Jensen Radio Manufacturing Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 14, 1940

27 N.L.R.B. 813 (N.L.R.B. 1940)

In the Matter of JENSEN RADIO MANUFACTURING COMPANY and UNITED
ELECTRICAL, RADIO & MACHINE WORKERS OF AMERICA, AFFILIATED
WITH THE CONGRESS OF INDUSTRIAL ORGANIZATIONS and JENSEN
EMPLOYEES' WELFARE ASSOCIATION, INC.,PARTY TO THE CONTRACT
Case No. C-1630.-Decided October 14, 1940
Jurisdiction : radio equipment manufacturing industry.
Unfair Labor Practices
In General: responsibility of employer for activities of supervisory employees.
Company-Dominated Union: participation in administration: representatives of
management serving as officers-contribution of support to : permitting activi-
ties on company time and property such as committee meetings, collection of
dues, and circulation of pledge cards ; donating moneys in furtherance of or-
ganization's social activities; receiving profits accruing from the operation of a
concession in the plant and its continued receipt of income therefrom upon its
relinquishment thereof-indicia of domination : respondent given right under the
constitution and bylaws of organization to participate in internal affairs;
execution of closed-shop contract following recognition upon oral assurance
that organization represented a majority of employees ;- absence' of provision
in constitution and bylaws of provision for meetings.
Discrimination: discharges for union membership and activity; discharges pur-
suant to closed-shop contract with company-dominated organization.
The respondent's decision after a non-discriminatory lay-off not to reem-
ploy an employee because of union activity amounts to a discharge.
Remedial Orders : disestablishment of company-dominated union; abrogation of
contract; reinstatement and back pay.
Mr. Robert R. Rissman, for the Board.
Mr. Otto A. Jaburek, of Chicago, Ill., for the respondent.
Meyers & Meyers, by Mr. Ben Meyers, of Chicago, Ill., for the
Union.
Mr. Marshall E. Gallion, of Chicago, Ill., for the Association.
Miss Ann Landy, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon charges and amended charges duly filed by United Electrical,
Radio and Machine Workers of America, affiliated with the Congress
27 N. L. It. B., No. 144.
813
814 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
of Industrial Organizations, herein called the Union, the National
Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board, by the Regional Di-
rector for the Thirteenth Region (Chicago, Illinois), issued its com-
plaint dated March 11, 1940, against Jensen Radio Manufacturing
Company, Chicago, Illinois, herein called the respondent, alleging that
the respondent had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor prac-
tices 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.
With respect to the unfair labor practices,-the complaint, as
amended at the hearing, alleged in substance (1) that the respondent
instigated the formation of Jensen Employees' Welfare Association,
Inc., herein called the Association,' and thereafter contributed
financial and other support to it, and otherwise fostered, promoted,
and encouraged its growth, and that on or about February 4, 1939,
the respondent entered into an illegal contract with the Association
recognizing it as the exclusive representative of the respondent's
hourly paid employees for the purposes of collective bargaining, and
requiring membership in the Association as a condition of employ-
ment; (2) that the respondent discouraged membership in the Union
and encouraged membership in the Association by discharging John
Wright, on or, about August 27, 1937, because he had joined and
assisted the Union, and by discharging William Misko and Joseph
Miskovic, on or about August 23, 1939, George Misko, Bruno Zamera,
and Leo Schaeffer, on or about September 14, 1939, and Walter Pajow-
ski, on or about October 25, 1939, in alleged compliance with the
respondent's illegal contract with the Association, because-they, and
each of them, had been suspended from membership in the Associ-
ation, and for the further reason that they, and each of-them, had
joined and assisted the Union; and (3) that by the foregoing and
other specified acts, the respondent interfered with, restrained, and
coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in
Section 7 of the Act.
Copies of the complaint and notice of hearing thereon were duly
served upon respondent, the Union, and the Association. On March
19, 1940, the respondent filed an answer to the complaint. The
answer, as amended at the hearing, admitted certain allegations in
the complaint, as amended, as to the nature of the respondent's
business, denied the alleged unfair labor practices, and asserted cer-
tain affirmative defenses which are hereinafter discussed.
1In the complaint the Association was referred to as Jensen Employees ' Welfare Asso-
ciation , Inc, but the correct name is shown in its corporate charter to be Jensen Employees'
Welfare Organization, Inc
JENSEN RADIO MANUFACTURING COMPANY 815
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held in Chicago, Illinois, from
March 25 to March 30, 1940, before Mortimer Riemer, the Trial
Examiner duly designated by the Board. - The Board, the respondent,
the Union, and the Association were represented by counsel and
participated in the hearing. Full opportunity to'be heard, to examine
and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing upon
the issues was afforded all parties. During the course of the hearing
the Trial Examiner ruled upon numerous motions and objections
to the admission of evidence. The Board has reviewed the rulings
of the Trial Examiner and finds that no prejudicial errors were
committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed.
On June 26, 1940, the Trial Examiner filed his Intermediate Report
in which he found that the respondent had engaged in and was en-
gaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce, within the mean-
ing of Section 8 (1), (2), and (3) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the
Act. He recommended, inter alia, that the respondent cease and
desist from the unfair labor practices found; that it withdraw recog-
nition from the Association and disestablish it as representative of
the employees of the respondent; that it reinstate the employees
named in the amended complaint; and that it make whole William
Misko, Joseph Miskovic, George Misko, Bruno Zamera, Leo Schaeffer,
and Walter Pajowski, with back pay.
Thereafter the respondent filed exceptions to the Intermediate
Report. Pursuant to -request therefor by the respondent and upon
notice to all parties, a hearing was held before the Board in Wash-
ington, D. C., on August 22, 1940, for the purpose of oral argument.
The respondent appeared and presented argument. The Board has
considered the exceptions to the Intermediate Report, and in , so far
as they are inconsistent 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
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
The respondent is a Nevada corporation having its principal office
and plant in Chicago, Illinois, and sales offices in Chicago, Illinois,
and in Oakland and Los Angeles, California. It is engaged in the
manufacture, sale, and distribution of radio loudspeakers, amplifiers,
and public address and sound equipment. During the period from
March 1, 1939, to February 29, 1940, the respondent purchased raw
materials worth $534,120, and manufactured products worth $943,000.
The respondent obtained approximately 80 per cent of the raw
materials from outside the State of Illinois and shipped approxi-
a
816 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
mately 47 per cent of the finished products to States other than
Illinois.
II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
l
United Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers of America is a labor
organization affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations,
herein called the C. I. 0., admitting to membership the production
kind maintenance employees of the respondent.
Jensen Employees' Welfare Association, Inc., is, an unaffiliated
labor organization admitting to membership the production and main-
tenance employees of the respondent.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Domination of the Association
1. Formation and history of the Association
For some time prior to March 1937 there existed in the assembly-
department of the respondent's plant an organization of employees
which held informal meetings at a tavern. The record does not show
whether or not it was a labor organization.' On or about March 12
this organization invited the employees from the machine shop 2 to
one of its meetings, where the Association was formed. The details
with respect to the first meeting are not disclosed in the record other
than that an employee, Montjar, was elected chairman and Olin
Burdette, foreman of the maintenance department, was appointed to a
committee which was selected for the purpose of meeting with the
respondent.
On March 15, 1937, a committee of employees including Burdette
and representing the Association, called upon Superintendent Gerald
Cahill and presented to him a proposed agreement and a letter noti-
fying the respondent of the formation of the Association. The letter
explained the reason for the organization of the Association as
follows :
This action is taken in view of present labor difficulties in
Industry thru-out the country. The majority of all employees
are desirous of remaining loyal to their employers, and do not
ask or encourage any association, outside unions, or any con-
nection with the union known as John L. Lewis's Committee
for Industrial Organization. No doubt our employers have been
2 During the spring of 1936 Samuel Goldman, foreman of the respondent's machine shop,
organized the Jensen Workers Social Club among the employees in the machine shop, as a
mutual benefit society to Brant loans and benefits to employees in need. Goldman was
president of the Club and Frank E. Thompson, chief inspector in the machine shop, was its
treasurer. The Club held its meetings in the plant.
0
JENSEN RADIO MANUFACTURING COMPANY 817
advised of meetings arranged for Radio Workers and particu-
larly for our own employees scheduled to be held Sunday, March
14, 1937, by CIO organizers. Therefore it is with this thought
in mind that we have created this Employees Welfare Organiza-
tion and we present herewith an agreement for your approval.
The agreement accompanying the letter provided for exclusive bar-
gaining riglits for the Association,3 for a grievance machinery, and
for the election of a committee by the employees. The agreement
also specified that "no dues or assessment shall be made against
employees for the maintenance of the Employees Welfare
Organization."
In addition to submitting the proposed agreement, the committee
demanded a 15-per cent increase in wages, 2 weeks' vacation with pay,
and a closed shop. Several meetings between the respondent and the
Association followed during which the respondent remained adamant
in its refusal to grant the wage increase, despite strike threats of the
committee. Finally at the conclusion of a meeting on March 17, the
employees in the plant engaged in a sit-down strike. The record
does not disclose the manner in which the strike was called or who
assumed the leadership in it. About 300 of. the respondent's 425
employees took part in the strike, which lasted until 11 p. in. on
March 18. On the first evening of the strike, the committee asked
Cahill to speak to the strikers and attempt to persuade them to leave
the plant for the night, and assure them that they would not be
locked out. Cahill followed the suggestion of the committee but to
no avail and the employees voted to continue the strike.
On March 18, at a meeting between the committee and Cahill
and William E. Maxson, the respondent's then managing director,
the respondent acceded to an immediate 5-percent increase and prom-
ised further increases as soon as business conditions would allows
The strikers accepted the concession and left the plant.-
After the sit-down strike the Association proceeded with its or-
ganization. Burdette, foreman of the maintenance department, and
Frank E. Thompson; chief inspector in the machine shop, were
elected president and treasurer of the Association respectively. In
the summer of 1937 Burdette was succeeded by Jake Henrich as pres-
ident, and the latter in turn wars succeeded by William Broomfield in
September 1938. Thompson continued to hold the office of treasurer
up to the time of the hearing. Superintendent Cahill met with' the
Association's committee frequently and discussed wages; hours, and
other conditions of employment. A second 5-per cent increase was
8 In a subsequent agreement submitted on March 17 , 1937 , these terms were modified
to provide for recognition of the Association as representative only of its members.
323428-42-vol 27-53
818 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL- LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
granted on April 29, 1937, and a third increase in July 1937. The
Association also obtained a reduction in hours of employment front
55 to 44 in the machine shop and a 51/2-day week in the assembly
department., The respondent granted numerous other requests.
Meanwhile the activities of the Association were carried on openly
on company time and property. The Association held two or three
meetings in the plant in April and May 1937 after working hours,
using the plant loudspeaker system with the respondent's consent.
Thereafter the Association held its membership meetings outside the
plant. The Association's committee, however, continued to meet in
the plant at Chief Inspector Thompson's desk, generally after work-
ing hours but occasionally during working hours. Dues for the
Association were collected from the members daily at Thompson's
desk, and once-a week, presumably on pay days, Thompson collected
dues at the time clock. The Association was permitted the exclusive
use of the bulletin boards in the plant.4
During the summer of 1937 the Association started to operate a
commissary for the sale of tobacco and candy in the plant the con-
cession for which had previously been held by Horace White, a ship-
ping clerk. Henrich, then president of the Association, asked Su-
perintendent Cahill for this privilege. Although Cahill replied that
he had nothing to do with the concession because it was in White's
hands, White yielded the concession to the Association without pro-
test. The supply of candies and tobacco were kept under Chief In-
spector Thompson's desk and sales were made to employees during
relief periods and lunch hours. The Association realized a profit of
over $250.00 from the concession. In September 1938 the Association
transferred this concession to Swend Nielson, the owner of the re-
spondent's lunchroom concession, in consideration for which Nielson
executed a contract agreeing to pay to the Association a sum equal to
5 per cent of all monies received from the operation of his lunch-
room. Cahill's uncontroverted testimony was that he had not ap-
proved the transaction. As a result of the agreement, however, the
Association received a: steady income in addition to the amount col-
lected from dues.
On two occasions the Association received cash donations from the
respondent. In August 1938 the respondent gave $35.94 and in No-
vember 1938 $5.00 to be used as door prizes at social functions of
the Association. The respondent's office employees typed letters for
the Association during working hours and used the respondent's sta-
° when counsel for the Board asked Thompson who paid for the building of the bulletin
boards he replied : " I did, the company , the Association " On cross-examination he testified
that the bulletin boards were built by the respondent 's carpenter , but the Association paid
for the materials and the labor.
JENSEN RADIO MANUFACTURING COMPANY 819
tionery without reprimand. The first 11 issues of the Association's
monthly publication were mimeographed by one of the office ' em-
ployees on the respondent's mimeographing machine, the Association
paying for the use of the machine.
In December 1938 the Association and the respondent started nego-
tiations for a contract. Cahill testified that he met an Association
committee twice in December and thereafter negotiated alone with
Broomfield, president of the Association. However, Thompson.
treasurer of the Association and a member of the committee, testified
'that all negotiations with Cahill were conducted by Broomfield alone.
Cahill submitted his own draft proposal to Broomfield on February
2, 1939, and his draft except for a minor provision relating to the
seniority rules was identical with the contract signed on February 3.
1939. The committee approved the contract for the Association.
There is no'indication that the contract was submitted for approval
to the Association's membership.
Under the contract the respondent recognized the Association as the
exclusive bargaining agency for all hourly paid employees and granted
the Association a closed shop. The contract provided that new em-
ployees would be compelled to join the Association within 30 days as
a condition of employment; provided for seniority regulations; estab-
lished a method for settling grievances; set up. a board of arbitration;
and granted time and one-half for overtime., The Association agreed
not to strike over matters covered by the contract. The contract also
provided that participation in any strike authorizeci.by the Association
in violation of the agreement or by unauthorized action of individuals
or groups would be cause for dismissal or discipline by the respondent.
The agreement was to remain in full force and effect until February 3,
1940, and thereafter from year to year with a 30-day notice of expira-
tion clause. At the time the contract was signed, Cahill asked Broom-
field how many members the Association had, and was informed that
nearly all the respondent's employees were members. Cahill did not
examine the Association books and -accepted the oral statement as
proof of the Association membership. The last sentence of Article 5
of the contract reads :
It is understood that the Union (the Association) shall have the
National Labor Relations Board designate them as the exclusive
bargaining agent.
This provision was inserted in the contract at Cahill's suggestion. He
testified that he was later informed by the Association that it had been
designated the exclusive bargaining agent by the Board. Such was not
the fact. Cahill admitted never having received confirmation of this
statement or having inquired of its truth, and stated that he never
820 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
learned otherwise until August 1939 when he spoke to a Field Examiner
of the Board. I
Immediately after the signing of the closed-shop contract on Feb-
ruary 3, 1939, the Association sought to strengthen its position with
its members. A copy of the contract was posted on the bulletin boards
in the plant and its contents were explained to the members at an
Association meeting on March 9, 1939. The minutes, however, do not
state that the contract was submitted for ratification to the
membership.
At the same meeting, on March 9, 1939, the Association adopted a
constitution and bylaws. The constitution provides for weekly
meetings of the board of directors, but there is no provision for regu-
lar membership meetings.,' Section 2 of Article V of the constitution,
dealing with expulsion of members, establishes a board of arbitration
of three to hear charges of conduct hostile to the Association or the
respondent. This board is composed of a representative selected by
the respondent,-one selected by the president of the Association, and a
third selected by these two representatives. The provision is similar
to Article VIII of the contract between the respondent and the Associa-
tion, which also provides for a board of arbitration selected in the
identical manner. Broomfield explained that this constitutional pro-
vision was adopted ". . . to more or less bind'the members with the
union, and to give the officers due respect. They were a little bit out
of hand; in fact, they were running the union, not the officers that
were authorized to run it." Broomfield testified further that in dis-
cussing this section with the Association attorney, "it was pointed out
that the officers that were in there at that particular time would not
be in all the time, and that some officers might abuse that article and
get rid of possibly a key man, or a group of key men that worked with
the company, and we felt that the company had the right to sit in and
see that the officers that took the action showed no malice to the indi-
vidual that had the action taken against him."
After the meeting of March 9, 1939, pledge cards prepared by the
attorney for the Association were freely and widely distributed in
the plant during working hours as well as during rest periods." Em-
ployees came up to Thompson's desk to obtain cards and to sign them.
Other employees were given cards by representatives of the Associa-
tion who distributed them throughout the plant during working hours.
Julia Janke and Mary Schodrof signed cards handed to them by their
supervisor, Virginia Sieja, during working hours. Broomfield ad-
The Association held no meetings between August 1939 and the time of the hearing.
s The pledge cards read as follows : "I hereby accept all conditions set forth in the rules
and regulations of the Jensen Employees Welfare Organization, as well as all amendments
that may be passed in the future."
JENSEN RP--tO MANUFACTURING COMPANY 821
mitted soliciting a number of signatures during working hours. Fore-
man Goldman testified that he saw the pledge cards on Thompson's_
table, but could not recall talking to Thompson about them. Goldman
and Broomfield both testified that Goldman reprimanded Broomfield
a number of times for engaging in activities on behalf of the Asso-
ciation during working hours.' Broomfield, however, who was pro-
moted with a'substantial increase in salary , after he became president
of the Association, admitted that neither he nor the others who engaged
in' Association activities during working hours took these scoldings
seriously.
At the Association meeting of August 15 , 1939, the need for the
restoration of a previous 10-per cent wage cut was discussed. The
conduct of the Association committee was criticized and more drastic
action was demanded . Broomfield suggested that since the meeting
was unruly and poorly attended, decision should be deferred until the
course of action could be determined by the vote of the entire member-
ship. Accordingly a balloting was held in the plant "on August 22,
1939. Broomfield drew up the ballot , which read as follows :
If in favor of a ten per cent raise and a two weeks vacation with
pay, mark a cross in the space marked Yes. If you vote No the
committee will not force the issue.
Note : Yes means STRIKE.
No means COLLECTIVE BARGAINING:
John Jurwick, secretary of the Association ; distributed the ballots
to the employees as they left work on August 21, and they were told
to vote and deposit the ballots in the ballot box near the time clock
in the plant at noon on August 22. In one of the departments the
distribution of the ballots did not take place until some time during
the forenoon of August 22. Neither Broomfield nor Thompson knew
the numerical result of the balloting and Henrich who was in charge
of the ballot box was not called as a witness . There is no evidence
that the result of the balloting was ever announced to the employees.
In any event the "Noes" won, directing the committee to continue its
collective bargaining efforts. The Association thereupon dropped the
issue and made no further attempt to obtain the restoration of the wage
cut. Although the respondent did not grant permission for the ballot-
ing that took place in the plant, it took'no disciplinary action because
of its occurrence.
While the respondent's supervisory officials granted the above=
related privileges to the Association, they expressed hostility to the
Union. According to Martin Owen, a member of the Union, Gold-
man told him during a conversation about labor organizations in
September 1939, "You know, I think this C. I. O. is a lot of bunk.
822 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
In my opinion, I think they are nothing but a bunch of radicals."
John Wright testified that prior to his discharge in August 1937,
Goldman asked him if he belonged to the C. I. O. and Wright ad-
mitted that he did. Goldman, according to Wright, said that "he
didn't object to fellows belonging to the union, but, well, he didn't
think the C. I. O. was any good." Wright also testified that Gold-
man referred to the workers as "suckers" for joining the C. I. O. and
stated that union members were being exploited and that the Union
was doing nothing for them. Pajowski testified that Goldman made
a statement about the C. I. O. in September 1939 in the men's wash-
room, when both Pajowski and Goldman were there reading a bulle-
tin.' According to Pajowski, Goldman said, "By God, that is true.
I have known that the company has been losing money for a long
time. If the C. I. O. gets in here, that is just what will happen."
Goldman, denied making the above statements. The Trial Examiner,
who observed Goldman while he was on the witness stand, found
him to be a voluble person "who, would naturally and by inclination
give advice whether asked for or not," and was of the opinion that
the statements attributed to Goldman were made. We find, as did
the Trial Examiner, that he made the statements attributed to him by
Owen, Pajowski, and Wright.
Florence Haxel, an employee in the voice coil department, testified
that Wayne Skinner, foreman of the department, told her and a
fellow worker, Julia Janke, during a discussion in the latter part
of September or early in October 1939, that "Maybe by next year
you won't have a job because if- you two sign up for the C. I. O. you
will be the two sorriest girls that ever lived." Janke confirmed the
substance of this conversation. Both girls were members of the
Union and of the Association. Macy Schodrof, likewise a member of
the Union as well as of the Association, testified that Skinner com-
mented to the girls who were discussing the contents of a bulletin s
that if the C. I. O. organized the plant he would have to get a permit
to carry a gun. It was stipulated at the hearing by all counsel that
the witnesses Haxel, Janke, and Schodrof, were not intimidated by
anything that Skinner said and that they did not relinquish their
membership in the Union as the result of his remark.' Skinner was
7 The bulletin , issued by the Association committee , set forth the respondent ' s financial
condition , and announced that in case of a strike the respondent would be compelled to
change its plant from a manufacturing to an assembling plant and reduce the number of
its employees to 80 The respondent employed over 300 employees at this time.
See footnote 7 above
That the employees warned not to engage in union acti vities were not intimidated does
not legitimize the respondent ' s unlawful conduct. See Matter of The Ideal Electric & Mfg
Co and Local 705, United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America , 20 N L R. B
894. Matter of Montgomery, Ward and Company and Warehouse Employees ' Union No.
20.297, etc , 17 N L. R. B. 191.
JENSEN RADIO MANUFACTURING COMPANY 823
not produced as a witness by the respondent to refute or deny his
conversations with these three girls and we find that Skinner made
these statements.
The respondent contended during the hearing that it was not re-
sponsible for the acts and statements of its supervisory employees
and that they had no authority to act for or bind the respondent.
Cahill, the plant superintendent, testified that he alone has the power
or authority to hire or discharge employees, but that the foremen
recommend discharge or lay-off, and that their approval is necessary
for hiring new employees. Foreman Goldman testified that he has
full authority to hire and discharge, the men under him. Thompson
also admitted that he had authority, as chief inspector in the ma-
chine shop, to hire and discharge inspectors and that he has exer-
cised this authority on more than one occasion in the past. Foreman
Burdette and Skinner did not testify during the hearing, but it is
evident from Cahill's testimony that they have at least the power
of recommendation With respect to hiring and discharging the men
in their respective department. We find that Goldman, Thompson,'
Skinner, and Burdette are supervisory employees for whose actions
-and conduct the respondent is responsible.10
2. Conclusions with respect to the Association
Upon all the evidence we conclude that the respondent interfered
with the formation of the Association and thereafter dominated its
administration and contributed support to it.
In our opinion the Association committee's subservient attitude
toward the respondent during. the negotiations with Cahill and
Maxson in March 1937, before and during the sit-down strike, as
evidenced by its letter and by its written proposals for an agree-
ment, must be attributed, in part at least, to the respondent's influ-
ence through the presence on the committee of Olin Burdette, the
foreman of the maintenance department. Nor does the occurrence
of the sit-down strike negate our conclusion; the strike was a spon-
taneous action of the employees themselves and, far from reflecting
the independence of the Association, merely indicates the inability
of the Association committee to control the employees. The fact
that the Committee asked Cahill to send the men home on the first
10 See N. L. R B v. A S Abell Co., 97 F. (2d) 951 (C C. A 4) modifying and enf'g
Matter of The A. S Abell Company, a corporation and International Printing and Press-
men's Union, Baltimore Blanch, Baltimore Web Pressmen's Union, No 31, 5 N L R B.
644; Swift & Co V 1 L R. B, 106 F (2d) 87, modifying and enf'g Matter of Swift &
Company, a corporation and Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Butcher Workmen of North
America. Local No G1,1, and United Peeling House Workers Local Industrial Union No. 300,
7 N. L. R . B. 269,
824 DECISIONS Or NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
evening of the strike shows that the strike was not called by the
committee but rather in spite of it. Later, after the Association
committee regained control over the employees, its constitution and
bylaws provided against a repetition of employees "getting out of
hand."
Following the sit-down strike, the respondent's interference with
and support of the Association increased. In addition to Foreman
Burdette, Chief Inspector Thompson, another supervisory employee,
became one of the leaders of the Association. He was elected its
treasurer in April 1937. By vesting Burdette and Thompson with
supervisory authority the respondent held them out to its employees
as part of the management. Their leading participation in the af-
fairs of the Association served to render that organization subject
to the respondent's will.
The Association frequently carried on, its activities, such as com-
mittee meetings, collection of dues, and circulation of pledge cards,
on the respondent's time and property. The respondent also donated
money to the Association in furtherance of its social activities,
Material aid was further rendered the Association by reason of
profits accruing from the operation of the concession; and even when
the Association relinquished the concession, it continued to receive
an income therefrom. Although the respondent claims that it had
no connection, with the concession, we find that the Association could
not have received such support without the respondent's approval and
that, by acquiescing in the arrangement, the respondent assisted the
Association.
The closed-shop contract is further evidence of the respondent's
support of the Association. The respondent did not require proof
other than the oral assurance of the Association's president that the
Association represented the majority of its employees. The closed-
shop provision of the contract was used to force employees into
signing pledge cards. The respondent argues that under the closed-
shop contract it is immaterial whether the signing of pledge cards
was voluntary or, not. However, the granting of the closed-shop con-
tract itself was an effective means of compulsion. In addition to
the aid and assistance rendered the" Association as a result of the
above acts of the respondent, the position of the Association was
strengthened by the anti-C. I. 0. statements of Foreman Goldman
and Skinner. By their expressions of hostility, the respondent con-
veyed the impression to its employees that it disapproved of the
Union, and thereby, indicating its preference for the Association as
employee representative.
Finally, the constitution and bylaws of the Association reflect the
JENSEN RADIO MANUFACTURING COMPANY 825
respondent 's domination and interference ." The'respondent is given
the right to participate in the internal affairs of the Association and
to exercise control over, the expulsion of members therefrom, but at
the same time the membership is not assured of regular meetings.
We conclude that the Association was not the free choice of the.
respondent 's employees as their agent , for collective bargaining, but
was foisted upon them by - the respondent 's unfair labor practices.
We find that the respondent dominated and interfered with the ad-
ministration of the Association , and contributed support to it and
that it thereby interfered with, restrained , and coerced its employees
in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
We further find that the Association is incapable of serving the
respondent 's employees as their genuine representative for the pur-
poses of collective bargaining and that the contract executed on
February 3, 1939, and described above, having been made with a
company-dominated labor organization , is illegal and void.
B. The discharges
1. John Wright"
In answer to the allegations of the complaint that the respondent
discharged John Wright on or about August 27, 1937, because of his
union membership and activities , the respondent , in its answer , stated
that it did not discharge Wright but that he was laid off on August
23, 1937 , for lack of work and that he was not subsequently rehired
because his work had been unsatisfactory.
Wright was employed by the respondent fro in February 12 until
August 23, 1937. He worked in the machine shop burring and
filing housings in casings , operating the washer and as helper in
the stockroom . At the time of his discharge he was earning 43 cents
an hour and working 44 hours a week.
,Wright joined the Union during the sit-down strike in March 1937
and thereafter was active in soliciting members for the Union. He
testified that on one occasion in July 1937 , while engaged during the
lunch hour in signing up a member of the Union, he was observed
by Foreman Goldman, who inquired what Wright's fellow employee
had in his hand ; and that after Goldman looked at the union card
he called Wright a "dirty rat" and told him that he should be
discharged but would be given another chance. Goldman denied
Wright's version of this incident . Wright also testified that on
" The Association's constitution was adopted at the first membership meeting held after
the conclusion of the contract.
'2 The Union originally filed charges on Wright 's behalf on September 23, 1937. No
complaint was issued and those charges were withdrawn on January 26, 1938
826 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
this occasion Goldman instructed Thompson in his presence to watch
Wright and to discharge him for any further misconduct. Thomp-
son denied having received such instruction:but Goldman acknbwl=
edged that he had so instructed Thompson for the reason, he' said,
that no man could work efficiently and talk at the same time. Kelly,
Wright's co-worker, testified that on another occasion in August
1937, Goldman told Kelly, "to work the hell out of John Wright"
and that Kelly was to put John Wright on the "hot end" of the
washer. He testified further that Goldman said, "He [Wright] is
monkeying with the C. I. 0. trying to sign up boys in the C. I. 0.
We want to get rid of him." This statement was denied by Gold-
man. Superintendent Cahill admitted that he knew Wright was an
active member of the Union at the time Wright was laid off because
he had seen some C. I. 0. cards with Wright's name on'them, which
Ralph Faulkenberry, assistant foreman, found in the plant. Gold-
man, however, denied knowledge of Wright's union membership.
The Trial Examiner, who had an 'opportunity to observe Goldman
on the witness stand, did not, credit his denials. We agree with the
Trial Examiner. We find that Goldman was aware of Wright's
union membership and activities and made the statements attributed
to him by Wright and Kelly.
According to Cahill and Goldman, Wright was an inefficient and
careless worker, who impaired the efficient and safe operation of
the machine shop. It was claimed that Wright talked to operators
of running machinery, that he wandered around the shop, and-while
engaged on his own particular job disturbed and distracted the at- '
tention of his coworkers. In support of these allegations the re-
spondent introduced into the record accident report charts analyz-
ing the accidents occurring in the plant for periods during Wright's
employment. These charts show that Goldman's department, the
machine shop, had the highest frequency of accidents. There is no
evidence, however, that Wright himself was injured or that anyone
else was injured as a direct or indirect result of his alleged miscon-
duct. Goldman testified that in an effort to correct Wright's faults
he spoke to him 50 times in the course of 3 or 4 months. George
Estok,'Goldman's assistant, asserted that he cautioned Wright eight
or nine times in the course of 2 months. Wright denied that he was
reprimanded either by Goldman or by Estok. Kelly and Pat Amato,
who at times worked with Wright or close by him, testified that they
had never seen Wright talking during working hours, and that they
did not. hear Goldman scold Wright. At the time of Wright's lay-
off no company official told him that-his work had been unsatisfactory.
Goldman testified that he made up his mind to discharge Wright a
week or two after he was laid off. This decision to strike Wright's
JENSEN RADIO MANUFACTURING COMPANY 827
name from the list of employees to be rehired was reached after
consultation between Goldman and Cahill.
In August 1939, according to the 'testimony of Leo Emerson, the
respondent's paymaster, a new employee was hired to do the type
of work formerly performed by Wright. Wright was not recalled.
We find that Wright was laid off on August'23, 1937, for lack of
work as alleged by the respondent, inasmuch as three other em-
ployees of the machine shop were laid -off at the, same time because
of lack of.work and a general reduction in the plant's staff, and
Wright had very little seniority in the plant. We further find that
the respondent's decision not to reemploy him constituted a discharge.
We do not credit the testimony of the respondent's witnesses, how-
ever, that Wright's unsatisfactory work was the reason for the
decision not to reemploy him. As we have found above, the respond-
ent has not shown that the high frequency of accidents in the machine
shop were attributable to Wright's misconduct, nor do we- believe
that Wright was warned and scolded for his interruption of and
interference with the work of others or that he, in fact, engaged in
such ' misconduct. Wright denied that he was warned, and if the
respondent had reprimanded Wright as often as it would have us
believe, it would have been unlikely that Wright's coworkers, Kelly
and Amato, would not have had knowledge of such reprimands. In
contrast to the respondent's contentions for which we find no sup-
port in the record, the respondent's anti-union bias and Goldman's
antipathy toward Wright for his union activity as expressed to
Kelly, point to the conclusion, which the Trial Examiner reached,
that the respondent discharged Wright because of his union affiliation
and activities. - ,
We find, as did the Trial Examiner, that the respondent refused
to reemploy Wright in August 1939-for the reason that he joined
and assisted the Union, thereby discriminating in regard to his hire
and tenure of employment, discouraging membership in the Union,
and interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the
exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. At the
time of the hearing Wright had a temporary job as a painter. He-
desires to be reinstated by respondent.
2. William Misko, Joseph Miskovic, Leo Schaeffer,
George Misko, and Bruno Zamera
William Misko and Joseph Miskovic 13 were employed by respond-
ent from 1933 to 1934 until August 22, 1939, except for occasional
]ay-offs for lack of work. At the time of their -discharge on the
Also referred to.in the record as Joseph Misko William Misko, Joseph Miskovic. and
George Misko are brothers.
828 DECISIONS'OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
latter date William Misko was earning '56 cents an hour and working
42 hours a week and Joseph' Miskovic was earning 441/2 cents an
hour and working 44 hours a week. Both were employed as punch-
press operators. It is not disputed that they were good workers.
Both men were . members of the Association, and signed pledge
cards. They joined the Union on August 14, 1939. They were dis-
charged on August 23, 1939, after Broomfield, president of the
Association, notified Superintendent Cahill that the Association had
suspended their membership and demanded the termination of their
employment pursuant to the terms of the closed-shop contract.
Leo Schaeffer, George Misko, and Bruno Zamera were discharged
on September 14, 1939. Leo Schaeffer started to work as a spot
welder for the respondent in 1934 and, except for temporary lay-
offs for lack of work, had been continuously employed until his
discharge. At that time he was earning 52 cents an hour and work-
ing 44 hours a week, and in addition he received a weekly bonus of
a dollar to a dollar and a half. George Misko started to work
for the respondent in 1929 and Bruno Zamera in 1932 or 1933, and,
except for temporary lay-offs, both men were continuously employed
as punch-press operators until their discharge. Misko earned 661/2
cents an hour and Zamera 54 cents an hour; both worked 44 hours a
week. It is not disputed that all three men were good workers.
Schaeffer, Misko, and Zamera were paid-up members of the Asso-
ciation. They joined the Union on August 14, 1939, and thereafter
engaged in concerted union activities. On September 14 Thompson
gave notice to the respondent that - the Association had expelled
Schaeffer, Misko, and Zamera and asked for their discharge. Accord-
ingly, Cahill, ordered the termination of their employment.
The closed-shop provision of the Association's contract with the
respondent reads as follows :
It is agreed that the company will recognize this union as a
closed shop. A new employee will be compelled to join the union
within 30 days as a condition of employment.
The respondent claims that it discharged these five men solely be-
cause the enforcement of this provision of the contract required such
action, and contends, that the discharges fall within the proviso of
Section 8 (3) of the Act, and therefore, cannot constitute an unfair
labor practice. '14
li The proviso to Section 8 (3) of the Act is as follows : ". . . provided, that nothing in
this Act ... shall preclude an employer from making an agreement with a labor organiza-
tion (not established, maintained, of assisted by any action defined in this Act as an
unfair labor practice) to require as a condition of employment membership therein, if
such labor organization is the representative of the employees as provided in Section 3 (a)
in the appropriate collective bargaining unit 5overed by such agreement when made."
JENSEN RADIO MANUFACTURING COMPANY 829
Since, as found above, the contract under which the respondent
claims immunity was made with a labor organization established,
maintained, and assisted by actions defined in the Act as unfair labor
practices, the respondent's contention is clearly untenable. We find
that the respondent- discharged William Misko and Joseph Miskovic
on August 22, 1939, and Leo Schaeffer, George Misko, and Bruno
Zamera on September 14, 1939, because they had been suspended or
expelled from membership in the Association and because they had
joined and assisted the Union, and that it thereby discriminated in
regard to their hire and tenure of employment, encouraged member-
ship in the Association, discouraged membership in the Union, and
interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise
of the rights 'guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
From the time of his discharge to the time of the hearing William,
Misko earned about $155 and was employed first at the Rock Road
Manufacturing Company and then as an elevator operator at Wilson
& Company. At the time of the hearing Joseph Miskovic was earning
40 cents an hour as a punch-press operator at Bell & Thorn and had
been previously employed for 3 days at Quam-Nichols Company,
where he earned $6.84. At the time of the hearing Schaeffer was
earning 79 cents an hour working on the night shift at Fanette Manu-
facturing Company. George Misko was earning approximately 65
cents an hour at the Grand Sheet Metal Works. Up to the time of
the hearing he had' earned $52.06. Zamera was not employed. All
-five workers were high on the respondent's seniority list and desire
reinstatement. -
3. Walter Pajowski
Pajowski started to work for the respondent in May 1933 and, except
for temporary lay-offs, was continuously employed until the time of
his discharge in October 1939. He worked as a turret lathe hand in
the machine shop. His foreman, Goldman, testified that Pajowski
was a good worker and that he desired to reinstate him.
In answer to the allegations of the amended complaint that the re-
spondent discharged Pajowski on or about October 25, 1939, pursuant
to the terms of its illegal contract with the Association and because he
had joined and assisted the Union, the respondent admitted Pajowski's
discharge on October 24, 1939, but asserted as the sole reason therefor
that he had distributed literature in the respondent's plant during
working hours, contrary to its express instructions.
Pajowski was a member of the Association but he signed the pledge
card only after Broomfield threatened him that,if he did not do so
he would be discharged pursuant to the closed-shop contract. Pajow-
ski joined the Union on August 14, 1939, and thereafter was active on
830 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
its behalf. When William Misko and Joseph Miskovic appealed their
discharge to the committee composed of representatives of the respond-
ent and the Association '15 Pajowski was a witness for Miskovic. Pa-
jowski testified that Goldman told him at that time: "You, too, Red,
you are on the list. I have got a lot of things on you." Miskovic sub-
stantiated Pajowski's testimony. The Trial Examiner did not credit
Goldman's denial of the foregoing testimony, nor do we, and we find
that Goldman made the remark attributed to him by Pajowski and
Miskovic.
In the late afternoon of October 24, 1939, Pajowski threw a union
leaflet on a table where George Estok, acting foreman, of the machine
shop in the absence of Goldman, was engaged in giving instructions
to Jorsch, Pajowski's machine setter. On the previous day Pajowski
had had a conversation with Jorsch concerning the contents of a
bulletin and Pajowski claimed that he threw the leaflet on Jorsch's
cable in order to clear up any doubt that Jorsch might have had con-
cerning the bulletin. There is no evidence that Pajowski had dis-
tributed leaflets inside the plant on any other occasion. The Union's
membership drive commenced sometime in August 1939, and con-
tinued during September and October. Cahill testified that after, the
discharges of September 14 he became aware of the circulation of
union leaflets and observed union literature on several occasions on
the floor of the- machine shop. Two or 3 days prior to October 24
Cahill instructed all foremen to notify the employees that the dis-
tribution of leaflets in the plant during working hours inust cease
and that anyone engaged in such activity was to be sent to him for
discharge. Shortly prior thereto, in the month of September, he had
also issued instructions to foremen to notify all employees that the
discussion of union matters on company time was prohibited. Cahill
admitted that the respondent posted no written notice to this effect
and that he did not know whether the foremen had carried out his
instructions. These instructions were issued only a few days prior
to Pajowski's discharge. Estok admitted that lie had not communi-
cated,them to Pajowski and others.
Cahill testified that between 4: 00 and 4: 30 in the afternoon of
October 24, Estok reported to him that he had caught "one of the
boys distributing circulars." Cahill thereupon instructed Estok to
summon the employee to his office. Pajowski testified that Estok came
to him about 4: 10 p. in., that he went to Cahill's office immediately
,thereafter, and that he was forthwith discharged.
"'This committee is set up pursuant to Article II, Section 2, of the Association con-
stitution to hear charges of conduct hostile to the interest of the Association or the
respondent and to expel members guilty of such conduct The Association ' s contract with
the respondent also provides for such a committee to arbitrate grievances between the
Association and the respondent
JENSEN RADIO MANUFACTURING COMPANY 831
Leo Emerson, the paymaster, was notified by Cahill at or about
3: 30 p. m. to make out Pajowski's check. This was prior to his sub-
sequent observance of Cahill, Estok, and Pajowski in Cahill's office,
which he fixed at about 4:20 p. m. There is no reason to doubt
Emerson's testimony and it indicates that Cahill decided to dismiss
Pajowski even prior to the time Pajowski was observed by Estok in
the act of throwing the leaflet on Jorsch's table. On cross-examination
Emerson said Pajowski's check was already made out when Cahill
spoke to him, since it was pay day, but he repeated that his notification
from Cahill to prepare Paj owski's check occurred at least a half an
hour previous to the time when he had observed Cahill, Pajowski, and
Estok engaged in conversation in Cahill's office.
The contention that Pajowski was discharged for distributing leaf-
lets is not credible. To discharge a satisfactory employee for the
first infraction of a new rule without even ascertaining whether or
not he was told about the rule is such an unreasonable and arbitrary
decision that we must regard it with suspicion. The Trial Examiner
found that Pajowski was discharged for his union activity and not
for violation of company rules. We agree with the Trial Examiner's
findings. As described in Section A above, the proponents of the
Association were engaged in widespread activities on behalf of the
Association on company time and property without interference. It
was not until the Union's activities became noticeable in the fall
of. 1939 that the respondent took measures to prevent union activity
in the plant. However, even at that time the respondent raised' no
objection to the Association's collection of dues within the plant.
We find that the invocation of the rule against distributing pam-
phlets, without first bringing its existence to the attention of the em-
ployees, particularly after permitting the Association to enjoy nu-
merous privileges, amounted to an unfair labor practice. We are
convinced that the respondent discharged Pajowski because of his
union membership and activity, and used Pajowski's violation of the
rule merely as a pretext to conceal its real reason.
We find that the respondent discharged Pajowski on October 24,
1939, for the reason that he joined and assisted the Union, thereby
discriminating in regard to his hire and tenure of 'employment, dis-
couraging membership in the Union, and interfering with, restrain-
ing, and coercing its employees in the exercise of the rights guaran-
teed in Section 7 of the Act.
At the time of the hearing Pajowski was employed, earning 65
cents an hour as a turret lathe operator at Crane Company and had
earned a total of approximately $225 during the period from his
discharge to the hearing. Pajowski ranked second on the resnond-
I
832 DECISIONS .OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ent's seniority list, whereas he has no seniority in his present job. He
desires to return to work for the respondent.
IV. THE EFFECT OF TIIE 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 respond-
ent described in Section I above, have a close, intimate, and substan-
tial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States
and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing com-
merce and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
It is essential in order to effectuate the purposes and policies of
the Act that the respondent be ordered to cease and desist from the
unfair labor practices in which we have found it to have engaged,
and in aid of such order and as means of removing and avoiding
the consequences of such practices, that the respondent be directed to
take certain affirmative action.
We have found that .the respondent interfered with the formation
of the Association, dominated and interfered with its administration,
and contributed support to it. In order to effectuate the policies
of the Act and free the employees of the respondent from such domi-
nation, we shall order the respondent to cease and desist from such
conduct and to withdraw all recognition from and disestablish the
,Association as the representative of any of its employees for
the purposes of collective bargaining. We have further found that
the respondent's contract with the Association is invalid under
the Act. We shall order the respondent to cease and desist from
giving effect to the said contract.
We have also found that the respondent discriminatorily discharged
William Misko, Joseph Miskovic, George Misko, Bruno Zamera, Leo
Schaeffer, and Walter Pajowski. We shall require the'respondent to
offer these men immediate and full reinstatement to their former or
substantially equivalent positions without prejudice to their seniority
and other rights and privileges. We shall also, require the respondent
to make the six men whole for any loss of pay they may have suf-
fered by reason of their discharge by payment to each of them of a
sum of money equal to that which he normally ,would have earned as
wages from the date of his discharge to the date on which the re-
spondent offers him reinstatement, less his net earnings during such
period.16
36 By . "net earnings" is meant earnings less expenses , such as for transportation, room,
and board , incurred by an employee in connection with obtaining work and working else-
where than for the respondent, which would not have been incurred but for his unlawful
JENSEN RADIO MANUFACTURING COMPANY 833
We have further found that the respondent discriminatorily dis-
charged John Wright when it removed his name from the list of
its employees. We shall require the respondent to offer Wright
immediate and full reinstatement to his former or a substantially
equivalent position without prejudice to his seniority and other rights
and privileges. Inasmuch as the evidence conclusively establishes
that the respondent did have need for Wright's services in August
1939, we shall overrule the recommendation of the Trial Examiner
and shall require the respondent to make whole Wright for any loss
of pay he may have suffered by reason of his discharge by payment
to him of a sum of money equal to that which he normally would
have earned as wages from August 1939, when the respondent filled
Wright's position, to the date on which the respondent offers him
reinstatement, less his net earnings during such period .17
Upon the basis of the `foregoing findings of fact and upon the
entire record in the case, the Board makes the following :
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. United Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers of America, affili-
ated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations, and Jensen
Employees' Welfare Association, Inc., are labor organizations within
the meaning of Section 2• (5) of the Act.
2. By discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of employ-
ment of John Wright, William Misko, Joseph Miskovic, George
Misko, Bruno Zamera, Leo Schaeffer, and Walter Pajowski, and there-
by discouraging membership in United Electrical, Radio & Ma-
chine Workers of America, affiliated with the Congress of Industrial
Organizations, and encouraging membership in Jensen Employees'
'Welfare Association, Inc., the respondent has engaged in and is en-
gaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (3)
of the Act.
3. By interfering with the formation of Jensen Employees' Wel-
fare Association, Inc., by dominating and interfering with the ad-
ministration of that organization, and by contributing support to
it, the respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 8 (2) of the Act.
discharge and the consequent necessity of his seeking employment elsewhere See Matter
of Crossett Lumber Company and United Biotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America,
Lumber and Sawmill Workers Union, Local 2590, 8 N L R B 440 Monies received for -
work performed upon Federal, State, county, municipal, or other work-relief projects are
not considered as earnings, but as provided below in the Order, shall be deducted from the..
sum due the employee, and the amount thereof shall be paid over to the appropriate fiscal
agency of the Federal, State, county, municipal, or other government or governments,
which supplied the funds for said work-ielief projects
17 See footnote 16, saps a
323428-42-vol. 2 7-- 5 4
0
834' DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
4. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in
the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the
respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices
within the meaning of Section 8 (1) of the Act.
5. 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 foregoing findings of fact and conclusions
of law, and pursuant to Section 10 (c) of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that
the respondent, Jensen Radio Manufacturing Company, and its offi-
cers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from :
(a), Discouraging membership in United Electrical, Radio & Ma-
chine Workers of America, or encouraging membership in Jensen
Employees' Welfare Association, Inc., or any other labor organiza-
tion of its employees, by discriminating in regard to the hire or tenure
of employment or any term or condition of employment;
(b) Dominating or interfering with the administration of Jensen
Employees' Welfare Association, Inc., or with the formation or ad-
ministration of any other labor organization of its employees, or
contributing support to Jensen Employees' Welfare Association, Inc.,
or to any other labor organization of its employees;
(c) In any manner giving effect to its contract with Jensen Em-
ployees' Welfare Association, Inc., or to any subsequent contract with
said Association ;
(d) In any, other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing
its employees in the exercise of the right to self-organization, to form,
join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through
representatives of their own choosing, and to, engage in concerted
activities for the purposes of collective bargaining or other mutual
aid and protection as guaranteed in Section 7 of the National Labor
Relations Act.
2. Take the, following affirmative action which the Board finds
will effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Withdraw all recognition from Jensen Employees' Welfare
Association, Inc., as the representative of any of its employees for
the purpose of dealing with the respondent concerning grievances,
labor disputes, rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, or other
conditions of employment, and completely disestablish said Jensen
Employees' Welfare Association, Inc., as such representative;
0
JENSEN RADIO MANUFACTURING COMPANY 835
(b) Offer to John Wright , William Misko , Joseph Miskovic , George
Misko, Bruno Zamera, Lee Schaeffer , and Walter Pajowski immediate
and full reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent
positions without prejudice to their seniority and other rights -and
privileges ;
(c) Make whole John Wright, William Misko, Joseph Miskovic,
George Misko, Bruno Zamera, Leo Schaeffer, and Walter Pajowski
for any, loss of pay they nay have suffered by reason 'of` the respond-
ent's discrimination in regard to their hire and tenure of employment
(1) by payment to John Wright of a sum of money equal to the
amount which he normally would have earned as wages from August
1939 to the date of the respondent's offer of reinstatement, less his
net earnings during such period, (2) by payment to William Misko,
Joseph Miskovic, George Misko, Bruno Zamera, Leo Schaeffer, and
Walter Pajowski of a sum of money equal to the amount which each
normally would have earned as wages during the period from'the
date of his discharge to the date of the respondent's offer of rein-
statement, less his net earnings during such period; provided that
the respondent shall deduct from the amount due to each of the afore-
said persons a sum equal to that received by him for work performed
upon Federal, State, county, municipal, or other work-relief projects
during said periods for which back pay is due him under the terms of
this Order, and shall pay any such amount deducted to the appro-
priate fiscal agency of the Federal, State, county, municipal, or other
government or governments which supplied the funds for said work-
relief projects;
(d) Immediately post notices in conspicuous places throughout its
plant and offices and maintain such notices for a period of at least
:sixty (60 ) consecutive days from the date of posting stating: (1)
that the respondent will not engage in the conduct from which it is
ordered to cease and desist in paragraphs 1 (a), (b), (c), and (d)
of this Order; (2) that the respondent will take the affirmative action
set forth in paragraphs 2 (a), (b), and (c) of this Order; (3) that
the contract with the Association is void and of no effect, that the
respondent 's employees are free to become or remain members of
United Electrical , Radio & Machine Workers of America, affiliated
with the Congress of Industrial Organizations , and that the respond-
ent will not discriminate against any employee because of member-
s,hip or activity in that organization ;
(e) Notify the Regional Director for the Thirteenth Region in
writing within ten (10 ) days from the date of this Order what steps
the respondent has taken to comply therewith.
0