Monart Motors Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 20, 1953

103 N.L.R.B. 797 (N.L.R.B. 1953)

MONART MOTORS COMPANY 797
however, that situations involving union activities do not exist in which such
characterizations have justifiable application . One hearing Gaulding testify
could hardly doubt his sincere belief in the rightness-not to say righteousness-
of his acts, but I am unable to conclude that they were of such character and
executed in such manner as to bring him within the protection of the Act. Ac-
cordingly, I must recommend dismissal of the complaint.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. International Brotherhood of Boilermakers , Iron Ship Builders and Helpers
of America , Local 92, affiliated with the American Federation of Labor , is a labor
organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
2. Southwest Welding and Manufacturing Company, a California corporation,
at all times material herein was and now is engaged in commerce within the
meaning of the Act.
3. The Respondent has not engaged in any of the unfair labor practices alleged
in the complaint.
[Recommendations omitted from publication in this volume.]
MONART MOTORS COMPANY (A CORPORATION) and LOCAL 174, AUTO
SALESMEN'S UNION , UNITED OPTICAL & INSTRUMENT WORKERS OF
AMERICA, CIO. Case No. 13-CA-1166. March 20, 19553
Decision and Order
On January 30, 1953, Trial Examiner Lee J. Best issued his Inter-
mediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Re-
spondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor
practices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and
take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the Inter-
mediate Report attached hereto. He also found that the Respondent
had not engaged in other unfair labor practices alleged in the com-
plaint and recommended dismissal of those allegations. Thereafter,
the Respondent filed a brief containing exceptions to the Intermediate
Report.
The Board 1 has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner
at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed.
The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the In-
termediate Report, the Respondent's brief containing exceptions, and
the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclu-
1 Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board has delegated its
powers in connection with this case to a three -member panel [Members Houston , Styles,
and Peterson].
103 NLRB No. 90.
798 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
sions, and recommendations 2 of the Trial Examiner, but only insofar
as they are consistent with our decision herein.
The Trial Examiner found that the Respondent violated Section
8 (a) (3), (4), and (1) of the Act by refusing to employ Michael
Schiro as a new-car salesman in February 1952 because of his activities
on behalf of a labor organization and because he had filed unfair
labor practice charges against his former employer. The Respondent
has excepted to these findings.
As the Trial Examiner found, Michael Schiro had been discharged
in January 1952 from a position as a part-time new-car salesman with
Ruby Downtown Chevrolet, Inc., herein called Ruby, in consequence
of which he filed a charge with the Board on February 4, 1952, alleging
that he had been discriminatorily discharged.
On the afternoon of either Tuesday, February 12, or Thursday,
February 14, 1952, Schiro, in response to the Respondent's advertise-
ment in a local newspaper for an automobile salesman, called at the
Respondent's showroom. He was accompanied by one Megna, a class-
mate of Schiro's at the Marquette University School of Law, who
had previously attended that institution as a fellow student of the
Respondent's president, Waushauer. Through Megna's influence,
Schiro succeeded in obtaining an interview with Waushauer, during
which Schiro related his qualifications as a new-car salesman, and
pointed out that he attended law school classes daily from 8 a. m.
to 10 a. m. and, except on Fridays, from 2 p. m. to 3 p. m. Schiro
explained that while he was therefore available for work only on a
part-time basis, he nevertheless could work 40 hours a week. Schiro
then volunteered the information that he had been recently discharged
by Ruby due to his union activities, and that he had consequently
filed a charge against that employer.
Waushauer, who expressed an interest in Schiro, queried him as
to his future intentions with respect to the automobile business, sug-
gested that if Schiro desired to achieve a successful career in that field
his suit against Ruby should be dropped, and stated that he was op-
posed to having any labor organization represent the Respondent's
employees. Waushauer then informed Schiro and Megna that he did
not hire or discharge employees, that it was because of his friendship
for Megna that he had interviewed Schiro, and that any decision as
to Schiro's employment with the Respondent as a part-time new-car
salesman would rest with the Respondent's general manager, Boeing.
Thereupon, Waushauer introduced Schiro to Boeing and instructed
' The Trial Examiner found that the General Counsel failed to prove by a preponderance
of the evidence the allegation in the complaint that the Respondent discriminatorily dis-
charged Clarence Carlson. As no exceptions have been filed to this finding, we adopt it
pro forma.
MONART MOTORS COMPANY 799
the latter to interview Schiro. When Schiro and Boeing left to go
to Boeing 's office, Waushauer repeated to Megna his suggestion that
Schiro should drop his suit against Ruby.
In the course of his interview with Boeing, Schiro again related
his qualifications, his availability for work based upon his classroom
hours, and the circumstances surrounding his discharge by Ruby.
During this interview, Boeing made no commitment with respect to
hiring Schiro. When the interview concluded, Schiro returned to
Waushauer's office. Waushauer, who testified that he was favorably
impressed by Schiro, then told Schiro to fill out an application form
and promised to call him the following Monday to let him know
whether or not he was to be employed. However, Waushauer failed
to call Schiro on the appointed day or on any day thereafter.
Boeing testified that a few hours after Schiro left the Respondent's
premises, Waushauer inquired whether he had hired Schiro. Boeing
answered that he did not need a part -time new-car salesman and
therefore could not utilize the services of Schiro. Boeing explained
in his testimony that the new -car salesmen were employed solely on a
commission basis, and that he assigned floortime in the showroom to
these individuals on a rotation system according to a prepared daily
schedule . Floortime assignments were split into three periods, ex-
tending from 8 a. m. to 12 noon, 12 noon to 6 p. m., and 6 p. m. to
9 p. m. During these periods , the salesmen so assigned in rotation
had exclusive contact with prospective customers. While the assign-
ment of floortime was thus highly advantageous to the salesmen,
Boeing pointed out, the 8 a. m. to 12 noon period was the least desirable
because few customers called during those hours. Boeing told
Waushauer that, because of Schiro's classroom schedules, Schiro would
be unavailable for the least desirable shift, and that to accommodate
Schiro would therefore require more frequent assignment of the full-
time salesmen to this period, resulting in inconvenience and unfair-
ness to the full -time salesmen and disruption of the established pattern
of floortime assignments. Waushauer agreed that, in view of these
circumstances, it would be unwise to hire Schiro.
On the other hand, Schiro testified that both Waushauer and Boeing
informed him during their respective interviews that "they were hon-
estly thinking, contemplating putting on a part-time man" as a new-
car salesman, and that Boeing did not mention during this interview
that the Respondent could not employ him because of his classroom
schedule.
In concluding that the Respondent's refusal to hire Schiro was
motivated by Respondent's knowledge of Schiro's former activities
on behalf of a labor organization and the fact that he had filed charges
800 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
against his former employer, the Trial Examiner credited the testi-
mony of Schiro concerning the Respondent's stated intention to employ
a part-time salesman . Accordingly, he found no merit in the Re-
spondent's contention that Schiro's part-time employment would dis-
rupt floortilne schedules "because the Respondent would be under no
obligation to grant floor time to Schiro if he was not available to ac-
cept it" and because Schiro's "inability to accept assignment of floor
time in the showroom would clearly inure to the benefit of full-time
salesmen rather than to their disadvantage." 3
In reaching this conclusion, however, the Trial Examiner failed to
allude to the uncontroverted testimony of Boeing that the Respondent
had not employed a part-time new-car salesman during the 3 years
of his association with the Respondent, and that no new-car salesman
was hired by the Respondent until approximately 9 months after
Schiro's application 4 Moreover, the Trial Examiner apparently
overlooked his finding, in connection with the alleged discriminatory
discharge of Clarence Carlson, that on February 13, 1952, which was
either the day before or the day after Schiro's application for em-
ployment, the Respondent's used-car manager, Harreman, was told
by Boeing that the Respondent had no need for a new-car salesman
and, therefore, that Carlson had never been employed by the
Respondent.
On the basis of the foregoing, and the entire record in this case, we
are convinced that the record fails to establish that on the date Schiro
applied for employment with the Respondent, there was a part-time
position as a new-car salesman available .,9 Accordingly, we find, con-
trary to the Trial Examiner, that the General Counsel failed to
establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the Respondent
discriminatorily refused to employ Schiro. We shall therefore sus-
tain the Respondent's exceptions to the Trial Examiner's finding with
respect to Schiro, and we shall dismiss the complaint in its entirety.
Order
Upon the entire record in this case, and pursuant to Section 10 (c)
of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board hereby orders that the complaint against Monart
Motors Company (a corporation) be, and it is hereby is, dismissed
in its entirety.
a In this connection , the Trial Examiner apparently failed to consider Boeing's testimony
outlining the inconvenience and unfairness to the full -time salesmen which would result
from Schiro's inability to accept regular assignments of floortime during the 8 a m. to
12 noon period.
4 The record does not disclose that this new-car salesman was employed on a part-time
basis.
5 See Macon Textiles , Inc., 80 NLRB 1525.
MONART MOTORS COMPANY
Intermediate Report and Recommended Order
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
801
By reason of a charge filed on July 7, 1952, by Local 174, Auto Salesmen's
Union, United Optical & Instrument Workers of America, CIO, herein called the
Union, the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board, herein
separately designated as General Counsel and the Board, by the Regional Direc-
tor for the Thirteenth Region (Chicago, Illinois), issued on October 21, 1952, a
complaint against Monart Motors Company, a corporation herein called the
Respondent, alleging that Respondent engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor
practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) and (3)
and (4) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended, 61 Stat. 136, herein called the Act. Copies of the charge, complaint,
and other pertinent process were duly served upon all interested parties.
With respect to unfair labor practices, the complaint alleges in substance that
in the month of February 1952, the Respondent, to discourage membership in a
labor organization, did (1) discriminatorily discharge its employee, Clarence
Carlson, because the said employee engaged in concerted activities and joined
and assisted the Union ; and (2) refused to employ one Michael Schiro, because
he had engaged in concerted activities, joined and rendered assistance to the
Union, and had filed charges under the Act against his former employer.
The Respondent filed an answer denying all allegations of unfair labor
practices.
Pursuant to notice served on all parties, a hearing was conducted at Milwaukee,
Wisconsin, on December 2, 1952, before the undersigned Trial Examiner, duly
designated by the Chief Trial Examiner. All parties were represented by
counsel, afforded an opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine
witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing upon the issues involved. At the
close of the hearing counsel for all parties waived oral argument. All parties
were advised of their right to file written briefs and proposed findings of fact and
conclusions of law. A written brief was thereafter in due course filed by counsel
for the Respondent and has been given due consideration. Motion by the Gen-
eral Counsel to conform the pleadings to the proof as to formal matters was
allowed.
Upon the entire record in the case and from my observation of the witnesses,
I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
Stipulation between counsel for the General Counsel and the Respondent
shows that Monart Motors Company is a Wisconsin corporation with its sole
office and salesroom located at Milwaukee, Wisconsin, where it is engaged in
the purchase and sale at retail of new Lincoln and Mercury automobiles, parts,
and used automobiles of all makes. It sells Lincoln and Mercury automobiles at
retail under a franchise from the Lincoln-Mercury Division, Ford Motor Com-
pany, Dearborn, Michigan. During the 12-month period ending May 31, 1952, it
purchased cars and accessories valued at approximately $800,000, all of which
were shipped from the Ford branches located at Chicago, Illinois, St. Louis,
Missouri, and Detroit, Michigan, to Milwaukee, Wisconsin. All sales for the
same period occurred at retail within the State of Wisconsin.
802 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
On these facts I find, in accordance with established Board rules and decisions,
that the Respondent is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6)
and (7) of the Act 1
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Local 174, Auto Salesmen's Union, United Optical & Instrument Workers of
America, CIO, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5)
of the Act'
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Prefatory information
In the "Want Ad" section of the Milwaukee Journal (a daily newspaper),
in the column entitled "Help Wanted-Male," the Respondent inserted the
following advertisement:
AUTO SALESMAN
New or used ; experience preferred ;
hottest line on the market. See
Mr. Harreman,
621 W. Wisconsin Ave.
The ad appeared in issues of the newspaper on Sunday, February 10, 1952;
Monday, February 11, 1952; Tuesday, February 12, 1952; Wednesday, February
13, 1952; Thursday, February 14, 1952; and Friday, February 15, 1952. Having
been recently appointed as used-car sales manager for Respondent to succeed
one Kaegi (resigned), Glenn Harreman obtained authority from General Man-
ager Arthur Boeing to publish the aforesaid advertisement, and to employ an
additional used-car salesman. Harreman had no authority as a supervisor,
except with respect to his own department. Boeing himself acted as new-car
sales manager in addition to his duties as general manager of the business,
and was next in authority to Harold Waushauer, president of the Respondent
corporation. As a consequence of the advertisement, the Respondent hired
one Paul Jung as used-car salesman shortly prior to receipt of applications
for employment from Clarence Carlson and Michael Schiro. The record fails
to disclose the exact date of either application, but it does appear that all
applications and interviews concerning the Job occurred after February 10, 1952,
and prior to February 16, 1952.
B. The alleged discharge of Clarence Carlson
In response to Respondent's advertisement in the Milwaukee Journal, Clarence
Carlson applied in person to Glenn Harreman for employment as a used-car
salesman on or about February 13, 1952, in the late afternoon. Harreman in-
formed Carlson that the position had already been filled, but thought he could
use him as a new-car salesman-that he would speak to the new-car sales
manager about it and introduce Carlson to him. Thereupon, Harreman gave
Carlson some new-car literature together with a personal information blank
to fill out, and told him to report back the next morning. According to the
credible testimony of Harreman, Carlson on that occasion told him that he had
no prior experience as a car salesman and had been working at a filling station.
1 Baxter Brothers, 91 NLRB 1480 ; Rutledge Paper Products, Inc., 91 NLRB 625 ; Davis
Motors, Inc, 9'3 NLRB 206; Carrington Chevrolet Co., 101 NLRB No. 34.
2It was so stipulated between counsel for the General Counsel and the Respondent.
MONART MOTORS COMPANY 803
Carlson reported at 8:30 o'clock the next morning and stayed around the
Respondent 's place of business until about 10 o'clock . In the meantime Harre-
man spoke to General Manager Boeing about hiring Carlson as a new -car sales-
man. Boeing said that he was not interested . Consequently, Carlson was not
introduced to General Manager Boeing. Harreman then notified Carlson that
the job was not available , and he departed . Harreman denies that he either
hired or fired Carlson.
Clarence Carlson testified that he understood that Glenn Harreman hired
him as a new-car salesman on the afternoon of February 13, 1952, when he
applied for a job-that he reported for work the next morning, and spent prac-
tically the entire day in the showroom of the Respondent showing new cars to
prospective customers but did not sell anything. During that day he told Harre-
man that he had been previously employed as a salesman for a Ford dealer
(Soerens) in Milwaukee , and had been discharged ( as he thought ) because of
membership in the Union . Thereupon Harreman said that was 0 . K. but not to
let the new-car sales manager know about it. Harreman gave him some
business cards printed for a former salesman (G. C. Exhibit No. 2), which he
used by striking out the name of the former salesman thereon and writing in
his own . Harreman never formally introduced him to General Manager Boeing,
but on one occasion sent him to a nearby lunchroom to call Boeing to the tele-
phone ; otherwise , Carlson never talked to Boeing or any other official of the
Respondent . Carlson further testified that he returned to work again on the
following day and remained there until noon , when Harreman informed him
that it was useless to stick around any longer . Harreman said that the quota
on new cars had been reduced , and there were not enough new cars to justify
another salesman . Then Carlson left and did not return.
Glenn Harreman credibly testified that Carlson never mentioned the Union
to him or that he had been employed by the Ford dealer in Milwaukee. He did
not give any salesman 's cards to Carlson. Carlson only stayed around for a few
hours until he ascertained that the general manager was not interested in em-
ploying a new man. Harreman emphatically denied having hired Carlson, be-
cause he had no authority to do so.
Inasmuch as I have credited the testimony of Glenn Harreman, and the burden
of proof rests upon the General Counsel , a preponderance of the evidence does
not warrant a finding of discrimination by the Respondent against Clarence
Carlson . The testimony of Carlson himself indicates that a contract of employ-
ment was never consummated with the Respondent . His alleged statement to
Harreman concerning the Union raises no more than a mere suspicion that the
Respondent failed to hire him in order to discourage membership in a labor
organization.
I shall , therefore , recommend that the complaint as to Clarence Carlson be
dismissed.
C. Refusal to hire Michael Schiro
Having seen Respondent's advertisement for an automobile salesman in the
newspaper , Michael Schiro decided to apply for employment as a new-car sales-
man. Several days prior thereto, Schiro had been discharged from a similar
position by Ruby Downtown Chevrolet , Inc., Milwaukee, Wisconsin, and on
February 4, 1952, had filed a charge against that employer with the National
Labor Relations Board alleging discriminatory discharge in violation of Section
8 (a) (3) of the Act 8
3 See General Counsel ' s Exhibit No. 3.
804 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The Respondent customarily employed new-car salesmen primarily on a com-
mission basis, and assigned floortime in its showroom to them in rotation accord-
ing to a prepared schedule. Floortime was especially favorable to the individual
salesman , because it afforded direct and exclusive contacts with prospective
customers visiting the showroom. When not assigned to the showroom, new-car
salesmen were permitted to seek customers where and when they pleased, so
long as the Respondent was informed as to their whereabouts and availability.
The showroom was open to the public from 8: 30 a. m. to 9 p. in. on all weekdays,
except Saturdays and other special occasions.
Michael Schiro was a law student at Marquette University, Milwaukee, Wis-
consin, and his schedule required him to attend classes 12 hours a week. Schiro
was free from classes every day after 3 p. m. On Fridays he was free after
10 a. in. On other days he had free time from 10 a. m. to 2 p. m. It was his
°_ntention. therefore, to devote at least 40 hours per week during business hours
to the duties of a new-car salesman.
Shortly after 3 p. m. on either Tuesday, February 12, 1952, or Thursday,
February 14, 1952, in company with Vincent Megna, Schiro went to Respondent's
place of business to make application for a job as new-car salesman.' By
Megna's influence, they obtained an interview with President Harold Waushauer
and jointly presented to him the application for employment. They explained to
Waushauer that Schiro had considerable experience as an automobile salesman
and was badly in need of a job, because he had been recently discharged by Ruby
Downtown Chevrolet, Inc., on account of union organizational activities. They
voluntarily informed Waushauer that Schiro had a suit pending against Ruby
Downtown Chevrolet, Inc., by reason of his discharge, and was having difficulty
in securing other employment. President Waushauer expressed interest in
Schiro's situation, and inquired concerning his plans for the future-whether he
intended to practice law or desired to follow the automobile business upon com-
pletion of his studies at the University. Waushauer freely expressed his opposi-
tion to labor organizations, and queried how he could know that Schiro would not
try to organize employees of the Respondent. Schiro asserted that Respondent
should judge a man on his merits. Schiro gave Waushauer the name of his past
supervisor at Ruby Downtown Chevrolet, Inc., and Waushauer agreed to investi-
gate the matter. He advised that the suit against Ruby be dropped. Then
President Waushauer called in his general manager, Arthur Boeing, and instructed
him to interview Schiro with the view of giving him employment as a new-car
salesman.' Thereupon, Schiro accompanied Boeing to his own office to talk
things over. In their absence, Waushauer repeated to Vincent Megna that
Schiro ought to drop his suit against Ruby Downtown Chevrolet, Inc., then
perhaps he could help him; but as matters now stood, neither he nor any other
dealer would hire him.
In the course of his interview with General Manager Boeing, Schiro again
explained his availability, past experience, and his discharge from Ruby Down-
town Chevrolet, Inc. At the conclusion of their conversation, Schiro returned
alone to President Waushauer's office with no definite commitment from Boeing
whether he would be hired by the Respondent. President Waushauer then told
Schiro in Megna's presence that his application would be considered, and
' Megna was a part-time student and boxing coach at Marquette University ; and was
also a past friend and fellow student of Harold Waushauer, president of the Respondent
corporation.
" Schiro credibly testified that both President Waushauer and General Manager Boeing
stated that they were contemplating employment of a new-car salesman on a part-time
basis.
MONART MOTORS COMPANY 805
promised to call him by telephone on the following Monday . Thereupon , Schiro
and Megna departed , and thereafter received no message or information what-
ever from the Respondent with reference to the application for employment.
There is little conflict between the testimony of Harold Waushauer, Vincent
Megna, and Michael Schiro as to the interview in Waushauer's office.
Waushauer testified, however, that he explained to both Schiro and Megna
that he did not do the hiring and firing of employees for the Respondent-that
because of his friendship for Megna, he conducted the interview, but explained
that any decision would be left up to General Manager Boeing. Waushauer in-
dicated that he was impressed and favorably inclined to the hiring of Schiro,
but did not insist upon it because Boeing did not want a part-time salesman. He
felt no obligation to notify Schiro that his application had been rejected although
he had agreed to do so.
General Manager Boeing testified that he notified President Waushauer within
an hour after Schiro and Megna departed that the could not use a part-time sales-
man and, therefore, would not hire Schiro. Boeing contended that it would
disrupt his schedule of assigning floortime in the showroom and be unfair to
full-time salesmen to employ Schiro on a part-time basis.
In the foregoing contention I find little or no merit, because the Respondent
would be under no obligation to grant floortime to Schiro if he was not available
to accept it. His inability to accept assignment of floortime in the showroom
would clearly inure to the benefit of full-time salesmen rather than to their
disadvantage.
The issue here is limited to a determination from a preponderance of the
evidence and the record as a whole of the true reason for failure and refusal of
the Respondent to hire Michael Schiro as an automobile salesman ; and I am
convinced that the true reason was Schiro's former activities on behalf of a
labor organization and because he had filed a charge of unfair labor practices
against his former employer under the Act. By such action and conduct the
Respondent discriminated in regard to hire or tenure of employment to dis-
courage membership in a labor organization in violation of Section 8 (a) (3)
of the Act; and also discriminated against Michael Schiro (an employee within
the meaning of the Act) because he filed charges under the Act. Thereby, the
Respondent also interfered with, restrained, and coerced employees in the
exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, in violation of Section
8 (a) (1) of the Act.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent set forth in section III, above, occurring in
connection with the operations 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
Since it has been found that the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging
in certain unfair labor practices affecting commerce, I shall recommend that it
cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action in order to effectu-
ate the policies of the Act.
Having found that the Respondent in violation of Section 8 (a) (3) of the
Act discriminated in regard to hire or tenure of employment to discourage mem-
bership in a labor organization, and in violation of Section 8 (a) (4) of the Act
257965-54-vol. 103-52
806 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
discriminatorily failed and refused to hire Michael Schiro because he has filed
charges under the Act, I shall recommend that the Respondent offer said Michael
Schiro immediate employment as a new-car salesman, or a substantially equiva-
lent position to that for which he applied in February 1952 , without prejudice
to his seniority or other rights and privileges ; and make him whole for any loss
of pay he may have suffered by reason of the discrimination against him , by pay-
ment to him of a sum of money equal to that which he would normally have
earned as wages and commissions since February 13, 1952, to the date on which
the Respondent shall offer him employment, in accordance with the recommended
order herein , less net earnings,' to be computed on a quarterly basis in the man-
ner set forth in F. W. Woolworth Co., 90 NLRB 289. Earnings in one particular
quarter shall have no effect upon the back-pay liability for any other such period.
It will also be recommended that the Respondent make available to the Board and
its agents, upon request, for examination and reproduction, all payroll records,
social-security payment records, personnel records and reports, and all other
records necessary to analyze and compute the amount of back pay due herein.
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and upon the entire record in the
case, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Respondent, Monart Motors Company (a corporation) is engaged in
commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
2. Local 174, Auto Salesmen's Union, United Optical & Instrument Workers
of America, CIO, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of
the Act.
3. Michael Schiro is an employee within the meaning of Section 2 (3) of the
Act.
4. By discriminating in regard to the hire or tenure of employment of Michael
Schiro (an employee) to discourage membership in a labor organization and
because he filed charges against an employer under the Act, thereby discourag-
ing membership in Local 174, Auto Salesmen's Union, United Optical & Instru-
ment Workers of America, CIO, and also interfering with, restraining, and coerc-
ing 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 (a) (1) and (3) and (4) 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.
[Recommendations omitted from publication in this volume.]
6 Crossett Lumber Co., 8 NLRB 440.
Appendix A
NOTICE To ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the recommendations of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor
Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, we hereby notify our employees that :
WE WILL NOT discourage membership in LOCAL 174, AUTO SALESMEN'S
UNION, UNITED OPTICAL & INSTRUMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO, or any
other labor organization, by refusing to hire applicants for employment
because they have filed charges under the Act, or engaged in concerted
MEREDITH ENGINEERING COMPANY 807
activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or
protection.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain, or
coerce employees in the exercise of the right to self-organization, to form
labor organizations, to join or assist LOCAL 174, AUTO SALESMEN'S UNION,
UNITED OPTICAL & INSTRUMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO, or any other
labor organization, to bargain collectively through representatives of their
own choosing, and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose
of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain
from any and all of such activities, except to the extent that such right may
be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as
a condition of employment, as authorized in Section 8 .(a) (3) of the Act.
WE WILL offer to Michael Schiro immediate employment as a new-car
salesman, or other position substantially equivalent to that for which he
applied in February 1952, without prejudice to his seniority or other rights
and privileges ; and make him whole for any loss of pay suffered as a result
of the discrimination against him.
All of our employees are free to become or remain members of the above-named
union or any other labor organization. We will not discriminate in regard to
hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment because
of membership in or protected activity on behalf of any such labor organization.
MONART MOTORS COMPANY (A CORPORATION),
Employer.
Dated -------------------- By ------------------------------------------
(Representative ) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof, and must not
be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
MEREDITH ENGINEERING COMPANY and INTERNATIONAL ALLIANCE OF
THEATRICAL STAGE EMPLOYEES AND MOVING PICTURE MACHINE
OPERATORS OF THE UNITED STATES AND CANADA, AFL, PETITIONER
MEREDITH ENGINEERING COMPANY and INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD
OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS, AFL, PETITIONER. Cases Nos. 21-RC-
2656 and 21-RC-2828. March, X0,1953
Decision and Direction of Election
Upon a petition duly filed in Case No. 21-RC-2656, a hearing was
held before James W. Cherry, Jr., hearing officer. Thereafter, upon
a subsequent petition duly filed in Case No. 21-RC-2828, Case No.
21-RC-2656 was remanded to the Regional Director of the Twenty-
first Region and consolidated by order of this Board. Hearing was
held on the consolidated cases before Leo Fischer, hearing officer. The
hearing officers' rulings made at the hearings are free from prejudicial
error and are hereby affirmed.
103 NLRB No. 86.