Taylor Trunk Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 17, 1938

6 N.L.R.B. 32 (N.L.R.B. 1938)

In the Matter of TAYLOR TRUNK COMPANY, and LITGGAGE WORKERS
UNION, LOCAL No. 50 OF THE INTERNATIONAL LADIES' HAND BAG,
POCKETBOOK AND NOVELTY WORKERS UNION
Case No. C-086.Decided March,17,1938
Trunk Industry-Unit Appropriate for Collective Bargaining: production
employees-Representatives: proof of choice: majority shown by membership
application cards-Collective Bargaining: refusal to negotiate with union rep-
resentative ; dilatory tactics ; attempt to destroy union's majority-Company-
Donaznzated Union: sponsorship, domination, and interference with the 'forma-
tion and administration of ; support of ; solicitation of membership during
working hours by the ^ company's vice president, paymaster, and other em-
ployees ; meetings on company property during working hours ; activities of
the president of the company on behalf of; disestablished as agency for col-
lective bargaining-Contract With Unron: assisted and fostered by unfair labor
practices, not representing free choice of employees, void ; respondent ordered
to cease and desist giving effect thereto-Strike-Interference, Restraint, or
Coeicion: refusal to bargain collectively : dominating and interfering with a
company-dominated labor organization for the purpose of defeating self-organi-
zation by employees ; anti-union statements ; coercing and intimidating em-
ployees to join favored labor organization ; discrimination in favor of members
of company-dominated union; discrediting union leaders: refusal to give back
pay due to employees until they agreed to meet with the respondent without
union representative-Discrimination: discharge of three employees for union
membership and activity sustained, charges of discriminatory discharge, reduc-
tion of hours, and refusal to transfer employee to other type of work during
curtailed production not sustained-Reinstatement: ordered three employees-
Back Pay: awarded three employees discriminatorily discharged.
Mr. Jack G. Evans, for the Board.
Mr. H. M. Keele, Mr. Holbert Crews, Mr. Robert Levin, and Mr.
R. J. Dunham, Jr., of Chicago, Ill., for the respondent.
Jacobs & Vihon, by Mr. Joseph M. Jacobs and Mr. H. U. Bernstein,
of Chicago, Ill., for Local No. 50.
Mr. Hyman A. Schulson, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon charges duly filed by Luggage Workers Union, Local No. 50
of the International Ladies' Hand Bag, Pocketbook and Novelty
Workers Union, herein called Local No. 50, the National Labor
32
-DECISIONS AND' ORDERS 33
Relations-Board, herein called.the Board, by Leonard C. Bajork, the
Regional Director for the Thirteenth- Region (Chicago, Illinois),
issued its complaint dated July 20, 1937, against Taylor Trunk Com-
pany, Chicago, Illinois, herein called the respondent, alleging that the
respondent had engaged in unfair labor practices affecting commerce,
within the meaning of Section 8 (1), (2), (3), and (5) and Section
2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449,
herein called the Act. The complaint, notice of hearing thereon, and
notices of postponement of hearing were duly served upon the
respondent, Local No. 50, and Taylor Trunk Shop Union, ' herein
called the Shop Union.
At the hearing the complaint was amended by changing the allega-
tions with respect to the business of the respondent in order to cor-
respond to proof, by including additional allegations of the discharge
of an employee, Jack Saltzman, of the lay-off of another employee,
Eva Hammond, and by minor,changes in the form of allegations.
On August 5 and 28, 1937, respectively, the respondent filed an
answer and an amended answer to the complaint and the amended
complaint, respectively, in which, in substance, it attacked the juris-
diction of the Board on the ground that it was not engaged in inter-
state commerce, and denied most of the allegations of the complaint
and the amended complaint, admitting, however, those of its incorpo-
ration and that its production employees constitute the appropriate
unit for purposes of collective bargaining.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held in Chicago, Illinois, on
August 9 to 24, 1937, inclusive, before Charles E. Persons, the Trial
Examiner duly designated by the Board. The Board, the respond-
ent, and Local No. 50 were represented by counsel and participated
in the hearing. Full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-
examine witnesses, and to produce evidence bearing upon the issues
was afforded all the parties. At the close of the hearing oral argu-
ments were presented by counsel for the Board, the respondent, and
Local No. 50.
At the close of the hearing counsel for the Board moved to conform
the pleadings to the proof adduced at the hearing. This motion was
granted by the Trial Examiner. Counsel for the Board also moved
to amend the date alleged for the respondent's refusal to bargain col-
lectively from May 14, 1937, to April 19, 1937. The Trial Examiner
denied this motion. At the opening and close of the hearing, and at
various times during the hearing, counsel for the respondent moved
to dismiss the complaint for lack of jurisdiction on the grounds stated
in the answer and amended answer. - The Trial Examiner reserved
decision on this motion but denied the motion in the Intermediate
Report. Counsel for the respondent moved to strike certain exhibits
pertaining to the trunk industry introduced into the record by
34 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
counsel for the Board. The Trial Examiner reserved decision on
the motion but granted it in the Intermediate Report.
During the course of the hearing the Trial Examiner made several
rulings on objections to the admission of evidence. The Board has
reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner and finds that no preju-
'dicial errors were committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed.
On November 10, 1937, the Trial Examiner filed an Intermediate
Report finding that the respondent had engaged in unfair labor prac-
tices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8 (1), (3),
(5) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act, but recommending that
so much of the complaint as relates to the discharge of 'Jack Saltz-
man, Eva Hammond, and Andrew Schultz be dismissed. Exceptions
to the Intermediate Report were thereafter filed by the respondent.
The Board has considered these exceptions and, save to the extent that
the findings below depart from those of the Trial Examiner, finds
that the exceptions are without merit.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
Taylor Trunk Company is a Delaware corporation maintaining its
office and principal place of business in Chicago, Illinois. The re-
spondent is engaged in the manufacture and sale of all types of
wooden cases covered with leather, textile material, steel, aluminum,
or metal, such as portable motion picture equipment cases, refriger-
ator cases and equipment, stenotype cases, sound equipment cases,
thermos bottle cases, ice cream vending machines, extension tray
cases , general instrument cases, silverware chests, radio cases, hot food
kits, leather tool kits and bags, leather and aluminum telephone cases,
trunks, sample cases, and leather and novelty goods of all types.
In its operations the respondent uses lumber, fabrics, leather, hard-
ware, steel, aluminum, paint, lacquers, glue, rubber, pushcart wheels,
handle bars, fibre, rivets, headlights, switches, coal, equipment, etc.
Raw materials of the value of $134,416, constituting about 48 per
cent of those purchased by the respondent during the first six months
of 1937, came from outside the State of Illinois. Of the respondent's
products sold during the period from July 1, 1936, to June 30, 1937,
about 22 per cent, valued at $50,573, were shipped to points outside
the State of Illinois. Of the intrastate deliveries totaling about
$175,000, about $100,000 worth consisted of portable motion picture
equipment cases sold to the Bell and Howell Company, Chicago, Illi-
nois. These cases were delivered on a standing order and were held
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 35
by the purchaser for about a month while it installed equipment in
the cases. Over 90 per cent of them were then sent outside the State
of Illinois to purchasers "all over the world." During the same
period the respondent sold and delivered sound equipment cases,
valued at $11,000, to the Webster Company in Chicago, Illinois,
which were in turn sold by the latter firm "all over the country."
Other items listed by the respondent as intrastate deliveries, such as,
ice cream vending cases, instrument cases, extension tray cases, hot
food kits, and leather and aluminum telephone equipment cases, were,
sold and delivered by the respondent to Chicago firms, which in turn
sold them "all over the country." Thus, while the respondent's origi-
nal division of the year's sales shows about 78 per cent to be intra-
state, the addition of the volume of these items subsequently sold out-
side the State of Illinois would make the interstate portion of the
total well over 75 per cent.
II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED .
Luggage Workers Union, Local No. 50 of the International Ladies"
Hand Bag, Pocketbook and Novelty Workers Union is a labor organi-
zation affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, admitting
to its membership all employees engaged in the production of all
kinds of luggage in Chicago, Illinois, excluding maintenance em-
ployees and supervisory employees who have the right to hire and
discharge other employees.
Taylor Trunk Shop Union is a labor organization admitting to its
membership all employees of the respondent, excluding supervisory
and clerical employees.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The refusal to bargain collectively
1. The appropriate unit
The amended complaint alleged that "all the production em-
ployees, excepting foremen, supervisory and clerical employees"
constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargain-
ing. The respondent in its answer admitted the above allegation.
We find that the production employees of the respondent, ex-
cluding supervisory and clerical employees, constitute a unit appro-
priate for the purposes of collective bargaining and that said unit
will insure to employees of the respondent the full benefit of their
right to self-organization and collective bargaining and otherwise
effectuate the policies of the Act.
36 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
2. Representation by Local No. 50 of a majority in the appropriate
unit
The records of the respondent introduced in evidence show that
the respondent employed 73 production employees on April 19, 1937,
the day of the strike. Max Strassburger, business agent of Local
No. 50, testified that 49 membership application cards of Local
No. 50 were signed by the respondent's employees on April 19 and
`20, 1937, that ten additional cards were signed between April 21
and 29, 1937, inclusive, and that two cards were undated. Fifty-
four Local No., 50 membership application cards with signatures
verifiable by comparison with other, exhibits in evidence were sub-
mitted in evidence.
At the hearing counsel for the parties stipulated that Local No. 50
represented a majority of all the employees of the respondent
between April 20 and May 26, 1937, inclusive.
We find that on April 20 the majority of the respondent's em-
ployees in the appropriate unit had designated Local No. 50 as
their bargaining representative. The respondent contends that by
May 26, 1937, many of its employees revoked the authority of
Local No. 50 to represent them and that by May 28 a majority of
the employees had authorized the Shop Union to act as their bargain-
ing representative. On May 28, 1937, the respondent had 97 pro-
duction employees in its employ. On that date Jack Wentzel, an
employee of the respondent and president of the Shop -Union, and
John Halper, the respondent's paymaster and timekeeper and secre-
tary and treasurer of the Shop Union, secured the signatures of 57
employees of the respondent to a petition designating the Shop
Union as their bargaining representative. The signatures to this
petition were procured on the respondent's premises during working
hours. On June 1, 1937, 14 of the 57 who had signed the Shop
Union's petition signed a loyalty pledge to Local No. 50. Twenty-
seven of the 57 were new employees hired for the first time after
April 19, during the strike period.
The record is clear, as will be shown in greater detail in Section
III-C, that the purported change of designation of bargaining,
representative to the Shop Union was the result of the unfair labor
practices of the respondent in organizing, fostering, dominating,
and supporting the Shop Union, and in persuading, intimidating,
and coercing its employees to join the Shop Union and to leave
Local No. 50, and was not an expression of free choice of the em-
ployees. The unfair labor practices of the respondent cannot operate
to change the bargaining representative previously selected by the
untrammelled will of the majority. We, therefore, give no weight
to such change, and hold that Local No. 50 remained the designated
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 37
representative of the majority. By virtue of Section, 9 (a) of the
Act, Local No. 50 was, and is, therefore, the exclusive representative
of all the employees in the appropriate unit for purposes of collective
-bargaining with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment,
and other conditions of employment.
3. The refusal to bargain with Local No. 50
In April 1937 Local No. 50 and other locals of the International
Ladies' Hand Bag, Pocketbook and Novelty Workers Union began
a vigorous membership campaign in Chicago, Illinois. Mass meet-
ings were held on April 12 and 19. The latter meeting was attended
by a substantial number of luggage, trunk, belt, and novelty workers
in Chicago, including a number of the respondent's employees, and
'was called for the special purpose of considering a general strike,
in the luggage, trunk, belt, and novelty industry in Chicago in order
to secure union recognition, higher wages, and better conditions of
employment.
At this time R. J. Dunham, Jr., president of the respondent, was
'in California. On about April 17 union leaflets were distributed
around the plant of the respondent. On the same day Frank Martin,
vice president of the respondent, telephoned Dunham in California
and -informed him 'of his expectation that a general strike would
be called on April 20. Dunham advised Martin to call the employees
together on Monday, April 19, and to tell them that if they proposed
to strike on April 20, they might leave at once rather than wait
until the following morning, and that they were free to join a union
if they wished. By doing this Dunham thought that he could avoid
considerable confusion and mass picketing. He testified that this
procedure had been successfully employed by him in 1934 to forestall
an impending strike and that he thought he would try it again.
Pursuant to Dunham's orders, Martin directed John Viola, the
plant superintendent, to call the meeting and transmit Dunham's
message. On April 19, at about 11: 30 a. in., Viola directed the
employees to punch the time clocks and called them to a meeting.
Viola testified that he told them that if they were going to strike the
following clay, "they could go right now; if not, to punch in and get
back to work." Other witnesses quoted him as saying either, "Those
who wish to join the Union may leave now" or, "Those who wish to
go on strike may do so now." Some employees interpreted this to
mean that they could return to work only if they gave up their right
to strike. The employees discussed the matter during their lunch
hour and a group 'of men decided to take a Vote.' About 25 voted to
strike; eight or`nine voted to remain at work. Of the 71 production'
employees, 34 struck on the afternoon of April '19, and 37 remained
at work. '
38 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Prior to the meeting none of the respondent 's employees had ap-
plied for membership in Local No. 50 . Immediately after the meet-
ing the strikers went to Local No. 50 headquarters , told the officials
of Local No . 50 what had happened at the plant , and signed applica-
tions for membership . At about 6: 30 p. in. on April 19, at a general
strike meeting , Local No. 50 voted to call a general strike in the
luggage industry on April 20 . Twenty employees reported for work
at the respondent 's plant the next day, and a number of the other
employees picketed.
On April 23 Samuel Laderman, manager of Local No . 50, sent the
respondent a letter announcing that its employees had authorized
Local No. 50 to represent them as their collective bargaining repre-
sentative and inviting the respondent to a conference on Saturday,
April 24, to consider terms and conditions of employment . Dunham,
who returned to Chicago on April 26, testified that he received the
letter and never answered it.
On April 27 , which was pay day for wages earned up to April 19,
Dunham posted a notice addressed "To All Employees" stating that
he considered the action of his employees in joining the strike unfair,
inasmuch as the respondent was not engaged in the luggage, industry.
He proposed a meeting to be attended by all the employees to discuss
the controversy and stated in conclusion , "For convenience sake we
will delay issuing pay checks until such time as this meeting is held."
The workers , after reading the notice , upon Laderman's advice, sent
a committee to Dunham to request their pay. Dunham testified,
"Each member of the committee begged me to give them their pay
checks; that they needed money, " whereupon he replied , "Well, that
is just too bad; you can 't have it. " They were told in effect, "no
meeting-no pay." When the committee brought back to the strikers
Dunham's reply , they refused to agree to the proposed meeting. The
employees were incensed and refused to meet with Dunham not only
because he had withheld their pay but also because he had refused to
answer the letter of their union representative . Dunham admitted
on cross-examination that he did not want to get in touch with
Laderman , the employees ' representative , until lie had "smoked out"
the workers.
Thereafter , the employees adjourned to the Local No. 50 headquar-
ters where they decided to engage Joseph M. Jacobs as their attorney
to collect their pay . On April 28 Jacobs visited Dunham and per-
suaded him to pay the employees and to agree to a conference with
Laderman and a committee of employees.
On April 30 Laderman , accompanied by a committee , called upon
Dunham. Laderman stated to Dunham that Local No. 50 had been
chosen as the employees ' exclusive bargaining representative and sub-
mitted a closed-shop contract , which Dunham refused to consider.
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 39
Laderman then proposed a 37-hour week and a 30-per cent pay in-
crease and discussed the classification of employees under two mini-
mum wage scales . Dunham refused to accept any of Laderman's
proposals , stating that its budget would not permit the respondent
to enter into such contracts . Dunham, however , offered no counter-
proposals and closed the conference by stating that he had received
a letter on April 29 from Louis J. Disser, Jr., an examiner of the
Regional Office of the Board, requesting him to call at the Board's
Regional Office to discuss charges, filed by Local No. 50. Dunham
stated that he would not confer further until he had learned what
the significance of'the charges might be.
On May 3 Dunham, accompanied by his attorney, called at the
Regional Office and discussed the charges with Ralph Lind, then
Acting Regional Director . The chief result of this conversation was
the arrangement of a conference between the respondent and repre-
sentatives of Local No. 50 at the Regional Office on May 7.
After Dunham was advised by his counsel that he was required by
the laws of Illinois to pay the wages due his employees , he posted a
notice on April 30 stating, "We are advised that under the Illinois
Statutes we should make payment on Tuesday, May 4th, of all wages
due for the period up to and including Friday, April 16th 1937.
Therefore, checks will be issued between the hours of 3: 30 and 4: 30
p. in. on Tuesday, May 4th, for the above mentioned period."
On May 4 Dunham posted another notice requesting the employees
to return to work on May 5 and offering a 10-per cent increase in pay,
"a profit sharing plan to divide 10 per cent of the annual net profits
among all employees, a 40 hour week, 5 days of 8 hours, no work on
Saturdays ," with an assurance of "ample police protection " in case
of interference. Police, handling the employees who were lined up
single file to get their pay, directed each one's attention to this notice.
Viola, before paying each employee, questioned him as to his opinion
concerning the notice.
Paul Kantowicz, an employee, told Viola that he "didn't think very
much of it," and stated, "I belong to the union now and we will let
our representative talk." Viola handed him 'his check saying, "You
are paid in full." Kantowicz testified that he construed the latter
statement to mean he was "out of a job."
This notice was effective and was naturally construed, as several
employees testified , as an invitation to return as individuals with-
out union recognition or collective bargaining . Dunham quite frankly
testified to his intention and motive in posting the notice :
Q. You wanted them to come back to work then without
further negotiations with the union?
A. If they would come. Horse trading in other words.
80618-38-tor. VI--4
40 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Q. And on May 4th then you were horse trading with the
union?
A. Sure.
Q. And in so doing you were refusing to recognize the majority
of your employees?
A. As it turned out, yes.
Dunham admitted that by posting the notice he intended to "smoke
out" his employees and play "both ends against the, middle,•listen-
ing to one end and talking to the other." He also admitted that
holding up the pay checks was a "move in his game." Of significance
is the fact that Dunham refused to make any proposals to the repre-
sentative of Local No. 50 on April 30 and later on May 7.
At a conference held at the Regional Office on May 7 the respondent
was represented by Dunham, Martin, and its attorney, and Local
No. 50 by Ladermaii and a committee of four employees. The dis-
cussion turned upon the question of classifying the production em-
ployees into two groups as proposed by Local No. 50, first-class
mechanics with a minimum wage of $29.50 and second-class mechanics
with a ininimuin wage of $22.50. Local No. 50 further proposed a
beginner's wage of $14.00 per week and a minimum wage of $15.00
for experienced workers. Laderman also deplored the sweat-shop
conditions, low pay, and long hours at the respondent's plant. Dun-
ham replied that it was impossible to classify his workers according
to the wage scale proposed by Local No. 50. It was decided that the
conference would adjourn until Dunham could discuss the wage levels
in the plant with his foremen and plant superintendents.
On May 14 the conference reassembled under the chairmanship of
Leonard C. Bajork, newly appointed Regional Director. At the
beginning of the conference Dunham declared that he would not
sign a written agreement under any circumstances. Bajork then
suggested that they proceed with the discussion, that he would take
notes, that afterwards he would write up a memorandum of what was
agreed to by the parties, and that he would furnish copies of the
memorandum to the parties and retain one at the Regional Office.
Upon that basis the conference proceeded. It was understood that the
memorandum to be prepared by Bajork would be. submitted to the
parties on May 18.
A considerable number of topics were discussed and at least tenta-
tively agreed upon. -At the hearing there was conflicting testimony
both as to the points orally agreed upon and as to the question
whether on not the parties were bound by the oral agreement. Dun-
ham testified that he did not finally' agree to anything on May 14,
but only "agreed that he would agree" to certain points on May 18
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 41
provided that the language in Bajork's memorandum clearly ex-
pressed what he said on May 14 that he "agreed to agree to."
Bajork later drafted a comprehensive memorandum including the
matters tentatively agreed upon between Dunham and Local No. 50
on May 14. It was ready for the examination of the parties on
May 18.
On May 17, however, Dunham suddenly resolved to leave Chicago
and not to attend the conference on May 18 as previously arranged.
When Bajork called him on the phone to remind him of his appoint-
ment on the next day, Dunham replied that lie was not going to keep
it, that he "wanted to think the whole thing over and decide whether
to throw the key away, or shut the place down, or go on with these
negotiations or stop." On that afternoon Dunham, Martin, and some
friends went on a fishing expedition in Wisconsin and remained away
until May 19.
On May 18, the date which Dunham had agreed upon on May 14
that the employees were to return to work, the strikers communicated
with Bajork relative to their return to work and were advised by him
to send a committee to see Viola, the superintendent. Viola stated
to the committee that lie had no orders and could do nothing for the
employees. The record shows, however, that he hired 13 new em-
ployees on this and the preceding day. The committee reported back
to Bajork, who called tip Viola and insisted that he take back all
the employees the next day, May 19. This Viola finally agreed to do.
The workers were then advised by Bajork to return to work since
their "interests were protected." All strikers returned to work on
May 19. All employees received a 10-per cent increase in wages, and
hours were limited to 40 per week.
On May 19 Martin telephoned Viola from Wisconsin. Learning
that the employees were back at work, he and Martin returned to
Chicago.
On the morning of May 28 Dunham received a petition signed by
about 60 employees which stated that they wished to form a shop
union and would do so if he would sign a contract with such an
organization containing the provisions of his May 4 notice with the
added proviso that anyone wishing to work 48 hours per week might
do so. The petition stated further that if Dunham would not sign
such a contract with a shop union, they would continue their choice of
Local No. 50 as their bargaining representative. A large number
of the signatures to this petition were procured during working hours
by Halper, the respondent's paymaster and timekeeper, and Bauer
and Wentzel,-employees of the resppndent. Upon receipt of the.peti-
tion Dunham called the employees together and stated that lie would
never sign a contract with -Local, No. 50, and that he would-prefer
42 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
to close the shop before doing so. He advised those who wished to
form a shop union to complete an organization in order that he might
sign a contract with them. Between 2 and 4 p. in. all the steps in the
formation of the Shop Union and the signing of an agreement were
taken.
On June 2 Dunham replied to Bajork's letter of May 27, advising
Bajork that "the draft of the contract contains nothing to which we
had definitely agreed and contains many matters neither discussed
nor agreed to." This letter further stated that a majority of his
employees had formed their own organization , with which he would
bargain.
Dunham admitted during the course of the hearing that he had
refused to bargain collectively with Local No. 50 between May 14
and 28.
We find that the respondent, on May 14 and thereafter, refused to
bargain collectively with Local No. 50, as the representative of its
employees, in respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment,
and other conditions of employment.
B. Domination of and interference with, the Sh,op Union
The record shows that James Bauer and Jack Wentzel, employed
as trimmers by the respondent , took the first steps in the initiation
of the Shop Union. Bauer had left the respondent in January 1937
because of disagreement with Viola about piece rates. He went on
strike on April 12 while an employee of the General Trunk Com-
pany. He was active in Local No. 50 and helped to picket the re-
spondent's plant. At his urging Jack Wentzel joined the strike and
became a member of Local No. 50. Their interest in Local No. 50 and
in the strike weakened as their funds ran out. On April 20 when
Wentzel called at the plant for his pay check, Bauer went along and
took the occasion to ask Martin if lie could have his old job again.
Martin promised to take him back as soon as the strike was settled.
Shortly thereafter, Bauer, together with two salesmen, Claude Evett
and Lou Patrick, called at the homes of various employees and tried
to persuade the strikers to return to work. Among those visited were
Jack Wentzel, Stanley Podgorski , and Paul Kantowicz , then Local
No. 50's shop chairman . At the end of the strike Viola reemployed
Bauer in his old job. Both WVentzel and Bauer testified that their
allegiance to Local No. 50 had ceased about May 4, when Dunham
posted the notice offering a 40-hour week, a 10-per cent increase in
wages, and a 10-per cent profit-sharing bonus.
On May 26, having decided to form a. shop union , Bauer and
Wentzel asked John Halper , the respondent's timekeeper and pay-
master, whose duties take him through the plant collecting time
DECISIONS AND' ORDERS 43
cards and consulting with employees about piece-rate questions, to
compose for them the necessary petition. Halper wrote the petition
described above in Section III-A-3. Halper was asked by Bauer
and Wentzel to secure signatures because he knew everyone in the
plant and because, as an office employee paid on a weekly basis, he
would not lose any money by 'doing this; while as piece ° workers;
they would. Halper solicited employees to sign the petition during
working hours on May 27. By evening, with some aid from Bauer
and Wentzel, Halper had secured the signatures of about 60, a major-
ity of those working in the plant. These facts are uncontradicted.
The petition shows clearly that about six signatures were erased,
indicating that certain employees later changed their minds relative
to Shop Union membership. One employee, Rose Szafasz, testified
that she was . solicited by Halper and signed the petition only after,
some hesitation. Later, after consultation with Local No. 50 mem-
bers, she changed her mind. On May _28' she secured the petition
from Halper and erased her name.
Halper showed the signed petition to Bauer and Wentzel on the
evening of May 27 and, at their suggestion, mailed it to Dunham.
At about 2 p. in. on May 28 Dunham, having received the signed
petition, called a meeting of all employees. He referred to the
petition and said that he did not see on it the names that he had
most desired to be there. He suggested that others who had not
signed might do so and that those who had signed should go upstairs
to the respondent's recreation room and hold a meeting for organiza-
tion purposes. Dunham also stated to the employees that the time
spent at the meeting would be paid for by the respondent at the
regular rates.
According to Wentzel's check, about 44 of those who signed the
petition of May 27 attended the meeting. Bauer acted as chair-
man. About five minutes after the meeting had started a committee
was selected to get from Dunham some advice and aid in -organiz-
ing the Shop Union. As Bauer stated at the hearing : "Well, there
was nobody there who had any experience in forming a union or
getting a charter or writing out a form or anything like that. We
didn't know how to go about it." At first Dunham demurred to
their request, saying that he had no business in interfering with
the proposed union, but finally he consented to help them get
started. Dunham visited the meeting room and told them to select
a temporary chairman who would receive nominations for permanent
officials and conduct the election. He further suggested that there
should be an officer from each of the four departments of the plant
to handle grievances. He remained in the meeting room long enough
to see Thomas Scianna elected temporary chairman. The following
officers were elected: Jack Wentzel, president; Anthony Pucillo,
44 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS,BOARD
Steve Mlodzik, and Lillian Hoelzer, - vice presidents ; and Halper,
secretary-treasurer.. All of these officials, except Wentzel, had kept
themselves ;free from Local .No.. 50 union activities. Hoelzer and
Pucillo had 'remained at work on the date of the strike, April 19,
and had returned to work on April 20.. Pucillo returned to work
before the -strike was settled. Mlodzik had been hired on May 12,
during the strike. Halper had been secretary and treasurer of the
shop. social club, in existence from 1934 to the date of the strike.
- Shortly after the officers were, elected, Wentzel visited Dunham
and said, "Welly we are organized, we want to talk contract with you."
Dunham raised the question of majority. Examination of the list
on the petition suggested that less than a majority of the production
employees were present at the meeting. Dunham told Wentzel that
he would have to sign up everybody again and show clear proof of
a majority before they could proceed to negotiate a contract. Wentzel
thereupon consulted Halper, and neither of them felt competent
to compose the proper petition. Halper therefore went to Dunham
for aid. Dunham suggested that three things were desirable for
inclusion in the Shop Union petition : "Confirm your election of
officers, join the union, and appoint a bargaining agency." Dunham
thereupon wrote such. a statement in long hand, naming the new
organization the Taylor Trunk Shop Union. ,This statement was
accepted by Halper and Wentzel, and thereafter they secured the
signatures of 57 employees thereto.
Some difficulty was evidently encountered in getting the desired
number of signatures, which Dunham had set at 55 to 60. Wentzel
circulated through the plant during working hours to get the sig-
natures, of employees who had signed the first petition but were
absent from the meeting. Moreover, four shipping room and stock-
room employees, who had been excluded from the meeting by Dunham
as ineligible for membership in the Shop Union, were solicited by
Scianna and Pucillo and signed the second document. Deducting
these four names because they are not included in the appropriate
unit would reduce the number of signatures to 53. On June 1, 14
of the 57 signed a loyalty pledge to Local No. 50.
Wentzel returned to Dunham with the signed lists which were
checked by Halper at Dunham's direction. Dunham was now satis-
fied that there was a majority and thereupon agreed to conclude a
contract with the Shop Union. He told Wentzel to return to work
while he was having a contract typed. When this had been done,
Wentzel and Dunham affixed their signatures to a contract providing
for practically the same terms suggested in the original Shop Union
petition, namely, a 10-per cent wage increase over the wages prior to
April 19, a 10-per cent bonus of the net profits, "a regular work week
of 40 hours, being made up of five days of eight hours each, but any
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 45
employee so desirous may work up to 48 hours per week." In addi-
tion, the agreement stated that it was temporary. After the agree-
ment, was signed, and up to the time of the hearing in this, case the
Shop Union did not bargain with the respondent. and, was active
chiefly in social and recreational activities.,
It is significant to note that the list of signatures on the second
petition is the only evidence of membership in the Shop Union. The
members were given no membership cards. The Shop Union had
neither a constitution, nor bylaws. Dues were- only 25 cents per
month. Meetings were held on the factory premises on several occa-
sions without charge. Shop Union notices were freely posted on the
respondent's bulletin boards.
The lists of membership remained in the keeping of Halper, who
regularly presented them to newly hired employees for signature.
Sixty-three names were added to the list after May 28. Forty of
these were new employees and included all those hired between May
28 and August 6, with two exceptions.' Otto Buelow, who was hired
on June 14, described the method pursued in enlisting new employees
in the Shop Union. Buelow testified that he signed the petition,
which was presented to him by Halper, on the day he was hired and
in the presence of the foreman who,had hired him. Several em-
ployees testified that this method of enlisting new employees in the
Shop Union was resorted to frequently.
Several employees testified that Halper made repeated and per-
sistent efforts on May 28, and thereafter, to secure the signatures of
members of Local No. 50 to the Shop Union document, urging them
that they would escape paying dues to Local No. 50 and that the
Shop Union could do more for them than Local No. 50. Of signifi-
cance is the statement of Kantowicz, an employee of the respondent
and formerly shop chairman, that Halper had asked him to join the
Shop Union about eight times and on one occasion told him, "If
I would sign up with the shop union, I would have a better thing
and that he would see to it that he would make me president of the
shop union." Significant also is the remark Halper made to Szafasz
on June 11 on the occasion of her quitting for the summer months,
"Well, why don't you sign the shop union petition now, so that you
will be sure of your job when you want to come back." All the
testimony relative to Halper's activity in the Shop Union and state-
ments quoted above were uncontradicted, since Halper did not take
the stand.
Martin, vice president of the respondent', on May 28 solicited
Joseph Kucera, an employee, to join the Shop Union in the presence
of other employees. Martin explained during the course of his testi-
mony that he was not serious in so doing but was only "kidding his
46 NATIONAL LA'BOR' RELATIONS BOARD
friend." Kucera and other employees, however, took this incident
seriously.
The time spent by employees in organizing the Shop Union was
paid for at regular wage rates by the respondent. Those' not partici-
pating in the organization meeting and not joining the Shop Union
that day,were^ paid..only for the 15 minutes spent in the general meet-
ing addressed by Dunham. Dunham contends that this payment was
made without his knowledge. It was made, however, at the instance
of Halper, the timekeeper and paymaster, whom he trusted to keep
an accurate time record. It was passed upon and ratified by Superin-
tendent Viola, who testified that he examined the pay sheets daily.
It is clear that the payments were fully authorized.
To recapitulate, the record clearly indicates that the Shop Union
members were promised a contract by Dunham even before the Shop
Union was organized; that employees were told no contract would
be signed with Local No. 50, the union of their own free choice; that
the Shop Union petition was circulated during working hours on the
respondent's premises ; that every stage of the election of officers and
of the organization meeting of the Shop Union was directed by Dun-
ham; that the time spent in the Shop Union meeting was paid for
by the respondent at regular rates; that the contract signed was
drafted by Dunham and accepted by Wentzel without a change or
previous reference to the members; that representatives of the man-
agement persistently solicited members for the Shop Union on the
respondent's premises and time ; that about 40 new employees signed
up with the Shop Union as an incident of hiring, while 23 Local No.
50 members were alienated from the latter organization after May
28 by this persistent campaign of the respondent's representatives.
After the agreement was signed and up to the time of the hearing
in this case the Shop Union failed to function as a genuine and effec-
tive bargaining agency in that it did not bargain with the respondent
and was active chiefly in social and recreational activities.
We find that the respondent has dominated and interfered with
the formation and administration of the Shop Union and has con-
tributed support to it.
C. The discharges
Joseph Menick, Joseph Pub ante, and George Bar fuss, employed as
nailers in the box shop for a considerable number of years, were
discharged by Dunham on July 16. Menick, aged 63, had been em-
ployed by the respondent for 19 years ; Pubantz, aged 53, had been
employed by the respondent for 15 years ; and Barfuss, aged 52, had
been employed by the respondent for 24 years. Of late Menick had
been employed by the respondent only irregularly, being laid off
DECISIONS AND ORDERS" 47
when work slackened. - Joseph' J. Horsch, their foreman, and Super-
intendent Viola testified that the quality of their .work was. "good"
and "satisfactory." -All were active members of. Local No. 50 and
never swerved in their allegiance to, that, labor organization. All'
struck on April 19. All were solicited by Ha'tper to join the Shop
Union and positively refused. ' All were in good health and able to
work regularly. All were unemployed at the time of the hearing in
this case and wish to be reinstated. They contend they were unjusti-
fiably discharged for union activities.
The letters of dismissal which these employees received on July
16 were identical and read as follows :
Our contract with the Taylor Trunk -Shop Union, whom we
recognize as the exclusive bargaining agent for all the em-
ployees, provides that work in each department shall be divided
as equally as possible among all the employees of that depart-
ment. However, this part of the contract does not apply to
temporary help, and does not take effect until a contemplated
reorganization of the entire shop has been completed. The pur-
pose of this reorganization is to provide more versatile and
younger help, so that a man may be switched from one depart-
ment to another if it is desirable.
While your many years of service for this company have not
been overlooked, we have decided that we can provide more
versatile men to do your work, and regret to advise you that your
employment by this company ceases today.
Your check for this week's work will be mailed to you, or you
may call for it here at the office a week from today.
Yours very truly,
R. J. DuNNHAM, Jr.,
President.
The reference to an alleged Shop Union contract clause was purely
fanciful. An examination of the Shop Union contract discloses that
no such clause. existed.
At the hearing the respondent attempted to justify these discharges
on the ground that the men were slowing up because of age and were
only 80 per cent efficient. It was alleged that they refused to work
on joiner, shaver, and stock saw machines and were available only
for hand nailing. It was further alleged that their failure to make
speed in the box shop caused an undue proportion of sums allotted
to labor costs to be absorbed by these time workers to the disadvan-
tage of piece .workers , whose operations came later in the course of
production. The record discloses that under the system of wages in
effect the total labor cost of a given product was first fixed and tenta-
48 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
tive prices set up. Before such piece prices were paid, however, the
cost of time operations was deducted, from the total labor cost set.
It thus happened; as, Dunham himself testified, that trimmers who
had installed hardware; in cases on a supposed 50-cent piece rate,
found when pay. checks came through, that they had received only
45 cents. All'the three men, testified that they'•refused to work, on the
above-mentioned machines at, the nailer's rate of pay. Dunham
himself admitted during, cross-examination, that it was only fair
that men doing the same work on machines should get the rate of pay
of such work. Hence, their refusal to work on machines was clearly
justified. There was no convincing proof offered of 'their alleged
slowness. There were also a number of men older than they still in
the respondent's employ.
Of the three men who replaced the men discharged, two were
Steve Mlodzik, aged 22 and vice president of the Shop Union, and
Paul Mitoraj. Both had been hired during the strike and, like all
those so hired, had had no connection with Local No. 50. Both
joined the Shop Union when it was organized. A. O'Gradney, the
third man, was only 18 and was rated as an apprentice trimmer be-
fore the strike. At, about the time of his transfer to the box shop,
Mlodzik received an increase in wages from 45 cents per hour to 50
cents. O'Gradney's rate was 40 cents per hour. Mitoraj's rate was
471/ cents per hour. The three discharged men had received 45
cents per hour before the strike and 49 cents per hour after the 10-
per cent raise went into effect. O'Gradney remained loyal to Local
No. 50 until about June 8 when he signed the Shop Union list.
Shortly thereafter he was transferred to the box shop.
Considering the discharge of the three men in the light of the
respondent's attitude toward Local No. 50 members, the admitted
"good satisfactory quality" of their work, their long service, and
the absence of any convincing proof of their alleged slowness, we
are persuaded that the motivating cause for the discharge was their
activity and association in Local No. 50 and their refusal to join
the Shop Union.
Antoinette Resko and Yolanda D'Alessandro, two girls who were
rated before the strike as apprentice case makers, were discharged
by the respondent on June 2, 1937. Their period of previous service
was brief ; Resko had been hired in the latter part of February 1937
and D'Alessandro on about February 9, 1937. They had remained at
work on April 19, joined Local No. 50 on April 20, participated in
the strike as pickets, attended Local No. 50 meetings, and solicited
other girls to join Local No. 50. When they were solicited by Halper
and Wentzel to join the Shop Union on May 27 and thereafter, they
refused to do so. They were among the five girls whom Dunham,
at the May 14 conference at the Regional Office, alleged to be so slow
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 49
that they could not earn on a ,piece-rate basis the proposed minimum
wage of $14.00 per week. I
It was agreed that these two, with the others of the same group
of five, were put on a two-week trial. after the strike. They were
duly warned by their forelady, Geraldine Sochor, that they should
speed up and endeavor to make the $14.00, minimum. Sochor testified,
that she made an effort to assist them to do this by providing work
and materials promptly and by giving them special attention. At
the end of the two-week period, Martin Klessig, their foreman, called
for their piece-rate slips. They were paid in full and discharged.
When they were discharged, Sochor told them she did not know the
reason and Halper gave as the reason therefor, "you didn't make
your rate." Neither was informed of the piece rate on the cases they
were covering until after they completed the job. Each put in some
part of her time during the trial period in finishing cases left in-
complete at the beginning of the strike for which she had been paid
prior to the strike. During the first two days of the trial period,
May 19 and 20, D'Alessandro infected her finger in the course of her
employment. She did not come to work on May 21 and lost about
four hours on May 24 and three hours on May 25. Nor could she
work very rapidly. During the one full week which they worked
after the strike, that is, the second week of the trial period, Resko
made $13.20 and D'Alessandro made $13.00 on the basis of a 40-hour
week.
During the later days of the hearing the respondent attempted to
show that the work of these girls was generally unsatisfactory.
Klessig testified that shortly before their discharge the respondent's
inspector rejected their work on some phonograph cases because no
two pieces were alike. Sochor testified that they used so much glue
on certain phonograph cases that the top layer of kerotal leather
material peeled off. They had not worked on phonograph cases
before- the strike. The work on such cases was new and more difficult.
They had been employed only a short time before the strike and
were then given easy cases and were treated as learners or beginners.
Four of the six different items D'Alessandro worked on after the
strike were new and more difficult. Three of the seven different items
Resko worked on after the strike were also new and more difficult.
The cases of D'Alessandro and Resko are not free from doubt in
view of the time lost by them during the first week of the trial period
and the difficulty of their new work. However, upon the whole
record, the Board is of the opinion that their failure to make the
$14.00 minimum, and their inefficiency, rather than union membership
or activity, was the cause of their discharge. The allegations of the
complaint with respect to D'Alessandro and Resko will therefore be
dismissed.
50 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIO\ S,BOAHD
Jack Saltzman was employed -on February 25, 1937, in sheet metal
operations in the auto trunk department. He struck on April 19 and
joined Local No. 50 on April 20. He was active in Local No. 54
during the strike and signed the.loyalty pledge to Local No. 50 on
June 2, though- he also signed the Shop Union petition on May 27.
He did not, however, take part in the organization meeting of the
Shop Union on May 28. About June 15 he signed the Shop Union
membership list. Saltzman gave as the reason for this the discrimina-
tory acts of his foreman, Leonard L. Cherry, and of the paymaster
and timekeeper, Halper, in refusing him overtime work. Saltzman
testified that on one occasion, prior to his affiliation with the Shop
Union, Cherry asked him to work overtime. Shortly thereafter
Harper came to his bench and asked him to sign the Shop Union list,,
but Saltzman refused. Saltzman then overheard Halper apprise
Cherry of his refusal to join the Shop Union. Thereupon Cherry
refused him an opportunity to work overtime. Cherry denied this
incident. The record shows, however, that after Saltzman joined
the Shop Union he worked overtime the next three weeks.
On July 20, 1937, Saltzman and five other employees in his depart-
ment were discharged ; two of the others were members of Local No_
50 and three were members of the Shop Union. Cherry recommended
their discharge because of a decrease in work and because those
chosen for discharge were the least efficient employees in that
department.
There was considerable testimony at the hearing by Klessig and
Cherry, his foreman, and Stanley Podgorski, a fellow employee,
describing numerous instances of Saltzman's inefficiency, carelessness,
and spoilage•of work. Some exhibits tending to prove his inefficiency
in certain jobs were introduced into evidence. Much of his work
had to be done over by foremen and other employees.
We find that Saltzman was discharged for inefficiency. In view
of Saltzman's membership in the Shop Union and his acceptance of
benefits under that membership, we do not believe that his discharge
can be properly ascribed to, union activity. The allegations of the
complaint with respect to Jack Saltzman will therefore be dismissed.
Eva Hammond is alleged by the complaint to have been laid off
because of union activities. Hammond had been employed by the
respondent since December 1936 as a sewing machine operator on
leather goods. She joined the strike and Local No. 50 on April 20
and picketed. Thereafter, she remained an active and loyal member
of Local No. 50. She refused to join the Shop Union when Halper
solicited her for membership.
Prior to the strike Hammond had been laid off occasionally ; she
had worked an average of 10 hours per week. During the weeks
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 51
of May 23 and 30 she worked 24 and 40 hours respectively. In June
she worked 301/.,, 28, 40 and 40 hours in successive weeks. In each
of the first two weeks of July she worked 8 hours. On June 28
Hammond requested Klessig that during the slack season she be
given table piece work as a case worker at the lower rates of a case
worker. She had had no experience in case work, and, on that
ground, her request was refused. On June 29 she secured employ-
ment at another firm at $14.00 per week. When she returned for
her pay on July 2, Klessig told her he would have some work for
her on July 6. She worked for.,the, respondent on July £. - . ,•WThen
informed that there was no further work in sight, she told her fore-
man about her new job and quit on July 6. At the hearing she
stated that she desired reinstatement to her former position provided
she was given steady employment.
Mrs. Viola, the superintendent's wife, a former employee of the
respondent, succeeded Hammond and was allowed to divide her time
between sewing machine work and case work because she was
experienced in both jobs.
We think that Hammond was laid off because of slackened produc-
tion. The allegations of the complaint with respect to Eva Hammond
will therefore be dismissed.
Andrew Schultz is alleged by the complaint to have been dis-
criminated against during the last week in July 1937 by a reduction
in his hours of work because of union activities. The respondent
contends that the reduction in the hours of work of Schultz was due
to slackened production.
Schultz was one of the most prominent leaders of Local No. 50
and had worked for the respondent 11 years as a fibre-case worker.
At one time he was a strawboss in the plant. He had been fairly
regularly employed in 1936 and both before and after the 'strike in
1937. Like those of all other members of Local No. 50, his hours
had been limited by the respondent to 40 per week. In the last week
of July he worked only 13 hours because production in the plant had
slowed up. During the past when production slackened, in order to
fill out his time, he was shifted to maintenance or repair work, such as
trimming cases. At this time, however, there was no extra mainte-
nance or repair work available. The regular trimmers were working
at the time he quit, but the record does not disclose how much work
they had. He found other employment at Dresner & Sons', covering
boxes at $4.00 per day, and left the employment of the respondent on
August 2. He parted amicably with Viola and other supervisors.
At the time of the hearing no one had replaced Schultz. Schultz
testified that in leaving the respondent's employment, lie was in-
fluenced by the discharge of Menick, Pubantz, and Barfuss, and
52 N.\TIONAB T BOR- RELATIONS BOARD
feared that he also would be'eliminated. Although no one had threat-
ened him with discharge, he felt very uneasy.
The evidence fails to sustain the allegation that the respondent,
during the last week of July 1937, reduced the hours of work of
-Schultz because of union activities. The allegations of the complaint
with regard to Schultz will therefore be dismissed.
We find that the respondent discharged Joseph Menick, Joseph
Pubantz, and George Barfuss on July 16, 1937, because of their union
affiliation, activity, and associations, and that by such discharges the
respondent has discriminated in regard to hire and tenure of
employment and has thereby discouraged membership in a labor
organization.
In the cases of Yolanda D'Alessandro, Antoinette Resko, Jack
Saltzman, Eva Hammond, and Andrew Schultz, the respondent has
not discriminated in regard to hire or tenure of employment or any
term or condition of employment for the purpose of discouraging
membership in a labor organization.
D. Interference, restraint, and coercion
In addition to the acts above set forth, the respondent committed
other acts of interference, restraint, and coercion. An example of
successful intimidation of Stanley Podgorski, the shop chairman of
Local No. 50, is presented in the report of an interview between
Dunham and the committee of Local No. 50 on April 27. Dunham
is reported to have said to Podgorski at that time, "If I had known
what you were going to do now, I would never have taken you back."
Podgorski resigned as shop chairman the next day and shortly there-
after tried to persuade Local No. 50 members to return to work.
He joined the Shop Union early in June and was thereafter promoted
to foreman of the night shift.
Dunham's speech to the employees assembled on May 28, shortly
before the Shop Union was organized, contained compelling proof
of his intention to coerce and intimidate his workers. Resko quoted
him as saying, "He said he refused to ever sign with the Luggage
Workers, that he would never recognize them, that he would sooner
close the shop, but that if the employees wanted to start a Shop
Union, he would sign an agreement with them." Other witnesses
confirmed Resko's report of this speech.
After the Shop Union was organized and the contract signed,
the respondent made further attempts at coercion through the,
medium of overtime work and pay. Although the respondent posted
a notice stating that a contract, had been made covering all employees,
overtime was strictly limited to Shop Union members. Members of,
Local No. 50 received no overtime work until they joined the Shop
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 53
Union. There is unrefuted evidence that a' Shop Union cutter got
all the good jobs drawing over $40.00 a week, while George Karas-
-kiewicz, another cutter and a member of Local No., 50,,made, only
$20.00 to $22.00 per week. Karaskiewicz, was finally converted and
joined the Shop Union. Thereupon he got better jobs and made
more money.
The above efforts to interfere, restrain, and ' coerce 'the members
of Local No. 50 were quite effective. Membership in Local No. 50
dwindled from 60 on April 30 to about 12 on August 7.- For a time
Local No. 50 members displayed their union insignia openly. By
the time of the hearing, however,- Local No. 50, buttons had dis-
appeared from the respondent's shop.
We find that the respondent, by the acts above set forth, has inter-
fered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of
the right to self-organization, to form; join, or assist labor organiza-
tions, to baigain collectively through representatives of their own
choosing, and to engage in concerted activities for the purposes of
collective bargaining and other mutual aid and protection as guaran-
teed in Section 7 of the Act.
IV. EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
We find that the activities of the respondent -set forth in Section
III above, occurring in connection with the operations of the respond-
ent described in Section I above, have a close, intimate, and substan-
tial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States,
and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing com-
merce and the free flow of commerce.
THE REMEDY
We have found that the respondent has dominated and interfered
with the formation and administration of the Shop Union and con-
tributed support thereto. By such domination and interference the
respondent has prevented the free exercise of its employees' right to
self-organization and collective bargaining. In order to restore to
the employees the full measure of their rights guaranteed under the
Act and in order to remedy the unlawful conduct in this case, we shall,
order the respondent to withdraw all recognition from the Shop
Union and disestablish it as a representative of its employees for the
purpose of dealing with the respondent concerning grievances, labor
disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, and other condi-
tions of employment.
We have found that the respondent discharged Joseph Menick,
Joseph Pubantz, and George Barfuss because of their activities as
members in Local No. 50. Since their discharges constitute an unfair
54 NATIONAL LABOR RE LATIONS B6141D,"'
labor practice , we shall order the respondent - to offer them rein-
statement and we shall award them back pay for the period from the
dates of their discharges' to the dates of the respondent 's offer of rein-
statement, less any amounts earned by them in the meantime.
As previously stated, since the Shop Union was assisted by the
respondent 's unfair labor practices , and did not represent the free
choice of the employees , and since the subsequent change of designa-
tion. of bargaining representative from Local No. 50 to the Shop
Union was the result, of the respondent 's unfair labor practices, we
give ,no -weight . to such change and hold that Local No. 50 remained
the designated representative of the majority of the respondent's
employees in the appropriate unit. We shall therefore order that
the respondent , upon request , bargain collectively with Local No. 50.
The contract between the respondent and the Shop Union , discussed
under Section III-A-3 above, was negotiated with an organization
which had been assisted by the respondent 's unfair labor practices
and is therefore void and of no effect .' We shall therefore order the
respondent not to give it effect.
We shall also order the respondent to cease and desist from its
unfair labor practices.
The allegations in the complaint with respect to Yolanda D'Al-
lesandro , Antoinette Resko, Jack Saltzman , Eva Hammond, and
Andrew Schultz will be dismissed.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire
record in the proceeding , the Board makes the following :
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Luggage Workers Union, Local No. 50 of the International
Ladies' Hand Bag, Pocketbook and Novelty Workers Union and
Taylor Trunk Shop Union are labor organizations within the mean-
ing of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
2. The production employees of the respondent, excluding super-
visory and clerical employees, constitute a unit appropriate for the
purposes of collective bargaining, within the meaning of Section 9
(b) of the Act.
3. Luggage Workers Union, Local No. 50 of the International
Ladies' Hand Bag, Pocketbook and Novelty Workers Union was on
April 20, 1937, and at all times thereafter has been, the exclusive
representative of all employees in such unit for the purpose of col-
lective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (a) of the Act.
4. The respondent, by refusing to bargain collectively with Lug-
gage Workers Union, Local No. 50 of the International Ladies' Hand
Bag, Pocketbook and Novelty Workers Union, has engaged in and
is engaging in unfair labor practices, within the meaning of Section
8 (5) of the Act.
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 55
5. The respondent , by its domination and interference with the
formation and administration of Taylor Trunk Shop Union, and by
contributing support thereto , has engaged in and is engaging in un-
fair labor practices , within the meaning of Section 8 (2) of the Act.
6. The respondent , by discriminating in regard to the hire and
tenure of employment of Joseph Menick, Joseph Pubantz, and George
Barfuss, and each of them, and thereby discouraging membership in
a labor organization, has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 8 (3) of the Act.
7. The respondent, by interfering with, restraining, and coercing
its employees in the exercise of their right 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
mutual aid and protection, has engaged in and is engaging in unfair
labor practices, within the meaning of Section 8 (1) of the-Act.
8. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices
affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of
the Act.
9. The respondent has not engaged in and is not engaging in
unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 ( 3) of the
Act with respect to the discharge of Yolanda D'Alessandro, Antoi-
nette Resko, and Jack Saltzman , the lay-off of Eva Hammond, and
the reduction of the hours of work of Andrew Schultz.
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 respond-
ent, Taylor Trunk Company, and its officers , agents, successors, and
assigns shall:
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) In any manner interfering with, restraining , or coercing its
employees in the exercise of, their right to self -organization , to form,
join, or assist labor organizations , to bargain collectively through
representatives of their own choosing , and to engage in concerted
activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual
aid and protection , as guaranteed in Section 7 of the National Labor
Relations Act;
(b) Refusing to bargain collectively with Luggage Workers Union,
Local No. 50 of the International Ladies' Hand Bag, Pocketbook and
Novelty Workers Union as the exclusive representative of all its
employees, excluding supervisory and clerical employees ;
80618-38-vor, v1-5
56 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
(c) In any manner dominating or interfering with the administra-
tion of Taylor Trunk Shop Union or with the formation and admin-
istration of any other labor organization of its employees,,or con-
tributing financial or other support to Taylor Trunk Shop Union or
any other labor organization of its employees;
(d) From discouraging membership in Luggage Workers Union,
Local No. 50 of the International Ladies' Hand Bag, Pocketbook and
Novelty Workers Union or any other labor organization of its em-
ployees, by discharging and refusing to reinstate employees, or other-
wise discriminating in regard to hire and tenure of employment or
any term or condition of employment;
(e) Giving effect to its May 28, 1937, contract with Taylor Trunk
Shop Union.
2. Take the following affirmative action, which the Board finds
will effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Withdraw all recognition from Taylor Trunk Shop Union
as the representative of any of its employees for the purpose of
dealing with the respondent concerning grievances, labor disputes,
rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, or other conditions of
employment, and completely disestablish said organization as such
representative;
(b) Offer to Joseph Menick, Joseph Pubantz, and George Bar-
fuss, immediate reinstatement to their former positions without preju-
dice to their seniority and other rights and privileges;
(c) Make whole Joseph Menick, Joseph Pubantz, and George
Barfuss for any losses of pay they have suffered by reason of the
respondent's discriminatory acts, by payment to each of them, respec-
tively, of a sum of money equal to that which each of them would
normally have earned as wages from the date of their discharge to
the date of the respondent's offer of reinstatement, less any amount
earned by each of them, respectively, during that period;
(d) Upon request, bargain collectively with Luggage Workers
Union, Local No. 50 of the International Ladies' Hand Bag, Pocket-
book and Novelty Workers Union as the exclusive representative of
the production employees, excluding supervisory and clerical em-
. ployees, in respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, or
other conditions of employment ;
(e) Post immediately notices to its employees in conspicuous places
throughout its plant stating (1) that the respondent will cease and
desist in the manner aforesaid; (2) that Taylor Trunk Shop Union
is disestablished as the representative of any of its employees for the
purpose of dealing with the respondent concerning grievances, labor
disputes, rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, or other condi-
tions of employment, and that the respondent will refrain from any
recognition thereof; (3) that the agreement signed with the Taylor
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 57
Trunk Shop Union on May 28, 1937, is void and of no effect ; (4)
that the respondent's employees are free to join or assist any labor
organization for the purpose of collective bargaining with the re-
spondent; and (5) that the respondent will, upon request, bargain
with Luggage Workers Union, Local No. 50 of the International
Ladies' Hand Bag, Pocketbook and Novelty Workers Union as the,
representative of all its employees, excluding supervisory and clericalt
employees, with respect to grievances, labor disputes, rates of pay,
wages, hours of employment, or other conditions of employment;
(f) Maintain such notices for a period of at least thirty- (30)
consecutive days from the date of posting; and
(g) Notify the Regional Director for the Thirteenth Region, in
writing, within ten (10) days from the date of this order, what
steps the respondent has taken to comply herewith.
And it is further ordered that the complaint in so far as it
alleges that the respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices;
with respect to the discharges of Antoinette Resko, Yolanda,
D'Alessandro, and Jack Saltzman, and the lay-off of Eva Hammond,
and the reduction of hours of work of Andrew Schultz be, and it
hereby is, dismissed.