B. B. Crystal Co.

In the Matter of PROSPER BROZEN, INDIVIDUALLY , AND DOING BUSINESS AS B. B . CRYSTAL COMPANY and WHOLESALE & WAREHOUSE WORKERS UNION, LOCAL 65, C. I. O. Case No. PC-5815.-Decided August 30, 1946 Mr. Jerome I. Macht, for the Board. Goldwater d Flynn, by Mr. Joseph E. O'Grady, and Newman cfi Bisco, by Mr. Nathan Waxman, all of New York City, for the respond- ent. Messrs. Peter Stein and Irving Lebold, of New York City, for the Union. - Miss Melvern R. Krelow, of counsel to the Board. DECISION AND ORDER On April 25, 1946, Trial Examiner Martin S. Bennett issued his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices and recommending that he cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the Inter- mediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the respondent filed ex- ceptions to the Intermediate Report and a supporting brief. On July 30, 1946, the Board heard oral argument at Washington, D. C. Only o the respondent appeared- and participated in the argument. The Board has reviewed the Trial Examiner's ruling made at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rul- ings are hereby affirmed, except as hereinafter indicated. The Board has considered the' Intermediate Report, the respondent's exceptions and brief, and the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the find- ings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner with the additions and exceptions hereinafter set forth. .1. The Trial Examiner has found that the respondent discharged Tony Greco because of his union activities, and that the incident of April 23, 1943, discussed below, was seized upon by the respondent as a pretext. The record shows that on April 9, 1943, Greco, while dis- cussing the discharge of two employees, raised his hand to Brozen and 70 N. *L. R. B., No. 75. - 985 986 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD said, "If you were not such an old mall ..." On April 20, 1943, an employee, Schlissel, was creating . disturbance by whistling loudly. While Brozen was reprimanding Schlissel for the second time, Greco intervened and asked Brozen, "Are you telling me people are slowing down in production and you are going around bothering a man working and doing his work? If he is whistling, so what?" Greco ordered Schlissel to whistle, and turning to Brozen said, "You have nothing to do in the factory. Go back to the office." Brozen told Greco, "You might find I will have to discharge you if you continue to do that," and Greco. replied, "I am shop chairman. You will never be able to dis- charge me." On April 23, 1943, an employee, Newman, after several days' absence from the plant, reported for work. He was prevented by Foreman Heinen from- clocking in. Thereupon, Newman reported to Brozen. Brozen told Newman that he knew Newman "had another job and that there was no sense in having two jobs at one time." New- man approached Greco, told him 'that he had been ill for the past sev- eral days,' and requested Greco to take up his discharge with Brozen. Greco immediately went to, Brozen and demanded that Newman be reinstated. Brozen refused, asserting that Newman had another job.' Greco promptly assembled the union shop committee and approached Brozen.in the outer factory office. In the discussion which ensued, Brozen again told Greco that Newman had another job, and that he actually, quit. Greco, in the presence of the shop committee and other persons gathered around, said, to Brozen, "You are a liar." Brozen immediately discharged Greco stating, "I have taken all that I am going to take from you, and now you are fired." One of the employees then asked Brozen if he and Greco could get together, and Brozen said, "We will if he apologizes to me, he called me a liar." Greco refused to apologize, contending that he had not called Brozen a liar. Under the circumstances, we are of the opinion that the respondent discharged Greco because of insubordination, and not because of his union activities. The Trial Examiner's finding that Greco was dis- charged in violation of Section 8 (3) of the Act is hereby reversed. - 2. During the hearing, the Trial Examiner denied the respondent's motion to strike the testimony of Daniel House, a former Field Exami- ner in the Board's Second Regional Office. We agiee with the Trial Examiner, and hereby affirm his ruling. 3. The Trial Examiner has found, and we agree, that the respondent has refused to bargain with the Union. In so concluding, however, we do not rely upon, nor do-we affirm, the Trial Examiner's subsidiary finding that the,respondent's conduct in discharging two employees on 1 The respondent applied for a subpoena addressed to L. Heller in order to prove that Newman had worked for Heller during the period he contended he was ill, which application -was denied by the Trial Examiner- Thereupon the respondent formally offered-to prove these facts. The offer of proof was rejected by the Trial Examiner. We do not agree with the ruling made by the Trial Examiner. 'However, in view of our holding that Greco was not discriminatorily discharged, we find'that no prejudicial error was committed. B. B. CRYSTAL COMPANY 987 May 6,1943, without prior consultation with or notice to the Union, and thereafter in refusing, although requested by the Union, to submit these discharges to arbitration, constituted a violation of Section 8 (5) of the Act. 4. We are of the opinion that the conduct on the part of the respond- ent, set forth in the Intermediate Report under Section III, 2, coupled with -the respondent's refusal, which we have heretofore found, to bargain collectively with the Union, digcloses a purpose to defeat self- organization among the respondent's employees. Because of the re- spondent's unlawful conduct and its underlying purpose, we are convinced that the unfair labor practices found are related to the other unfair labor practices proscribed by the Act, and that danger of their commission in the future is to be anticipated from 'the respondent's conduct in the past. In order, therefore, to effectuate the policies of the Act, and to protect the rights of the employees thereunder, we shall order the respondent-to cease and desist from in any manner infringing upon the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. ORDER Upon the entire record in the case, and pursuant to Section 10 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the respondent, Prosper Brozen, individu- ally, and doing business as B. B. Crystal Company,I New York, New York, and his agents, successors, anct assigns shall : 1. Cease and desist from : (a) Refusing to bargain collectively with Wholesale & Warehouse Workers Union, Local 65, C. I. 0., as the exclusive representative of all his production, maintenance, and factory clerical employees, ex- cluding office employees, members of the firm, and supervisory em- ployees with authority to hire, promote, discharge, discipline, or other- wise effect changes in the status of employees, or effectively recommend such action, with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other conditions of employment; (b) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing his employees in the exercise of the right to self-organization, to form labor organizations, to join or assist Wholesale & Warehouse Workers Union, Local 65, C. I. 0., or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively with representatives of their own choosing, and 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 effectuate the policies of the Act : (a) Upon request, bargain collectively with Wholesale & Warehouse Workers Union, Local 65, C. I. 0., as the exclusive representative of all his production, maintenance, and factory clerical employees, ex- 988 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD eluding office employees, members of the firm, and supervisory em- ployees with authority to hire, promote, discharge, discipline, or other- wise effect changes in the status of employees, or effectively recommend such action, with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other conditions of employment; (b) Post at his plant at New York, New York, copies of the notice attached hereto, marked "Appendix A." Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for the Second Region, shall, after being duly signed by the respondent's representative, be posted by the respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and maintained by him for sixty (60) consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, on the seventh and eighth floors of his factory, and including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the respondent to insure that notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material ; (c) Notify the Regional Director for the Second Region in writing, within ten (10) days from'the date, of this Order,' what steps the respondent has taken to comply therewith. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint, insofar as it alleges that the respondent has discriminated against Tony Greco, within the meaning of Section 8 (3) of the Act, be, and it hereby is, dismissed. MR. JAMES J. REYNOLDS,.JR., took no part in the consideration of the above Decision and Order. APPENDIX A NOTICE To ALL EMPLOYEES Pursuant to a Decision and Order of the National Labor Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor -Relations Act, we hereby notify our employees that : WE WILL NOT in any manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to form labor organizations, to join or assist WHOLESALE & WAREHOUSE WORKERS UNION, LOCAL-65, C. I. 0., or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively through rep- resentatives of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection. All our employees are free to become or remain members of this union, or any other labor organization. WE WILL BARGAIN collectively upon request with the above- named union as the exclusive representative of all employees in the bargaining unit described herein with respect to rates of pay, hours of employment or other conditions of employment, and if an understanding is reached, embody such understanding in a signed agreement. The bargaining unit is : a B. B. CRYSTAL COMPANY 989 All production , maintenance, and factory clerical employees, excluding office employees , members of the firm, and supervisory employees with authority to hire, promote, discharge , discipline, or otherwise effect changes in the status of employees , or effectively recommend,such action. PROSPER BROZEN , individually and'doing business as B . B. CRYSTAL COMPANY, Employer. Dated----------- By------------------------------------------ (Rpresentative ) (Title) This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof, and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. INTERMEDIATE REPORT Mr. Jerome I. Macht, for the Board. - Goldwater & Flynn, by Mr. Joseph E. O'Grady and Newman & 'Bisco, by Mr. Nathan Waxman, all of New York City, for the respondent. Messrs. Peter Stein and Irving Lebold, of New York City, for the Union. STATEMENT Or THE CASE Upon a second amended charge duly filed on January 29, 1946; by Wholesaled & Warehouse Workers Union, Local 65, C. I. 0., herein called the Union, the National Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board, by its Acting Regional Director for the Second Region (New York, N. Y.), issued its complaint dated January 30, 1946, against Prosper Brozen, individually, and doing business as B. B. Crystal Company, herein called the respondent, alleging that the re- spondent at its plant in New York, N. Y., had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8 (1), (3), and (5) and -Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein called the Act. Copies of the complaint, accompanied by notice of hearing thereon, were duly served upon the respondent and the Union. With respect to the unfair labor practices, the complaint alleged, in substance, that respondent : (1) on or about April 23, 1943, discharged and thereafter refused to reinstate Tony Greco because he joined or assisted the Union or engaged in other concerted activities; (2) in or about April, May, and October, 1943, and on numerous dates thereafter, refused and continues to refuse to bargain collectively with the Union as the exclusive bargaining representative of respondent's employees within an appropriate bargaining unit, although a majority of the employees in such unit, in an election conducted under the supervision of the Board on April 16, 1943, had designated and selected the Union, and the Union was certified by the Board on April 2, 1943, as the exclusive bargaining representative of the employees in said unit; (3) in or about April and May, 1943, and thereafter, expressed disapproval of the Union, interrogated its employees concerning their union affiliations, warned its employees against joining and belonging to the Union on penalty of discharge or other reprisals, and on April 28, 1944, promised and subsequently granted a unilateral wage increase to his employees; and (4) by such conduct engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (1), (3), and (5) of the Act. 3 The original charge in this proceeding was flied on April 3, 1945. 990 ' DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Respondent's answer, filed at the hearing on February 18, 1946, admitted several of the allegations in the complaint with respect to the nature of respond- ent's business, admitted that respondent "has not since April 23, 1943, employed Tony Greco," admitted that on April 16, 1943, a majority of his employees in the unit set forth in the complaint, designated the Union as their collective bargaining representative, but denied the appropriateness of the unit set forth in the com- plaint. The answer further alleged that, respondent, during-April and May 1943, did engage in collective bargaining with the Union in good faith but that the Union refilsedrto proceed- with collective bargaining and'caused the matter to be certified to the National War Labor Board as a dispute concerning wages. The answer further alleged that in October 1943, respondent's employees repudiated the Union as their collective bargaining representative and that.the Union has- not, since that date, been the representative of the employees in the unit set forth in the complaint. The answer denied the commission of any unfair labor practices. Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held on February 18, 19, 20, 27, and 28, and on March 1, 4, and 5, 1946, at New York, New York, before the undersigned Trial Examiner, Martin S. Bennett, duly designated by the Chief Trial Examiner. The Board and respondent were represented by counsel and the Union by repre- sentatives. Full opportunity was afforded all parties to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing upon the issues. During the hearing, a motion by counsel for the Board to conform the pleadings to the proof with respect to formal matters was granted. Counsel for the Board argued orally before the undersigned at the conclusion of the hearing and all ° parties were afforded an opportunity to file briefs. A brief has been submitted by respondent. Upon the entire record in the case and from his observation of the witnesses, the undersigned makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT Respondent, Prosper Brozen, individually, and doing business under the trade name and style of B. B. Crystal Company, has his principal office and place of business at New York, New York, where he is engaged in the manufacture, sale, and distribution of watch crystals.'- During the year 1945, respondent purchased sheet glass and other materials, valued in excess of $10,000, of which approxi- mately 90 percent was transported to its plant from States of the United States other than the State of New York. During the same period, the value of watch crystals manufactured by respondent was in excess of $250,000, of which approxi- mately 90 percent was transported to States of the United States other than the State of New York. Respondent admits that he is engaged in commerce within the meaning of'the Act. - II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED Wholesale and Warehouse Workers Union, Local 65, is a labor organization affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations, admitting to membership employees of respondent. - 0 2 For many years Prosper Brozen was associated with his brother Leon Brozen, as co- partners . doing business under the trade name and style of B. B. Crystal Company. Upon the death of Leon Brozen, on or about June 9, 1945, Prosper Brozen became the successor to said business and has continued to operate it as an individual. B. B. CRYSTAL COMPANY 991 III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES 1. Background and preliminary events Prior to February 1, 1943, there was no labor organization representing re- spondent's employees. On the morning of February 1, 1943, Prosper Brozen re, ceived two separate letters from employees of the bending department, in each a wage increase was requested. He arranged a conference with a committee of employees from that department and stated that he was unable to raise wages without War Labor Board approval. While the conference was on, there was a work stoppage in the bending. department and approximately 70 employees of that department and the polishing department went on strike. Division Director Bernstein, of the Union,-was informed of the strike and was told that the em- ployees were looking for a union organizer. He promptly dispatched an organizer, Louis Kalb, to the scene. The latter found a number of respondent's employees in the street and obtained signed membership applications for the Union from them. He also went into the plant' and endeavored to get the remainder of the workers to join those already on strike. Approximately 60 to 70 additional em- ployees then left the plant, making a total of approximately 130 on strike of the 180 rank and file employees then in respondent's employ. The strikers met that afternoon and elected a committee to represent them in negotiations with re- spondent The following day, some workers reported for work, but left prior to 10 o'clock and joined the strikers' On February 2, Kalb, Bernstein, and the committee met the two Brozens and their secretary, Mildred Coval. They stated that the Union represented a majority of respondent's employees, that it wanted to negotiate a contract, and offered to prove the union majority by card check. After the Union proposed that an interim method of arbitrating grievances be established, Prosper Brozen stated that lie would have to consider the matter and that he intended to con- sult an attorney ; he retained Daniel D. Trause that day. That evening, a state- ment was mailed to respondent by the Union wherein the Union requested a union shop, and indicated that it desired negotiations concerning seniority, vaca- tions, holidays, sick leave, changes of jobs in the plant, an arbitration clause, and salary adjustments. The tollowing day, the union representatives had a telephone conversation with Trause wherein the latter stated that he lacked familiarity with the field of labor relations and requested definite proof of the union ma- jority The Union filed a'Petition for Investigation and Certification-of Rep- resentatives on February 3.° The Board held a hearing on March 4, 1943, and on March 29 ordered an election held among respondent's employees' The election was held on April 16, and of 113 eligibles, 110 voted. Of the 109 valid ballots, 100 were cast for the Union. On April 28, 1943, the Union was duly certified by the Board. as the collective bargaining representative of respondent's production, maintenance and factory clerical employees. 2. Interference, mcstrain,t, and coercion Tony Greco, an employee since September 1942, was elected shop chairman on or about March 26, 1943. The following morning, lie informed Prosper Brozen 3 The plant is located on the seventh and eighth floors of an office building. All plant departments and company offices are on the eighth floor with the exception of the beveling department which is located on the seventh floor. ,'The strike terminated on February 8, 1943 ; an undisclosed number of the strikers did not return to respondent's employ. Case R-4974. 4 48 N. L. R B. 701. 992 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD of his election, as he testified, and offered to cooperate with him, should Brozen find a lack of cooperation among any workers. Brown then told him that he was foolish to join the Union, accept the responsibility of shop chairman, and represent the workers; that the workers would turn against him eventually; and that he (Greco) would suffer by it as he would not have the opportunity to earn the same money as others in the shop. That noon, respondent stopped overtime work in the bending department, claim- ing that production had fallen off, that the men ignored his requests to speed up production, and that this was a disciplinary measure.' On several occasions in April 1943, both prior to and after the Board ordered election held on April 16, but prior to April23,8 Brozen discussed the Union with Greco, as the latter testified, and stated that "his own personal investigation of the union showed that they were Communists, and that all unions were racket- eers." On one occasion, Brozen said "he would never sign a contract with the union because he wouldn't have anything to do with any Jewish Bolshevik organization-when we [the employees] joined the union it would cost us money, we would have to pay dues, we would be assessed, we would have strikes." Brozen further stated that "he didn't have to be in the manufacturing business" but could buy ready-made crystals elsewhere and need only maintain a sales office wherever he chose in the country. He added that "he would go,'out of business if he was forced to sign a contract with the union," that he could make a profit by sub-leasing his factory space, and showed Greco a letter whose writer offered to sublet the seventh floor of the factory. He concluded by saying that he could sublet his factory at any time. Greco, as shop chairman, was also a member of a shop committee chosen by the employees. After the stoppage of overtime on March 27, they conferred on two or thrre occasions with Brozen and Trause. At these conferences, which appear to have been prior to the election on April 16, the principal issue was the restora- tion of overtime work. After discussing that issue at the first meeting, Brozen said, as Greco testified, "he wouldn't have anything to do with the union, he was running his business, -would stop overtime when he wanted to . . ." ; that both Brozen and Trause said that they did not see how the Union could obtain wage adjustments for the employees, as they had been unsuccessful in the attempt and that the Union was "just fooling" the employees. Greco testified that at the other two meetings of the committee with Brozen and Trause conversation followed a similar pattern, and that at one of them, when the Union asked permission to have their representative present, Brozen said, "there was no contract in the shop, we had no union, and he wouldn't have any union organizer sit in with us, he would never have him come up to the shop" ; that at all of these.meetings Brozen said the men "had no business joining the union." The undersigned finds that Brozen and Trause made the statements set forth above,8 and that respondent thereby interfered with, restrained, and coerced his employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7-of the Act. 7 The employees normally would have worked until 4: 30 p. in that day. 8 Greco was discharged on April 23. , The circumstances of his discharge are hereinafter discussed in Section 4.. e This finding is based upon the credible testimony of Greco. Brozen denied making most of the statements attributed to him by Greco, but admitted having approximately eight talks with Greco after his election as shop chairman. He was not asked questions con- cerning several of the statements, aq e. g , Greco's testimony that Brozen threatened to go out of business if compelled to sign a contract with the Union and that he (Brozen) could sublet the fgctory. The testimony of Greco on these matters was clear and forthright , his recollection of the events was good. On the other hand, Brozen's recollection was refreshed by memoranda on a number of occasions and, in the opinion of the undersigned, he was an B. B. CRYSTAL COMPANY 993 3. The refusal to bargain; additional interference, restraint, and coercion (a) The appropriate unit Pursuant to a petition duly filed by the Union, the Board, on March'29, 1943,' issued its Decision and Direction of Election,10 in which it found that a unit composed of all production, maintenance, and factory clerical employees of re- spondent at his New York plant, excluding all office employees, members of the firm, and all supervisory employees, was an appropriate unit for the purposes of collective bargaining. The undersigned finds that the above-described unit at all times material herein constituted and now constitutes a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act. (b) Representation by the Union of a majority in the appropriate unit On April 16, 1943, pursuant to said Decision and Direction of Election, an election, duly conducted, was won by the Union. No objections to the election were filed by any of the parties and on April 28, 1943, the Board issued its Certification of Representatives, certifying the Union as the exclusive representa- tive of all the employees in the aforesaid appropriate unit. The undersigned finds that on April 28, 1943, and at all times thereafter, the Union was, and now is, the duly designated representative of a majority of the employees in the aforesaid appropriate unit, and by virtue of Section 9 (a) of the Act, the Union at all such times was and now is the exclusive representative of all the employees in the aforesaid appropriate unit for the purposes of col- lective bargaining with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours, or other conditions of employment" (c) The election; the case goes to the War Labor Board As heretofore set forth, the Board, pursuant to its Decision and Direction of Election, conducted an election on April 16, 1943, at respondent's plant which was won by the Union. i Daniel House, who was employed by the Board as a Field Examiner during 4943 and 1944, conducted the election among respondent's employees. He testi- fied that immediately after the election the ballots were counted and a "Certifi- cate of Counting and Tabulation" was prepared by him and handed to Prosper Brozen ; Biozen then asked him what the result of the election meant., House replied that Brozen was expected to sit down, negotiate, and bargain with the Union, whereupon Brozen stated "I could bargain from now until doomsday, but that wouldn't mean I would sign an agreement." House informed Brozen that this would be a violation of the law and then left 12112 evasive witness . Brozen's testimony on this matter is rejected . Trause was not asked whether he made the statements attributed to him by Greco. 20 48 N. L. R. B. 701. "The contention of respondent that a shift of majority had taken place prior to the hearing in the subject case will be discussed later in this report. The Union offered no other proof of its majority at the hearing. u Brozen admitted having a conversation with House after the election but denied stating that he would not sign an agreement with the Union. Mildred Coval, Brozen 's assistant, testified that she heard the end of a conversation between House and Brozen after the election and did not hear the remark attributed to Brozen by House. Trause testified that he was in Brozen's presence during the entire period after the election while House was on the premises and did not hear the statement attributed to Brozen by House Brozen has heretofore been found to have been an evasive witness Coval admitted that she did not hear the entire conversation. Not only did House impress the undersigned as a 994 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD As found above, during April 1943, Brozen told Shop Steward Greco that he would never sign with the Union and that he would go out of business if forced to sign a contract On April 23, 1943, as is hereinafter set forth in more detail, Greco was discharged 14 and a work stoppage followed. On April 24, Organizer Kalb of the Union, and the then Division Director of the Union, Leo Bernstein, together with a committee of workers, met with respondent and Trause, at a con- ciliation meeting conducted by Commissioner Dougherty of the U. S. Conciliation Service in an effort to cease the work stoppage, arbitrate the Greco and Newman discharges, and set up temporary arbitration machinery for grievances, existing and future. No decisions were arrived at and the Union immediately took steps to get the case certified to the War Labor Board as a dispute case. On or about April 29, 1943, another meeting was held with the same parties attending. Re- spondent refused to reinstate Greco as the Union requested and no decisions were arrived at. _ On or about- May 6, 1943, respondent discharged two employees named Grogan and the Moncayo The Union was not consulted concerning these discharges nor was it notified prior to their execution. Kalb, upon learning of the dis- charges, telephoned Trause and told him that the parties "must have a method of determining the question 'of the discharges." Trause claimed that "all of the discharges that had taken place . . . were all justified." Kalb "contended oth- erwise." Trause "refused ... to submit to arbitration ..." 15 The Union was notified on May 3, 1943, by the U. S Conciliation Service that the case was being prepared for submission to the War Labor Board. On May 7,'the work stoppage which had commenced on Ap'it 23 was terminated. Two additional meetings were held between representatives of the Union and respond- ent on May 11 and May 17, at which the Union's request for recognition, for clauses to be placed in a contract, for a union shop, and for the reinstatement of Greco and Newman were discussed No decisions were arrived at and a third meeting was scheduled for May 25. On May 20, the parties were notified that the case had been certified by the Secretary of Labor to the War Labor Board. Shortly prior to the meeting scheduled for May 25, the Union notified Trause that it was unwilling to continue negotiating without the War Labor Board in the picture as it felt that respondent was not bargaining in good faith. Trause contended that respondent was bargaining in good faith. He further indicatedo that respondent desired that the Union withdraw the case from the War Labor Board and proceed directly with negotiations with respondent.1d The Union refused to proceed without the War Labor Board in the picture. The meeting scheduled for May 25-was not held and there were no further meetings between clear and forthright witness but , in addition , the statement attributed to Brozen by House Is consistent with Brozen 's almost identical statement to Greco at approximately the same time, heretofore found to be violative of the Act. The testimony of Brozen, Coval, and Trause Is rejected where inconsistent with the testimony of House. 18 At the close of the hearing , respondent moved to strike from the record any testimony by House with respect to a conversation held by House with Brozen on April 16 , 1943, im- mediately subsequent to announcement of the result of the election , alleging that under Article VII , Section 2 , of the Board's Rules and Regulations , Series 3 , as amended , House's testimony might not be given without the written consent of the Board or the Chairman of the Board The motion was denied . See Matter of South Texa8 Produce Company, 66 N. L. R B. 1442. 14 Employee Newman was also discharged on April 23. '- This finding is based upon the credible testimony of Kalb, supported in part by that of Coval. Trause was not questioned concerning this incident 16 This finding is based on the credible testimony of Bernstein, undenied by Trause. B. B. CRYSTAL COMPANY 995 the parties until hearings"before it panel of the Regional War Labor Board in New York commenced in September 1943." (d) Proceedings before the panel and the War Labor Board The Regional War Labor Board in New York appointed a panel to hear 'the dispute case involving respondent and the Union. Its first hearing was held on or about September 22, 1943. Division Director Stein, of the Union, testified that respondent's attorney, Nathan Waxman, at this time contested the juris- diction of the War Labor Board on two grounds: (1) "that the Union did not represent the workers in the plant" and respondent refused to 'recognize them as the employees' bargaining representative, and (2) that respondent was not subject to the War Labor Disputes Act. Stein testified that Waxman also reserved the right, in the hearing before the panel, to check cases so that he might determine whether the panel had a right to hear the dispute and "going to the very essence of recognition of the Union . . as the duly elected or collective bargaining representative of the employees in the plant" Waxman admitted stating to the panel "that the Company was not engaged in any war contiacts" but denied placing this statement in writing in respondent's Statement of Position which was filed with the panel at that time."B Waxman testified that he did not refuse to recognize the Union at this meeting on the basis that they did not represent the workers and stated that he,first challenged the juris. diction of the War Labor Board on October 8. He admitted taking exception to any issues other than wages being considered by the panel on September 22. Both he and Stein testified that he (Waxman) confined his Statement of Posi- tion to wages and matters involving wages, such as vacations, holidays, and sick leave; that Waxman contended that other issues were not before the panel. An analysis of the above testimony shows that Waxman admitted most of the matters credibly testified to by Stein as occurring at the panel meeting held on or about September 22, 1943. In addition, as will be shown, the statement that respondent refused to recognize the Union, attributed to Waxman by Stein, is consistent with identical statements made by Waxman on October 8, as herein- after found The undersigned credits Stein's testimony. The panel took the position that all issues before the parties were before it for decision and recessed the hearing pending further discussion and clarification of the number of issues by the parties. On October 6, the War Labor Board wrote to the parties requesting that it be advised as to any new developments in negotiations between the Union and respondent. On October 8, 1943, Stein, Waxman, and Brozen met in Waxman's office in accordance with the panel's recommendation Stein testified that the conference opened with Waxman "making inquiries of me with regard to the Union's strength in the shop, directly asking me how many members I thought we had in the plant and whether we represented the workers or not" and that Waxman claimed the Union did not represent the majority of respondent's employees and refused to recognize them as their collective bargaining representative. Waxman ad- initted stating to Stein at this meeting "that if we get together there would 11 Trause was inducted into the Army on June 14, 1943 In August Nathan Waxman replaced him as counsel for respondent in dealings with the Union and in the case certified to the War Labor Board , Case No. 111-1662-D. On September 1, Peter. Stein replaced Leo Bernstein=as Division Director of the Union. 18 This Statement of Position was not introduced in evidence in'the instant case. 712344-47-vol. 70-64 996 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD be a gentlemen's agreement" and that by this he meant an agreement that "if we could agree that because our people simply did not want the Union and if we did not want to saddle a Union on them, then the understanding, if any, reached by us would have to be the subject of a gentlemen's agreement and not a formal agreement" ; that by this he meant an oral agreement and not a written agreement ; and that "so far as we could see, the members-the employees, were not interested in the Union ; that if that was so we weren't going to saddle a Union on them." . ' Stein attempted to discuss the Greco discharge at this conference and Brozen said "I will deal with you if you can organize an equivalent number of workers in this industry." Stein rejected this offer, stating that the Union could not subject its dealing with respondent to the restriction of organizing the rest of the industry.1B Stein felt that no progress was made at this meeting and the matter was referred back to the panel. On October 11, five employees approached BrQzen after work and stated that they desired to discuss a wage increase with him as "they were tired of waiting for it"; they told Brozen that they did not want to be represented by the Union. According to Brozen, he refused to discuss the matter with them and stated that the Union was the bargaining agent of his employees. The group then handed him two documents," copies of which were introduced in evidence, one purporting to be signed by 37 employees and stating that the signers were no longer members of the Union and did not want it to represent them. The other, purporting to be signed by 8 employees, stated that the signers had never designated the Union as their bargaining representative and that they did not want it to represent them n On October 21, 1943, a representation petition was filed with the Regional Office of the Board by the same five employees who had brought Brozen the two petitions on October 11. On November 19, 1943, the Regional Director refused to issue a notice of hearing and so notified the five petitioners, stating that further proceedings did not seem warranted. They appealed the matter, and on January 19, 1944, the Field Director of the Board notified the five petitioners that the decision of the Regional Director was sustained.`' The next panel meeting was scheduled for October 28, 1943, at which time the parties submitted their respective Statements of Position concerning the issues between them. Although a formal meeting was not held because of the absence of one of the three panel members, the parties and the other two panel members discussed the .issues. Waxman testified, and the undersigned finds, that, he "factually and legally challenged the right of the Union to speak for our em- ployees." A discussion ensued on this point and Waxman stated that he would iB The undersigned finds that Brozen and Waxman, on October 8, 1943, made the state- ments credibly testified to by Stein Brozen did not deny Stein's testimony herein. Wax- man's testimony agrees substantially with Stein's as to what transpired at the October 8 meeting. - 21 The documents bear the date of October 9, 1943. 21 Coval testified that the two documents contained the names of all of respondent's fac- tory employees at that time, except one, and that she compared the names with those on the pay roll. The only evidence adduced from signers of the documents was that of former em- ployee Esther Potak. She had a poor recollection of the circumstances surrounding the alleged signing of the documents but recalled that she had signed the petition bearing 37 signatures 23 This finding is based upon a stipulation of the parties and testimony in the minutes of a subsequent W. L. B. hearing held on January 10, 1945, and herein introduced in evidence. Waxman admitted to the W. L. B. panel that respondent knew of this representation petition. B. B. CRYSTAL COMPANY 997 "Insist on the position we took." A meeting was arranged for November 12 but was postponed to, November 23. On November 14, respondent received by mail from the Union a copy of a proposed agreement, which was introduced in evidence. Waxman and Brozen both testified and the parties stipulated that another proposed agreement, also introduced in evidence, was prepared by respondent as a reply to the Union's proposed agreement and submitted to the Union. The agreement prepared by the Union deals with recognition of the Union, union security, seniority rights, handling of discharges, hours of work, wages, holidays, sick leave, and the handling of disputes. Clause 1 of the agreement submitted by the Union states in part: 11 1. The Employer recognizes the Union as the only union representing its employees and agrees to deal collectively only with this union for and on behalf of its employees. The bargain unit shall be : all production, main- tanence [sic], factory and clerical employees, exclusive of office, supervisory, and executives of the Company. This bargaining unit having been estab- lished by the National Labor Relations Board in the certification dated April 28, 1943, which came about as a result of a secret ballot election con- ducted by the N. L. R. B., in which the above Union received 100 votes to 9 which were cast for no union. [Italics supplied.] In reply, Clause 1 of the counter-contract submitted by respondent states: 1. With respect to proposed clause 1, it is objectionable . There would be. no objection to reciting "that on April 28, 1943, the National Labor Relations Board certified the union as the representative of production, maintenance and factory clerical employees of the company, but excluding all office em- ployees, supervisory employees and members, of the firm for the purpose of collective bargaining with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employ- ment and other conditions of employment." [Italics supplied ] Neither agreement contains any other clauses pertaining to recognition of the Union by respondent as such. A reading of the two clauses shows it to be obvious, and the undersigned so finds, that the respondent in its counter-agreement found objectionable a clause recognizing the Union as the collective bargaining repre- sentative of his employees. The meeting scheduled for November 23 was postponed to November 29, on which occasion the meeting was held. Respondent brought approximately 20 to 25 of the company's employees to this meeting and offered to prove by the workers that the Union did not represent the workers in respondent's plant. Waxman stated to the panel, in the presence of the assembled workers, that the Union was holding up approval of wage increases for the workers and refusing to cooperate with the company in getting out an interim report by the War Labor Board on wages, and that the Union was standing in the way of wage increases for the workers. He stated that the respondent did not recognize the Union as a rep- resentative of his employees and that the employees did'not want the Union.' as This finding is based upon the testimony of Stein and Brozen. Brozen admitted that the purpose of bringing the workers to that meeting was to show that the Union no longer represented them. Waxman admitted that "some witnesses that were present that night were there at the instance of the employ er" ; said that some of them were supervisors ; and stated that he did not recall the number of employees present that evening In addition, Waxman admitted, at a Compliance hearing of the W. L. B., held on^January 10, 1945, min- utes of which are in evidence , that "we had every member of the shop present and it was our intention to call them to show repudiation by them of the Union. In other words, to make formal proof of the fact. We did not get beyond calling two of these employees who repudiated the Union . . . 998 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD On or about December 15, 1943, respondent submitted another proposed con- tract to the Union which was rejected by it on or about January 10, 1944. This proposal was introduced in evidence and it is similar to the prior agreement submitted by respondent in November in that it contains no clause recognizing the Union as the bargaining representative of respondent's employees' After a number of postponements, a final panel meeting was held on April 28- 1944 At this meeting the Union asked for a panel decision on the many issues of the case. Waxman thereupon stated that the Union did not represent respondent's employees and asked that the panel deny this request. In addition, he accused the Union of delaying the case so as to prevent the workers from receiving a wage increase and asked that the War Labor Board dismiss the case so that respondent could later apply for a voluntary wage adjustment for his employees. 'vVimuan then stated to the panel that respondent refused to recognize and bargain with the Union ; that as something had to be done with respect to the urgent wage sit- uation in the plant, the company was willing to reach an "accord" with the Union on wages, but not based on recognition of the Union or upon collective bargaining with it zs The parties, on this occasion, (lid work out a wage scale between them while the hearing recessed, and it was agreed that it would be incorporated in a Directive Order On June 6, 1944, the War Labor Board panel issues its Report and Recom- mendations wherein it noted that the parties had never had a bargaining agree- ment, and then proceeded to discuss issues between the parties, including union seciurity. -Although noting that the question of representation was not for it to decide, the panel recommended that the Union be granted maintenance of mem- bership On July 21, 1941, the National War Labor Board, Second Region, issued a Directive Order and on July 31, 1944, an amendment thereto. The Directive Order contained, inter alia, the standard maintenance of membership clause pro- em- viding for retention of membership in good standing in the Union of all' ployees who were members of the Union on August 5, 1944, thus establishing a 15- day escape period. The parties were instructed in the Order to incorporate the terms and conditions of`the Order in a signed agreement Respondent, after receiving the Directive Ordei, filed a petition for review as provided in the terns of the Directive Order and asked permission to put into effect Sections 3, 5, and 6 of the Directive Order of July 21, dealing with wages, holidays and vacations, respectively. Respondent duly posted the escape notice form submitted by the War Labor Board. Brozen's assistant, Coval, testified that between July 21 and August 5, 4 of the plant employees brought, in 42 letters, all signed by employees. These were introduced in evidence. Twenty-nine, most of which were addressed to the company, stated that the respective signers no longer belonged to the Union: of these, 18 bore the date-of July 26. 4 were dated July 27, 3 dated July 31, 1 dated August 1, and 3 were undated Thirteen letters stated that the signers had not belonged to the Union and of these 9 were dated July 26, 3 dated July 27, and 1 dated, July 31. Both groups were of a generally similar pattern as to-context. Coval testified, and the undersigned finds, that at that time respondent had 50 rank and file employees. The Directive Order of July 21 had authorized a new wage scale for respondent's plant. On or about August 5, respondent, without contacting or consulting the 24 In January 1944 Stein was inducted into the Armed Services,and Irving Lebold replaced him as Division Director of the Union. 's The findings in this"paragraph are based upon the testimony of both Lebold and Wax- man which is in substantial agreement. Waxman admitted at the hearing in the subject case that respondent, on April 28, 1944, wanted to grant its employees a wage increase but was unwilling to ilo so through recognition of the Union E B. B. CRYSTAL COMPANY 999 Union. put the authorized wage increase into effect 2° No agreement was signed with the Union. frri November 22, 1944. the National War Labor Board denied respondent's peti- tion for review and reathrmed its Directive Order of July 21, 1944, as amended .July 31. It further directed the parties to incorporate the terms and conditions of employment, as set forth in the Directive Order, as amended, into a written agreement. Within 5 days Lebold telephones Waxman and asked him to "sit down and work on an agreement." Waxman replied that he did not recognize the Union and that "this is not the end' of it.,, 27 The Union turned to the War Labor Board again and, on January 10, 1945, the Regional War Labor Board held a Compliance hearing to show cause why its Directive Order should not be sully complied with. This was a formal hear- ing-attended by both parties" At that hearing, respondent contended that its understanding on wages with the' Union was not an agreement and was not based ,on recognition by respondent of the Union or on collective bargaining, but was merely an "accord" respondent had with the panel established by the Regional -War Labor Board 29 As the minutes of that meeting indicate, Waxman' admitted that respondent `declined to comply with that portion of the War Labor Board's Order which would require respondent to establish a contractual relationship with the Union or otherwise recognize it as the collective bargaining representative of respondent's employees. He then stated that "we took the precaution of'm,aking sure that any accord reached on the subject of wages would not be termed a recognition of the union." [Italics supplied ] The following additional excerpts from the min- utes of the War Labor Board Compliance hearing of January 10, 1945, shed con- siderable light on the instant proceeding: Air. WAXMAN ". . . so that it is our contention that this Union is no longer the representative of our employees. It is a perfect stranger and it is not, as we understand this order, the intention of the Board or the con- templation of the Board that we should enter into contractual relations with anybody that does not represent our employees." (Page 16) The CHAIRMAN. "It is the intention of the order that you should enter into contractual relations with the duly certified representative of your em- i employees and this Union was so duly certified by the NLRB . . . (Page 16). Mr. WAXMAN. ". . . it is the position of the B. B. Crystal Company that it will not enter into a contract with any stranger. Local 65 is a stranger and nothing that this Regional Board or the National War Labor Board can say on the subject can alter that fact" (Page 18) Mr. WAXMAN. "And in order to make it appear that there was no formal agreement or recognition of the Union [on April 28, 1944] as the represen- tative of our employees I specifically asked the Panel how should this be sig- nified to you . . ." (Page 26) .. in November 1943 we had an all night hearing ... We had every member of the shop present and it was our intention to call them to show repudiation by them of the Union." (Page 28) The CHAIRMAN "What you have told us today is that in essence you [re- spondent] used the dispute proceeding as an alternative device to present, 29 The undersigned finds that by putting this wage increase into effect unilaterally, re- spondent has violated the Act. May Department Stores v. N. L. R. B., 326 U. S 376, dd- cided 12/10/45. 2' This finding is based upon the uncontroverted testimony of Lebold. 28 A copy of the minutes of that hearing was introduced In evidence. 29 This finding is based upon the testimony of Lebold and Waxman. 1000 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD what I am sure the Board regarded then, as its order indicates, it regarded as an agreement of the parties-of the employer and of the Union and;. in fact, it has not been an agreement at all. As you tell it to us now, it is a proposal in which the employer and the Union separately concurred but not as a partner to a bargain." (Page 32) The CHAIRMAN. "What I have said is that the Board seems to have felt that the company recognized the status of the union as a representative of its em- ployees by making an agreement concerning wages. You now tell us that the company had no such intent, that it made no agreement with the union as the representative of its employees ... (Page 34) -- Mr. WAxMAN. "... I say' that my brief which this Board had before it at the time that it made.its decision in its Directive Order could not have misled it as to the position which the employers and their counsel were taking because it is clear from the reading of that brief that we reject that union as the representative of our employees and that our employees have rejected them as their representatives." (Page 35) On January 11, 1945, the Regional War Labor Board issued a "Compliance Direction" directing respondent to comply with the Board's Directive Order of July 21, as amended July 31, and as affirmed by the National Board on November 22. On February 8, 1945, a hearing was held before a panel of the Regional War_ Labor Board to show.cause why the provisions of the Directive Order should not be rescinded. No decision was issued. On September -f1, 1945, a hearing was held before the National War Labor Board in Washington to show cause why the Directive Order should not be complied with. On September 13, 1945, the National War Labor Board notified respondent that "the National War Labor Board has determined that the company has not fully complied with the Second Regional Board's Directive Order dated July 21, 1944, as amended July 31, 1944, particularly in'that it has failed to sign an agree- ment indicating its intention to be governed by the terms and conditions of employment set forth in said Directive Order." [Italics supplied.] The let- terdirected compliance with that provision "without -prejudice to the right of either party to request appropriate modification of the Directive Order in the event of an order of the National Labor Relations Board or any court of competent jurisdiction- affecting the status of the collective bargaining representa- tive . " 30 (e) Conclusions as to the refusal to bargain Respondent's contentions Respondent contends that -the withdrawal petition received on October 11, 1943, indicates that his employees were no longer interested in the Union. It has previously been found - that respondent engaged in illegal conduct by coercing and restraining his employees by anti-union statements and threats of economic reprisals ; that on or about May 6, 1943, respondent discharged two employees without prior consultation with or notice to the Union , and thereafter, although requested by the Union , refused to submit these discharges to arbitration, all of which is hereinafter found to constitute a refusal to bargain with the Union ; and that respondent refused to recognize the Union on September 22 and October 8, 1943, as the collective bargaining representative of respondent 's employees Assuming that this petition constituted repudiation of the Union , it was ineffective to destroy the majority status of the Union following on the heels of respondent's unfair labor practices , found to have previously taken place. This contention 80 The National War Labor Board has passed out of existence. See Executive Order 9672, issued December 31, 1945. ° B. B. CRYSTAL COMPANY 1001 is rejected. "The unfair labor practices of the respondent cannot operate to change the bargaining representative previously selected by the untrammelled will of the majority." n Respondent coptends that he receded from his position of non-recognition of the Union when he offered the Union two separate contracts in November and December 1943. It has heretofore been found that the agreement submitted by respondent in November was a counter-proposal to one previously- submitted by the Union and that this contract found objectionable ahd deleted a clause pro- posed by the Union which recognized the Union as the collective bargaining repre- sentative of respondent's employees. A subsequent agreement submitted by respondent on or about December 15 was also silent as to recognition of the Union. This contention is rejected. Respondent contends that he bargained in good faith with the Union on April 28, 1944. Respondent has admitted that he refused to grant a wage increase on that date through recognition of the Union and it-has previously been found that respondent stated on that occasion to the War Labor Board panel that he refused to recognize the Union. This contention is rejected. respondent contends that the Union no longer represents his employees and relies on the purported letters of resignation received from the Union in July 1944 after posting the escape clause provision contained in the Directive Order of the War Labor Board. Assuming that these letters constituted a repudiation of the Union, they were ineffective to destroy the majority status of the Union fol- lowing, as they did, upon the heels of respondent's previous conduct found to be violative of the Act 82 ° Conclusions It is well settled that a certification resulting from a secret ballot conducted under the auspices of the Board continues in effect for a reasonable period and the undersigned finds that the certification of April 28, 1943, was valid and out- standing on May 6, September 22, and October 8, 1943, and at all material times thereafterSB On April 28, 1943, the Union was certified as the collective bargaining repre- sentative of respondent's employees. Shortly thereafter, on or about May 6, 1943, respondent discharged two employees without prior consultation with or notice to the Union, and thereafter, although requested by the Union, refused to submit these discharges to arbitration. On September 22, 1943, less than 5 months sub- sequent to the certification, respondent ,categorically refused to recognize the Union, as heretofore found. Again on October 8, 1943, less than 6 months subse- quent to the certification, respondent not only refused to recognize the Union, but, in addition, stated that he would not sign an agreement with the Union. In fact, respondent at no time recognized the Union. The undersigned finds that on May 6, September 22, and October 8, 1943, respondent refused to bargain collectively with the Union as the exclusive representative of his employees in the aforesaid appropriate unit. 81N. L. R. B. v. Bradford Dyeing Association, 310 U. S. 318 ;, see Franks Bros. Co. v. N. L. R. B., 321 U. S. 702; National Licorice Company v. N. L. R. B., 309 U. S. 350; N. L. R. B. v. Grieder Machine Tool d Die Co., 142 F. (2d) 163 (C. C. A. 6) ; Valley Mould d Iron Corp . v. N. L. R. B, 116 F. (2d) 760 (C C. A. 7). as See footnote 31 ; Matter of Joe Hearin, Lumber, 66 N. L. R. B. 1276. 13 N. L. R. B. v. Century Oxford Mfg Co., 140 F. (2d) 541, (C. C. A. 2), cert. den. 323 U. S. 714; N. L R. B. v. Appalachian Electric Power Co., 140 F. (2d) 217 (C. C A. 4) ; Matter of Simmons Engineering Co , 65 N L. R. B. 229; Matter of Marshall, Meadows and Stewart, 63 N. L. R. B. 233 (Supplemental Decision and Order). Matter of Bohn Alumi- num and Brass Corporation, 57 N. L. R. B. 1684. , I 1002 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Subsequently, respondent further demonstrated his unwillingness to recognize the Union by the contract proposals submitted by him in November and December 1943, wherein he refused to include clauses of recognition of the Union. In addition, on numerous subsequent occasions, respondent challenged the Union's right to represent his employees. Respondent knew that the Regional Director of the Board had on November 19, 1943, dismissed the petition by the dissident group in the factory. Although he was thus aware that his position of non-recognition of the Union was untenable, he clung to his previously expressed decisions and continued to refuse to recognize the Union 34 The undersigned finds that respond- ent, in November. and December 1943, further refused to bargain with the Union as the exclusive representative of his employees in the aforesaid appropriate unit." The record is clear, and it is so found, that respondent on May 6, September 22, 1943, and on numerous subsequent occasions refused to recognize the Union as the exclusive representative of his employees It is accordingly found that on May 6, 1943, and at all times thereafter, respondent refused to bargain with the Union as the exclusive representative of all his employees in the aforesaid appropriate unit, thereby interfering with, restraining, and coercing his employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. 4 ^The discrinainatol y disehai ge of Tony G) eco (a) His work record 0 Tony Greco commenced his employment with respondent in September, 1942, as an apprentice crystal grinder at 50 cents an hour. He received two or three wage increases while undergoing his apprenticeship and was promoted to the position of stick grinder. He requested that he be assigned to piece work and this was done. At the time of his discharge on April 23, 1943, his average earn- ings were $1.00 per hour. The only remarks made by foremen about his work was that it was satisfactory 30 I (b) His activities as shop chairman Greco joined the Union on February 2, 1943, the day following "the strike of February 1, and was not immediately active in its behalf. The shop chairman at that time, George Affee, was inducted into the armed services during the latter part of March 1943, and Greco was elected by the union membership to replace him on or about March 26. The following day, he notified Prosper Brozen of his election and stated, as he testified, that Brozen "should not take anything in his own hands in order to aggravate the situation in the shop since we were in the process of organization and we expected an election to determine the bargaining agency . .." 37 As heretofore found, Brozen, on this occasion, told Greco that he was foolish to join the Union, to accept the responsibilities of shop chairman, and to represent the workers; that the workers would turn against him (Greco) eventually; and that Greco would suffer by it as he would not have the opportunity to make the same earnings as others in the shop. 34 See Matter of Sterling Steel Castings Co., 66 N. L R. B 974. 35 McQuay-Norris Mfg. Co. v. N. L. R B., 116 F. (2d) 748 (C. C. A. 7), cert. denied 313 IT. S. 565, N L . R. B. v. Louisville Refining Co ., 102 F. ( 2d) 678 (C. C. A. 6), cert. denied 308 U. S. 568 ; N. L R. B. v. Crtiswold.Mfg. Co., 106 F. (2d) 713 (C. C. A. 3). 3e Findings in this section are based on Greco's uncontroverted and credible testimony. 31 As heretofore found, there had been unrest in the shop and dissatisfaction concerning wage rates which resulted in a work stoppage on February 1. i 0 B. B. CRYSTAL COMPANY 1003 Biozen admitted that he had eight talks with Greco during March and April of 1943, the first being the occasion set forth above when Greco informed Brozen of his election as shop chairman. He admitted that Greco approached him during the ensuing weeks, on approximately six occasions, as shop chairman, in behalf of the employees, namely, March 29, April 2, April 12 (two occasions), April 20, and April 23 Brozen's denial of coercive anti-union statements attributed to him by Greco on these occasions has heretofore been rejected and his conduct has been found to be violative of the act. Brozen and Coval testified that on one occasion, Greco. while protesting the discharge of two employees that day by Brozen, raised his hand and said, "If you were not such an old man." This took place on April 9, according to Coval, and the undersigned so finds Brozen admitted that there was no physical contact between them. As set forth above, a Board-ordered election was conducted on April 16 , and was won by the Union. Greco acted as an observer for the Union at this time and was so observed by Brozen. On jr about April 20, 1943, Coval, while working in the office, noticed that an employee, Schlissel, was whistling loudly. She went into the shop and instructed him to be less noisy. After she left, the whistling was resumed by Schlissel and Coval complained to Brozen. Brozen promptly went over to the place where Schlissel was working at this time and engaged in a heated discussion with him; he reprimanded him for his loud whistling This took place near Greco' s machine and Greco- approached Schlissel and asked what the trouble was. Greco-testified that Schlissel informed him that Brozen objected to his whistling and had told him (Schlissel) to join the Union where no one worked :inc] that he could then whistle. Schlissel resumed his whistling and Brozen returned to again repri- mand him Greco intervened and asked Brozen "are you telling me people are slowing down in production and you are going around bothering a man working and doing his work? If he is whistling, so what?" Brozen ordered Greco back to work, as Greco testified, and said "go back to work or I will fire you or dis- charge you " Greco testified that he felt Brozen was provoking Schlissel ; that he therefore attempted to rationalize the matter with Brozen ; and that he re- turned to work after instructing Schlissel to resume work. Brozen testified that after he had reprimanded Schlissel, Greco asked him to let Schlissel alone, stating that Schlissel had a right to whistle ; that Greco then ordered Schlissel to whistle ; that he (Brozen ) then told Greco "you might find I will have to discharge you if you continue to do that" ; and that Greco replied "I am shop chairman. You will never be able to discharge me." According to Brozen , Greco also said "you have nothing to doiin the factory.' Go back to your office." Greco admitted telling Brozen not to bother people who were doing their work. The testimony of Brozen is supported for the most part by Greco's testimony with respect to this incident, and is credited by the under- signed. (c) The discharge of Greco on April 23, 1943 • On April 22, Brozen instructed Foreman Heinen not to permit an employee, Newman, to work if he reported for work on April 23."' Newman did report for work on April 23 at about 8:,00 a. in ; Foreman Heinen prevented him from 3' Respondent contended that Newman, who had been absent for several days , ostensibly ill, was in fact working during that period for another manufacturer in the same industry. Assuming that this contention were true, it is not germane to the issue of the discharge of Greco, in the opinion of the undersigned. 0 1004 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL-LABOR RELATIONS BOARD going to his bench and instructed him to see Brozen3B Newman immediately' reported to Brozen and claimed that he had been ill for three days; Brozen told him that he knew he "had another job and that there was no sense in having two jobs at one time." Newman, who was an active member of the shop committee, then asked for his pay and was told to wait for the bookkeeper to appear at 9: 00 a. m.90 At- approximately 8: 30 a. m., Newman approached Greco and asked him, as shop chairman, to take up his discharge with Brozen. He told Greco that he had been ill for-the past several days and had not worked elsewhere that week, as Brozen contended. Greco testified that he believed and accepted- Newman's version of the story of his illness. Greco immediately went over to Brozen in the factory, and asked that New- man be reinstated. Brozen refused, asserting that Newman had another job. Greco, as Brozen testified, wanted to talk to the other men in the shop com- mittee and left. Greco promptly assembled the union shop committee and the group approached Brozen in the outer factory office. Greco, as shop chairman, was apparently regarded as spokesman for the group and presented the Union's position with respect to the discharge. - Greco, with the committee present and in the background, asked Brozen to meet with him and the Committee for the purpose of discussing the Newman discharge." He took the position that Newman had been employed by re- spondent for a number of years, that'he had been absent previously, and that there was another reason for the discharge. Brozen refused to meet with the committee, stating that Newman could not hold two jobs and that he, Brozen, did not want him there ; Brozen told the committee to return to work or be docked in pay. Greco told Brozen, as he testified, "this was very urgent since we had won the election [on April 16] with the union and we didn't think it was proper for him [Brozen] at that time to fire a man without consulting the com- mittee or notifying us " There was considerable commotion in the plant by this time and as a result, Coval called on the police. At about 9: 00 a. in , Sgt. James Kenealy of the New York Police Department, was notified, as• he testified, that there was a disturb- ance on the 8th floor of respondent's factory and went to the scene ;. he entered the plant with 4 other policemen and discovered a group of employees arguing with Brozen, with Greco primarily doing the talking. Brozen called the Ser- geant into the office, and then called iii Greco. Brozen stated that Greco was a newcomer, that he was representing a bunch of people who would eventually desert him, that he was jeopardizing his chances in the industry, and that he was a family man and should be interested in the future. Sgt. Kenealy urged Greco to go back to work and take it up later with the Union. Greco refused, claiming that the matter was a serious one as Newman was a member of the shop committee and again asked that Brozen meet with the committee. • Brozen krefused and Greco reported that fact to the committee." as Newman did not testify. Except where otherwise indicated , the findings concerning his activities that day are based upon the uncontroverted testimony of Brozen and Greco. 40 Respondent contends that Newman voluntarily quit his job. The undersigned rejects this contention inasmuch as Brozen admitted that he decided on the previous day to prevent Newman's return to work and, in fact, did so. 41 At a grievance meeting held on February 19, 1943, Bernstein agreed that in the future, committee meetings on grievances should be held after working hours. 42 This finding is based upon Greco's testimony. Brozen denied making the statements to Greco, as well as similar statements heretofore quoted in this report. His denial has been previously rejected and is also rejected here. Kenealy denied that he was in Brozen's office. His recollection of these events was -spotty ; he had a clear recollection of some events which transpired but had no recollection of others. In addition , he appears to have confused what was known in the plant as the outer office with the shop itself where he B. B. CRYSTAL COMPANY 1005 The committee refused to return to work and insisted on a committee meeting with Brozen, who still insisted that Newman had another job and refused to .discuss the matter with the committee. There was considerable argument back and forth between the committee, Greco, Newman, and Brozen. Brozen ulti- mately turned to Newman and said, as he testified and as the undersigned finds, "so I told Greco again that Newman had another job, he had actually quit and he called me a liar He said `you are a liar.' " Brozen then, as Greco testified, stated "you called me a liar. You are fired." Sgt. Kenealy attempted to get Greco to apologize as Brozen had indicated that he would reinstate him if he would apologize. Greco refused, contending that he had not called Brozen a liar. Brozen then instructed everyone to leave the plant or return to work. All workers, including Greco, left. (d) Conclusions The record is clear that at the time of his discharge, Tony Greco was attempt- ing, in his representative capacity as shop chairman of the union, to obtain'Bro- zen's consent to hold a meeting. of the shop committee for the purpose of dis- cussing the discharge of employee Newman earlier that morning.' It is also clear that in the midst of this discussion Brozen made a statement about Newman, to which Greco replied "you are a liar" and that upon the utterance of this state- ment, Greco was immediately discharged" This discharge was that of a shop steward who was attempting to act in his representative capacity of presenting union grievances to management. In ask- ing Brozen to meet with the union shop committee, which Brozen knew was the representative chosen by his employees, Greco was performing a function which the Act is designed to foster. Under the Act, representatives of employees are chosen, among other reasons, for the purpose of providing a direct means of com- Inuutcation, expression of opinion, and peaceful negotiation machinery for em- ployees and management. As respondent knew, the Union had, on April 16, 7 days previously, been designated by his employees. The discharge of Newman, an employee and member of that shop committee, was considered by the rest of the committee to be a serious matter requiring prompt settlement, and in the opinion of the undersigned, rightly so, in view of the fact that it took place at a time when the Union was making its initial attempts to deal with'the respondent sub- to proving its majority at a Board-ordered election. Brozen, who has sequent been found to have engaged in other conduct violative of the Act, at approxi- mately that time, and who has also heretofore been found to have endeavored-to avoid recognition of the union for many months, and in fact, years after the testified discussions took place between Greco and Brozen. His testimony on this point is also rejected. Is There was considerable testimony in` the record as to the remarks that passed between Greco and Brozen at this moment. Greco contended that he had said in reply to Brozen "That is a lie." Sgt. Kenealy, Mildred Coval and employee Reissman, in part, supported Brozen's version, as set forth above, and the undersigned so finds. Brozen testified that in discharging Greco he referred to the Schlissel incident and another incident one week earlier, when he alleged Greco attempted to strike him. Neither Greco nor Kenealy testified as to Brozen's making such a statement Employee Reissman testified that Brozen, in dis- charging Greco„ said, "I have taken all that I am going to take from you and now you are fired." Coval's testimony substantially supported Reissman 's and the undersigned credits the latter's version of what transpired. " Respondent offered to show that Newman had, in fact , worked elsewhere during the period of his absence. This offer was rejected by the Trial Examiner on the theory that it was not material to the issue at hand. Assuming, however , that this were true, never- theless Brozen's statement was one-half false inasmuch as he also said in the same sentence that Newman "quit" his job. The undersigned has heretofore found that Newman wag dis- charged by Brozen that morning. , i 1006 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD election, knew or should have known that Greco, as shop chairman, was pursuing- a legitimate union activity. This was not the first time he was presented with a request to meet with the shop committee. In fact, Greco, as shop chairman, had. approached him on 5 separate occasions in the preceding weeks, in his repre- sentative capacity. Greco was neither a parlor speaker-nor a trained negotiator ; neither was Brozen Greco was zealous and forthright in his activities on behalf of the Union. The situation here falls within the category so well described by former Chan:- man Millis in his concurring opinion in the Howard Foundry Company case, 45 where he said: This case presents a pointed. illustration of the need for special care and forbearance in administration of collective bargaining relationships, es- pecially in initial years when experience, awkwaidness and presumption are most evident. In the instant case, 'the entire picture was further clouded, not only by unrest among the employees, but also by the contemporaneous conduct of Brozen hereto- fore found violative of the Act. It is true that Greco used language to Brozen on April 23 which the undersigned does not condone, although it was the language of the factory. However, the undersigned is of the opinion that Brozen's state- ments to Greco which commenced immediately after Greco was selected as shop chairman and which have heretofore been found to be violative of the Act, would constitute justification of Greco's criticism of him. Although Greco had been a member of the Union since approximately February 2, Brozen made no anti- union and coercive statements to him until Greco assumed office as shop chair- man on March 26, whereupon Brozen's conduct underwent a considerable change. In fact, Greco had been cautioned by Broien against his union activities immediately upon being elected shop chairman, and some minutes prior to his discharge, was again told by Brozen that his union activities would cause him economic hardship, as heretofore found. Although it has been found that Greco used inflammatory remarks in address- ing Brozen 3 days earlier in the Schlissel incident, and on Aprrl 9 as well, these did not cause the discharge of Greco. The fact is that the incident of April 23 alone brought about Greco's immediate discharge, and at an arbitration con- ference held the following day, both Trause and Brozen stated that Greco was discharged for calling Brozen a liar. Trause admitted that at this conference "that was the only reason I gave them at that time." Under all the circumstances and upon the entire record, the undersigned =finds ,that Greco, as the chosen representative of the men in the shop, energetically pursued the duties of hi's office ; that because of his activities on behalf of the Union he became obnoxious to Brozen, that the incident of April 23 was seized upon by Brozen as an excuse for the discharge, whereas the actual cause of the discharge was Greco's zeal and aggressiveness in fulfilling his duties as shop chairman for the Union's I The undersigned finds that Tony Greco was discharged on April 23, 1943, because of his membership in and activities on behalf of the Union,-and that by discharging Greco, respondent thus discriminated with regard to his hire and tenure of employment, thereby interfering with, restraining, and coercing his employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. 45 59 N. L. R. B. 60. 46 See N L R. B v Illinois Tool Works, 119 F. (2d) 356 (C C. A 7), decided 2/27/40 N. L. R. B. v. Arcade-Sunshine Co., Inc., 118 F. (2d)`49 (C. A. D. C.). Matter of Howard Foundry Company, supra; Matter of Davis Precision Tool Machine Company, 64 N. L. R. B 529. 1 B. B. CRYSTAL COMPANY IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE 0 1007 The activities of respondent, set forth in Section III, above, occurring in connection with the operations of respondent described in Section-I, above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States, and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and ob= structing commerce and the free flow of/commerce. , V. THE REMEDY Having found that respondent, by independently violating Section 8 (1) of the Act and also Section 8 (3) and Section 8 (5) thereof, has committed unfair labor practices, the undersigned will recommend that he cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action in order to effectuate the policies of the Act. The recommended cease and desist order is predicated upon the following findings :" In addition to the fact that respondent engaged in illegal conduct by coercing and restraining his employees by anti-union statements and threats of economic reprisals, his entire course of conduct constituted an effective attempt to destroy self-organization among his employees. Thus, after peing warned that adherence to the Union would result in economic hardship, the shop chairman of the Union was summarily discharged while attempting to obtain a promise from respond- ent to discuss a union grievance. Approximately two weeks later, on or about May 6, 1943, respondent discharged two employees without prior consultation with'or notice to the Union. Furthermore, not only did respondent fail to recog- nize the Union although duly certified by the Board, but less than 5 months after its certification, respondent challenged its right to represent his employees, and repeatedly did so. In fact, on one occasion, respondent admittedly brought a number of his employees to a War Labor Board panel meeting, and in their presence and hearing accused the Union of preventing the employees from getting a wage increase. Because of respondent's unlawful conduct and its underlying purpose, the undersigned is of the opinion that the unfair labor practices heretofore found are persuasively related to the other unfair labor practices proscribed by the Act and that danger of their commission in the future is to be anticipated from respondent's conduct in the past." Unless the order is coextensive with the threat, the preventive purpose of the Act will be thwarted. In order, therefore, to make more effective the interdependent guarantees of Section 7, to prevent a recurrence of unfair labor practices, and thus minimize industrial strife which burdens and obstructs commerce. and thus effectuate the policies of the Act, the undersigned will recommend that respondent cease and desist from in any manner infringing upon the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. It has been found that respondent discriminated with respect to the hire and tenure of employment of Tony Greco. In order to effectuate the policies of the Act, it will be recommended that respondent offer him immediate reinstatement to his former or substantially equivalent position, without prejudice to his seniority or other rights and privileges. It will be further recommended that respondent make whole Tony Greco for any loss of pay 48 lie may have suffered by-reason of 41 N. L. R. B. v. Express Publishing Company, 312 U. S 426. 48 As heretofore found, the original charge in this proceeding was not filed until April 3, 1945. Lebold testified that the Union did not file the charge until that time because the case was before the war Labor Board and the issues were under litigation ; that the Union came to the conclusion that respondent would not comply with the Directive Order of the War Labor Board and that the latter would be unable to enforce its order ; and that the 1008 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD respondent's discrimination against him by payment to him of,a sum of money equal to the amount he normally would have earned as wages from the date of his discharge to the date of reinstatement or offer of reinstatement, less his net earnings' during that period.49 In addition, having found that respondent has refused to bargain collectively with the Union as the exclusive representative of the employees in the aforesaid appropriate unit, the undersigned will recommend that respondent, upon request, bargain collectively with the Union. , As heretofore noted, respondent operates a plant on the seventh and eighth floors of the same building. The undersigned will recommend that the notice appended to this report be posted on both floors of respondent's plant. Upon the basis of the above findings of fact, and upon the entire record, the undersigned makes the following : CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Wholesale & Warehouse Workers Union, Local 65, C. I. 0, is a labor organ ization within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act. 2. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing his employees in the exercis, of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, respondent has engaged in and is engaging in, unfair labor practices, within the meaning of Section 8 (1) o the Act. 3 By discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of Tony Greco, respondent has engaged in, and is engaging in, unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (3) of the Act. 4. All production, maintenance, and factory clerical employees of Prosper Brozen, individually, and doing business as B. B. Crystal Company, New York, New York, excluding office employees, members of the firm, and supervisory employees, constitute a'unit appropriate for the purposes of Collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act. 5. Wholesale & Warehouse Workers Union, Local 65, C. I. 0., was, on April 28, 1943, and at all material times thereafter has been, the exclusive representative of all employees in the aforesaid appropriate unit for-the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (a) of the Act. 6. By refusing on May 6, 1943, and at all times thereafter, to bargain collec- tively with Wholesale & Warehouse Workers Union, Local 65, C. I. 0., as the exclusive representative of all employees in the aforesaid appropriate -unit, respondent has engaged in, and is engaging in, unfair labor practices within-the meaning of Section 8 (5) of the Act. 7. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. charge was then filed. In view of the chronology of events and upon the entire record, the undersigned is of the opinion, and so finds, that the Union did not delay unduly in the filing of the charge. See Valley Mould and Iron Corp . v. N. L. R. B , 116 F. (2d) *760 (C. C. A. 7) ; N. L. R. B . v. Cowell Portland Cement Co., 148 F. (2d) 237 (C. C. A. 9), cert. denied, 326 U. S. 735. to 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, 8 N. L. R . B. 440. Monies received for work performed upon Federal , State, county, municipal , or other work-relief projects shall be considered as earn- ings. See Republic Steel Corporation v. N. L. R B., 311 U. S. 7. B. B. CRYSTAL COMPANY 1009 RECOMMENDATIONS Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and conclusions of law, and upon the entire record in the case, the undersigned recommends that Prosper Brozen, individually, and doing business as B. B. Crystal Company , New York, New York, his officers, agents, successors, and assigns shall : 1. Cease and desist from : (a) Discouraging membership in Wholesale & Warehouse Workers Union, Local 65 , C. I. 0., or any other labor organization of his employees , by discharg- ing or refusing to reinstate any of his employees , or in any other manner dis- criminating in regard to their hire , or tenure of employment or any term or con- dition of their employment ; (b) Refusing to bargain collectively with Wholesale & Warehouse Workers Union, Local 65, C. I . 0., as the exclusive representative of all production, main- tenance, and factory clerical employees of Prosper Brozen, individually, and doing business as B. B . Crystal Company , New York, New York, but excluding office em- ployees, members of the firm , and supervisory employees; (c) In any other manner interfering with, restraining , and coercing his em- ployees in the exercise of the right to self-organization , to form labor organiza- tions, to join or assist Wholesale & Warehouse Workers Union , Local 65, C. I. 0., or any other labor organization , 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 or protection , as guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. o 2. Take the following affirmative action which the undersigned finds will ef- fectuate the policies of the Act : (a) Offer Tony Greco immediate and full reinstatement to his former or substantially equivalentposition without prejudice to his seniority or other rights and privileges ; (b) Make whole Tony Greco for any loss he may have suffered ,by reason of respondent's discrimination against him in the manner set forth in the section above entitled "The remedy" ; . (c) Upon request, bargain collectively with Wholesale & Warehouse Workers Union, Local 65, C . I. 0., as the exclusive representative of all his employees in the aforesaid appropriate unit; (d) Post immediately at his plant at New York , New York , copies of the notice attached hereto, marked "Appendix A." Copies of said notice , to be furnished by the Regional Director of the Second Region, shall , after being duly signed by respondent's representative, be posted by respondent immediately upon receipt thereof and maintained by him for sixty ( 60) consecutive days thereafter, in con- spicuous places, on the seventh and eighth floors of his factory and including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by respondent to insure that said notices are not altered , defaced, or covered by any other material; o (e) Notify the Regional Director for the Second Region ( New York, New York ), in writing, within ten (10) days from the date of the receipt of this Inter- mediate Report what steps respondent has taken to comply herewith. It is further recommended that unless on or before ten ( 10) days from the date of the receipt of this Intermediate Report, respondent notifies said Regional Di- rector in writing that he has complied with the foregoing recommendations, the 1010 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR- RELATIONS BOARD National Labor Relations Board issue an order requiring respondent to take the action aforesaid. As provided in Section 33 of Article II of the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, Series 3, as amended, effective November 27, 1945, any party or counsel for the Board may, within,fifteen (15) clays fiom the (late of the entry of the order transferring the case to the Board, pursuant to Section 32 of Article II of said Rules and Regulations, file with the Board, Rochambeau Building, Washington 25, D. C., an original and four copies of a statement in writing, setting forth such exceptions to the Intermediate Report or to any other part of the record or proceeding (including rulings upon all motions or objections). as he relies upon, together with the original and four copies of a brief in support thereof. Immediately upon the filing of such statement of exceptions and/or brief, the party or counsel tot ;the Board filing the same shall serve i copy thereof upon each of the other parties and shall file a copy with the Regional Director. As further provided in said Section 33, should any party desire permission to argue orally before the Board, request therefor must be made- in writing to the Board within ten (10) days from the date of the order transferring the case to the Board. I Dated April 25, 1946. APPENDIX A 9OTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES MARTIN S. BENNETT, ° Trial Examiner. Pursuant to the recommendations of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Relations Act, we hereby notify our employees that:- We will not in any manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to form labor organizations, to join or assist Wholesale & Warehouse Workers Union, Local 65, C. I. 0. or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively through representa- tives of'their own choosing, and to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other-mutual aid or protection. We will offer to the employees named below immediate and full reinstate- ment to their former. or substantially equivalent positions without prejudice to any seniority or other rights and privileges previously enjoyed, and make them whole for any loss of pay suffered as a result of the discrimination. We will bargain collectively upon request with the above-named union as the exclusive representative of all employees iii the bargaining unit described herein with respect to rates of pay, hours of employment or other conditions of employment, and if an understanding is reached, embody such under- standing in a signedagreement. The bargaining unit is: All prgduCtion, maintenance, and factory- clerical employees excluding office employees, members of the firm, and supervisory employees. The Employee to be reinstated and made whole is: Tony Greco ' AlL our employees are free to become Or remain members of the above-named union or any other labor organization. We will not.discrim4nate in regard to Lire-or tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment against 0 B. B. CRYSTAL COMPANY 1011 any employee because of membership in or activity on behalf of any such labor organization. PROSPER BROZEN, individually, and doing business as B. B. CRYSTAL COMPANY, Employer. Dated-------------------- By --------------------- (Representative) ----------------- (Title) NOTE: Any of the above-named employees presently serving in the armed forces of the,United States will be offered full retastatement upon application in accord- ance with the Selective Service Act after discharge from the armed forces. This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof, and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. 712844-47-vol. 70-66