 30, and' 31,
1940, before William P. Webb, the Trial Examiner duly designated
r
JAI-{\ & OLLIER ENGRAVING COMPANY 895
by the Board. The Board, the respondent, and the Union' were.
represented by counsel and participated in the hearing. Full oppor=
tunity .to be heard, to examine and ,cross-examine witnesses, and to
introduce evidence bearing upon the issues was afforded all parties.
At the inception of the hearing, the Trial Examiner denied the. re-
spondent's motion for a bill of particulars. During the course of
the hearing the Trial Examiner made several rulings on motions
and on objections to the admission of evidence. The Board has re-
viewed the rulings of the Trial .Examiner and .finds that no. preju-
dicial errors were committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed.
Thereafter, the respondent filed a brief with the Trial Examiner.
On April 2, 1940, the Trial Examiner issued his Intermediate
Report, copies of which were duly served upon the respondent and the
Union. In his Intermediate Report the Trial Examiner found that
the respondent had engaged in unfair labor practices affecting com-
merce, within the meaning of Section 8 (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7)
of the Act and recommended that the respondent cease and desist
therefrom, post 'appropriate notices, and inform its employees who
had signed a profit-sharing contract dated July 15, 1938, that in so
far as. such contract involves their agreement not to strike, the re-
spondent is obligated to discontinue it as a term or condition of
employment: On April 29, 1940, the respondent filed exceptions to
the Intermediate Report and on May 8, 1940, it filed a brief in sup-
port of its exceptions. The respondent did not request opportunity
to present oral argument before the Board.
The. Board has considered the exceptions of the respondent and;
save, as. they, are consistent with the findings, conclusions, and order
set forth below, finds them to be without merit.
Upon the entire record in .the, case, the Board makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
The respondent, Jahn & Oilier Engraving Company, is a Delaware
corporation having its principal office and place. of business in Chi-
cago, Illinois. It is engaged in the business of commercial printing,
photo-engraving, and commercial photography.
'The principal raw materials used by the, respondent are chemicals,
metals, paper, wood, glass, and ink. During 1939 the respondent
spent approximately $100,000 for the purchase of such materials,
of which about 3 per cent were purchased outside the State of Illinois.
The principal products. of the respondent are drawings, mechanical
illustrations, retouched photographs, half-tones, zinc etchings, and
color process plates. The average yearly billings of the respondent
896 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
amount to about $1,000,000, of which approximately 30 per cent
represents billings to customers outside the State of Illinois.
The.respondent maintains branch offices in Pittsburgh, Pennsyl
vania, and New York City, and employs salesmen whose territories
embrace the States-east of the Mississippi River. The respondent
employs about 240 employees in its plant.
II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Chicago Photo-Engravers Union, Local #5, is a labor organization
affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, admitting to its
membership photo-engravers employed in the Chicago area, including
photo-engravers and foremen employed by the respondent.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Chronology of. events
In 1905 the contractual relations which theretofore had existed
between the Union and the respondent were discontinued. The
Union, however, continued its efforts to unionize the respondent's
employees. From 1905 to 1933 the respondent actively opposed the
union organization of its employees and secured contracts from them
under which they agreed to refrain from joining labor organizations.
In 1933 the respondent modified its position with respect to union
organization and adopted an alleged open-shop policy under which
it ostensibly operated its business thereafter.
In January 1937 the Union inaugurated a . membership campaign
among the respondent's' employees. The campaign met with .some
success and within the following year and a half a substantial number
of the respondent's employees had joined the Union.
On August 17, 1937, the respondent posted on its bulletin board
"A Message To Employees," which presented the following "Facts
about the Wagner Act":
We desire our employees to know their. rights under the Wagner
Act. Many misleading statements and propaganda are being cir-
culated among employees. In order to give you actual facts and
to prevent misunderstanding, we present below some questions
and our answers, supported by official statements of those who
sponsored the bill in Congress.
QUESTION.' Is an employee required. to join a labor union?
ANSWER. No. He is not required to join or pay duest to° any.,
organization of any kind. Senator Walsh of Massachusetts, who
piloted the bill through the Senate, said :
JAHN & OLLIER ENGRAVING COMPANY 897 '
"The bill does not require or request any employee to join any
organization of any kind , shape or character . It does not seek to
encourage or bring about the establishment of any labor organi-
zation under any employer where there is now none".
QUESTION . If an employer should engage in collective bargain-
ing with a LABOR union must he agree to its demands? Must
he.reach an agreement of any nature?
ANSWER: No . The Supreme Court of the United States says:
"The Act does not compel agreements between employers and
employees . It does not compel any agreement whatever ." Sena-
tor Wagner of New York, author of the bill , said : "It does not
compel anyone to make a contract ' of any , kind if no terms are
arrived at that are satisfactory to him. The very essence of
collective bargaining is that either party shall be free to with-
draw if its conditions are not met."
QUESTION. Does the Wagner Act require closed shop agree-
ments ?
ANswER .' NO. Senator Wagner said :
"There is nothing in the bill which favors the closed shop. It
provides merely that closed shop agreements may be made, but
only in those states where they are now-legal , by voluntary agree-
ments between employers and employees."
QUESTION. May an employee elect to deal directly with his
employer and not deal through a labor organization?
ANSWER. Yes . The Supreme Court of the United States says
that the Act does not prevent an employer from making such ,
individual contracts as he may "elect to make directly with
individual employees".
QUESTION . DOES THE Supreme- Court ruling make it im-
possible for an employee to be discharged for failure to fulfill
duties?
ANSWER. No . The Supreme Court says : "The Act . does not
interfere with the normal exercise of the right of the employer to
select his employees or to discharge them.
About the middle of February 1938 Robert Esplin, the foreman of
the half-tone gallery, said to William J. Hall, an employee in his
department : "Now, you are a good friend of Mr. [V. M.] Ollier's
[chairman of the respondent 's board . of directors]. ' He has done
many a favor for you. Here is an opportunity to do a favor for him."
Hall asked , "What is it ?" Esplin replied , "Well, there has been ,ome
talk of union activities about the plant here . If you hear anything,
I would like to have you let me know." Hall refused to act as an
informer against his fellow employees. Esplin, in justification of his
position , testified : "I work for a living at Jahn & Ollier's. I don't
898 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR. RELATIONS BOARD
believe in unions, and I felt that, .being supervisor of the department,
that it was in my power, so far as the men were concerned, to ask them
any question that I wanted to, that was my liberty.".
Raymond T. Paul, an employee of the half-tone etching room, testi-
fied that in April 1938 he told Albert Albin, his foreman,, that .a union
organizer had been over to see him the previous evening. Albin re-
plied, "Is that right? Don't have any part of those fellows. Don't
leave, them get in your life and ruin your life.". Albin denied making
this statement, but admitted that lie might have talked to employees
about the Union as he felt that he "would be justified in doing it .. .
to protect my job." He further admitted that if he did have any, such
conversations, he would have told the employees that he disapproved
of the Union. In view of Albin's admissions, we find, as did the Trial'
Examiner, that-Albin made the statement attributed to him by Paul.
On a few occasions during 1938 the respondent called meetings of
the employees during which union matters as well as their work were
discussed. At one of these meetings in May Clarence S. Boothby,
president of the respondent, stated that he was present to reiterate
the long-standing policy of the respondent, that the respondent "were
honest business men trying to give the employees a square deal," that
."they [the Union] don't want you, they want your clues," and "that at
no time would they [the respondent] sign any agreement or contract
with the union whereby an employee of theirs had to pay dues to work
for 'them." Boothby admitted having made substantially the fore-
going remarks, testifying, however, that' with reference to agreements
he told the employees that."if ever a law was passed in this country
which would compel us to sign .a closed shop contract which-would
prevent us from hiring any man who wanted to support his family and
did not want to pay dues.in the union, then we would close our plant."
Oilier, an officer of the respondent, was present at this meeting and
also addressed the employees. According to the undenied testimony of
Board witnesses, which we accept as. true, Oilier told the employees
that there were "some poison peddlers in the firm" and that there was
"some poison propaganda being spread around the shop that was'hurt-
ing the shop, and he didn't feel it was fair."
In May and November.1938, Leo Klein,2 foreman of the zinc-etching
department, told- Howard Henry Klooster, an apprentice zinc-printer,
that it would cost about $20 a month to belong to the Union, and that
if the Union came into the, plant, Klooster would probably lose his
'job because the ratio of apprentices to journeymen in the plant was
too great.
On July 9,1938; Alexander F. Ross,'the re'spondent's superintendent,.
:entered into a conversation with William ' V.' Barrier, an employee.
s Also known as Louis Klein.
JAHN & OLLIER ENGRAVING COMPANY 899
13arrier testified that Ross called him into.his office and asked Barrier.
whether he "was in on this union business." Barrier denied that he
was "in on this, union business" but stated that he "might go over to
the union side." According to Barrier, Ross then said, "Well, you
.know you have a family, I mean a wife and children, and you know
..what you got with Jahn & Oilier and you know what you got with the
union." Barrier further quoted Ross as saying, "you know if you go
over to work in a union shop, you will have to prove yourself .... we
let you get away with stuff here." Ross testified in this connection
that Barrier came to his desk for instructions, and. that after giving
Barrier necessary orders, .he asked Barrier whether, he [Barrier] had
been influenced "by the talk that had been going around." Accord-
ing to Ross, Barrier stated that he would not answer "yes or no,"
whereupon Ross replied that such was Barrier's privilege. Ross ad-
mitted reminding. Barrier "that he had certain obligations as a hus-
band and, father," and asking him to "think it over very carefully
before he came to any decision." Ross admitted that he disapproved
of employees joining the Union. In view of Ross' admitted hostility
to the Union and the substance of his testimony, we credit Barrier's
version of the conversation and find that Ross made the statements
attributed to him by Barrier. About a week after this conversation
took place, Foreman Albin told Barrier that "Ross seems to think that
.you are in the union, but I don't."
On about August 1, 1938, Boothby called Norton C. Doland, an
employee, into his office and after speaking, to him about his refer-
ences told him, according to the latter, that the respondent "had given
me [Doland] a break by hiring me and I couldn't find a job in any
other open shop in the city at the time." Boothby accused Doland
of talking about the Union in the shop and asked him if he had
any connection with the Union and whether he attended union meet-
ings. Boothby further remarked that Raymond Paul,a union mem-
ber, was a "smart agitator" who was "breaking his neck to turn out
his work" but that "he [Paul] wasn't kidding anybody." . According
to Doland, Boothby also informed him that he had received word
from a "so-called grape. vine" that he [Doland] had joined the Union
at one of its meetings. Boothby finally asked Doland to keep the
conversation a secret. At the hearing Boothby admitted that on
occasion he questioned employees about their union affiliation and
admitted that he engaged in the above-described conversation with
Doland. Although admitting the substance of the conversation he
denied that he told Doland that-lie had received word through the
"so-called grapevine" that he [Doland] had joined the Union. The
Trial Examiner found that Boothby made all the statements ascribed
to him above. -In view of the Trial Examiner's finding and Boothby's
900 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
admissions , and on the basis of the entire record, we find that the
conversation occurred as testified to by Doland.
Paul testified that in August 1938 Foreman Klein told him that
the respondent "didn't care whether the union could pull men out
of there or not, because . . they [the respondent] can always
farm their work out." Klein denied that he made this statement.
Klein testified that he talked to employees regarding the Union and
that many employees asked him "what should they do." Klein told
them, "You know what you got here, and you don't know what you
are going to get. I think the firm is. treating you as best they could.
I don't believe in union myself . . . I think you should
stay with the firm." In view of Klein's admitted hostile union atti-
tude, and activity, we find that he made the statement attributed to
him by Paul.
In August 1938 Oilier called William J. Hall, an employee, into
his office and told him, "You know those union fellows [referring to
Union officials], they are only in it for what they are getting,iout .of
it; they just put in a petition for a raise." Hall said, "I happen to
know about that. They didn't get their raise. " Ollier replied, "Well,
they are still getting big money: I imagine President Schussler
[president of the Union] gets about a hundred' a week." Hall .an-
swered, "Yes, he does, and . the organizers get $75 and expenses."
Oilier stated that "you know I know all of those fellows
There has been quite a bit of propaganda spread around through the
plant. That is not fair to the firm.". Hall replied, "I don't know of
any what I call propaganda being spread around, or lies. I don't
know of anybody that is telling any lies." Ollier thereupon named
[L. C.] Gruber [then an International Representative of the Union]
as a union official who was spreading the "propaganda."
Frank George. Gisser, an employee, testified that in September 1938
Klein asked him whether he was a "union man," and he answered
that it was none of Klein's bu siness. Klein replied, "Never mind, we
know, or we can find out if you are a union man or not." Klein
denied that. he made these l statements. In view of Klein's admitted
anti-union attitude and his activity against the Union as described
above in connection with Paul's testimony, we agree with.the Trial
Examiner's finding and credit the testimony of Gisser.
During the period herein. described, the respondent secured the
signatures of 'its employees-to an individual contract of employment.
On July 15, 1938, Boothby called various groups of employees into
the conference room, where he read to them a "profit sharing contract,"
which he had previously prepared, and requested them to sign it.-,
' Boothby testified that "our men had been given so many conflicting statements about
what the firm was going to do , what it would not do , and what it was going to cease doing
JAHN & OLLIER ENGRAVING CONIPANY 901
Under the contract the respondent agreed, inter alia, to provide
steady, employment for 52 weeks per year during the term of the
contract, vacations with pay, and payment of insurance and bonuses
to employees. The employees in turn agreed "to give loyal,, skillful,
continuous uninterrupted services satisfactory" to the respondent for
52 'reeks per year for 2 years,-while the respondent ,reserved. to.. itself
the right "to immediately discharge any employee for breaking any
clause of this contract" and to relieve itself of all liability under the
contract if its business should be interrupted or cease operation,
among other reasons, because of strikes or government regulations.
The contract in substance was a restatement of the conditions under
which the plant had operated since at least 1935. The benefits of
the contract were limited to the employees who signed it, and no
employee was eligible to sign until he had been. in the employ of
the respondent continuously for 1 year. The contract was signed by
all the photo-engravers except Raymond Paul. ' A short time prior
to, the;'election 4 of November 30, and'December 1, 1938, a copy of the
contract was placed under glass near the time clock. Another copy
was kept in the respondent's office and was available for inspection by
the employees.
On August 31, 1938, the Union wrote to the respondent suggesting
that it "refrain from Z5osting bulletins detrimental to your employees'
.welfare and cease discouraging them in their lawful right to self-
organization." The respondent did not answer this letter. The
Union again wrote to the respondent on September, 8, 1938, stating
that majority of the respondent's employees had designated the
Union as their bargaining agent and that the Union was desirous
of proving its majority. On September 10, 1938, the respondent an-
swered and requested a list of the union members so that, it could
verify the Union's claim of a majority. The respondent also' wrote :
"Is it the desire of you gentlemen to represent our men,-who prove
to be members of your Union,-in negotiating a new contract for
their on' the termination of the present 'one, or do you plan to aid
and abet them in breaching our existing contractual' relations?" On
September 14, 1938, the Union replied that it would not submit a
list of union members and that it did not intend to aid or abet any-
one in breaching existing, contractual relations entered into properly
and not in violation of or in conflict with the Act. The Union also
requested the respondent to send it a copy of the contract. The re-
spondent did not answer this letter. On October 5, 1938, the Union
that I felt the only safe way to assure all of our employees exactly what we were going to do
was to put it in writing , sign it, and make an agreement with them that was binding upon
the firm." The contract was dated July 15, 1938, and was to remain in force for 2 years.
It was retroactive, however, and became effective as of July 1. 1938.
See footnote 5, infra.'
283035-42-voL 24-58
I
902 DECISIONS ,OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
wrote the. respondent and requested a meeting for the, purposes of
collective bargaining. On October 10, 1938, the respondent answered
that the Union could "hardly expect us to take your. unsupported
statement to the effect that you represent a majority of our workmen,
as .legal -authority for again requesting a meeting," and that ..until
the Union would furnish the respondent with. satisfactory proof of
its majority, the respondent would decline to meet with the Uiiion.5
The respondent posted on its bulletin board' from August. 26, 1938,
to October 8, 1938, the following notice to its employees :
As we have frequently stated to you verbally, We have no
objections if you join the union, Chicago Yacht Club, fraternal
orders, or any other organization (except communist) as long
,is, you perform your duties properly, but we again affirm it
will NEVER be necessary for anyone to be a member of ANY
organization to secure and retain a job with us. '
On November 22, 1938, Boothby sent a notice to the superintendent
and foremen cautioning them "not to say or do anything with ,any
of our employees which might be construed by the National Labor
Relations Board as coercion, intimidation or interfering with the
efforts of the Chicago Photo Engravers' Union to unionize our men."
During November Foreman Klein had a conversation with-Paul.
Paul testified that Klein told him that he could be earning. $60 ' a
week, but the trouble is. you are cracking the whip." According to
Paul, Klein explained that he was referring to "This union busi-
ness." Several minutes later Paul asked Klein "how good" his
chances were to make $60 per week. Paul quoted Klein as answer-
ing that he did not know as "They [the respondent] don't know
whether they can trust you, whether you are going to keep on
organizing or not." Klein admitted that he had a conversation with
Paul, but claimed that when Paul asked him if he could earn $60'
a week, Klein stated first that it was a hard question to answer, and
later that. he could not answer such questions. In view of Klein's -
admittedly anti-union attitude and his activity against the Union,
we find, as did the Trial Examiner, that he made the statements
attributed to him by Paul.
On October 20, 1938, the Union filed a petition for investigation and certification with
the Regional Director (Case No. X111-11-266). Pursuant to.an agreement between the
respondent and the Union, an election was held by the Regional. Director on November 30
and December 1, 1928. Of the 1.26 ballots cast, 49 ballots were in favor of the Union and
77 ballots were against the Union. Thereafter, the Union filed with the Regional Director
objections and exceptions, to which the respondent filed a reply. The Regional Director
conducted an informal hearing on the issues thus raised. On February 28,.1939, the
Regional Director resigned. On April 24. 1939, the succeeding Regional Director ruled that
in the absence of an agreement by the parties to the consent election agreement to permit
seine person other than. the Regional Director named in the agreement to decide disputes
arising thereunder, "the agreement for consent election' be treated as at an end by reason
of the impossibility of the performance of all of the terns thereof."
JAHN & OLLIER ENGRAVING COMPANY 903
Arthur. Lawrence Johnson, an apprentice half-tone operator, testi-
fied that in the middle of November .1938 Martin J. G. Peterson,
an assistant foreman, ,told him that it was common knowledge that
the Union had many men out of work. ' Peterson further said that
"if the plant went union, the union would insist on putting -some of
those men in the places of the apprentices now working at Jahn &
.Oilier, and the apprentices would probably be dropped out." Peter-
son admitted that he does not approve of employees belonging to
the Union. In view of Peterson's attitude toward the Union, we
find that he made the statement attributed to him by Johnson.
Walter Stephen Gaber, an apprentice photo-engraver, testified
that about the middle of November 1938, Peterson said to him :
"Well, Walter, we have been friends for a long time, and I don't,
want to see anything happen "to you. I have just gotten word
from the front office that if the union gets fifty-one per cent of the
fellows to vote for them, and Jalin & Oilier doesn't sign up, the
union will most probably call a strike and take, the fellows' who did
sign up out on strike, and Jahn & Oilier will continue to work with
the fellows that are:left, that is, who. are loyal to the company, then
if the union pickets, and the situation gets too tough, well, Jahn
Ollier will form a ,new company, a sort of cooperative company, in
which each employee will be a,shareholder, and in that "case, all
'those who are out. on strike will be out of a job." Peterson denied
that he had this conversation, although he admitted that he had
spoken to Gaber oil one occasion about the Union. The Trial Ex-
-aminer found Peterson's, denial to be unconvincing. We agree with
the Trial Examiner and we find that Peterson made the statement
attributed to him by Gaber.
Samuel Tedeshi, a former employee of the respondent, testified 6
that about 2 days before the election of November 30 and Decem-
ber 1, 1938,' Charles H. 'Zemke, his foreman, asked him if any union
men had come to his house and 'talked to him. Upon receiving a
negative answer, Zemke, according to Tedeshi, 'said that "If they
do come, send them away and stick with the company. You always
win in the long run if you stick with the company." The day after
.the election, 'Zemke asked him how he had voted. When Tedeshi
refused to answer; Zemke said "You should not be afraid to tell
me if you: voted for the company." Zemke denied making these
statements to Tedeshi. Zemke; however, admitted that he had daily
conversations with Tedeshi, that he had talks with several ' em-
ployees concerning the Union, and"" that he did not approve of the
.i
8 This- is based upon 'a stipulation entered into at-the hearing between counsel for the
respondent and the Board that' if Tedeshi were present , he would give the above testimony.
Counsel for'Board stated that Tedeshi was in a C. C. C. camp in the State of-Oregon.
See footnote 5, supra.
904 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Union "very much" because he "wouldn't have quit them" if he
did. The Trial Examiner did not credit Zemke's denials. We agree
with this conclusion and 'find that Zemke made the statements
attributed to him by Tedeshi.
About January 15, 1939, Frank Rastetter, a new employee, had a
conversation with Boothby, who asked him about his previous em-
ployment. Rastetter's testimony may be summarized.. as follows :
Rastetter told Boothby that he had previously been employed in a
union shop in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, and that he worked only 5
days because too many union men were out of work. Boothby said,
"That is a dirty trick. That is the way the union works." Boothby
then offered the information that "we had a plant- in Toledo and
we had some union trouble down there. Before we let the union
come in we closed the plant down." Referring to the present em -
plot ees of the respondent, Boothby remarked that the men- "were
getting a good salary and they had been treated nice." Rastetter
replied that "Those men don't know how well they are off." Boothby
then- said: "That is the idea. When you get. down to the plant you
mention to them and tell them about your troubles that you had in
Pittsburgh and how the union treated you." Boothby did not deny
that Rastetter's version of the conversation was substantially correct.
He testified„ however, in connection -with the respondent's Toledo
plant that he told Rastetter that "we had lost a large sum of money
down there and conditions-the union apparently organized the
men and brought about conditions which would cause even more
loss of money, so we decided there was no use to continue." The
Trial Examiner accepted Rastetter's version of the conversation.
We agree with the Trial Examiner and find that Boothby made the
statements attributed to him by Rastetter.
On January 27, 1939, when Frank Joseph Graff started to work
for the respondent, according to Graff's undenied testimony which
we accept as true, Boothby told him that "they [the respondent]
didn't favor the union, and that before they turned union .that they
would close down the shop."
In the summer of 1939 Ross came into the half-tone etching.de-
partment and stated in a loud voice to Foreman Albin that an
engraving company "went bankrupt." Ross further- said, according
to the Iindenied testimony of Paul, "That's the second union shop that
went bankrupt in the last week, there is going to be others.".
Prior to January 15,'1940, Rastetter asked Superintendent Ross
'for an increase in wages. About January 15, 1940, Ross referred
him to Boothby about his request. Rastetter went to Boothby's
office and Boothby asked him "if the union bad been bothering me
[Rastetter] lately." Rastetter answered, "No, nothing to amount
. JAHN & OLLIER ENGRAVING COMPANY 905
to much excepting that they have been sending me a lot of letters."
Boothby admitted telling Rastetter, "Don't worry about those letters.
They have been- sending those for the last 30 years." Rastetter
received an increase in wages.
On January 23, 1940, 6 days before the hearing herein, the re-
spondent-posted' on its -bulletin board the following notice. to its
employees :
For years the Chicago Photo Engravers' Union, Local No. 5,
has tried unsuccessfully to "organize" our employees.
For more than two years the Union has been complaining
to the Labor Board that its lack of success has been due to "un-
fair labor practices" by the company:
Starting Monday, January 29th, the Labor Board is going
to hold a hearing to inquire into the Union's charges.
The company will, of course, meet every bit of evidence that
is offered against it.
The company will, of course, vigorously defend its good name
before the" Labor Board-and, if necessary-in the courts.
If in the end the court should hold the company has engaged
in any "unfair labor practices," the net result would be that
the courts would order the company to cease and desist such
unfair labor practices thereafter.
The reason the Union has been unable to "organize" our em-
ployees is because our employees have not wanted to be organized
by the Union.
So long as our employees do not want to be organized by the
Union, there is no law, no Labor Board, and no court that will
or can require them to be "organized" by the Union.
These proceedings may be pending for a long time-such pro-
ceedings have been known to drag out for several years-but the
pendency of these proceedings will in no way interfere with the
continuation of our policies or our relations with our employees 8
This notice is posted so that all our employees may know ex-
actly what is the nature of the proceedings before the Labor
Board and what they involve.
JAHN cC OLLIER ENGRAVING COMPANY,
/s/ C. S. BOOTZ-IRY, President.
1/23/40
B. Conclusions
• We are satisfied from all the evidence that concurrently with the
revival of union activity in the plant, the respondent reaffirmed the
" Italics supplied.
906 DECISIONS OF` NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
anti-union policy that it had maintained prior to 1933 and embarked
upon a course of conduct designed to prevent,, if possible, the unioil
organization of its `employees; "A Message To Eiilployees" which
the respondent posted on August 17, 1939, purporting to apprise the
employees of their rights under the Act, to • present "actual facts,"
and -to prevent "misunderstanding," is patently distorted, and mis
leading. The "Questions and Answers" contained in the "Message!",
are confined almost entirely to advising the employees that they are
not required to.join labor organizations or to seek the benefits of col-
lective bargaining and to stating the rights of the employer left un-
affected by the Act. The "Message" is conspicuously silent with
respect to any exposition of the rights guaranteed to employees by the
Act and of the unfair labor practices proscribed by the Act. Con-
sidered in conjunction, with the anti-union activities of the respond-
ent's officers and supervisory employees which followed, it is plain
that the posting of the "Message" was calculated to stand as a warn-
ing, that the employees might expect` neither the protection that the
Act affords nor the benefits of collective bargaining that the Act.
encourages.
The respondent contends that the statements contained in the above-
described "Message" and the statements which we have found above
to have been made by the respondent's officers, superintendent, fore-
men, and assistant foreman,- were mere statements. of advice and
opinion which-are not proscribed by the Act and in the expression
of which the respondent is protected by the constitutional guarantees;
of freedom of speech and of the press. We find no merit in the re-
spondent's contention. As we said in Matter of Ford, Motor. Conn- -
pany and, International Union, United Automobile Workers of
America, Local 325: io
Whether the words or actions of an employer constitute inter-
ference, restraint, or coercion, within the meaning of the Act,
must be judged, not as an abstract proposition, but in ' the light
9 See Matter of The Perfection Steel Body Company (a. k. a. The Perfection Burial Vault
Company) and Local 1151, International Association of Machinists, A. F. of L., 23 N. L. It. B.,
99; Matter of Jasper Blackburn Products Corporation and District No. 9, International
Association of Machinists, affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, 21 N. L. It. B.,.
1240; Matter of Moore-Lowry Flour Mills Company and Flour Mill and Cereal Workers
Union No. £•0601, Affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, 21 N. L. R. B. 1040;
Matter of Link Belt Company and Lodge 1604 of Amalgamated Association of Iron, Steel
and Tin Workers of North America, through the Steel Workers Organizing Committee
affiliated with the Committee for Industrial Organization, 12 N. L. It. B. 854; Matter of
Goshen Rubber and Manufacturing Company and United Rubber Workers of America, Local
#124, 11 N. L. R. B. 1346, enf'd as mod. N. L. R. B. v. Goshen Rubber and Manufacturing
Company, 110 F. (2d) 432 (C. C. A_-7) ; Matter of Nebel Knitting Company, Inc. and
American Federation of Hosiery Workers, 6 N. L. R. B. 284, enf'd N. L. R. B. v. Nebel Knit-
ting Cc mpany,- Inc., 103 F. (2d) 594 (C. C.'A. 4) ; Matter of Mansfield Mills, Inc. and Textile
Workers Organizing Committee, 3 N. L. It. B. 901. See also, Matter of West Texas Utilities
Company and International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, 22 N. L. It. B. 522.
10 23 N. L. R. B. 342.
JAI N & OLLIER ENGRAVING' COMPANY 907
of 'the economic realities of the 'employer-employee relationship.
It need hardly be stressed that the dominant position of an em-
ployer,_ who exercises the power of economic life and death over
his 'employees, gives-to an employer's statements, whether or,not
ostensibly couched as argument or 'advice,, ,an immediate and
compelling effect that they would not possess' if addressed to
economic equals "
Under the, circumstances here present the, asserted constitutional
guarantees do not afford the respondelt license to engage in the inter-
ference, restraint, . and coercion which resulted from the impact of
the anti-union statements upon the minds of its employees.12 As we
have described above, the employees were advised that they need not
exercise the rights guaranteed by the Act:. Apprentices were warned
that they might lose their jobs if, the Union .succeeded in organizing
the plant; an employee was asked 'to, "do a, favor for" the respondent
by reporting upon. union activities; an employee was' advised not to
"leave them [the Union] get in your life and ruin your life." The
respondent's president suggested to the employees that "they [the
Union] don't want you, they want your dues," while another officer
.1 See N. L.'R. B. v. Falk Corporation, 102 F. ( 2d) 383, 389 (C. C. A. 7), mod. on other
grounds, 308 U. S. 453, where the Court said : ' ' .
The position of the employer is a most delicate one. Surely , he.has the right to his
dews And yet, the voice of authority may; by tone inflection , as well as by the
substance of the words uttered , provoke fear and awe quite as readily as it may speak
'.fatherly advice. The position of the employer , where, as here, there Is present genuine
and sincere respect and regard , carries such weight and'influence that his words may
be coercive when they would ' not be so if the relation ' of master and servant did not
exist: -
See" also;' Virginian By. Co. v . System Federation No. 40,- et al.,, 84' F. (2d )• 641,, 643
(C., C. A. 4) afi'd 300 U. S . 515, where the Court said
'It must be remembered in this connection , however , that any sort of influence exerted
by an employer upon an employee , dependent upon his employment for means of live-
lihood, may very easily become undue, in that it will coerce the employee ' s will in favor
'of what the employer desires against his better judgment as to what is really in the
'best interest of himself and his fellow employees.
12. See "Matter of Ford Motor Company and International Union, United Automobile
Workers of A'merioa; Local 425, 23 N. L. R. B . 342;. Matter of -Ford Motor Company and
United Automobile Workers of America, Local No . 825, 23 N: L. R.* B.' 548; Matter of
FordMotor ' Company and United 'Automobile Workers of Amerioit. Local 440, 19 N. L. if. B.,
732.; Matter, of Rockford Mitten & Hosiery Company and The American. Federation of
Hosiery Workers through Textile Workers Organizing Committee, affiliated with the Com-
mittee for Industrial Organization, 16 N. L. R. B. 501 -; Matter of Ford Motor-Com-
pany and International Union, United Automobile Workers of America, 14,-N. L. R. B. 346;
Matter of The Dow Chemical Company and United Mine Workers of America, District
No. '50, 13 ; N L. R. B. 993. , '
See also the following applicable court cases : N. L. R. B. v. Falk Corporation, 102 F. (2d)
383 (,C. C,.A. 7), aff'd in 308.U. S. 453; N. L. R. B. v. Colten, 105 F. ( 2d).179 . (C: C. A. 6) ;
N. L.R. 'B. . v. Hopwood Retinning Co., 98 F. ( 2d) 97 (C. C.. A. 2) ; Virginia Ferry Corp. V.
N. i.,R.,B., 101,F. (2d) 103 (C. C. A. 4) ; N. L. R. B, v. Stackpole Carbon Co., .105 F. (2d)
8), cert. den . 308 U. S. 605; N. L. R. B. v. Nebel Knitting Company, 103 F. (2d).
594; (C. C.yA.•4) ; Republic Steel Corporation V. N. L. R. B., 107 F. (2d) 472 (C. C. A. 3),
cert. „den.,.60 $. Ct. 806; Montgomery . Ward & Co., Inc. v. N. L.. R. B., 107 F. (2d) 555
(C. C. A. 7) N. L. R. B. v. Sunshine Mining -Company, .-110,F. ( 2d) 780 (C:,C. A. 9).
908 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
of the respondent referred to the union organizers as "poison ped-
dlers." An employee was reminded that he had a wife and children
who should be considered in his choice between the Union and the
respondent; employees were questioned about their union member-
ship and union organizers were disparaged. A union member was
told that "They [the respondent] don't know whether they can. trust
you, whether'you-ar--e''going to -keep on organizing, or not"; another
employee was advised that "You always win in the long run if you
stick with the company." An employee was told that the respondent
closed one of its plants "before we let the union come in," and another
employee, at the time he was hired, was advised that the respondent
did not favor the Union and would close the plant "before they
turned union."
It is plain from the record that these statements were neither in-
tended to be, nor were they in effect, mere expressions of advice and
opinion directed toward refuting the allegedly false propaganda of the
union organizers but rather a concentrated effort on the part. of the re-
spondent to destroy that freedom which.the Act guarantees employees
in the exercise of their right to self-organization. We find it im-
possible to believe that these statements, coining from the employer
and propounded to employees under circumstances indicating that they
should take heed, were merely directed to their reason and were. in-
tended to influence only their mental' processes, without intimidatory
or coercive effect. No employee could fail to understand that if he
disregarded the warnings he might find himself in difficulties with
the respondent. These statements made by the respondent's officials
and supervisory employees under the circumstances described above
naturally and inevitably engendered in the employees a fear for their
economic security should they seek to exercise the rights granted by
'the Act 13
The respondent further contends that since its foremen and assist-
ant foremen have' no power to hire or discharge and since they are
eligible for 'membei°ship' in the Union; -they, are, permitted under the
Act to participate in. the organizational activity of the employees
nor may the respondent be held to account for their acts or state-
ments. We-do not agree that these factors are sufficient to absolve
the respondent from responsibility -for the acts and statements of,
such employees. Despite the absence of authority to hire or dis-
charge, it is plain from the record that the foremen and assistant
13 See Matter of Brown Shoe Company , Inc., and its wholly owned subsidiary , Moench
Tanning Company , Inc. and National Leather ' Workers Association Local. #ty ;. affiliated
with the 'Committee for Industrial Organization , 22 N. L . R. B. 1080; Matter of Rockford
Mitten & Hosiery Company and The American Federation of Hosiery Workers through
Textile Workers Organizing Committee,' affiliated with the Committee for Industrial Organi-
zation, 16 N. L. R. B ., No.'53 ; Matter .of Foote Brothers Gear and Machine Corporation and
United Office and Professional Workers of America, No. it, , 14 N. L . R. B. 1045.
JAI-IN & OLLIER ENGRAVING COMPANY 909
foremen exercise substantial supervision over the work of the ordi-
nary employees and represent the management in its relations with
such employees.14 Moreover, neither- the right of the foremen and .
assistant foremen to engage, in concerted activities, nor their eligi-
bility to membership in the Union excuses the respondent's failure to
restrain them from enlisting its prestige in an invasion of the field
of self-organization-a field of activity reserved exclusively to the
employees.16 The foremen and the assistant foreman, in discourag-
ing union affiliation and activity, so far as their subordinates knew,
purported to state the respondent's policies and views with respect'
to the Union. The respondent does not deny that they were properly
stated. Indeed, that they were in fact the respondent's policies and
views is clear from the conduct of the respondent's superintendent
and executive officers.1°
We find that the foremen and assistant foreman are supervisory
employees for-whose statements, helein.-the respondent is_chargeable.17
It is plain, in the light of all the evidence, that the respondent
utilized'the profit-sharing contract that it offered to its employees
in July 1938 as but another weapon to offset. the union organization
of its employees. We have observed that under the contract the
employees agree to give "continuous uninterrupted service" satis-
'" See Swift and Company v. N. L. R. B., 106 F . (2d) 87 (C. C. A. 10), enf'g as mod.
Matter of Swift & Company and Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Butcher Workmen of
North America, Local No. 641, and United Packing House Workers Local Industrial Union
No. 300, 7 N. L. R. B. 269 ; N. L. R. B. v. The A. S. Abell Company, 97 F. (2d) 951 (C. C. A.
4), enf'g as mod . Matter of The A. S. Abell Company and International Printing and
Pressmen's Union, Baltimore Branch , Baltimore Web Pressmen's Union, No. 31, 5 N. L. R. B.
644. Nothing in the Act limits an employer's responsibility for the anti-union activity of
its supereiiory • employees to employees having-the power to- hire and discharge . - See Inter-
national Association of Machinists ,. Tool and Die Makers Lodge..No. 35 affiliated with the
International Association of•Machini.sts, et al . v. N. L. R. B., 110 F. (2d) 29 C. A. for D. C.).,
enf'g Matter of The Serrick Corporation and Internat ional Union, United Automobile
Workers of America, Local No. 459, 8 N. L. R. B . 621, where the Court said :
The statute , we think purposely , does not define the particular methods or agents by
which the employer may intermeddle unlawfully. Had it done so, easy escape would
have been opened from the Act's provisions . Nothing in it requires that such repre-
sentation be limited to officials having any particular kind or degree of authority, such
as "hiring and firing ," "disciplinary power ," or even " supervisory capacity."
See also Virginia Ferry Corp. Y. N. L. R. B., 101 F . ( 2d)•103 (C. C. A. 4), enf'g as mod.
Matter of Virginia Ferry Corporation and Masters , Mates and Pilots of America , No. 9, et al.,
S N. L. R . B. 730.
'? See Matter of Ford Motor Company and United Automobile Workers of America, Local
No. -325, 23 N. L. R. B. 342; Matter of.Indiana & Miolzigan ,.Blectric„ Company,. and, Inter-
national Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local B-9, 20 N L. R. B. 989; Matter of
Tennessee Copper Company and Textile Workers Organizing Committee , 9 N. L. R . B. 118.
16 See Matter of Jefferson Lake Oil Company , Incorporated and Sulphur Workers Local
Union No . 21195, 16 N. L. R. B. 355. Cf. Matter of Crown Central Petroleum Corpora-
tion and Oi l Workers International Union, Local No.. 237, 24 N. L. R. B. 217.
17 As we have noted above, on November 22, 1938, the respondent notified its superintend-
ent and foremen not to interfere unlawfully in the organizational activities of the em-
ployees . It is plain , however, that these instructions were not followed, nor did the
respondent "take effective means to stop repeated violations of the Act." Swift & Company
v. Al. L. R. B., 106 F . (2d) 87, 93 (C. C. A. 10).
910 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
factory to the respondent for two years, the respondent has a right
"to immediately discharge any employee for breaking any clause of
this contract," and if the business of the respondent shall be inter-
rupted or cease operation during the life of the contract, among other
reasons, because of strikes or government regulations; the respondent
is relieved of liability under the contract. Thus the employees have`
renounced the right to engage, in collective activity for the purposes
of collective bargaining fora period of two years and have agreed,
to forsake all rights as employees should they strike during this
period. Clearly these restrictions upon the exercise of employees'
rights under the Act, when- imposed as a result of individual bar-
gaining, constitute unlawful restraints which the Act proscribes...
This contract, prepared by. the respondent's president and admit-
tedly a restatement of the working conditions under which the re-
spondent's plant had operated since at least 1935, was submitted to the
employees. at the height of the union, campaign for membership as
a substitute for collective bargaining. Less than two months later,
raising the contract as a bar to the collective bargaining requested
by the Union, the respondent inquired whether the Union was desir-
ing to negotiate a new contract. upon the expiration of the profit-
sharing contract (which would not, expire before July 1940) or
whether the Union- planned "to aid and abet them [the employees] in
breaching our existing contractural relations." Later in the fall of
1938, and shortly before the.conduct of the consent election by the
Regional Director,"' the respondent for the first'time posted a `copy
of the contract on; its. bulletin board. It. is apparent that the re-
spondent executed the profit-sharing contract for the purpose of in-
ducing the employees to refrain from joining the Union 'and for the
purpose of interfering with their right to •bargain collectively,= and
that the contract had such effect.
The respondent argues that it offered the profit-sharing contract
to its employees because the employees "had-been given so • many
conflicting statements as to what respondent was going to do.; and
what it was going to cease doing"; that the contract was "substan-
tially' a restatement of the terms of employment for the- past few
years"; that "these terms of employment were `very favorable' to re-.
spondent's employees according to the Trial Exaininer's' own find-
ing'.'; that "The only conceivable way in , which the profit-sharing,
contract would have `thwarted' the ' union or `discouraged 'meniber-
ship,in the union' would be that-the union had been organizing and
obtaining members by misrepresentation, and deceit" ; and that "if
the mere terms of the contract constituted unfair labor practices,
respondent has been committing such practices for years." The re-
ie See footnote 5, supra. - -
JAHN '& OLLIER ENGRAVING COMPANY 911
spondent's arguments constitute an implicit admission that the profit-
sharing contract was offered to the employees in order to thwart them
in the exercise of their right to collective bargaining. Unquestion-
ably an employer is not precluded by the Act from bestowing upon
his employees substantial benefits and -concessions with respect to
working conditions. When, however, the employer grants such
benefits and concessions with the purpose and effect of discouraging
his employees from joining a labor organization and otherwise ex-
ercising 'the right to self-organization and collective bargaining, and
where the benefits and concessions are granted in the form.-of indi
vidual contracts which, in effect, preclude the employees from exer-
cising their collective bargaining rights guaranteed by the Act, then
the employer's. activity falls within the conduct proscribed by the
Act. We find that the respondent's conduct in proffering the profit-
sharing contract to individual employees under the circumstances
described above, constituted a deliberate attempt to destroy the Union
and to foreclose' its employees from- exercising the right to self-or-
ganization and collective bargaining guaranteed to them under the
Act.-.
Having thus successfully put into operation an effective anti-union
policy and hiving successfully impeded the Union's organizational
efforts, the respondent forcefully reiterated this "policy"' when it
posted on its bulletin board 6 days before-the hearing herein a notice
'to employees stating''that the pendency of the Board's proceedings
"will in no way interfere with the continuation of our policies or
our relations with our. employees."
We find that the respondent, by the anti-union statements and
activities of Oilier, Boothby, Ross, Albin, Esplin, Klein, Peterson,
and Zemke, by posting its "A.Message To Employees," by offering
to its employees an individual profit-sharing contract, and by posting
its notice of January 23, 1940, under the circumstances and condi-
.tions,as,described herein, has.interfered with, restrained, and coerced
its employees in the exercise of the rights-guaranteed by Section 7
of the Act.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
We find that the activities of the, respondent set forth in Section
III above, occurring in connection with the operations of the re-
29 See Matter of Williams Manufacturing Company, Portsmouth, Ohio, and United Shoe
Workers of America, Portsmouth, Ohio, 6 N. L. R. B. 135; National Licorice Company V.
N. L. -R. B., 60 S. Ct. 569, aff'd -as- mod. 104'F. (2d) 655 (C. C. A. 2), enf'g.as mod. Matter
of National Licorice Company and Bakery and Confectionery Workers International Union
of America, Local Union 405, Greater New York and Vicinity, 7 N. L. R. B. 537; Matter
of.The Duffy Silk Company and Silk Throws tars Union, Local 81, Textile Workers Union of
America, 19 N. L. R. B. 37; Matter of Jefferson Lake Oil Company, Incorporated. and
Sulphur Workers Local Union No. 21195, 16.N. L. R. B. 355.
9.12 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
spondent 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
Having found,that the respondent has engaged in certain unfair
labor practices, we shall order it to cease and desist from such prac-
tices and to take certain affirmative action which we find necessary to,
effectuate the policies of the Act.
We have found that the profit-sharing contract. interfered with
the employees' rights under the Act. We shall order the respondent
to give written notice to each employee who signed the.profit-sharing
contract that such contract imposes a restraint upon the individual
employees in the exercise of their right under the Act to collective
bargaining and other concerted activity, and that, therefore the re-
spondent will cease and desist from in any manner continuing, en-
forcing, or attempting to enforce it. Our order, however, is not
intended either to interfere with the employees' rights under the
.profit-sharing arrangement and any other substantive features of
the contract or to operate as a bar to collective bargaining with respect
to such aspects of the contract.20
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the
entire record in the case, the Board makes the following :
CON CLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Chicago Photo-Engravers Union, Local #5, is a labor organiza-
tion, within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
2. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in
the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the re-
spondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices,
within the meaning of Section 8 (1) of the Act.
3. 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 Jahn & Oilier
Engraving Company, Chicago, Illinois, and its officers, agents, suc-
cessors, and assigns shall:
20 See National Licorice Comi aoay v. N. L. R . B., 60 S . Ct. 569.
JAI-IN & OLLIER ENGRAVING COMPANY 913
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) In any manner interfering with, restra.iniing, or coercing its
employees in, the exercise of the right to self-organization, to form,
join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through
representatives of their- own choosing, and to engage in concerted
activities for the purposes of collective bargaining or other mutual
aid or. protection, as guaranteed in Section 7 of the National Labor
Relations Act ;
(b) In any manner continuing, enforcing, or attempting to en-
force the profit-sharing contract of July 15, 1938, without prejudice,
however, to the assertion by its employees of any legal rights they
may have acquired under such contract.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a). Notify in writing each employee who signed the profit-sharing
contract of July 15, 1938, that such contract imposes a restraint upon
the individual employees in the exercise of their right under the
Act to collective bargaining and other concerted. activity and that
therefore the respondent will cease and desist from in any manner
continuing, enforcing, or attempting to enforce the proft-sharing
contract;
(b) Post immediately in conspicuous places at its plant, and main-
tain for a period of at least sixty (60) consecutive days from the date
of posting, notices to its employees stating: (1) that the respondent
will not engage in the conduct from which it is ordered to. cease and
desist in paragraphs 1 (a) and (b) of this Order; and (2) that the
respondent will take the affirmative action set forth in paragraph 2
(a) of this Order; -
(c) Notify the Regional Director for the Thirteenth Region in
writing within ten (10) days from the date of this Order what steps
the respondent has taken to comply herewith.