White Swan Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 30, 1940

19 N.L.R.B. 1079 (N.L.R.B. 1940)

In the Matter Of WHITE SWAN COMPANY and AMALGAMATED CLOTHING
WORKERS OF AMERICA, CLEANERS, DYERS AND LAUNDRY WORKERS,
LOCAL 308
Case No. C-1350-Decided January 30, 1940
Laundry and Dry Cleaning Industry-Interference , Restraint and Coercion:
suggestion that employees prepare and circulate a petition expressing opposition
to the union ; preparation and circulation of a petition stating that the signatories
were satisfied . with existing working conditions and that they were opposed to
the union ; speech by president of the company to assembled employees , leaving
impression that regardless of whether or not the employees joined the union
the company was in no position to raise wages or decrease working hours ; at-
tempts to induce and inducing employees to withdraw from the union-DiB-
tcriynination : three employees discharged - because of union membership and activ-
ity ; charges of, dismissed as to eight discharged employees-Reinstatement
Ordered: : discriminatorily discharged employees-Back Pay: awarded.
Mr. W. G. Stuart Sherman, for the Board.
Mr. Carl B. Galbraith, of Wheeling, W. Va., and Mr. H. C. A.
Ho f aclcer, of Pittsburgh, Pa., for the respondent.
Mr. Benjamin C. Sigal, of Pittsburgh, Pa., for the Amalgamated.
Mr. Roscoe L. Barrow, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon .charges and amended charges duly filed by Amalgamated
Clothing,Workers of America, Cleaners, Dyers and Laundry Workers,
Local 308, herein called the Amalgamated, the National Labor Rela-
tions Board, herein called the Board, by the Regional Director for the
Sixth Region (Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania), issued its complaint dated
May 8, 1939, against White Swan Company, Wheeling, West Virginia,
herein called the respondent, alleging that the respondent had engaged
in and . was engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce,
within the meaning of Section 8 (1) and (3) and Section 2 (6) and
(7) of the National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat.- 449, herein called.
the Act. A copy of the complaint accompanied by notice of hearing
was duly served upon the respondent and the Amalgamated.
19 N. L. R. B., No. 112.
1079
1080 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The complaint alleged in substance that the respondent, by threat-
ening to cease operations in the event that the Amalgamated should
succeed in organizing the employees, by espionage, by threatening to
discharge members of the Amalgamated, by discharging certain of
them, and by other acts had, since January 1, 1938, coerced its em-
ployees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed by Section 7 of. the
Act; and that the respondent discharged John McClure, Elwood Nick-
erson, Winifred Cook, Mary Skolnik, Selina Robinson, Marguerite
Cannon, Sue Burdette, and Grace Lively, because of their membership
in and activities in behalf of the Amalgamated, thereby discouraging
membership in that organization.
On May 11, 1939, the respondent filed its answer. The answer denied
that the respondent had engaged in or was engaging in interstate com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act., and
denied that it had engaged in or was engaging in the alleged unfair
labor practices.
On May 15, 1939, the Board, by the Regional Director, issued its
amended complaint alleging, in addition to the allegations contained
in the complaint, that the respondent had discriminatorily discharged
Jullian White. On May 18, 1939, during the coun•se, of the hearing
hereinafter mentioned, the amended complaint was further amended
by adding thereto allegations that Anne Wojcik, Charles Smith, and
Virginia Sells were discriminatorily discharged. On May 19, 1939,
the respondent filed its answer denying the material allegations of the
complaint as amended.
Pursuant to notice a hearing was held in Wheeling, West Virginia,
from May 18 to May 27, 1939, before Henry J. Kent, the Trial
Examiner duly designated by the Board. The respondent and the
Board were represented by counsel. The Amalgamated was not
represented by counsel at the hearing. Full. opportunity to be heard,
to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to produce evidence
bearing on the issues was afforded all parties. At the opening of the
hearing the respondent moved to dismiss the complaint on the ground
that the Board lacked jurisdiction. The motion was denied. One
Charles Mead appeared in behalf of 14 employees of the respondent
and moved that these employees be permitted to intervene in the
proceedings. The motion to intervene was denied. At the conclusion
of the Board's case counsel for the Board moved to strike from the
complaint the allegation that Marguerite Cannon was discrimina-
torily discharged by the respondent. The motion was granted. The
respondent then renewed its motion to dismiss the complaint for lack
of jurisdiction. The motion was denied. At the conclusion of the
hearing counsel for the Board moved,to conform the pleadings to the
proof, and the motion was allowed. The respondent renewed its
WHITE SWAN COMPANY 1081
motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of jurisdiction, and the Trial
Examiner reserved ruling thereon. Thereafter in his Intermediate
Report, mentioned hereinafter, the Trial Examiner denied the motion.
During the course of the hearing the Trial Examiner made various
rulings on the admission of evidence. The Board has reviewed the
rulings of the Trial Examiner and finds that no prejudicial error was
committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed.
On August 23, 1939, the Trial Examiner issued his Intermediate
Report, copies of which were duly served on all parties, finding that
the respondent had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor
practices affecting commerce, within the meaning of Section 8 (1)
and (3) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act, and recommending that
the respondent cease and desist therefrom, and reinstate Robinson,
Skolnik, and Cook to their respective former positions with back pay.
On September 26, 1939, the respondent filed exceptions to the Inter-
mediate Report and on November 7, 1939, it filed a brief in support
thereof. On September 26,1939, the Amalgamated filed its exceptions
to the Intermediate Report. Pursuant to notice, a hearing for the
purpose of oral argument was held before the Board in Washington,
D. C., on November _16, 1939. The respondent was represented by
counsel and participated in the argument. The Board has con-
sidered the respondent's and the Amalgamated's exceptions to the
Intermediate Report and, in so far as they are inconsistent with the
findings, conclusions, and order set forth below, finds them to be
without merit.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT 1
White Swan Company is a West Virginia corporation having its
office and plant at Wheeling, West Virginia. It operates a combined
laundry and dry-cleaning establishment. The essential supplies and
equipment used by the respondent in its operations are soap, bluing,
bleach, cleaning solvent, coal, water, salt, paper, tape, and padding.
During 1938 the respondent purchased supplies and materials costing
$38,333.15. Approximately 28.2 per cent, or $10,810.90 by value, of its
supplies and equipment were shipped to the respondent's plant from
points outside the State of West Virginia. The respondent's gross
income during the same period was $128,752.96. The respondent
transports garments in its trucks from customers in Ohio to the re-
spondent's plant. in West Virginia to be serviced.. After they are
1 These findings are based in part on a stipulation of facts.
1082 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
serviced, the respondent delivers the garments in its trucks to the
customers in Ohio.- Approximately 12.93 per cent of the respondent's
gross income for 1938 • was ' derived from the servicing- of...garments
which were collected from and delivered to customers in Ohio,- in the
manner' described above. In addition thereto, approximately 5 per
cent of its gross income during 1938 was derived from the servicing of
garments which persons not in the respondent's employ collected in
Ohio, brought to the respondent's plant for servicing, and delivered to
persons in Ohio after the garments were serviced. The total, income
from work involving interstate shipments during 1938 was $23,088.43.
II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America, Cleaners, Dyers and
Laundry Workers, Local 308, is a labor organization affiliated with
the Congress of Industrial Organizations. It admits to membership
laundry workers employed in the laundries located in Wheeling; West
Virginia, and its vicinity.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Interference, restraint, and coercion
About October 1, 1937, Adolph Pacifico, a representative of United
Mine Workers, called a meeting to interest the laundry workers in
and about Wheeling in affiliating with the Committee for Industrial
Organization.2 On October 12, 1937, certain of the laundry workers
who attended this meeting applied to Amalgamated Clothing Work-
ers of America, Cleaners, Dyers and Laundry Workers for a charter.
Later that month Local 308 was chartered. Thereafter, the Amal-
gamated became relatively inactive, but on September 1, 1938, one
Louis Davidson, an organizer, began a campaign for additional
members. Although a number of the respondent's employees joined
the Amalgamated, the record does not show the total membership
obtained by the Amalgamated in the respondent's plant.
During November or December 1938 T. J. Murvin, president of the
respondent, tried to interest Clayton, one of the employees, in pre-
paring and circulating among the employees a petition expressing
opposition to the Amalgamated. Concerning this incident Clayton
testified as follows :
A. Well, he (Murvin) brought around a paper, and said
things were bad out in the laundry, and you know they were
pretty tough in the winter, and said if you joined the union, they
Now Congress of Industrial Organizations.
WHITE SWAN COMPANY 1083
were not making that much money. He said, if they can make
enough-money to run, all right, and they didn't, close it up ...
Q. I thought I understood you to tell me that he asked you
first if you wouldn't write it up
A. He came down and said, "If you fellows want to do that."
I said, "I don't want to have anything to do with it."
Despite Murvin's suggestion, Clayton did not circulate the petition.
About December 15, 1938, another petition was in fact circulated
among the employees in the plant. It stated, in substance, that
those signing it were satisfied with the wages, hours, and other
working conditions existing in the plant and that they were opposed
to the formation in the plant of a labor organization. The respond-
ent contends that the petition was independently conceived by the
employees, and, in particular, by P. F. Ryan, an employee. Con-
cerning his contribution to the petition Ryan testified that he "dis-
cussed it with one man out there and we got to talking about our
working conditions and we decided that we was satisfied as near as
we could be with the way business conditions were, so we talked.
I talked with Mr. Woods about it and he came back later on, and
he had a paper drawn up and I signed it."
The man referred to as "Woods" is Theodore Woods, foreman of
the dry-cleaning department. Woods testified that he framed the
language of the petition and typed it in the respondent's office but
that the idea expressed therein was the result of his collaboration
with Ryan, Margaret Smith, a forelady, and several others. Woods
signed the petition and circulated it among some of the employees.
In addition, Margaret Smith took the petition around to most of the
other employees. The respondent is responsible for the acts of its
foreman and forelady, whether or not their acts had express sanction
from the high executives of the respondent.3 The respondent in
attempting to persuade an employee to circulate a petition of this
type and in circulating the foregoing petition directly interfered
with the exercise by the employees of the rights guaranteed them
under the Act.
John McClure, a former employee of the respondent, testified that
while employed by the respondent about November 1938, Canfield,
a foreman, asked him whether or not he was a member of the Amal-
gamated; that he replied in the affirmative; and that Canfield then
advised him that if he withdrew from the Amalgamated Canfield
would see that he "was well taken care of." McClure further testi-
fied that Canfield instructed him to go to the Amalgamated's office
3In N. L. R. B. v. A. S. Abell Co., 97 F. (2d ) 951 (C. C. A. 4) the Court said : "The doc-
trine of respondent superior applies and the management must assume responsibility for
the action of its supervisory official even though it had no actual participation therein."
See also Swift & Co. V. N. L. R. B., 106 F . (2d) 87 (C. C. A. 10).
1084 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
and retrieve his membership application ; that Canfield obtained
money from the respondent's cash register for McClure to use as car-
fare to the Amalgamated's office; that he went to the Amalgamated's
office on two successive days and found no one there; that Canfield
then wrote out a letter requesting the return of McClure's applica-
tion card which McClure copied and mailed to the Amalgamated.
Canfield was not in the respondent's employ at the time of the hear-
ing and did not testify. We find that Canfield induced McClure
to request withdrawal of his application for membership in the
Amalgamated.
During February 1939, when the Amalgamated's organizational
campaign was at its crest, Murvin called all the employees together
and addressed them. Harry Miller, the superintendent, testified that
Murvin at this meeting produced a book containing a table of the
rates charged and the wages paid by laundries throughout the
United States and compared such rates and wages with the rates
charged and the wages paid by the respondent; Murvin then asked
the employees to express their sentiments concerning existing condi-
tions in the plant, and Margaret Smith, the forelady, arose and said,
"I have always been treated all right here and I think the wages and
conditions are all right." While Murvin and Smith denied making
the statements attributed to them by Miller, we give credence to the
testimony of the respondent's superintendent and find that Murvin
and Smith made statements substantially as related above. Marv
Skolnik testified that on this occasion Murvin further asked the
employees how they expected to get more pay when he was unable
to give it. Miller did not testify concerning this alleged statement.
Since-the obvious purpose of the meeting was to convince the em-
ployees that the respondent was unable to increase wages even
should the employees seek to better their working conditions through
the Amalgamated, the question attributed to Murvin is one which
he might reasonably have been expected to ask.
Several other employees testified that Murvin on this occasion fur-
ther said that he would close the plant and lease the premises if a
labor organization should succeed in organizing the employees. Miller
denied, as did Murvin, that Murvin made any such statement. We
find it unnecessary to resolve this conflict in the testimony. Murvin
called this meeting when the Amalgamated's campaign was at its
height. The impression which the respondent obviously intended to,
and did, leave with the employees was that regardless of whether or not
the employees should join the Amalgamated, the respondent was in no
position to decrease hours or to raise wages and, hence, there was
nothing to be gained by joining a labor organization. As already
noted, several months prior to this meeting two of the respondent's
WHITE SWAN COMPANY 1085
supervisory employees had circulated a petition opposing formation
of a labor organization in the plant. The calling of the meeting of
the employees, under the circumstances, was merely another step in
making known to the employees the respondent's opposition to union
activity.
Other events, occurring after the meeting, are indicative of the re-
spondent's attitude toward self-organization of the employees. Mary
Skolnik testified that about March 1, 1939, Superintendent Miller told
her, "I advise you to stay out of this union, and not go back to it and
get your card, because you will be sorry; you'll get the same thing
as Nick [Nickerson] got." 4 Miller denied that he made the above
statement. The Trial Examiner, after observing the demeanor of
both witnesses, gave credence to Skolnik's testimony. Having in mind
the similar activities of other supervisory employees of the respond-
ent, we agree with the Trial Examiner and find that Miller made the
statement attributed to him by Skolnik.
Grace Lively, a former employee of the respondent, testified that
about March 18, 1939, Forelady Smith told her she would have to
withdraw her application for membership in the Amalgamated in
order to hold her job; that she sent a registered letter to the Amalga-
mated requesting the return of her application and showed the post-
office receipt to Smith; that Smith took the receipt to Murvin; and
that shortly thereafter Smith returned and said, "Your job is all fixed
up now. You will not have to worry about being fired." Smith testi-
fied that Lively voluntarily came to her and asked how the card might
be withdrawn; that she suggested sending a registered letter; and
that later Lively voluntarily showed her the registry receipt. The
letter was introduced in evidence. Marie Bennett, an employee called
as a witness by the. respondent, testified that- Grace Lively told her
that she did not wish to belong to the Amalgamated; that "she asked
about sending in a letter withdrawing" from the Amalgamated; and
that she, Bennett, advised Lively to see Smith about it. As already
noted Smith was active in combatting the organizational efforts of the
Amalgamated, and circulated the petition expressing opposition to
union activity among the employees. We do not give credence to her
testimony. As between the testimony of Lively and Bennett, we give
credence to Lively's testimony, as did the Trial Examiner, and find
that Smith induced Lively to withdraw her application for member-
ship in the Amalgamated.
We find that the respondent, by circulating among its employees
a petition opposing union activity, by seeking to induce an employee
to circulate such a petition, by calling a meeting of employees at the
4 The portion of the statement reading "you'll get the same thing as Nick [Nickerson]
got" refers to the prior discharge of Elwood Nickerson.
1086 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
height of union organizing to discourage union activity , by threat-
ening to discriminate against union members, and by inducing, and
seeking to induce, the renunciation by certain of the employees of their
membership in the Amalgamated , has interfered with, restrained, and
coerced its employees in the exercise of their rights guaranteed in
Section 7 of the Act.
B. The discriminatory discharges
The complaint as amended alleged that the respondent violated
Section 8 ( 3) of the Act by discharging Selina Robinson , Mary Skol-
nik, Winifred Cook, Elwood Nickerson , Virginia Sells, Jullian White,
Sue Burdette , Grace Lively, Anne Wojcik, Charles Smith, and John
McClure. The respondent 's answer denied that the above employees
were discriminatorily discharged . The Trial Examiner in his Inter-
mediate Report found that the respondent had discriminatorily dis-
charged Robinson , Skolnik, and Cook, but recommended that the com-
plaint be dismissed in so far as it alleged that the respondent
discriminatorily discharged Nickerson , Sells, White , Burdette, Lively,
Wojcik, Smith, and McClure. The Amalgamated excepted to the
Trial Examiner 's recommendation as to the latter group of employees.
Selina Robinson was originally employed by the respondent as a shirt
finisher on August 26 , 1937, and joined the Amalgamated during Sep-
tember, 1938. She was discharged on March 27 , 1939, when the Amal-
gamated's membership drive was at its height, and the respondent was
combatting its growth in the plant . One week prior to the discharge,
Forelady Smith had persuaded Grace Lively, another employee, to
renounce her membership in the Amalgamated ., During February
President Murvin had called a meeting of the employees and had ad-
dressed them concerning the respondent 's inability to meet any de-
mands which might be made for increased wages or decreased hours.
When Smith approached Robinson with the petition stating that those
signing it were satisfied with the existing working conditions and
were opposed to the formation of a labor organization , she refused to
sign. When Robinson was discharged , Superintendent Miller told
her she was being discharged because the drivers received too many
complaints about her work.
Robinson had been doing some defective work. It was customary
to assign defective work which was returned to be refinished, not to
the employee who did the work on the garment originally, but to
some other employee engaged in the same type of work . Robinson
admitted that the shirts which were returned for refinishing were
usually refinished by other shirt finishers . No records were kept on
the basis of which her percentage of error could be computed. There
WHITE ' SWAN COMPANY 1087
seems to have been no serious criticism of her work prior to her dis-
charge. Superintendent Miller testified that he "didn't complain
often (about her work), but I told her as I told everyone else." We
do not believe that Robinson's work, to the extent that it was de-
fective, provided the real reason for her discharge. Other employees
testified that Robinson was contentious, and one employee had asked
to be moved to a different part of the plant, on the ground that Rob-
inson was quarrelsome. The record does not show that the respondent
warned Robinson about her alleged quarrelsomeness prior to her dis-
charge, or that it was mentioned at the time of her discharge. The
respondent retained Robinson in its employ for more than 18 months
despite alleged defects in her work and personality and discharged her
when the Amalgamated was in the midst of a membership drive.
We are convinced that Robinson was discharged because of her mem-
bership in and activities in behalf of the Amalgamated.
We find that by the discharge of Selina Robinson the respondent
discriminated in regard to her hire and tenure of employment, thereby
discouraging membership in a labor organization, and interfering
with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act.
Mary Skolnik was employed by the respondent on September 15,
1937. Her job was marking and sorting soiled clothes. She joined
the Amalgamated on September 17, 1937, and was a member of its
organizing committee. In the latter capacity she, and Louis David-
son, a representative of the Amalgamated, visited many employees
in their homes and urged them to join the Amalgamated. She also
had distributed union leaflets to the employees, and about two weeks
prior to her discharge was advised by Superintendent Miller to with-
draw from the Amalgamated or she would be discharged.
The respondent contends that it discharged Skolnik because she
made numerous mistakes, wasted time, understated the weight of
her landlady's bundles, and "was living notoriously in sin" with
Elwood Nickerson, another complainant in this case. Concerning
the discharge, Miller testified that he "had her pay made up, and
took it down and told her I didn't need her any more." According
to Miller, he had criticized Skolnik for making mistakes. It does
not appear that Skolnik had been criticized for any of the other
matters now asserted by the respondent as reasons for the discharge
or that they were mentioned at the time she was discharged. Skolnik
had won several prizes in contests conducted to secure more customers
for the respondent, and Forelady Smith testified that she was one
of the fastest workers in the plant. While we do not doubt that
Skolnik made mistakes or that she was criticized for making them,
we do not feel that her mistakes were more numerous than those of
1088 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
other employees or were the true reason for the discharge. - There is
no evidence that these mistakes greatly increased immediately. pre-
ceding the discharge. On the other hand, Skolnik had been warned
to withdraw from the Amalgamated, and had failed to do so. We
find that Skolnik was discharged because of her membership in and
activities in behalf of the Amalgamated.
. We find that by the discharge of Mary Skolnik the respondent
has discriminated in regard to her hire and tenure of employment,
thereby discouraging membership in a labor organization, and inter-
fering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise
of the rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act.
Winifred Cook was employed by the respondent on July 1, 1937,
joined the Amalgamated on October 24, 1938, and was discharged
on March 6, 1939. Two weeks prior to her discharge, Cook was
injured in an automobile accident and was unable to work. During
her absence the respondent replaced her with Frances Harvilla, who
was not a member of the Amalgamated. While Cook was recuper-
ating, she was visited by Forelady Smith who promised that her job
would be waiting for her when she should return. During this
interval Smith told others at the plant, "If Winnie Cook don't soon
come back, I don't know what we'll do. These girls that are sup-
posed to take her place, take all day to do one bundle." When Cook
actually returned to work, however, Miller told her that they did
not need her any more.
Like Skolnik, Cook was a member of the Amalgamated organizing
committee and had refused to sign the petition expressing satisfac-
tion with working conditions and opposition to the formation of a
labor organization, which was circulated in the plant. Her dis-
charge occurred at the height of the Amalgamated's membership
drive.
In explaining Cook's discharge Miller averred that she made
numerous mistakes, improperly pinning the nets and mixing the
white and colored clothes, and that he had warned her about her
mistakes. Other employees testified that Cook made errors, wasted
time, and talked to the other employees.
While Cook may have made mistakes it does not appear that they
exceeded in frequency those of other employees and the respondent
retained her in its employ for approximately one and one-half years.
Her discharge was not preceded by any marked increase in the
number of mistakes which she made. She was replaced during the
Amalgamated's membership drive by an employee who was not a
member of the Amalgamated. We are convinced that Cook was
discharged because of her membership in and activities in behalf of
the Amalgamated.
WHITE SWAN COMPANY 1089
We find that by the discharge of Winifred Cook the respondent
has discriminated in regard to her hire and tenure of employment,
thereby discouraging membership-in a labor organization, and inter-
fering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise
of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
Having considered the evidence, we agree with the Trial Exam-
iner's finding that Nickerson, Sells, White, Burdette, Lively, Wojcik,
Smith, and McClure were discharged for reasons other than mem-
bership in or activities in behalf of the Amalgamated. We shall
dismiss the allegations of the complaint as to them. Wojcik, Sells,
and White were discharged on February 28, April 15, and May 29,
1938, respectively. These discharges occurred during a period of
relative inactivity on the part of the Amalgamated. The Amalga-_
mated's membership drive did not begin until November 1938, and
the respondent's anti-union activities, reviewed above, occurred dur-
ing the membership drive. We do not feel that membership in or
activities in behalf of the Amalgamated entered into the discharges
at this early date. While McClure and Smith were discharged
during the membership drive on December 6, 1938, and March 1,
1939, they were plainly discharged for cause. Smith performed odd
jobs around the plant, his last assignment being assistant to the
mechanic. The mechanic, who was himself discharged during the
following month, testified that Smith was of no assistance to him.
McClure did miscellaneous jobs about the plant. He was summarily
discharged after he refused, using profane language, to wash Presi-
dent Murvin's car. While Nickerson was the most active member
of the Amalgamated and was discharged during the membership
drive, the route along which he collected laundry was split up among
the other drivers in order to reduce expenses. Nickerson merely
collected laundry from hotels while the other laundry truck drivers
solicited business from the people along their routes. This difference
in the type of work done by Nickerson and the other drivers appears
to have been the reason for the respondent's discharging Nickerson
rather than one of the other truck drivers. Burdette was primarily
employed at pressing linen coats and this account was lost imme-
diately preceding Burdette's discharge on April 7, 1939. 'Superin-
tendent Miller told Burdette when he discharged her that the loss
of this account was the reason for the discharge. Grace Lively, dis-
charged April 28, 1939, admitted that she made frequent mistakes
and that the number of mistakes made by her increased as time went
on. Miller assigned this as the reason for the discharge.
IV. THE 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-
1090 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
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
commerce and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that the respondent has engaged in certain unfair
labor practices, we shall order it to cease and desist therefrom, and
to take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies
of the Act and to restore, as nearly as possible, the situation that
existed prior to the commission of the unfair labor practices.
Having found that the respondent discharged Selina Robinson,
Mary Skolnik, and Winifred Cook because of their membership in
and activities in behalf of the Amalgamated, we shall direct the
respondent to reinstate each of them to her former position, without
prejudice to her seniority and other rights and privileges and to make
each of them whole for any loss of pay she may have suffered by
reason of her discharge by payment to her of a sum equal to the
amount she normally would have earned as wages from the date of her
discharge to the date of the offer of reinstatement less her net
earnings 5 during that period.
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and upon the entire
record in the case, the Board makes the following :
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America, Cleaners, Dyers,
and Laundry Workers, Local-308, is a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
2. By discharging Selina Robinson, Mary Skolnik, and Winifred
Cook, thereby discouraging membership in Amalgamated Clothing
Workers of America, Cleaners, Dyers, and Laundry Workers, Local
308, the respondent has engaged in and is engaging'in unfair labor
practices, within the meaning of Section 8 (3) of the Act.
3. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in
the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the
6 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 Amer-
ica, 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 he deducted from
the sum due the employee, and the amount thereof shall be paid over to the appropriate
fiscal agency of the Federal , State, county , municipal , or other government or governments
which supplied the funds for said work -relief projects.
WH'ITE SWAN COMPANY 1091
respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices,
*ithiii the meaning of Section 8 (1) of the Act.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices
affecting commerce, within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of
the Act.
5. The respondent has not discriminated and is not discriminating
in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of Elwood Nickerson,
Virginia Sells, Jullian White, Sue Burdette, Grace Lively, Anne
Wojcik, Charles Smith, and John McClure, 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
respondent, White Swan Company, and its agents, successors, and
assigns shall:
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Discouraging membership in Amalgamated Clothing Workers
of America, Cleaners, Dyers, and Laundry Workers, Local 308, or any
other labor organization of its employees, by discharging or refusing
to reinstate any of their employees, or in any other manner discrimi-
nating in regard to their hire and tenure of employment or any term
or condition of their employment;
(b) 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, or to engage in concerted
activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual
aid or protection as guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will
Pffectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Offer to Selina Robinson, Mary Skolnik, and Winifred Cook,
full and immediate reinstatement to their former positions without
prejudice to their seniority and other rights and privileges;
(b) Make whole Selina Robinson, Mary Skolnik, and Winifred
Cook, for any loss of pay they have suffered by reason of the re-
spondent's discrimination against them, by payment to each of them
of a sum of money equal to that which she normally would have
earned as wages from the date of the respondent's discrimination
against her to the date of the respondent's offer of reinstatement,
less her net earnings during said period ; deducting, however, from
the amount otherwise due them monies received by them during said
period for work performed upon Federal, State, county, municipal,
1092 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
or other work-relief projects ; and pay over the amounts so deducted
to the appropriate fiscal agency of the Federal , State, county , munic-
ipal , or other government or governments which supplied the funds
for said work-relief projects;
(c) Immediately post notices in conspicuous places in the respond-
ent's plant at Wheeling , West Virginia , and maintain such notices
for a period of at least sixty ( 60) consecutive days, stating that the
respondent will cease and desist in the manner set forth in paragraphs
1 (a) and (b) of this Order, and take the affirmative action set
forth in paragraphs 2 (a) and ( b), and that the respondent's em-
ployees are free to become or remain members of Amalgamated
Clothing Workers of America, Cleaners , Dyers, and Laundry Work-
ers, Local 308, and that the respondent will not discriminate against
any employee because of membership or activity in that organization;
(d) Notify the Regional Director for the Sixth Region in writing
within ten (10 ) days from the date of this Order what steps the
respondent has taken to comply herewith.
AND IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint , in so far as it
alleges that the respondent discriminated in regard to the hire and
tenure of employment of Elwood Nickerson , Virginia Sells, Jullian
White, Sue Burdette , Grace Lively, Anne Wojcik, Charles Smith,
and- John McClure, be, and the same hereby is, dismissed.