Nelson Industries

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 29, 1953

102 N.L.R.B. 780 (N.L.R.B. 1953)

780 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
basis of their dispute and there would be a sufficient narrowing of the issues
so that the Union could make an intelligent decision as to whether it should
yield , negotiate further , or invoke the arbitration provisions of the contract to
obtain an independent time study. Because of the limited scope of the Re-
spondent 's refusal to bargain and because of the absence of any indication that
danger of violation of other provisions of the Act Is to be anticipated from the
Respondent's past conduct , it will not be recommended that the Respondent be
ordered to cease or desist from the commission of any other unfair labor
practices . It will be , however, recommended that the Respondent be ordered
not to engage in any like or related conduct.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact , and upon the entire record,
the undersigned makes the following :
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Local 453, International Union of Electrical , Radio and Machine Workers,
CIO, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
2. All production and maintenance employees of the Respondent at its Yonkers
plant, including inspectors , exclusive of executive and administrative employees,
guards, and all supervisors as defined in Section 2 (11) of the Act, constitute a
unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of
Section 9 ( b) of the Act.
3. The Union has been at all times since November 4, 1949, and is now the
representative for the purposes of collective bargaining of all the employees in
the above-described appropriate unit for the purposes of collective bargaining
within the meaning of Section 9 (a) of the Act.
4. By failing and refusing to furnish the Union with information for its use
which would disclose the basis for the Respondent 's determination of the pro-
duction standard involved in grievance 1855, the Respondent has engaged in and
is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (5)
of the Act.
5. By the aforementioned conduct , the Respondent has interfered with, re-
strained , coerced, and is interfering with , restraining, and coercing its employees
in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, and thereby
has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of
Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.
6. 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.]
FRED E . NELSON, D/B/A NELSON INDUSTRIES , NELSON STAMPING AND
MANUFACTURING COMPANY, AND ELECTRO -CAP MOLD COMPANY and
UNITED STEEL WORKERS OF AMERICA , C. I. O. Case No. 6-CA-150.
January 29,1953
Decision and Order
On July 15, 1952, Trial Examiner Thomas S. Wilson issued his
Intermediate Report in the above -entitled proceeding finding that
102 NLRB No. 88
NELSON INDUSTRIES 781
the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair
labor practices in violation of Section 8 (a) (1), (2), and (3) of the
Labor Management Relations Act, as amended, and recommending
that the Respondent cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirm-
ative action, as set forth in the copy of the Intermediate Report at-
tached hereto. Thereafter the Respondent filed exceptions to the
Intermediate Report and a supporting brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with
this proceeding to a three-member panel [Members Houston, Mur-
dock, and Styles].
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made
at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The
rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Inter-
mediate Report,' the exceptions and brief, and the entire record in
this case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommen-
dations of the Trial Examiner with the following additions and
modifications.2
' We make the following correction of minor misstatements of fact appearing in the
Intermediate Report which do not affect the ultimate conclusions
Sec. III, 1, (b): Contrary to the statement in the Intermediate Report, Kubiscak's
testimony indicates that the Nelsons asked first about her hand, and that Jim Nelson then
inquired whether Carmella had asked her "anything."
Footnote 4: The Trial Examiner saw a conflict in testimony of Carmella and Mayolo
Actually Mayolo did not deny that Carmella asked him to sign a union card, but he placed
the time as Thursday. He was not asked whether this might have occurred earlier, on
Monday or Tuesday. Emma corroborated Carmella in placing the time as Tuesday.
Sec. III, 1, (c), first paragraph : The consensus of the testimony is that Carmella was
no more than a block-rather than several blocks-away from the plant when she col-
lected cards at shift times on Wednesday, May 9.
Sec III, 1 , ( d), first paragraph : The record indicated that it was not Emma, but Stella-
also a member of the group outside the plant about 1 a. in. on Thursday, May 10-who
handed Carmella a card after work as Jim Nelson drove past. In footnote 11 the Trial
Examiner correctly stated that it was Stella. Emma testified that she gave Carmella her
card on her way to work.
Sec. III, 2, (a), ninth paragraph : Carmella was discharged on Wednesday , May 9, 1951,
rather than May 8 ; however, her last working day was May 8.
2In its brief the Respondent argues that its 1950 commerce figures-lower than those
for 1951-should be used instead of those for 1951 as a basis for the Board 's assertion
of jurisdiction . We see no merit in this contention . We note that the Board asserted
jurisdiction over this employer on the basis of 1950 figures In a 1951 representation case
concerning this employer (Case No. 6-RC -851) ; hence the use of the 1950 figures would
not change its determination to assert jurisdiction in this proceeding.
The Respondent also argues in its brief that Al Gruey's knowledge of the inception of
union activity-mentionel in the Intermediate Report in Section III, 1 , ( b)-cannot be
imputed to the Respondent inasmuch as he had been found not to be a supervisor in a
previous Board proceeding , Case No. 6-RC-851. As it is clear from the record, as re-
flected in the Intermediate Report, that the Respondent knew of its employees' union
activity before it discharged Carmella-independent of any knowledge that Gruey may
have had-we consider it unecessary to further consider the Respondent 's contention in
this regard.
The Respondent also contends that it was reasonable-not "unreasonable " as the Trial
Examiner found-that Jim Nelson should be "disgusted" at Ruth White 's request for
night work on her second day back . We agree with the Trial Examiner's conclusion.
In this regard we note White's undented testimony , not referred to in the Intermediate
Report, that she made this request at the Thursday , May 10, meetings of small groups of
782 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The Trial Examiner found, footnote 14, that the July 1951 "offers"
of employment to Emma and Stella were not bona fide offers of re-
instatement, but mere attempts to deprive these employees of unem-
ployment compensation. We agree with this conclusion, but for the
following reasons not fully discused in the Intermediate Report.
Emma, whom the Trial Examiner credited, testified that when Fred
Nelson called her on Wednesday, July 11, 1951, he asked her to come
to work the next day, and that when she explained that it would be
difficult for her to make arrangements to come in for day work before
the next Monday because her husband was recuperating from an
operation, he said-after interrupting to ask his brother-"No, you
have to come tomorrow." Emma further testified that she then agreed
to come the next day. However, about 6 that evening she found this
would be impossible and, as the Respondent's office was then closed
and she did not have the Nelsons' home phone numbers, she called
Foreman Frank Mayolo to advise him.3 The next day, July 12, 1951,
the Respondent wrote to Emma as follows, sending a copy to the
Bureau of Unemployment Compensation "to guard against further
unemployment compensation payments" :
Confirming our telephone conversation of yesterday wherein
we asked that you commence working today, July 12, on the day
shift, and your promise that you would appear for work this
morning.
We were disappointed in your failure to appear today and re-
ceived your message that your husband does not want you to work
during the daytime.
As explained, we do not know when we may resume the shift
working from 4: 45 P. M. until 1: 00 A. M., and therefore we hope
that you may be able to make some arrangement which would
permit you to take advantage of working on the day shift for
the time being. [Emphasis supplied.]
the women employees, at which the Respondent questioned them about their "gripes," and
that her request was made after another employee had requested night work and been
told that she could report on the night shift the next Monday. White also testified
that she then told Jim Nelson that she hoped the job would be steady because she needed
it, thus showing her paramount interest in the job rather than the shift, and that he
replied that be thought it would
The Respondent excepted to all but the first sentence of footnote 9 of the Intermediate
Report . We construe the finding of an 8 (a) (1) violation made in this footnote as
limited to the coercive character of the interviews, which were characterized by Fred
Nelson's threatening to close the plant and go fishing "before we have a union."
On the question of Jim Nelson' s early morning observation of employees talking out-
side the plant on May 10, we note in the Respondent 's brief a statement that "Pauline
and Theresa , though standing at the same spot did not see Jim. .. It is possible that
these two employees made statements to the Respondent, but neither testified at the
hearing. The record contains no competent evidence of their reactions.
Mayolo's testimony corroborated Emma's version of the call ; but his note to the Nelsons,
received in evidence , omitted mention of the husband 's illness and Emma's inability to get
someone to take care of him on such short notice, simply stating that her husband did
not want her to work daytime. We note that Emma's explanation was credited by the
State Bureau of Unemployment Compensation , on appeal.
NELSON INDUSTRIES 783
Emma also testified that she called the Nelsons when she received
this letter on the 13th, and told them she had made arrangements to
come for day work anytime, but was told that another girl had been
hired. A week later, on July 20, she confirmed her ability to work
daytime by a letter to the Nelsons written for her at the union office.
Not until January 29, 1952, was she recalled to work.
Stella's testimony was likewise credited. She stated that she also
was called by Fred Nelson on Wednesday, July 11, 1951, about return-
ing to work on the day shift; that she immediately told him that her
daughter, who apparently looked after her younger children for her,
had gone on a 2-week vacation the previous Saturday, but that she
could report for day work as soon as her daughter returned, and that
Fred Nelson agreed to this arrangement. Nevertheless on the 13th,
Stella received from Nelson the following letter, of which a copy
had been sent to the Bureau of Unemployment Compensation with a
request that it see "that further compensation payments are not made" :
Confirming our telephone conversation of today, we could use
you commencing tomorrow on the day shift. However, you ad-
vised that it would be impossible for you to work excepting on the
evening shift.
As explained, we do not know when we may resume the shift
working from 4: 45 P. M. until 1: 00 A. M., and therefore we hope
that you may be able to make some arrangement which would
permit you to take advantage of working on the day shift for
the time being.
As requested, please let us know at the first opportunity if and
when you can work during the day. [Emphasis supplied.]
Stella further testified that on July 19 she advised the Nelsons, by
letter written for her at the union office, that she was ready to work
daytime, and that on Friday the 20th, she gave them the same message
over the phone, saying that her daughter had returned and that she
could come to work the following Monday. She was told, however,
that someone else had been hired in the meantime.
On the facts we conclude that the offers to Emma and Stella on
July 11, 1951, were not bona fide offers of reinstatement. Not only
did the Respondent fail to give Emma a reasonable time within which
to make arrangements to return to work, but we note that both letters
written by it to confirm the telephone "offers" of the 11th implied that
these two employees would be employed as soon as they could make
arrangements to work daytime. Yet, Emma, who called on July 13
as soon as she received the letter, and said that she had made arrange-
ments in the meantime, and Stella, who called a week after she received
it, saying that she could report as had been agreed to in the July 11
784 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
conversation, were both told others had been employed.4 When we
consider in addition that copies of these letters, distorting the facts
as credited by the Trial Examiner, were sent immediately to the State
Bureau of Unemployment Compensation with the stated purpose of
stopping payments, it is clear that the July 11 offers were not made
in good faith. We shall grant these two employees back pay from the
date of the discrimination against them on May 10, 1951, to the date
of their actual reinstatement in January 1952.
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 Respondent, Fred E. Nelson,
d/b/a Nelson Industries, Nelson Stamping and Manufacturing Com-
pany, and Electro-Cap Mold Company, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania,
his agents, successors, and assigns, shall :
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Discouraging membership in United Steel Workers of Amer-
ica, C. I. 0., by discriminating in regard to the hire or tenure of em-
ployment of its employees.
(b) Recognizing the Committee, or any successor thereto, as the
representative of any of its employees for the purpose of dealing with
the Respondent concerning grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of
pay, hours of employment, and other conditions of employment, or
contributing financial or other support to the Committee, or in any
manner dealing with it.
(c) Interrogating its employees concerning their union member-
ship and activities, promising wage raises or other benefits or threat-
ening reprisal in order to influence its employees' choice of a bar-
gaining representative, or in any other manner interfering with, re-
straining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of the right to
self-organization, to form, join, or assist United Steel Workers of
America, C. I. 0., or any other labor organization, to bargain col-
lectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage
in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other
mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any or all 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 em-
ployment as authorized in Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
4 The record shows that a Marilyn wise was employed July 16 and Margaret Tafelski,
July 17, 1951 , each on 1 working day 's notice. Neither had been notified when Emma
called July 13.
NELSON INDUSTRIES 785
(a) Offer immediately to Carmella Mikluscak and Ruth White
immediate and full reinstatement to their former or substantially
equivalent positions, without prejudice to their seniority or other
rights and privileges, and make whole Carmella Mikluscak, Ruth
White, Emma Voytenkoff, and Stella Sopata for any loss of pay each
may have suffered by reason of the discrimination practiced against
her, in the manner described in the remedy section of the Intermediate
Report.
(b) Withdraw and withhold all recognition from, and completely
disestablish, the Committee as a representative of any of its employees
for the purpose of dealing with the Respondent concerning grievances,
labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, or other
conditions of employment.
(c) Post at its plant in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, copies of the
notice attached hereto and marked "Appendix A." 5 Copies of such
notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for the Sixth Region,
shall, after being duly signed by the Respondent's authorized repre-
sentative, be posted by the Respondent immediately upon receipt
thereof and maintained for sixty (60) days in conspicuous places,
including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted.
Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to insure that said
notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
(d) Notify the Regional Director for the Sixth Region, in writing,
within ten (10) days from the date of this Order what steps the
Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
Appendix A
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to a Decision and Order 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 HEREBY DISESTABLISH THE COMMITTEE as the representative
of any of our employees for the purpose of dealing with us con-
cerning grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of
employment, or other conditions of employment, and we will not
recognize it or any successor thereto for any of the above purposes.
WE WILL NOT dominate or interfere with the formation or ad-
ministration of any labor organization or contribute financial or
other support to it.
In the event that this Order is enforced by a decree of a United States Court of
Appeals , there shall he substituted for the words "Pursuant to a Decision and Order" the
words "Pursuant to a Decree of the United States Court of Appeals , Enforcing an Order."
786 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
WE WILL ooFm to Carmella Mikluscak and Ruth White imme-
diate and full reinstatement to their former or substantially equiv-
alent positions without prejudice to any seniority or other rights
or privileges previously enjoyed, and we will make whole Car-
mella Mikluscak, Ruth White, Emma Voytenkoff, and Stella
Sopata for any loss of pay suffered as a result of the discrimina-
tion against them.
WE WILL NOT interrogate our employees concerning their union
membership and activities, promise wage raises or other benefits,
or threaten reprisal in order to influence their choice of a bargain-
ing representative, nor will we in any other manner interfere with,
restrain , or coerce our employees in the exercise of their right to
self-organization, to form, join, or assist UNITED STEEL WORKERS
OF AMERICA, C. 1. 0., or any other organization, to bargain collec-
tively through representatives of their own choosing, and to en-
gage in concerted activities for the purposes of collective bar-
gaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any
or all such activities, except to the extent that such right may be
affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organ-
ization as a condition of employment as authorized in Section 8
(a) (3) of the National Labor Relations Act.
All our employees are free to become or remain members of any
labor organization except to the extent that this right may be affected
by an agreement in conformity with Section 8 (a) (3) of the amended
Act. We will not discriminate in regard to hire or tenure of employ-
ment or any term or condition of employment against any employee
because of membership in or activity on behalf of any labor organ-
ization.
FRED E. NELSON, D/E/A NELSON INDUSTRIES, NEL-
SON STAMPING AND MANUFACTURING COMPANY,
AND ELECTRO-CAP MOLD COMPANY,
Employer.
By ------------------------------------------------
(Representative ) ( Title)
Dated------------------------
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof,
and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
Intermediate Report
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This matter arises on the complaint dated February 28, 1952,' by the General
Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board, herein called the General Coun-
1 The complaint is based upon a charge filed May 28 , 1951 , and amended on July 9,
1951, by United Steel Workers of America, C I. 0., hereinafter called the Union.
NELSON INDUSTRIES 787
sel' and the Board, respectively, through the Regiongl Director for the Sixth
Region (Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania), against Fred E. Nelson, d/b/a Nelson Indus-
tries, Nelson Stamping and Manufacturing Company, and Electro-Cap Mold Com-
pany, herein called the Respondent, which alleged in substance that: (1) From
on or about May 8, 1951, the Respondent had in various enumerated ways inter-
fered with, restrained, and coerced employees; (2) on May 9 and 10, 1951, the
Respondent discharged four named employees because of their activities on behalf
of the Union ; and (3) from on or about May 11, 1951, the Respondent had domi-
nated and interfered with the formation and administration among its em-
ployees of a labor organization known as the Committee, thereby engaging in
unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8 (a)
(1), (2), and (3) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Labor Management Relations
Act of 1947, 61 Stat. 136, herein called the Act. Copies of the charges, the com-
plaint, the notice of hearing thereon were duly served upon the Respondent and
the Union. The Respondent duly filed its answer admitting certain allegations
of the complaint but denying the commission of any unfair labor practices.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, from April
14 to 19, 1952, before the undersigned Trial Examiner. The General Counsel and
the Respondent were represented by counsel and the Union by its representative.
All parties participated in the hearing and were given full opportunity to be
heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, to introduce evidence bearing
upon the issues, and to present oral argument and file briefs and proposed find-
ings of fact or conclusions of law or both. At the conclusion of the hearing oral
argument was waived. No briefs have been received.
Upon the entire record in the case, and from observation of the witnesses, the
undersigned makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
Respondent is an individual, having his principal office and place of business at
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, where he is engaged in the manufacture, sale, and dis-
tribution of garbage disposal units, residential mailboxes, steel bridging rein-
forcements, and other products.
During the year 1951, Respondent purchased for use at his Pittsburgh, Penn-
sylvania, plant, equipment and other materials valued in excess of $90,000, of
which approximately 5 percent was shipped to Respondent's operations from
points outside the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. During the year 1951, Re-
spondent sold, shipped, and transported its finished products valued at $172,040, of
which approximately $63,0000 represented shipments to points outside the Com-
monwealth of Pennsylvania.
The Respondent, during the year 1951, sold and shipped to the Wolverine Sup-
ply and Manufacturing Company, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, its products valued
at $7,378.32. The Wolverine Supply and Manufacturing Company is engaged in
commerce within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, by
virtue of sales of its products from its Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, plant, to points
outside of Pennsylvania, valued in excess of $25,000 per year, and was subject to
the jurisdiction of the National Labor Relations Board in Case No. 6-RC-837.
The Respondent, during the year 1951, sold and shipped to A. J. Redlich Manu-
facturing Company, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, its products valued at approxi-
mately $4,455. The A. J. Redlich Manufacturing Company is engaged in commerce
within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, by virtue of
s This term specifically includes the counsel for the General Counsel appearing at the
hearing.
788 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
sales of its products from its Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, plant to points outside the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, of a value in excess of $25,000 per year, and was
subject to the jurisdiction of the National Labor Relations Board in Case No.
6-RC-693.
The Respondent, during the year 1951, sold to Suburban Toy and Manufactur-
ing Corporation, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, its products valued at approximately
$5,42.;. The Suburban Toy and Manufacturing Company is engaged in com-
merce within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, by
virtue of sales of its products from its Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, plant, to points
outside the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, valued in excess of $25,000 per year.
During the year 1951 the Respondent, on a contract basis, manufactured,
processed, and packed for the Tru-Tye Bridging Company, Gibsonia, Pennsyl-
vania, steel bridgings. The Respondent, pursuant to orders of Tru-Tye Bridging
Company, manufactures, processes, and packs the said steel bridging and upon
further instructions of Tru-Tye Bridging Company, shipped, transported, or
delivered directly to the vendees of Tru-Tye Bridging Company. During the
year 1951, the Respondent shipped, transported, and delivered said steel bridg-
ings valued at approximately $52,378, from its Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, plant,
of which approximately $11,955 represented points outside the Commonwealth
of Pennsylvania.
The undersigned finds that the Respondent is, and at all times material herein
has been, engaged in interstate commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6)
and (7) of the Act.
II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
United Steel Workers of America, affiliated with the C. I. 0., and The Com-
mittee, unaffiliated, hereinafter called the Committee, are labor organizations
admitting employees of the Respondent to membership.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
1. The facts
The products of the Respondent with which we are here involved are the mail-
boxes, Tru-Tye bridging , and toys. All of these products are made by press
operations , 90 percent or more of which is done by women operators in the
Respondent's plant.
By August 1950 the Respondent 's orders for the above products were being
filled so long after the receipt of the orders and there was such a large backlog
of unfilled orders that Fred E . Nelson , Respondent's owner , decided to expand
his operations by adding a second shift and, shortly thereafter, a third shift' in
order to keep pace with the orders and to be in a position to fill any Korean
war orders which Nelson might obtain. Plant Superintendent James Nelson,
brother of Fred , and the diemaker , Herman Becher, among other advisors, op-
posed this idea of rapid expansion from the very beginning for reasons personal
unto themselves.
However , with the exception of two operators laid off during the slack period
at Christmastime , 1950, and the combining of the third shift with the second
shift, the night-shift operations continued unabated until May 1951 , even though
Nelson testified that his backlog of orders had been eliminated by December 1950.
The Respondent ' s records prove that the Respondent 's sales increased 70 per-
f The daylight shift ended at 4: 45 p. m while the second shift worked from 4: 45 p m.
to 12: 45 a. m. During the short period of time the third shift operated, it never num-
bered more than 1 or 2 operators. It was soon abandoned.
NELSON ' INDUSTRIES' 789
cent in the year 1951 over those for the year 1950, i. e., $172,000 as agailist
$103,000. Thus, if the Respondent was busy in 1950, he was even busier during
1951.
Everything was moving along smoothly for the Respondent until the events
in which we are here interested commenced on or about May 7, 1951. By the
following Monday, May 14, these events had largely run their course, although
the effects of the events have continued until the very day of the hearing. A
chronological history of the events from May 7 to 14, 1951, just about tells its
own story to which little need be added.
a. Monday, May 7, 1951
For about a week prior to May 7, the 4 or 5 women employees of the night shift
had been discussing the possibilities of organizing a union and had also talked
quietly with the girls on the day shift, who also agreed that it would be a good
idea. Thereupon Carmella Mikluscak of the night turn volunteered to obtain
union-authorization cards from the Union.
On this Monday morning Carmella went to the union hall, secured a batch of
blank application or membership cards in the Union and was given instructions
by the business agent as to how they should be filled out.
That evening Carmella reported for work as usual on the night turn a little
before 4: 45 p. m. When she informed the women on both shifts that she had
secured the cards and asked if they still wanted the cards brought into the
plant, it was agreed that she should bring them into the plant the following day.
That day Carmella spoke to most of the women and some of the male employees
about the cards.
Sometime on Monday afternoon, employee Anna Kubiscak injured her hand
in one of the machines. She was driven to the hospital by Fred Nelson who in-
structed her to call him the following day and let him know how she was.
b. Tuesday, May 8, 1951
Carmella arrived at the plant about 4 o'clock, bringing the union-application
cards with her and leaving them on the table in the women's dressing room where
the women employees changed their clothes before and after the shifts. She
informed the employees upon both shifts that the cards were there, instructed
them to take the cards home, fill them out if they cared to, and return them to her
the following day. It is undisputed that Carmella told Foreman Al Gruey of
the day shift that she had brought these cards into the plant.'
As requested, Kubiscak telephoned Fred Nelson from the hospital and re-
ported upon her injury. After speaking of her injury, Fred told her that Jim
wanted to speak to her. Before he even inquired about the condition of her
hand, Jim asked Kubiscak twice whether Carmella had asked her anything.
Bewildered by this question, Kubiscak answered, "no, why?" No explanation was
forthcoming.'
+ Carmella also testified that on either Monday or Tuesday, she had spoken to Frank
Mayolo about his signing a union card but that Mayolo declined to do so on the ground
that he was a foreman . Hoysever , Mayolo denied this testimony , thus creating a conflict
which the undersigned sees no reason to resolve.
G Both Nelsons denied that this conversation ever occurred. The office girl, Jenny
Gualtiere, testified positively that Jim Nelson had never talked on the telephone to
Kubiscak. As the telephone call was made out of her presence and at a time when she
did not know where Jim was, Gualtiere ' s testimony amounts to a remarkable feat of
memory as well as prescience. Kubiscak appeared to the undersigned to be a straight-
forward, honest witness, while the Nelsons, especially Fred, appeared to tailor his testi-
mony in accordance with the requirements of the defense. The undersigned, therefore,
accepts the version of this telephone call as given above by Kubiscak.
250983-vol. 102-53-51
790 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
A day or so thereafter , however, Carmella appeared at Kubiscak 's home and
had her execute the last union card.
Sometime during the night turn that evening, Carmella asked permission
of Frank Mayolo to be allowed to report at 6 p. in. the following evening instead
of the usual starting time of 4: 45. Mayolo informed her that he thought that
would be all right.
c. Wednesday, May 9, 1951
On Wednesday Carmella began at each shift time to meet the employees on
each shift as they were on their way to work and collect signed application cards
from them. She took up her stand for this purpose several blocks away from
the Respondent's plant.
About 1 p. in., Jim Nelson discovered a blank union-application card stuck
in the timecard rack. Jim immediately took the blank application to Fred
who promptly began to investigate. Fred's first inquiry of Jim was to inquire
as to whether he had noticed any "unusual" gathering of employees, group
talking, or anything else "unusual." Obviously this inquiry was for the pur-
pose of determining if the employees were actually attempting to organize or
whether the blank application card was merely a hoax. Jim denied that there
had been anything unusual occurring on the day turn. Fred then inquired of
the office girl whether she knew anything about the card but again received a
negative answer. Thereupon Fred gave orders to the office girl that Frank
Mayolo, who had charge of the evening turn, should report to him immediately
upon his return to the plant.
When Mayolo entered the plant about 1: 30 or 2 p. in., he was promptly
ushered into Fred's office where Fred tossed the union-application card on the
table in front of him and asked what he knew about it. Mayolo denied knowing
anything about the card. He was then closely interrogated regarding whether
anything "unusual" had been occurring on the night shift, the "gripes" of the
employees, and anything else which Nelson considered might give them a clue.
Mayolo, who prefaced most of his answers to questions with statements indicating
how heavily the support of his wife and daughter rested upon his mind, disclosed
that the girls were spending a great deal of time (up to an hour at a time, accord-
ing to Mayolo's testimony) in the women's dressing room, that Carmella had been
eating lunch with him instead of with the women in the dressing room, that
there was considerable bickering between the girls, and other numerous alleged
facts about the evening turn. Mayolo was also asked if he liked the employees
on the shift and if he were satisfied working for the Respondent. It should
be noted that Carmella's name was the only name of an employee mentioned at
this conference. At the time Carmella's name was first mentioned, Mayolo re-
called her request of the evening before for permission to report at 6 p. in. and
asked Jim if that would be all right. Jim's answer to that was to say he
would let Mayolo know later. Although the memories of the three persons par-
ticipating in this conference at the time of the hearing would indicate a short
conference, they were all in agreement that the conference lasted from 1% to 2
hours. At the close of the interview Fred told Mayolo that he knew that the
evening turn was attempting to organize a union and that he, Mayolo, was to
return to work and keep his mouth shut. About 2: 15 p. m.' Jenny, the office girl,
was instructed to and did telephone to Oarmella and instruct her not to report
for work until further notice.
Jenny testified that this telephone call was made between 2: 30 and 3: 30 which
would also be during the 2-hour conference.
NELSON INDUSTRIES 791
It was not until the evening turn commenced work that Jim informed Mayolo
that Carmella's request to come in at 6 p. in. had been denied and further that
"anyone who talked to her [Carmella] that evening would be fired." Jim also
transferred employee Stella Sopata to do the work usually performed by Car-
mella. When Stella inquired what work she should do if Carinella appeared,
Jim instructed her to do Carmella's work all through the shift regardless of
Carmella.
Upon instruction from Jim to get him another woman employee, Jenny
telephoned Alice Allen and employed her as a pressman on the day turn to begin
the next day, Thursday.
d. Thursday , May 10, 1951
Carmella, after receiving her instructions from Jenny as above related, sta-
tioned herself a block away from the plant before the second shift began and
continued to collect signed application cards from the employees. She returned
to the plant again at the end of the second shift in order to catch a few of
the employees on that shift whom she had previously missed. On this occasion
about 1 a. in. a group consisting of Carmella and employee Emma (Voytenkoff),
Pauline (Krona), and Theresa were standing directly in front of the plant
when Emma handed Carmella her signed application card. Mayolo, who was
walking to the streetcar stop with Emma, did not stop with the others when
they met Carmella but went right ahead to the car stop after telling Emma that
he did not want to lose his job for talking to Carmella.
As the group stood there an automobile driven by Jim Nelson drove slowly
past.'
Beginning promptly after lunchtime this day Fred instructed Jim to bring
all the daylight-turn women employees into the office in groups of 2 or 3. Ac-
cording to Nelson the purpose of these interviews was to determine the attitude
of the women toward working for the Respondent and to find out what their
"gripes" were. The interviews were all quite similar, lasting only a few
minutes each. As one group completed its interview Jim Nelson would go and
bring up another group of employees. Fred opened these interviews by saying
that there were union cards floating around the plant but that he did not know
who had signed theme But in at least some of these interviews Fred suggested
that the employees attempt to secure the return of their signed union cards.
At least one employee volunteered the information that she had signed such
a card. Fred Nelson then interrogated the girls regarding what they thought
of the working conditions in the plant and their attitude towards working for
the Respondent. In response to these questions he received answers to the
effect that the employees thought they were entitled to more money and would
like to have their dressing room cleaned up. In answer to this Fred told them
that he would analyze the situation and see what he could do, that "maybe we
can arrange something." These interviews lasted as a general rule 10 or 12
' Jim Nelson testified that he left the plant that evening between 10 : 30 and 11 p in.
and did not thereafter drive into the street in front of the plant. The undersigned be-
lieves him to have been mistaken as to the time of his departure
8 One or two witnesses for the General Counsel testified that Fred stated that he knew
which employees had signed the union cards. The undersigned makes no finding on this,
beiievina it to be immaterial to the determination hera1
792 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
minutes and ended when Fred Nelson remarked that "before we have a Union,
we will close the doors and go fishing."
After thus talking with all the women employees, Fred and Jim Nelson dis-
cussed between themselves the "confusion" 16 that had arisen. They came to
the conclusion that their "communications" with the employees were poor and
that they should do something to improve them. In order to improve these
"communications," the Nelsons decided to organize the women employees and
to appoint two of the employees as the representatives of the other employees
to discuss grievances and other matters with the Respondent. This became known
as the Committee. Also having determined that the "disorder" and "confusion"
centered in the evening shift, Fred agreed to the discontinuance of the evening
shift to which Jim Nelson and the other advisors had been opposed even before
Fred Nelson established it at the plant.
So as Stella Sopata was about to punch the time clock to begin work that
evening as usual, Jim Nelson shouted at her : "Wait a minute, don't punch the
time. . . . We decided as of a half hour ago not to have night turn . . . there's
too much trouble on night turn . . . didn't you get a card at the beginning of
the week?" When Stella asked what kind of a "card" he was referring to, Jim
stated : "Well, let's quit kidding now . . . I saw you hand Carmella a card,"
and I know everyone that has a card-everyone that signs a card. . . . I have
had union trouble before, three years ago. . . . Before I have a Union in this
shop I close this door and go fishing. . . . You better get your clothes and go
home; we decided not to have night turn." Thus ended Stella's employment
with the Respondent until January 28, 1952, when the Respondent recalled her
to work as will be more fully developed hereinafter.
The other night-shift employees including Emma and Mayolo were notified
that the night shift was abolished. Emma did not work again for Respondent
until recalled on January 29, 1952. Mayolo was "reprimanded," according to
Respondent, by being laid off until the next Monday.
However, while the other women were notified of the abolishment of the
night shift that evening, they were each invited to, and agreed to, a transfer
to the day shift. Emma and Stella were not so invited.
The night shift has never been reinstituted.
As Emma left the plant after her discharge that evening, she met Carmella
in front of the plant talking to employee Ruth White who had been reemployed
on the daylight shift on May 9, 1951. As they were thus talking grouped outside
the plant, Jenny Gualtiere, the office girl, came out of the front door and stood
watching them from the steps. Upon seeing Jenny, the employees began walk-
ing up the street while Carmella informed White that she might just as well
sign the union card because the Respondent would discharge her anyhow as
Fred admitted that he mentioned a proposed fishing trip to Canada to the employees
during these interviews but, in general terms, contended that the employees had mis-
construed his meaning . As it is clear from the tenor of the interviews that Nelson's
purpose was to undermine the attempted organization of the employees, the undersigned
is satisfied and finds that Fred Nelson made the remark quoted above . It requires no
discussion to determine that this remark was coercive and thus violative of the Act.
N^r is it debatable that the whole object of the interviews was to prevent the employees
joining the union of their own choosing and thus a clear violation of Section 8 (a) (1)
of the Act
16 It was obvious from the testimony of the Respondent that this "confusion" arose at
the time of and because of the discovery of the union-application card in the time rack.
The Respondent therefore, used the word as a synonym for union activity.
11 Just as Jim's car drove past the group the night before, Stella had handed Carmella
a signed union card.
NELSON INDUSTRIES 793
Jenny had seen her talking to Carmella. So some distance from the plant White
accepted a union-application card, executed it, and returned it to Carmella.
At 6: 15 p. in. that evening, after White had arrived at her home, Jenny Gual-
tiere telephoned to her that she was not to report for work until further notice.
Jenny refused to give any reason for the Respondent's action in this regard.12
The Respondent described Mayolo's layoff as a sort of "reprimand." At the
time of his precipitous layoff Mayolo was engaged in cutting some bands with-
out which the Respondent's shipments would have had to be delayed as the
bands were an indispensable item which Mayolo alone made.
e. Friday, May 11
Following the morning recess during the day shift Jim Nelson met the women
employees as they came out of their dressing room and informed them in a
body that the Respondent had decided to establish a committee composed of the
two oldest women workers to whom the other women employees should give
their grievances and gripes for transmittal to the Respondent at meetings which
were to be held by the Committee with the Respondent approximately once a
month. He thereupon proceeded to appoint employees Loretta Breeze and Mar-
garet Halstead as the members of this Committee. Loretta remarked that she
"would fight for the girls." Jim also announced the introduction of a suggestion
box where the employees could place anonymous suggestions which the Committee
would also discuss with the Respondent. Thus the Respondent solved its
so-called communications problem with its employees by the establishment of
the Committee.
f. Monday, May 14
The Committee at the Respondent's request had its first monthly meeting with
Fred and Jim Nelson during which Breeze and Halstead discussed the gripes
and suggestions they had gotten from the employees and during which the
Respondent announced a wage increase which was to be given to the employees.
12 The Respondent ' s story of this discharge differs considerably . Jim Nelson testified
that White had been a good operator when previously employed on the evening shift on
toys except for her propensity to walk around the plant at all times during her shift and
that he was, therefore , a little disturbed when Jenny had telephoned to White to return
to work on May 9 in accordance with his instructions to Jenny to "get a girl ," that when
White requested a transfer to the evening shift on her second day at work be was so
"disgusted" at the temerity of the request that he thereupon mentally determined to dis-
charge her and, during the evening shift of May 10, instructed Jenny to notify White not
to return to work when she left the plant that evening at the end of her shift. Jenny
testified that she had received these Instructions during the afternoon , had actually seen
White leave the plant , but was so upset at the idea of having to discharge a girl who
obviously needed the job so badly and who had telephoned asking for work so often that
she decided that she could not carry out her instructions to discharge White face to face
and determined to do so over the telephone that evening, hence the 6: 15 p. in. telephone
dismissal . Jenny also denied that she had seen White talking to Carmella by testifying
that she had not gone out on the front steps of the plant that evening although admitting
that she had seen White leave the plant
The undersigned is unable to accept this testimony at face value because he does not
believe that any reasonable employer would be so "disgusted" ( to use Jim Nelson's own
word ) by a normal request for a transfer to another shift by an employee even on the
second day after her recall to work. Jim indicated In his testimony that If she had
waited a week or so before making this request , he would not have been so "disgusted" as
to immediately order her dismissal without, as Jim admitted , having even checked her
production . The whole story became a little farfetched when it subsequently developed
that White was recalled to work on toys where admittedly her production had been good
In her previous period of employment . Nor did Jenny Indicate on the stand the softhearted
qualities that her testimony would indicate.
794 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
This wage increase was based on years of service with the Respondent and
upon technical qualifications of the various women employees . The increase
was made to the female employees only. The Committee was given a type-
written statement describing the method by which the wages of the various
employees would be increased . They were asked to, and did, post this notice
on the mirror in the women 's dressing room and later explained the rates to any
employees who did not understand the notice . The meeting was held during
working hours and the committee members were paid for the time so spent.
Since that time practically every request made by the Committee has been
granted by the Respondent.
In the fall of the year the Respondent permitted its male employees to appoint
a representative on the Committee . The man chosen was Herman Becher who,
until about 1950 when he became the only diemaker in the Respondent 's employ,
was foreman of the die shop and was also the male employee who had requested
the right from the Respondent for the men to participate in the Committee and
to have a representative thereon . At approximately this same time the male
employees were included in another wage increase which the Respondent granted
to its employees and announced to the Committee.
Meetings have been held monthly ( except when inconvenient for the Respond-
ent) and the committee members have been paid for the time so spent.
2. Conclusions
a. The discharges
Except for White the girls laid off all worked on night turn . At first the
Respondent pleaded that the night turn had been laid off on account of lack of
work but at the hearing amended this pleading in order to contend further that
Carmella had been discharged for "misconduct." In addition the Respondent
claimed further that the necessity for the employees had been eliminated because
of new dies and laborsaving devices which the Respondent had introduced into
the production of mailboxes.
To discuss these defenses in reverse order, the testimony of Herman Becher,
the diemaker-though quite indefinite as to dates, was as favorable to the
Respondent 's contention as it was possible to be under the available facts-
proved conclusively that all the dies and laborsaving devices used in the manu-
facture of mailboxes were in use by Respondent by the end of the month of
March 1951 . Thus it appears quite conclusively that these laborsaving improve-
ments had been in use and had eliminated all excess labor more than a month
before the layoff of the evening shift . Hence these dies had nothing to do with
the elimination of the evening shift.
As for the Respondent's claim that there was a lack of work and of orders,
it is only necessary to recall from the findings made above that the Respondent's
business increased 70 percent in 1951 over that of 1950, $170 ,000 of sales as
against $103 ,000. Respondent also contended that by May 10, 1951 , it only had
between $6 ,000 and $7 ,000 worth of orders unfilled in the plant , a 2 weeks' run,
which , according to Fred Nelson , created a very dangerous state of affairs. How-
ever , this contention is mollified by the fact that on May 8, 1951 , at the very
moment of this dangerous condition, the Respondent rehired Ruth White to
replace an employee who was leaving, thus indicating that as of that time the
Respondent had no desire to reduce its staff . Furthermore , it developed that
new orders had come in , for White was actually employed to work on a toy
order just previously received . As for the "dangerous condition " of the orders,
it should be noted that at the time of the hearing the Respondent had unfilled
NELSON INDUSTRIES 795
orders in the amount of only $457. This same situation had been the case prac-
tically from the time of the layoff until the time of the hearing, all of which time
the Respondent's plant had worked steadily and without layoffs. Furthermore,
in July the Respondent increased its staff by hiring two new employees. Thus
it is obvious that these economic contentions of the Respondent are insubstantial,
if not spurious.
"Our timing was very bad. We should have waited 2 weeks before we let
the evening shift go." So testified Jim Nelson. The catalytic agent which set
off the action in this case was the discovery of the union-application card in
the time rack on Wednesday about 1 p. in. Up to that time there was no serious
thought of reducing the staff, no real fear of lack of work or orders, and no
thought that the Respondent's "communications" with the employees were bad.
At the time of and as a result of the discovery of the union-application card, the
night shift was discontinued, the employees discharged , and the Committee insti-
tuted. After that discovery things began to happen and to happen fast. Jim
Nelson's comment was well justified.
Why were Carmella Mikluscak, Stella Sopata, and Emma Voytenkoff
discharged?
As for Carmella, she had been a good employee until the Respondent telephoned
her not to report to work until further notice at the very time that Fred and
Jim Nelson were talking to Mayolo about the discovery of the union card on
Wednesday. In attempting to determine if anything "unusual" was going on
on the evening shift, it was discovered that the girls were doing considerable
talking and spending considerable time in the dressing room-matters about
which Fred Nelson had asked Jim Nelson in the very first few minutes after the
discovery of the card and matters which Fred Nelson obviously considered to be
indicia of a union organization drive. During this discussion of "unusual
occurrences," Carmella's name was mentioned no less than three times, apparently
the only individual employee so singled out. At the same time her not unusual
request to be allowed to report 1 hour and 15 minutes late that evening came
to light. Without even bothering to answer Mayolo's inquiry as to whether that
would be all right and without even the knowledge of Mayolo, the Nelsons had
the office girl telephone Carmella not to report to work. Subsequently Mayolo
was instructed by Jim Nelson that anyone who even talked to Carmella that
evening would be discharged. Furthermore, the employee who took over
Carmella's machine was ordered to continue working on that machine regardless
of whether Carmella returned to the plant that evening or not. Obviously from
these precautions the Nelsons had determined that Carmella was not going to
work for the Respondent again-which makes the Respondent's testimony that
all they ever told Carmella was not to report that evening, implying that she was
to report the following day, silly. As Fred Nelson acknowledged to Mayolo, the
Respondent knew that the evening shift was trying to organize a union and it is
clear from the Respondent's actions that the Respondent considered Carmella
the ringleader of that movement-with the immediate reward of being fired in
violation of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
Respondent contended that Carmella was discharged for "misconduct" but
failed to produce any evidence to support the contention over and beyond the
usual "bickering" among employees, very little of which concerned Carmella.
Carmella's "misconduct" consisted exclusively in her activities on behalf of
the Union.
Respondent produced evidence that on April 26, 1951, Carmella gave Respond-
ent through Mayolo her 2-week notice of quitting." But the evidence is uncon-
33 Carmella thought the notice had been given earlier than April.
796 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
tradicted that the Respondent had promptly thereafter urged Carmella to
rescind that notice and that she had complied with Respondent's request.
Accordingly, the undersigned finds that the Respondent discharged Carmella
Mikluscak on May 8, 1951, because of her activities on behalf of the Union in
contravention of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
Emma and Stella were discharged as an integral part of that same policy of
interference, restraint, and coercion. When Stella started to check in on the
evening of May 10 as usual for the evening shift, Jim Nelson told her not to
check in "because there is too much trouble on the evening shift" and accused
her of having handed her union card to Carmella the evening before when, in fact,
she had done so. Respondent had been worried even before that that Carmella
had influenced Emma to Join the Union, even as she subsequently did. Clearly
Carmella and her union friends were persona non grata to the Respondent
because of their known union activity.
The Respondent's excuse for discharging these two employees was that it was
"common knowledge" that they could not work the daylight shift so, when the
night shift was eliminated, they were ipso facto eliminated. Both employees
preferred working the evening shift but, despite this "common knowledge," they
were both working the daylight shift for the Respondent at the time of the
hearing and had been doing so since January 28-29, 1952. Of all the evening
shift employees, Emma and Stella were the only two not requested by the
Respondent to transfer to the day shift. The other evening employees accepted
the opportunity to work during the day, an opportunity not afforded to either
Emma or Stella. The undersigned is convinced and, therefore, finds that Emma
Voytenkoff and Stella Sopata were discharged in order to discourage union
activity among the employees and because of their union membership in viola-
tion of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act"
Ruth White, recalled to work on May 8, 1951, was discharged by a telephone
call at 6: 15 p. m. on May 10 by Jenny who told her not to report "until further
notice." According to Jenny, she had been instructed prior to 4:45 p. m. that
day to inform White of her discharge as she left the plant at the end of her
day shift. Despite these specific instructions, according to Jenny's testimony,
to do this in a face-to-face conversation, Jenny testified that she saw White
leaving the plant but "did not have the heart" to tell her the bad news face
to face and therefore telephoned her at 6: 15 p. m. Jim Nelson also testified
that the same afternoon White had asked if she could be transferred to the
evening shift on which she had formerly worked and that this request had so
','On July 10 and 11 , 1951, the Respondent telephoned Emma and Stella requesting
them to return to work on the day shift the following morning. Emma accepted but
later that day found it impossible to make the necessary arrangements on such short
notice and thereupon requested permission to report the following Monday which was
later refused on the grounds that the places had already been filled . Stella asked and
received permission to report when her daughter returned a few days later from her
vacation. Also on July 11 the Respondent wrote letters confirming these telephone calls
with copies to the Bureau of Unemployment Compensation . The Respondent 's covering
letter to the Bureau contains the following paragraph : "This confirms our conversation
of today , and we trust you will give this matter your prompt attention to guard against
further unemployment compensation payments." ( Emphasis added.) Fred Nelson 's testa.
mony at the hearing confirmed this purpose of the purported offers of reinstatement.
Accordingly, the undersigned finds that the above were not bona fide offers of reinstatement
but were solely for the purpose of attempting ( unsuccessfully as it later developed) to
deprive these employees of their unemployment compensation.
NELSON INDUSTRIES 797
"disgusted" him that he determined to discharge her that same day and so in-
formed Jenny with specific instructions to tell White face to face . This testimony
just does not ring true. In the first place if Jenny had been given such specific
instructions , she would have carried them out . Nor was White's request for
the evening work such an unreasonable one as to "disgust" Jim Nelson so as
to force him to decide to discharge her without even checking to see what type
of work she had been doing especially as she was admittedly a good operator
on the type of work she had been recalled to do.
The fact of the situation was that, when White left the plant that evening
of May 10, the Respondent had not determined to discharge her and did not so
determine until it saw that White was met outside the plant by Carmella where
they conversed for several minutes. An hour and one-quarter later Jenny
telephoned to White and told her not to report until further notice. Thus it
appears that White was another victim of Jim Nelson 's threat that anyone seen
talking to Carmella would be discharged.
Under all of the facts the undersigned believes and, therefore , finds that the Re-
spondent discharged White because it feared that she had joined the Union and
in order to discourage union activity among its employees in violation of Section
8 (a) (3) of the Act.
The Respondent also appeared to contend that it knew nothing about union
activity in the plant until Wednesday at 1 p. m. when the blank union-application
card was found in the time rack . Assuming this to be true, it provides the
Respondent with no defense for the simple reason that none of the discriminatory
actions complained of here occurred until after the discovery of the Union and
the Respondent 's subsequent investigation thereof.
b. The Committee
It is undisputed that the Committee was formed , instigated , and dominated
by the Respondent as well as financially supported by it, and the members thereof
appointed by the Respondent and paid by the Respondent for attending the
meetings of the Committee . Obviously the Respondent 's actions in regard to the
Committee violated Section 8 (a) (2) of the Act and it is so found.
The Respondent denied that the Committee was a labor organization but the
facts showed that it processed employee grievances, including those pertaining
to working conditions and wages, so that it qualified as a labor organization
under the definition of that term as contained in Section 2 (5) of the Act.
In its efforts to discourage membership in the Union the Respondent immedi-
ately responded by unilaterally raising wages for those employees whom it
retained in its employ , despite the fact that , according to the Respondent's testi-
mony, less than a month previous thereto Fred Nelson had denied a request made
on behalf of the evening shift by Carmella Mikluscak for a raise on the ground
that "it was not in the wood ," i. e, impossible under the circumstances. This
was prior to the advent of the organizational drive. But on May 14 , 1951, the
Monday following the promulgation of the Committee , the Respondent unilater-
ally announced a wage increase to the girls through the Committee . Clearly
this request was granted and the increase given to the girls in order to discourage
union activity and to enhance the chances of the Committee.
Since then every request made by the Committee has been granted by the Re-
spondent-including the request of the male employees to have a representative
on the Committee , which was permitted by the Respondent without even con-
798 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
suiting the Committee. Thereafter a 4-cent per hour across-the-board raise
was either granted by the Respondent or is in the process thereof . These wage
increases obviously assisted the Committee as well as discouraged the employees
from continuing their union activities.
The undersigned accordingly finds that by the actions aforerelated the
Respondent has dominated and interfered with the formation and administration
of the Committee and contributed financial and other support to it in violation
of Section 8 (a) (2) of the Act.
C. Interference, restraint , and coercion
As noted throughout this report the Respondent has interrogated employees
regarding their union affiliations, membership, or sympathy with the Union ;
has threatened to close the plant if the employees affiliated with the Union ;
has threatened the employees with immediate discharge if they were even seen
talking to the leader in the Union's organizational drive ; has initiated the for-
mation of, and dealt with, the Committee, an organization it designed to combat
the Union and to discourage membership and activity among the Respondent's
employees in the Union ; has granted substantial pay increases to employees
during the union organizational drive in order to discourage its employees from
that drive, and has threatened to close down the plant if the Union came in.
All these efforts by the Respondent were coordinated for the purpose of inter-
fering with, restraining, and coercing its employees to refrain from the exercise
of the rights guaranteed to the employees of 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 of the Respondent described in section I, above,
have a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce
among the several States and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and
obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
It having been found that the Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor
practices , it will be recommended that'it cease and desist therefrom and that it
take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
It has been found that the Respondent on various dates discriminated in
regard to their hire or tenure of employment of Carmella Mikluscak, Emma
Voytenkoff , Stella Sopata , and Ruth White by discriminatorily discharging or
laying off each of them in order to discourage membership in the Union. They
undersigned will , therefore, recommend that, as the Respondent already rein-
stated or reemployed each of the above -named employees except Carmella
Mikluscak and Ruth White , Respondent immediately reinstate Carmella Miklus-
cak and Ruth White to their former or substantially equivalent positions without
any loss of seniority or other rights and privileges and that it make each of
the aforementioned employees whole for any loss of pay which she may have
suffered by reason of the Respondent's discrimination against her by payment to
each of them of a sum of money equal to the amount she normally would have
NELSON INDUSTRIES 799
earned as wages from the date of the discrimination to the date of her reinstate-
ment ( which in the case of Emma Voytenkoff and Stella Sopata was January
28-29 , 1952 ), less her net earnings during said period to be computed in tb^.'
manner set forth in F. W. Woolworth Company , 90 NLRB 289. It is also recom-
mended that the Respondent be ordered to make available to the Board, upon
request, payroll and other records to facilitate the checking of the back pay due.
As the undersigned has also found that the Respondent dominated and inter-
fered with the formation and administration of the labor organization known
as the Conumttef-, the undersigned will recommend that the Respondent immedi-
ately and publicly disestablish this labor organization as a representative of its
employees or any of them.
Upon a consideration of the record as a whole the undersigned is convinced
that the Respondent's conduct in employing the many techniques it did in order
to try to prevent the unionization of its employees indicates an attitude of
opposition to the purposes of the Act generally. In order, therefore, to make
effective the interdependent guarantees of Section 7 of the Act, thereby min-
imizing industrial strife which burdens and obstructs commerce, and thus effectu-
ate the policies of the Act, it will be recommended that the Respondent cease
and desist from in any manner infringing upon the rights guaranteed the
employees in Section 7 of the Act.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record, the
undersigned makes the following :
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. United Steel Workers of America, C. I. 0., and the Committee are labor
organizations within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
2. By discriminating in the hire and tenure of employment of Carmella Miklus-
cak, Emma Voytenkoff, Stella Sopata, and Ruth White by discharging or laying
off each of them thereby discouraging membership in United Steel Workers of
America, C. I. 0., the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair
labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
3. By dominating and interfering with the formation and administration of
and giving financial and other assistance to the Committee, the Respondent ha,4
engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of
Section 8 (a) (2) of the Act.
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 (a) (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.
[Recommendations omitted from publication in this volume.]