Skinner and Kennedy Stationery Company

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 22, 1939

13 N.L.R.B. 1186 (N.L.R.B. 1939)

In the Matter of SKINNER AND KENNEDY STATIONERY COMPANY Cad
ST. Louis PRINTING PRESSMEN'S UNION No. 6, INC., ST. Louis
TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION No. 8, BOOKBINDERS' UNION No. 18, FRANK-
LIN AssocIATION No. 43, AND BINDERY WOMEN'S UNION, No. 55, ALL
MEMBERS OF THE ALLIED PRINTING TRADES COUNCIL
Case No. C-784.-Decided July 22',1939
Prcnting , Lithographing , and Binding IndustryInterference, Restraint, and
Coercion-Discrimination : discharges , for union affiliations and activity;
charges of , not sustained as to two employees-Reinstatement Ordered: dis-
charged employee-Back Pay: awarded discharged employees-Company-Dom-
inated Union: domination of and interference with formation and administra-,
tion; support, activity of supervisory employees ; ordered disestablished as
agency for collective bargaining.
Mr. Bernard BraZove, for the Board.
Mr. F. M. Curlee, Mr. R. F. Moll, and Mr. A. ^4. Stockard, of St.
Louis, Mo., for the respondent.
Mr. Charles V. Ernest, of Washington, D. C., for the Unions.
Mr. John K. Odisho, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon charges and amended charges duly filed by St. Louis
Printing Pressmen's Union No. 6 Inc., St. Louis Typographical
Union No. 8, Bookbinders' Union No. 18, Franklin Association
No. 43, and Bindery Women's Union, No. 55, herein collec-
tively called the Unions, all members of the Allied Printing
Trades Council, herein called the Council, the National Labor Rela-
tions Board, herein called the Board, by the Regional Director for
the Fourteenth Region (St. Louis, Missouri), issued its complaint
dated May 27, 1938, against Skinner and Kennedy Stationery Com-
pany, St. Louis, Missouri, herein called the respondent, alleging
that the respondent had engaged in and was engaging in unfair
labor practices affecting commerce, withinAhe meaning of Section
8 (1), (2), and (3) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor
Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein called the Act.
13 N. L. R. B., No. 112.
1186
SKINNER AND KENNEDY STATIONERY COMPANY 1187
The complaint and accompanying notice of hearing were duly
served upon the respondent and the Unions. With respect to the
unfair labor practices, the complaint alleges in substance, that the
respondent (1) formed, dominated, and interfered with the forma-
tion and administration of a labor organization of its employees
known as Grasshopper Welfare Association, herein called the Asso-
ciation, and contributed financial and other support to it; (2) dis-
couraged membership in the Unions by discharging and refusing to
reinstate Joel Blanchard, Joseph Hillgaertner, Mathias W. Eckert,
Albert Rothmeyer, Ted L. Prott, and Frank Severs, employees, be-
cause they, and each of them, assisted the Unions and engaged in
concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining and other
mutual aid and protection; and (3) by the foregoing acts, by urging,
advising, and warning its employees to refrain from joining the
Unions, making speeches to its employees to discourage membership
in the Unions, promising its employees steady work if they refrained
from joining the Unions, and in other ways, interfered with, re-
strained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guar-
anteed in Section 7 of the Act. The respondent filed an answer to
the complaint contesting the Board's jurisdiction of the subject
matter and denying the alleged unfair labor practices.
Pursuant to the notice, a hearing was held in St. Louis, Missouri,
on June 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10, 1938, before Harlow Hurley, the Trial
Examiner duly designated by the Board. The Board and the re-
spondent were represented by counsel and participated in the hear-
ing. Full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine
witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing upon the issues was
afforded all parties. Upon motion of the Board's attorney, the Trial
Examiner dismissed the complaint as to Joel Blanchard and Frank
Severs. The ruling is hereby affirmed. The Trial Examiner granted
a motion by the respondent's counsel to dismiss the complaint as
to Joseph Hillgaertner but denied motions by the respondent's coun-
sel to dismiss the complaint as to Albert Rothmeyer and Ted L.
Prott. For reasons set forth below, these rulings are hereby re-
versed. During the course of the hearing, the Trial Examiner made
several other rulings on motions and on objections to the admission
of evidence. The Board has reviewed such rulings and finds that no
prejudicial errors were committed. With the exception noted, the
rulings are hereby affirmed.
On July 13, 1938, the Trial Examiner filed his Intermediate Re-
port a copy of which was duly served upon all parties, finding that
the respondent had engaged in unfair labor practices affecting com-
merce, within the meaning of Section 8 (1), (2), and (3) and Section
1188 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
2 (6) and (7) of the Act, and recommending that the respondent
cease and desist therefrom, and affirmatively, withdraw recognition
from and disestablish the Association as a bargaining representative
of its employees, and reinstate Mathias W. Eckert, Albert Rothmeyer,
and Ted Prott with back pay. Exceptions to the Intermediate Re-
port and the various rulings and recommendations of the Trial Ex-
aminer were thereafter filed by the respondent and by St. Louis
Printing Pressmen's Union No. 6, Inc. On March 29, 1939, the re-
spondent filed a motion for leave to amend its answer.
Pursuant to notice duly served upon all parties, a hearing was held
before the Board in Washington, D. C., on March 30, 1939, for the
purpose of oral argument. The respondent and the Unions were
represented by counsel and participated in the argument. Because
of a change in the membership of the Board, the Board, on June 17,
1939, pursuant to Article II, Section 38 (d), of National Labor Rela-
tions Board Rules and Regulations-Series 1, as amended, notified
the respondent and the Unions of the opportunity of requesting fur-
ther oral argument. The parties failed to avail themselves of this
privilege.
At the oral argument the respondent requested the Board to rule
on its motion for leave to amend its answer. In substance, the pro-
posed amendment alleges that Rothmeyer and Prott, employees
named in the complaint as having been discriminatorily discharged
and refused reinstatement, were temporarily reemployed by the re-
spondent subsequent to the hearing. The motion is hereby denied.
The Board has considered the exceptions of the respondent and,
except to the extent that they are consistent with the findings,
conclusions, and order set forth below, finds them to be without
merit. The exceptions of St. Louis Printing Pressmen's Union No..
6, Inc., relate solely to the dismissal of the complaint as to Joseph
Hillgaertner. The exceptions are sustained and the dismissal, as
above stated, is overruled.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
The respondent, a Missouri corporation, with its principal place.
of business in St. Louis, Missouri, is engaged in general commercial
printing, lithographing, and binding, and also in the purchase and
sale of stationery, office supplies, and furniture. The value of ma-
terials purchased by the respondent in 1937 aggregated $373,924.
Sixty-one per cent of such materials came from points outside Mis-
souri. During the same period, respondent's sales aggregated $689,-
SKINNER AND KENNEDY STATIONERY COMPANY 1189
424.70. Forty-three per cent of the products sold were shipped to
points outside Missouri.
The respondent employs approximately 120 persons.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
St. Louis Printing Pressmen's Union No. 6 Inc., St. Louis Typo-
graphical Union No. 8, Bookbinders' Union No. 18, Franklin As-
sociation No. 43, and Bindery Women's Union, No. 55, are labor
organizations affiliated with the St. Louis Allied Printing Trades
Council, a labor organization, and, through it, with the American
Federation of Labor. They admit to membership employees in the
printing trades in St. Louis.
Grasshopper Welfare Association is an unaffiliated labor organi-
zation admitting to its membership employees of the respondent.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Domination of and interference with the formation and adminis-
tration of Grasshopper Welfare Association
In April 1937, an organizing committee, consisting of one repre-
sentative from each of the five Unions involved in this proceeding,
began a drive to organize the non-union printing shops in St. Louis,
Missouri. In the latter part of May, this committee distributed
among the respondent's employees "authorization for representation"
cards and circulars announcing an organization meeting scheduled
for and held on June 9. Between 25 and 40 of the respondent's em-
ployees including several foremen attended this meeting.
The day after the meeting, C. C. Crossman, the respondent's vice
president in charge of production, stated to Mathias W. Eckert, a
foreman : "We can't wait any longer. We have got to do something
now. We have got to do something to counteract this thing." Later
in the day, the respondent's foremen met for the purpose of organiz-
ing an "inside" union. Shortly thereafter, during working hours,
Eckert distributed among the respondent's employees ballots printed
in the plant. The ballots propounded the question whether or not
the employees desired an "inside" union. Eckert collected the ballots
after they had been marked. At a meeting of the respondent's em-
ployees held in the bindery room a few days later the ballots were
counted, revealing that 54 employees had voted for, and 18 against
an "inside" union. Immediately, thereupon, the Association was or-
ganized, officers were elected, and a committee was appointed to draft
bylaws. After the meeting, Crossman showed Ted L. Prott, a mem-
ber of the bylaws committee, bylaw forms suitable for use by a
187080-39-vel l 3-- 7 6 1
1190 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
labor organization. With the respondent's consent, the Association's
committee prepared a draft of bylaws in the respondent's office with
the aid of a stenographer, using the respondent's equipment. The
draft bylaws came to Crossman's attention. He recommended that
changes be made in order to "make them stand up." After the As-
sociation, at a meeting held on June 24, adopted its bylaws, the re-
spondent had them printed at its own expense.
Thereafter, Warren Skinner, the respondent's president, told Prott
.. The next thing you want to do is to ask the Company for
recognition of your union." In response to Skinner's suggestion, the
Association, by letter dated June 29, requested the respondent to
recognize it as the sole bargaining agency for all the production
employees. By letter dated July 2, the respondent replied request-
ing the Association to furnish some evidence that it represented the
majority of the employees. By letter dated July 5, the Association
submitted to the respondent a list of its members with the sug-
gestion that the respondent check the list with its pay roll. The
Association also offered to make available its membership cards for
the respondent's inspection. On July 13, the respondent wrote the
Association stating that it had checked the facts presented by the
Association, and that it "cheerfully" recognized the Association as
the sole bargaining agency of all its production employees. The re-
spondent did not, however, inspect the Association's membership
cards. The Association has never entered into collective bargaining
negotiations with the respondent.
Henry A. Beyer who was foreman of the respondent's composing
room until August 25, 1937, and thereafter became superintendent of
the plant, was particularly helpful to the Association. A dues-paying
member, he belonged also to its membership and arrangements com-
mittees. As a member of the latter committee, Beyer secured a $40
contribution from the respondent toward expenses of a picnic spon-
sored by the Association. In December 1937, the Association experi-
enced difficulties in securing attendance at its meetings. Beyer, then
superintendent, instructed the foreman to notify the employees to
attend such meetings.
That the respondent sponsored the Association, interfered with its
formation and administration, and rendered support to it is manifest.
The initial impetus appears to have been given by Crossman, the,
respondent's vice president, immediately following the first meeting
of the "outside" unions. The respondent's foremen hastened to adopt
Crossman's suggestion to Eckert to "do something to counteract" the
Unions' efforts. The circulation in the plant during working hours
of a ballot printed in the plant and offering the employees the alterna-
tive of an "inside" union or none strongly suggests that the respond-
ent permitted the taking of this poll for the purpose of "counteract-
SKINNER AND KENNEDY STATIONERY COMPANY 1191
ing" those efforts. Grossman interfered further with the organization
of the employees by meddling in the formulation of its bylaws. The
respondent's president went so far as to solicit a demand for recogni-
tion. The respondent granted the demand which followed without
investigating the authenticity of the Association's membership cards.
And when, later, the employees appeared to lose interest in the
organization which had been foisted upon them, the respondent's
superintendent ordered them to attend Association meetings.
We find that the respondent dominated and interfered with the
formation and administration of the Association, and contributed
support to it, thereby interfering with, restraining, and coercing its
employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of
the Act.
B. Discriminatory discharges and refusals to, reinstate
Joseph Hillgaertner started to work for the respondent in Septem-
ber 1935 as a job pressman's helper. He testified that on June 8,
1937, the day preceding the meeting of the Unions, Roland Emery,
his foreman, in discussing the proposed meeting, expressed his opin-
ion that unionization would not succeed at the respondent's plant,
inasmuch as it would increase the price of calendars 50 per cent, and
would cause the respondent to lose its calendar business, and the
employees their jobs. Hillgaertner attended the June 9 meeting. He
testified that because Emery, who was also present, motioned to him
to refrain from signing an authorization card, he did not then sign
one. He further testified that a week or two later he did sign a card
authorizing the Unions to represent him, that Emery questioned him
about it, and that he admitted having done so. Emery did not
testify, and Hillgaertner's testimony as to Emery's conduct is not
contradicted.
The Unions held several meetings of the respondent's employees
between June 9 and August 24, 1937. Hillgaertner attended all the
meetings and solicited other employees to sign authorization cards.
On August 27, 1937, according to Hillgaertner, Emery told him he
was laid off but would be recalled when work picked up.
Beyer, however, testified that he ordered Hillgaertner to be dis-
charged for inefficiency, stating that he had received a number of
complaints from pressmen regarding Hillgaertner's work. Fieweger,
a pressman for whom Hillgaertner had worked, corroborated Beyer,
testifying that Hillgaertner had been undependable and unwilling,
and that he had complained of Hillgaertner to Emery and Beyer.
Beyer admitted that he had not communicated the complaints re-
ceived by him to Hillgaertner, and Hillgaertner testified that he had
received no complaints on his work. Moreover, Fieweger, the only
1192 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
witness who testified directly concerning Hillgaertner's inefficiency,
did not work with Hillgaertner during the last 3 months of the latter's
employment. We do not believe that Hillgaertner was discharged
for inefficiency occurring 3 months earlier. Although Beyer testified
that other pressmen, too, had complained of Hillgaertner, the respond-
ent failed to call them to testify. The respondent failed, also, to call
Emery to clarify the conflict between Beyer's explanation for Hill-
gaertner's discharge and the statement attributed to Emery by Hill-
gaertner, or to answer Hillgaertner's testimony regarding Emery's
anti-union statement, his effort to restrain Hillgaertner from signing
an authorization card at the June 9 meeting, and finally, his curiosity
as to Hillgaertner's affiliation. Nor did the respondent explain its
failure to call Emery. We believe that Emery's actions were inspired
by the respondent's encouragement of the Association and hostility
toward the Unions and are directly attributable to the respondent.
That the discharge occurred within 2 days after Beyer had become
superintendent, suggests, in view of Beyer's active support of the
Association,2 that it constituted an expression of Beyer's hostility
toward the activities of Hillgaertner on behalf of the Unions. Under
the circumstances, we believe that the respondent discharged and re-
fused to reinstate Hillgaertner not because he was inefficient, but
because of his affiliation with and activities on behalf of the Unions.
At the time of the hearing, Hillgaertner had secured employment at
$20.00 per week and did not desire reinstatement with the respondent
at his former salary of $13.20 per week.
Mathias TV. Eckert worked for the respondent for approximately
10 years as foreman of the cylinder press room. Shortly after the
distribution of the circulars announcing the June 9 meeting, Cross-
man, respondent's vice president in charge of production, asked Eckert
if he was doing anything to discourage the men from attending the
meeting. Eckert replied in the negative, stating that he intended to
go himself, which he did.
Thereafter, Eckert cooperated with the other foremen in the organ-
ization of the Association. After the election of officers, however,
Eckert severed all connections with the Association and its activities.
Sometime later Crossman asked him why he did not attend its meet-
ings, to which Eckert replied that he had been busy.
On July 12, Eckert signed a card authorizing the Unions to repre-
sent him. Shortly thereafter, Crossman called him to his office and
asked him what he knew about the employees signing such cards.
I The respondent states in its exceptions that Emery was not a foreman on June 9,
and cites in suppoit of this statement Beyer's testimony that the job press room was under
his jurisdiction as foreman of the composing room On the basis of other evidence in the
record, we find, however, that Emery was the foreman of the job press room at that time.
2 Described in Section A above
SKINNER AND KENNEDY STATIONERY COMPANY 1193
Eckert replied that he did not know about others but that he had
signed one himself. Crossman stated then that although he could not
stop him and others from joining the Unions, the respondent was not
going to "run a union shop." Eckert testified that Crossman then
proceeded to talk to him "about joining the union and staying out of
the union," and that he attempted to point out to him that he was
"getting older" and that he ought to "take care" of himself. Although
Crossman testified at the hearing, he failed to contradict this testimony
by Eckert.
Beyer, with Crossman's approval, discharged Eckert on August
27, 1937. At the hearing, Crossman stated that Eckert's failure to
"grasp the calendar business" 3 caused an -unnecessary expense in the
cylinder press room as an assistant had to be employed to direct the
calendar work for him. He stated that Eckert was an efficient
employee and that he was satisfied with his work with respect to
commercial printing, but that his "attitude" was wrong as regards
calendars. He explained this by stating that he had received reports
that Eckert had remarked, "Oh, it's nothing but a calendar." Cross-
man was then asked if he could relate specific instances of unsatisfac-
tory work by Eckert with respect to calendar printing. He replied
that. the respondent had experienced considerable spoilage in calen-
dars for several months, but then admitted that Eckert had succeeded
in eliminating the spoilage and had really "got the place running all
right," and that he, Crossman, was satisfied with it.
Eckert incurred the enmity of Crossman at the start of the Union's
campaign to organize the respondent's employees. As has been indi-
cated, Crossman repeatedly questioned Eckert regarding the Union
and sought to discourage Eckert's activities on their behalf. We
believe that Eckert's discharge, occurring, as did Hillgaertner's, im-
mediately after Beyer assumed the post of superintendent, reflects an
intention on the part of the respondent to discourage its employees
from aligning themselves with the Unions. ,
We find that the respondent discharged and refused to reinstate
Eckert because of his affiliation with and activities in behalf of the
Unions.
Although Eckert had secured other employment at the time of the
hearing, lie desires reinstatement to his former position.
At the oral argument before the Board, respondent's counsel con-
tended that because of Eckert's position as foreman, he could not be
considered an employee within the meaning of Section 2 (3) of the
Act. The contention is without merit.
Albert W. Rothuneyer started to work for the respondent as a
compositor in September 1931. He was laid off in December 1932
3 Respondent began calendar printing in the fall of 1935
1194 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
and recalled in January 1934. He testified without contradiction
that on the day before the Unions' June 9 meeting, Beyer, foreman
of the composing room at that time, asked him to go to the meeting
and observe what occurred. Rothmeyer attended the meeting and
signed an authorization card. The day after the meeting he saw
Beyer and Fisher, an employee who later became foreman of the
composing room, talking together. Later Fisher told Rothmeyer
that the latter was "on the spot" because Beyer had heard that he
had made a speech at the meeting in favor of joining the Unions.
Rothmeyer thereupon sought out Beyer. We find that a conversa-
tion ensued substantially as follows : Beyer asked Rothmeyer if he
had signed a card. The latter replied in the affirmative. Beyer then
stated, among other things, that if Rothmeyer would "string along"
with the respondent it would "play ball" with him. Rothmeyer
replied that in that case he would have nothing more to do with the
Unions, and Beyer concluded the conversation by saying, "Okay,
just consider the incident closed."
After this conversation with Beyer, Rothmeyer attended one more
meeting of the Unions in the latter part of June and thereafter gave
up his outside union activities. He joined the Association and be-
came a member of its bylaws and arrangements committees.
On January 3, 1938, Rothmeyer was laid off, allegedly for lack of
calendar work. Beyer testified that shortly after he became foreman
of the composing room in May 1937, he reorganized it, and in so
doing, assigned Rothmeyer to calendar printing exclusively as his
calendar record was superior to that of the other compositors. He
stated that as a result of this change, Rothmeyer worked steady from
that time to the end of the calendar season whereas the other com-
positors engaged in commercial printing were frequently laid off.
Beyer further testified that he told Rothmeyer that he would recall
him as soon as there was work for him. On February 1, 1938, Beyer
gave Rothmeyer a written recommendation, in which he stated,
among other things : "We regard Mr. Rothmeyer as a highly efficient
workman and are sorry conditions forced us to dispense with his
services."
As a result of his June 10 agreement with Beyer, Rothmeyer, by
his own admission, gave up his outside union activities and became
an active member of the Association. Under the circumstances, we
do not believe that Rothmeyer's union activities, occurring approxi-
mately 6 months before, were responsible for his lay-off on January
3, 1938. Accordingly, we find that Rothmeyer was not discrimina-
torily discharged.
Ted L. Prott went to work for the respondent in September 1928
as a pressfeeder. He testified that he attended the June 9 meeting
SKINNER AND KENNEDY STATIONERY COMPANY 1195
and all subsequent meetings of the Unions 4 with one exception, that
he signed a card authorizing the Unions to represent him, and that
he solicited other employees in the plant to attend meetings and to
sign cards. He further testified that while engaged in the aforesaid
activities in behalf of the Unions, he also actively participated in the
affairs of the Association as its secretary- treasurer and as a member
of its bylaws and grievance committees.
Prott was laid off on February 15, 1938. His employment record
with the respondent indicates that up to the time of his alleged dis-
charge, he was laid off a total of 32 times for periods ranging from
6 days to 91/2 months. Beyer testified that Prott had been engaged in
calendar printing exclusively, that the lack of calendar work necessi-
tated his lay-off, that no new employee has been hired to do the work
formerly done by Prott, and, finally, that he told Prott he would
recall him as soon as work was available. The record reveals that a
new pressman was hired in the cylinder press room approximately
2 months after Prott's lay-off. The respondent insists that Prott is
a pressfeeder and does not have the qualifications of a pressman, and
argues that the employment of a new pressman is therefore without
materiality to the contention that it discriminated against Prott.
Prott, on the other hand, tesified that he had performed the duties of
a pressman for the respondent on several occasions , and that at the
time of his lay-off, he was the oldest man in point of seniority in the
cylinder press room where he worked.
Although the case is not free from doubt, we think that Prott was
laid off on February 15, 1938, for lack of work and not because of his
outside union activities which occurred during the summer of 1937.
Accordingly, we find that Prott was not discriminatorily discharged.
We find that by discharging and refusing to reinstate Hillgaertner
and Eckert, respondent discriminated with respect to their hire and
tenure of employment, thereby discouraging membership in the
Unions, and interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees
in the exercise of their rights guaranteed in Section 7 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 de-
scribed 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.
i The Unions held their last meeting on August 24, 1937, at which time they also ceased
their organizational activities among the respondent 's employees.
1196 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that the respondent has engaged in unfair labor
practices , we will order it to cease and desist therefrom and to take
certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
We have found that the respondent has dominated and interfered
with the formation and administration of the Association and has
contributed support to it. In order to effectuate the policies of the
Act and free the employees of the respondent from such domination
and interference, and the effects thereof, which constitute a continu-
ing obstacle to the exercise by the employees of the rights guaranteed
them by the Act, we shall order the respondent to refrain from any
recognition of the Association as representative of any of the respond-
ent's employees for the purpose of dealing with the respondent con-
cerning grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of
employment, and conditions of work, and to disestablish it as such
representative.
We have found that the respondent discriminatorily discharged
and refused to reinstate Hillgaertner and Eckert.
We shall order the respondent to offer Eckert immediate and full
reinstatement to his former position without prejudice to his seniority
and other rights and privileges, and further, to make him whole
for any loss of pay he has suffered by reason of the respondent's
discrimination against him by payment to him of a sum of money
equal to that which he normally would have earned as wages from
the date of the discrimination to the date of the respondent's offer
of reinstatement, less his net earnings 5 during said period.
Hillgaertner testified that he was employed at $20 per week and
would not accept reinstatement at his former salary of $13.20 per
week. He is entitled to back pay, however, up to the time he secured
his new employment. Accordingly, we shall order the respondent
to make him whole for any loss of pay he has suffered by reason of
his discharge by payment to him of a sum of money equal to that
which he normally would have earned as wages from the date of his
discharge to the date on which he obtained the employment in which
B By "net earnings " is meant earnings less expenses , such as for transportation, room,
and board , incurred by an employee in connection with obtaining work and working else-
where than for the respondent , which would not have been incurred but for his unlawful
discharge and the consequent necessity of his seeking employment elsewhere See Matter
of Crossett Lumber Company and United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of
Ameaca, Lumber and Sawmill Workers Union, Local 2590, 8 N L. R B 440 Monies
received for work performed upon Federal , State , county , municipal , or other work-relief
projects are not considered as earnings , but, as provided below in the Order , shall be
deducted from the sum due the employee, and the amount thereof shall be paid over to
the appropriate fiscal agency of the Federal, State , county, municipal , or other govern-
ment or governments which supplied the funds for said work -relief projects.
SKINNER AND KENNEDY STATIONERY COMPANY 1197
he was engaged at the time of the hearing, less his net earnings dur-
ing said period.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire
record in the case, the Board makes the following :
CONCLUSIONS of LAW
1. St. Louis Printing Pressmen's Union No. 6 Inc., St. Louis
Typographical Union No. 8, Bookbinders' Union No. 18, Franklin
Association No. 43, Bindery Women's Union, No. 55, and Grasshopper
Welfare Association, are labor organizations within the meaning
of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
2. By dominating and interfering with the formation and admin-
istration of Grasshopper Welfare Association, and contributing sup-
port to it, the respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair
labor practices, within the meaning of Section 8 (2) of the Act.
3. By discriminating in regard to. the hire and tenure of employ-
ment of Joseph Hillgaertner and Mathias W. Eckert, and thereby
discouraging membership in St. Louis Printing Pressmen's Union
No. 6 Inc., St. Louis Typographical Union No. 18, Franklin Asso-
ciation No. 43, and Bindery Women's Union, No. 55, the respondent
has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices, within the
meaning of Section 8 (3) 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 (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.
6. The respondent has not discriminated in regard to the hire or
tenure of employment of Albert W. Rothmeyer and Ted L. Prott,
within the meaning of Section 8 (3) of the Act.
ORDER
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and conclusions of
law and pursuant to Section 10 (c) of the National Labor Relations
Act, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the re-
spondent, Skinner and Kennedy Stationery Company, and its offi-
cers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall :
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Dominating or interfering with the administration of Grass-
hopper Welfare Association, or the formation or administration of
any other labor organization of its employees, or contributing sup-
1198 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
port to Grasshopper Welfare Association, or to any other labor or-
ganization of its employees;
(b) Discouraging membership in St. Louis Printing Pressmen's
Union No. 6 Inc., St. Louis Typographical Union No. 8, Book-
binders' Union No. 18, Franklin Association No. 43, , and Bindery
Women's Union, No. 55, or any other labor organization of its em-
ployees, by discharging or refusing to reinstate any of its employees
or in any other manner discriminating in regard to their hire and
tenure of employment or any terms or conditions of employment;
(c) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing
its employees in the exercise of their rights to self-organization, to
form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively
through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in con-
certed activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mu-
tual aid or protection as guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Withdraw all recognition from Grasshopper Welfare Associa-
tion as representative of any of its employees for the purpose of deal-
ing with the respondent concerning grievances, labor disputes, wages,
rates of pay, hours of work, or other conditions of employment and
completely disestablish Grasshopper Welfare Association as such
representative;
(b) Offer to Mathias W. Eckert immediate and full reinstatement
to his former position, without prejudice to his seniority and other
rights and privileges;
(c) Make whole Mathias W. Eckert for any loss of pay he has
suffered by reason of the respondent's discrimination in regard to
his hire and tenure of employment by payment to him of a sum of
money equal to that which he would normally have earned as wages
during the period from the date of hiq discharge to the date of the
respondent's offer of reinstatement, less his net earnings during that
period; deducting however, from the amount otherwise due, monies
received by said employee during said period for work performed
upon Federal, State, county, municipal, or other work-relief projects;
and pay over the amount, so deducted, to the appropriate fiscal
agency of the Federal, State, county, municipal, or other govern-
ment or governments which supplied the funds for said work-relief
projects ;
(d) Make whole Joseph Hillgaertner for any loss of pay he has
suffered by reason of the respondent's discrimination in regard to
his hire and tenure of employment, by payment to him of a sum of
money equal to that which he would normally have earned as wages
during the period from the date of his discharge to the date upon
SKINNER AND KENNEDY STATIONERY COMPANY 1199
which he started in the employment in which he was engaged at the
time of the hearing of this proceeding, less his net earnings during
said period; deducting, however, from the amount otherwise due,
monies received by said employee during said period for work per-
formed upon Federal, State, county, municipal, or other work-relief
projects; and pay over the amount, so deducted, to the appropriate
fiscal agency of the Federal, State, county, municipal, or other gov-
ernment or governments which supplied the funds for said work-
relief projects;
(e) Post immediately in conspicuous places throughout its plant
notices stating (1) that the respondent will cease and desist as afore-
said, and (2) that it will take the affirmative action required in para-
graphs 2 (a), (b), (c), and (d) hereof;
(f) Maintain such posted notices for a period of at least sixty
(60) consecutive days from the date of the posting;
(g) Notify the Regional Director for the Fourteenth Region in
writing within ten (10) days from the date of this Order what steps
the respondent has taken to comply herewith.
AND IT is FURTHER ORDERED that the allegations of the complaint,
in so far as they allege that the respondent has discriminated in
regard to the hire and tenure of employment of Albert W. Roth-
meyer and Ted L. Prott, be, and the same hereby are, dismissed.
MR. WILLIAM M. LEIsERSON took no part in the consideration of the
above Decision and Order.