Nelson Industries

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