Miller Corsets, Inc.

In the Matter of MILLER CORSETS, INC. and INTERNATIONAL LADIES GARMENT WORKERS UNION, LOCAL No. 245 Case No. C-447.-Decided July 5,1938 Ladies' Garment Manufacturing Industry-Interference, Restraint, and Coer- cion-Discrimination : lock-out; refusal to reinstate five locked-out employees; discharge ; for union membership and activity-Reinstatement Ordered: em- ployees locked out and discharged-Back Pay: awarded : all employees, for period of lock-out ; employees refused reinstatement , from date of lock-out to date of offer of reinstatement ; discharged employee, from date of discharge to date of offer of reinstatement-Lock-Out. Mr. John H. Dorsey, for the Board. Harris, Beech, Folger, Bacon and Keating, by Mr. Charles S. Wil- cox, Rochester, N. Y., for the Company. Mr. Elias Lieberman, New York; N. Y., for the Union. Mr. Philip B. Lush, of counsel to the Board. DECISION AND ORDER STATEMENT OF THE CASE Upon charges duly filed by the International Ladies Garment Workers Union, Local No. 245, herein called the Union, the National Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board, by Henry J. Winters, Regional Director for the Third Region (Buffalo, New York) duly issued and served its complaint dated November 12, 1937, against Miller Corsets, Inc., Canandaigua, New York, herein called the re- spondent, alleging that the respondent had engaged in, and was en- gaging in, unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the mean- ing of Section 8 (1) and (3) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Na- tional Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein called the Act. The complaint alleged in substance that the respondent had discouraged membership in the Union by threats, by refusing to meet with duly authorized representatives of its employees, by lock-out, by dis- charges and lay-offs, and by other means; that the respondent had discharged Clara Baker, Ethel Beyea, Mae M. Cutri, Anne Weaver and Evelyn Potter on July 14, 1937, and Sol Lepson on September 3, 8 N. L. R. B., No. 2. 12 DECISIONS AND ORDERS 13 1937, because of their union activities and membership and had, ever _ since that time, refused reinstatement to them. - On November 19, 1937, the respondent filed its answer in which it admitted the allega- tions of the complaint concerning the nature and scope of its business, but denied that it had engaged in the alleged unfair labor practices. Pursuant to notice, a hearing was conducted before William P. Webb, the Trial Examiner duly designated by the Board, on Decem- ber 2, 1937, at the Court House for Ontario County, in Canandaigua, New York. The Board and the respondent were represented by counsel and participated in the hearing. The respondent made a motion at the close of the Board's case to dismiss the complaint on the ground that the evidence did not sustain the allegations of the complaint. This motion was renewed at the close of the case. Both motions were denied. Full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses and to introduce evidence bearing on the issues was afforded all parties. On December 14, 1937, the respondent filed a brief. On February 10, 1938, the Trial Examiner filed his Intermediate Report in which he found that the respondent had engaged in the unfair labor prac- tices charged in the complaint in violation of Section 8 (1) and (3) of the Act. On February 23, 1938, the respondent filed exceptions to the rulings of the Trial Examiner and to the Intermediate Report. On May 31, 1938, the respondent presented oral argument before the Board in Washington, D. C. At the oral argument the Union was represented by Elias Lieberman although it had not theretofore ap- peared by counsel. The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner on motions and objections to the admission of evidence and finds that no prejudicial errors were committed. The rulings are hereby af- firmed. The Board has also considered the exceptions to the Inter- mediate Report and finds them without merit. Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following : FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE-RESPONDENT The respondent, a corporation organized under the laws of _ the State of New York, is engaged in the manufacture of corsets and corselettes, known in'the trade as "foundation garments." It was stipulated that 75 to 80 per cent of the materials used in the manufacture of the respondent's product are shipped into the State of New York from other States and that 75 to 80 per cent of the finished products are sold outside of the State of New York. Frank Miller, president and treasurer of the respondent testified that the respondent was engaged in interstate commerce. 14 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD IT. THE UNION The International Ladies Garment Workers Union, Local No. 245, is a labor organization affiliated with the Committee for Industrial Organization. It admits to membership all persons employed in the production of ladies' garments (excepting shoes, hats, and stock- ings), other than supervisory, clerical, maintenance, and shipping room employees. III. THE BACKGROUND On July 6, 1936, 36 of the respondent's employees went out on strike due to the respondent's failure to adjust certain piece rates with which the girls were dissatisfied. Within a few days and after a meeting with Frank Miller and the local Chamber of Commerce, at which meeting Miller promised to adjust the piece rates, the striking employees returned to work. Shortly after the girls returned to work they presented a statement to Miller for his signature in which it was stated that he would not discriminate against any of the girls who had gone out on strike. He refused to sign this statement and the girls decided to ask for the assistance of the International Ladies Garment Workers Union. In response to their request, on or about July 10, the Union sent Miss Feigel Levine, an organizer, to Canan- daigua. There was some disposition among the respondent's em- ployees at the time of Levine's arrival to call another strike to force a rate adjustment, but Levine advised the strikers to wait until the week expired and see if the adjustment was made. She then left Canandaigua and did not return until July 16. By this time the week requested by Miller for the adjustment had expired and no satisfactory adjustment had been made. There was a union meeting held on the night of July 16, which 28 to 32 of the girls from the production room attended. It was de- cided at this meeting to present the demands of the Union to Miller, to try to obtain more members, and to hold another meeting on the night of July 17. On the morning of July 17, 1936, Levine called on Miller' and pre- sented the demands of the workers for union recognition, a $14 minimum wage, a 371/2-hour workweek, equal distribution of work during slack seasons and improved working conditions. He told her that it would be necessary for him to consult with his board of di- rectors and that he would let her know the respondent's decision later in the day. She testified that he called her later and told her that he could not deal with the Union for his employees "in any way." On July 17 and 18, 12 new members joined the Union. On the night of July 17, 1936, another meeting was held which was attended by more members than on July 16, and upon Levine's report DECISIONS AND ORDERS 15 concerning Miller's refusal to negotiate, a motion was made that a strike be called on Monday morning, July 20. This motion passed unanimously. Accordingly, the workers accompanied by Levine started to picket the plant on Monday, July 20, 1936, at 6:30 a. in. At 6:35 a. in. that morning Levine was arrested by the police but although she inquired, the police refused to state with what she was charged. She was immediately taken to the City Hall and found Judge Donovan opening the court room. Upon inquiry by Levine, Judge Donovan told her that it was not customary to hold court so early in the morning but that this was a special session for her benefit. When asked how he knew that she would be arrested so early in the morning, he stated that he had had a warrant for her arrest since the previous Saturday; that he thought the warrant charged conspiracy but that he was not sure; that she was not being arrested on the charges in the warrant but that the chief of police was preferring ,the charge. The warrant was never produced and the chief of police, who came in 5 or 10 minutes later, denied that he was preferring charges and stated that she had been brought in because the Judge wanted to see her. Judge Donovan said that he did not remember sending for her but requested that she limit the number of pickets to two. This Levine refused to do. She then walked out and returned to the picket line. The first conference between the strikers and the respondent, after this strike was called, was held at the office of County Judge Fitch on July 27, 1936. The strikers had a committee present, and the re- spondent was represented by Frank Miller and his attorney, Croucher. The Union was represented by Charles H. Green, Assistant to Vice- President Reiseberg of the International Ladies Garment Workers Union, Maurice Ellenbogen of Rochester, New York, attorney for the Union, and Levine. Judge Fitch, his stenographer, and Croucher's stenographer were also present. Miller refused to confer until Green had left the room. After Green left, Miller said he would not negotiate as long as Ellenbogen and Levine were present in their official capacities ; whereupon these two abandoned their official capacities and remained merely "as friends of the girls on strike." Nothing was achieved at this conference or at any of the subsequent conferences which were held. On August 24, 1936, a meeting was held between Miller and the striking employees. This meeting was called because Miller had stated on many occasions that he was certain that he could settle the strike if he could talk to the girls alone, that is, in the absence of Levine. Nothing resulted from this conference. The employees offered to go back to work for as low as a $5 per week minimum wage provided Miller recognized the Union. Miller countered with an 16 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD offer of a minimum wage of $11 per week but without Union recog- nition. The strikers refused Miller's proposal. On September 15, 1936, the respondent submitted an offer to the employees which provided that all striking employees should be re- turned to work without present or future discrimination. It further provided that the piece-work rates would be such as to allow an average experienced operator to make $12 per week or more; that the company would guarantee a minimum of $11 per week with the exception of the lowest 10 per cent of the employees who were to be paid what they earned on a straight piece-work basis. On Septem- ber 16 this proposition was submitted to the striking employees who accepted it although it did not provide for union recognition. The strikers returned to work the following day. IV. THE LOCK-OUT Early in July 1937, the Union claimed a majority of the produc- tion workers in the shop. Levine returned to Canandaigua. Since the Union had a scant majority Levine advised the members to wait a few days and sign up three or four more members in order to be certain of a majority before approaching the respondent for recog- nition. The members desired immediate recognition of the Union but agreed to accept Levine's advice. On July 9, 1937, Miller had a talk with Peter Scialabba, a cutter, during which conversation he informed this employee that his wage would be cut from $35 per week to $25 per week. He further in- formed him that his position would be reduced from that of head cutter to plain cutter. There is some conflict in the testimony as to whether Scialabba quit or was discharged at this time. However, there is substantial agreement in the testimony indicating that Scialabba told Miller that he was a member of the Union; that all of the other men in the cutting room were also members, and that if he were discharged the rest would walk out with him. On July 12, 1937, Miller received either a letter.or a telegram from Elias Reiseberg, vice president of the International Ladies Garment Workers Union, as follows : My attention has been called to the fact that on July 9, you switched Peter Scialabbo, head cutter, to plain cutter and re- duced his wages from $35 to $25 a week. As you know, Scia- labbo and the rest of your cutting room has joined the Union and we consider this an act of discrimination on your part for affiliation with the Union. In order to avoid complications I re- quest that Peter Scialabbo be reinstated to his former position and receive his former wages, otherwise we will be compelled to bring charges before the National Labor Relations Board. DECISIONS AND ORDERS 17 On July 14, 1937, a notice was posted on the clock in respondent's plant stating that the plant would close that night until further notice, and the plant did close that night. - It was reopened on August 10, 1937, and has been operating continuously since that time. By August 13, 1937, 32 employees had been rehired, and by August 20, 20 more had been added. On or about August 16, the respondent inserted a notice in the local newspaper which in part read as fol- lows : . . . As fast as we have work available, notices will be sent to employees who were on the pay roll at the time of the shut- down to report back for work. . . . Pursuant to this notice the respondent subsequently notified in- dividually all its employees except Mae Cutri, Anne Weaver, Clara Baker, Ethel Beyea, and Evelyn Potter, when it wanted them to return to work. These notices were sent by telegraph, registered mail, and telephone. By August 20, all of the employees who desired reinstatement were back at work with the exception of the five above- named employees, all of whom were active union members who had been in the respondent's employ from 3 to 14 years. The respondent urges that the plant was closed on July 14, 1937, for the following reason : "because there was so much confusion and general upset conditions throughout the plant that it was impossible to operate efficiently." Miller testified that his production records showed that production had fallen off in the plant from an average of 118 dozen garments per day during the first 9 working days of July 1937, to 65 dozen per day for the 3 days next preceding the closing of the plant. The evidence indicated that a normal produc- tion average was about 112 dozen garments per day. Miller further testified that because of this fall in production he called a meeting of the respondent's board of directors on July 13, 1937, at which meeting the question of closing the plant either temporarily or per- manently was discussed. At this meeting full authority to make the final decision in this matter was given to Miller. On July 14, 1937, Miller decided to close the plant, not having as yet made up his mind whether it would be a temporary or a permanent closing. There can be little doubt that there was a substantial amount of unrest among the respondent's employees immediately prior to the shut-down. The Union had achieved a bare majority after an in- tensive organization campaign in the early part of July but had hesitated to ask for Union recognition in view of the past attitude of the respondent. This hesitancy is understandable since the em- ployees were well aware of the respondent's uncompromising hos- tility to the Union through experience acquired in the two strikes in 18 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 1936, the second of which had been caused and prolonged by the respondent's refusal to recognize and deal with their union. The existent unrest was undoubtedly intensified by the summary demo- tion and discharge of Scialabba on, July 9. However, we do not believe that the unrest and resultant temporary decrease in produc- tion actually caused the shut-down. There can also be little doubt that this tension pending the pro- jected request for union recognition resulted in decreased produc- tion. Miller admitted on cross-examination, however, that, 20 per cent of the time, normal production in the plant was about 65 dozen garments per day. This would indicate that the situation was neither so unusual nor unprecedented as to cause immediate concern. In fact there had never been any shut-down during former periods when production had fallen to the same point. Further, the evi- dence showed that each day's production record was not made up until the next day. Since there was no showing that the practice was varied prior to the shut-down it is apparent that Miller had the record of only 1 day's low production when he determined to call the meeting of the board of directors ; that the board of directors had the records of only 1 day's production when they gave Miller the authority to determine whether or not the plant should be closed, and that Miller had the record of only 2 day's low production when he decided to close the plant. In the face of the admittedly known unrest and confusion among the employees, the respondent made no effort either to correct the condition or to warn the employees that production would have to be increased if the plant was to remain open. The respondent met the situation by the precipitate shut-down on July- 14. There was neither previous notice to the employees of the impending shut-down nor was production tapered off section by section. The plant was operating on a full-time basis and there was a normal amount of business on hand. There is nothing in the record to indicate a prospective lack of business. On the contrary there were unfilled orders on hand. Miller admitted on cross-examination that it was "very unusual" to close the plant when this condition existed. The cutting room, where one of the first operations was performed on the garment, would usually be the first to discontinue in a normal shut-down. On this occasion it continued to cut garments until the time when the rest of the plant closed down. When the plant closed, unfinished garments were in the process of manufacture. Consideration of all the circumstances of the shut-down compels the conclusion that the respondent shut down the plant, not because of its inability to cope with a temporary decrease in the productivity of-its employees as a group, but to coerce its employees to abandon DECISIONS AND ORDERS 19 their union, with which it would not deal. Our conclusion with respect to the shut-down is supported by direct statements attributed to Miller by a credible witness. A few days after the shut-down, Miller informed Mickey D'Agas- tino, an employee, in answer to her inquiry as to why the employees had been locked out of the plant, that he had closed the plant because he heard that there was going to be another strike and that he wanted to "beat them to it." He further stated that he could not Afford another strike and that he did not intend to reopen the plant ``until we get all our disputes argued out amongst the girls, so many hard feelings." Miller, when questioned about this conversation, said that he did not remember having had such a talk or having made the above statement, but he did not categorically deny it. There is no evidence that a strike had been voted, discussed, - or planned by the Union. The only reference to a possible strike was made by Scialabba, who apparently did nothing to enlist support for his threat after his severance of employment. Thus to defeat union organizational activity, described as "general confusion and unrest," the respondent closed its plant on July 14, 1937. We find that the closing of respondent's plant on July 14, 1937, was a lock-out to discourage union membership and activity and that the respondent by said lock-out thereby interfered with, re- strained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act. As we have indicated, Mae Cutri, Anne Weaver, Ethel Beyea, Clara Baker, and Evelyn Potter were not reinstated after the lock- out. They were all active members of the Union. Mae Cutri was chairlady of the Union and had acted in that capacity ever since the inception of the Union. Anne Weaver and Clara Baker had been members of the executive board of the Union since its forma- tion. Ethel Beyea was one of the first members of the Union and there was uncontradicted testimony that Evelyn Potter was active, although there is no showing as to the exact nature of her activity. The respondent justifies its failure to reinstate Mae Cutri and Ethel Beyea on the ground that they did not need the work as much as others, since there was some other member in each of their fami- lies working. The respondent stated that it tried to distribute the work among those who needed it most. The respondent further urged that there was not sufficient work for all and that it was willing to reinstate them as soon as it could use them. The respondent's reasons are not persuasive when considered in connection with the admission that it made no investigation of the economic condition of the workers who were rehired. Moreover, there is evidence that during at least 2 weeks after the plant re- 117213-39-vol S-3 20 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD opened it was necessary, presumably to meet production require- ments, to operate for 441/2 hours instead of the normal 40-hour week. Miller stated that he did not reinstate Evelyn Potter because she was a slow and indifferent worker. However, the respondent stipu- lated that the amount of Potter's pay checks bore the same relation to the minimum wage as the number of hours she worked bore to the normal 40-hour week. Furthermore, since she had been em- ployed by the respondent over a period of 9 years, we do not believe that her alleged indifference was the cause of the respondent's refusal to reinstate her. Anne Weaver and Clara Baker, according to the respondent, were not reinstated because there was no work for them. The uncontra- dicted testimony, however, indicates that other employees had been transferred to their positions and were doing the operation on which they had been engaged prior to the lock-out. Although there is other evidence which confirms our opinion that these five employees were denied reinstatement because of their union membership and activity, we do not deem it necessary to discuss the evidence in further detail since we have found that they were the victims of a discriminatory lock-out. We find that the respondent refused to reinstate Mae Cutri, Ethel Beyea, Evelyn Potter, Anne Weaver, and Clara Baker because of their union membership and activity, and thereby interfered with, restrained and coerced its employees in the exercise of their rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. V. THE DISCHARGE' Sol Lepson. Sol Lepson was reinstated after the lock-out follow- ing a protest from the Union and an informal inquiry by the Regional Director of the Board. Lepson was the only member of the cutting room staff who retained his union membership, after the lock-out. Before Lepson was originally employed by the respondent in April 1937, he met Miller in New York City. Miller testified that cutters were difficult to get at that time. After some urging on the part of Miller and a 'promise to pay the cost of his transportation, Lepson agreed to come to Canandaigua. It was agreed that he would start to work at the rate of $25 per week and would receive a raise if his work was satisfactory. Before he was employed he told Miller that he was a machine cutter and that he had had little experience with short-knife cutting. After he had been employed for 2 weeks his salary was raised to $30 per week. When he was reemployed on or about August 16, 1937, after the lock-out, his wages were reduced. He was -given an inferior tale at which to work. In spite of the fact that his machine stood idle DECISIONS AND ORDERS 21 he was instructed to do short-knife cutting that could have been done on the machine. He was constantly harassed by Schween, the de- signer, who generally supervised the work of the cutters, and was severely criticised whenever he would ask Schween for instructions. On September 3, 1937, the cashier came into the cutting room and passed out the pay checks to the rest of the employees there.- She did not give a check to Lepson but told him that Miller wanted to see him. Lepson went to Miller's office accompanied by Schween. Miller told Lepson that his work had not been satisfactory and that he would "have to let him go." Lepson asked Miller how he could make up his mind so suddenly to discharge him and Miller replied : "How do you know I didn't make up my mind before this." Lepson then left the plant. The respondent defends his discharge on the ground that Lepson made three errors which were costly to the Company.' The first error was in leaving out one ply on a batch of garments he was cutting. The method of operation is for a marker to trace the de- sign of the garment on one ply of material. The cutter then places 47 other pieces of an equal size under the pattern ply. Thus four dozen garments are cut by each cutter at one time. The error. was in putting only 46 plies under the pattern ply thus1leaving the fourth dozen one garment short. This error was clearly Lepson's fault, but all parties agreed that it was an error that any cutter will make occasionally. There was some confusion in the testimony concerning the second error. However, the evidence indicated that the second error may have been the fault of the marker rather than Lepson. It was not clearly shown whether a ply was left out of the stack he was cutting or whether a whole segment of the garment was left out when it was marked on his pattern ply. The third error was not dis- covered until after Lepson's discharge and so could not have con- tributed to that discharge. After the second error Lepson was warned that if he made another error he would be discharged. Nev- ertheless, the respondent discharged him before the third error was discovered. We do not believe, in view of the above facts, that the reemploy- ment of Sol Lepson after the lock-out was undertaken in good faith. The facts indicate that he was rehired only to give the respondent an opportunity to discharge him for apparent cause. Since he was dis- charged ultimately before the third error imputed to him was dis- covered it is plain that this error was not the actual cause of his discharge. We find that the respondent discharged Sol Lepson on September 3, 1937, because he applied to his union after the lock-out to secure it 1 There is no evidence in the record to substantiate the assertion that the alleged errors were costly. 22 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD his reinstatement and because he continued his union membership and activity after the lock-out in July 1937; and that thereby the respondent interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of their rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act. VI. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE We find that the activities of the respondent as set forth above, occurring in connection with the operations of the respondent, de- scribed in Section I above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relation to traffic, trade, commerce, and transportation among the several States and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce. VII. THE REMEDY a s We have found, that the closing of the plant of the respondent on July 14, 1937, was a lock-out; that all the locked-out employees were subsequently reinstated after the plant reopened except Mae Cutri, Evelyn Potter, Ethel Beyea, Clara Baker, and Anne Weaver, who were included in the lock-out but were not reinstated. We have also found that the discharge of Sol Lepson was a discriminatory discharge for the purpose of discouraging membership in a labor organization. We shall order the respondent to reinstate Mae Cutri, Evelyn Potter, Ethel Beyea, Clara Baker, and Anne Weaver to their former positions without prejudice to their seniority or other rights and privileges previously enjoyed. We shall further order respond- ent to make whole each of the above-named employees by payment to each of them of the sum which each would normally have earned, respectively, from the date of the lock-out to the date of the offer of reinstatement. We shall further order the respondent to offer immediate and full reinstatement to Sol Lepson to his former posi- tion without prejudice to his seniority and other rights and privileges previously enjoyed; to pay to him a sum of money equal to that which he would have earned from the date of the lock-out to the date of his reinstatement after the lock-out, less any sum which he may have earned during said period, if any, and a further sum of money equal. to that which he would have earned from the date of his discriminatory discharge to the date of the offer of reinstate- ment, ordered herein, less any sum which he may have earned during said period, if any. We shall further order the respondent to pay to each employee whose name appears on the pay roll next preceding the lock-out, a sum of money equal to that which each employee, respectively, would have earned from July 14, 1937, to the date of the offer of reinstate- DECISIONS AND ORDERS 23 ment to said employee, less the sum, if any, which said employee earned during said period. Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the en- tire record in the proceeding, the Board makes the following : CON CLUSIONS OF LAW 1. International Ladies Garment Workers Union, Local No. 245, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act. 2. The respondent by interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (1) of the Act. 3. The respondent, by discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of the employees locked out on July 14, 1937, and of Sol Lepson, and thereby discouraging membership in Inter- national Ladies Garment Workers Union, Local No. 245, has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (3) of the Act. 4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. ORDER Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and conclusions of law and pursuant to Section 10 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the respondent, Miller Corsets, Inc., Canandaigua, New York, and its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall : 1. Cease and desist : (a) From in any manner discouraging membership in the Inter- national Ladies Garment Workers Union,. or in any other labor organization of its employees, by discriminating against its employees in regard to hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment; (b) From in any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of their right to self-organiza- tion, to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collec- tively through representatives of their own choosing, or to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection as guaranteed in Section 7 of this Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will effectuate the policies of the Act : 24 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD (a) Offer to Evelyn Potter, Mae Cutri, Ethel Beyea, Clara Baker, and Anne Weaver, immediate and full reinstatement to their former positions without prejudice to their seniority rights or other rights and privileges; (b) Make whole Evelyn Potter, Mae Cutri, Ethel Beyea, Clara Baker, and Anne Weaver for any losses they may have suffered by reason of said lock-out and the failure of the respondent to reinstate them, by payment to each of them, respectively, of a sum of money equal to that which each of them would normally have earned as wages during the period from July 14, 1937, to the date of the offer of reinstatement to their former positions, less the amount, if any, which each, respectively, shall have earned during said period; (c) Offer to Sol Lepson immediate and full reinstatement to his former position at his former rate of pay, without prejudice to his seniority or other rights and privileges; (d) Make whole Sol Lepson by payment to him of a sum of money equal to that which he would normally have earned from July 14, 1937, to the date of his reinstatement on or about August 16, 1937, less the sum, if any, which he earned during that period, and a sum of money equal to that which he normally would have earned from September 3, 1937, to the date of the offer of reinstatement ordered herein, less the sum, if any, which he earned during said period; (6) Make whole each and every employee whose name appears on the pay roll next preceding the date of the lock-out, by payment to each such employee, respectively, of a sum of money equal to that sum which each such employee, respectively, would have earned from July 14, 1937, to the date of the offer of reinstatement to said em- ployee, less that sum, if any, which said, employee earned during said period; (f) Post notices in conspicuous places in the respondent's plant at Canandaigua, New York, and maintain said notices for a period of at least thirty (30) consecutive days, stating that the respondent will cease and desist as aforesaid; (g) Notify the Regional Director for the Third Region in writ- ing, within ten (10) days from the date of this order, what steps the respondent has taken to comply herewith.