AAA Dental Laboratory

.In the Matter of R. M. JOHNSON AND G. F. SHARP, A PARTNERSHIP DOING BUSINESS AS AAA DENTAL LABORATORY, AAA DENTAL LABORA- TORIES, INC., AND UNITED STATES DENTAL COMPANY and DENTAL MECHANICS, LABORATORY TECHNICIANS, ASSISTANTS AND HELPERS UNION - Case No. C-9016.-Decided May 26, 194:2 Jurisdiction : artificial denture manufacturing industry. Unfair Labor Practices Interference, Restraint, and Coercion: anti-union statements ; individual wage increases; inviting unauthorized employees to bargaining conferences; indi- cating preference for individual bargaining ; threats to discharge unfair labor practice strikers ; attempts to "undercut" the authority of bargaining repre- sentative. Discrimination: refusal to reinstate two unfair labor practice strikers ; charges of discrimination dismissed as to one striker whose conduct during strike justified Company in concluding he was not a trustworthy, employee. Collective Bargaining: majority established by application cards-refusal to bar- gain ; lack of good faith by refusing demands because of preference for indi- vidual bargaining and by attempting to discredit bargaining representative; refusal to continue negotiations or enter into written contract covering terms agreed upon after unsuccessful strike caused by Company's unfair labor practices. Remedial Orders: upon request bargain collectively with union; reinstatement and back pay awarded. - .Definitions: a partnership and two corporations engaged in a single enterprise held jointly liable for unfair labor practices ; individual, even though not an officer or stockholder of corporations or a partner, held to be an "employer" where he furnished substantial amount of capital and exercised ultimate control in the management of the enterprise. Mr. Stephen M. Reynolds, for the Board. Mr. Voyle C. Johnson and Mr. Lynn W. Beman, of Chicago, Ill., for the respondents. - Granata & Schiller, by Mr. Sidney S. Schiller, of Chicago, Ill., for the Union. Mary Lemon Schleifer, of counsel to the Board. DECISION AND ORDER STATEMENT OF THE CASE Upon charges and amended charges duly filed by Dental Mechanics, Laboratory Technicians, Assistants and Helpers Union, herein called 41 N. L. R. B., No. 61. 263 264 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD the Union, the National Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board, by the Regional Director for the Thirteenth Region (Chicago, Illinois), issued its complaint, dated July 28, 1941, -against R. M. Johnson and G. F. Sharp, a partnership doing business as AAA Dental Laboratory, and against AAA Dental Laboratories, Inc., and United States Dental Company, all three companies herein jointly called the respondents, alleging that the respondents had engaged in and were engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce, within the meaning of Section 8 (1), (3), and (5) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein called the Act. Copies of the complaint, accompanied by notice of hearing, were duly served upon the respondents and the Union. With respect to the unfair labor practices, the complaint alleged in substance : (1) that the respondents, on December 27, 1940, and on a number of specified dates thereafter, refused to bargain col- lectively with the Union as the exclusive representative of a majority of the employees in an appropriate bargaining unit; (2) that on or about March 6, 1941, the respondents discharged and/or refused to reinstate, and at all times thereafter refused to reinstate, E. E. French, Charles Paetow, and Irving Tatkin because they joined and assisted the Union; and (3) that the respondents, by warning and discouraging their employees against affiliation with or activities on behalf of unions, by questioning employees about their union mem- bership and activities, by soliciting one employee to resign from- the Union, by reducing the pay of one employee to discourage his union activities, by granting various individual wage raises while the Union was endeavoring to,bargain collectively, in order to weaken the bargaining position of the Union, by inviting unauthorized em- ployees to sit in on the bargaining conferences, by sending out letters to employees misrepresenting the bargaining negotiations and warn- ing them against taking strike action, and by soliciting employees to return to. work individually during a strike caused and prolonged by the unfair labor practices of the respondents; interfered with, restrained, and coerced their employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. On August 5, 1941, the respondents filed an answer admitting the jurisdiction of the Board, denying that any of the respondents except the partnership was the employer of the employees involved, denying that the respondents, or, any of them, had engaged in unfair labor practices, and making certain affirm^tttive allegations discussed hereinafter. Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held at Chicago, Illinois, from August 11 to 14; 1941, before Henry J. Kent, the Trial Examiner AAA DENTAL LABORATORY -265 duly designated by the Chief Trial Examiner. The Board, the respondents, and the Union were represented by counsel and partici- pated in the hearing. Full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing on the issues was afforded all parties. During the course of the hearing the Trial Examiner refused to admit into evidence a work sheet offered by the respondents., This ruling was reversed by the Trial Examiner in his Intermediate Re- port. The ruling as made in the Intermediate Report is hereby affirmed. The Trial Examiner also refused to admit into evidence an affidavit made by Robert Jackman, a member of the union nego- tiating committee, and offered by the respondents.2 The Trial Ex- aminer reaffirmed this ruling in his Intermediate Report. For rea- sons stated below, the ruling of the Trial Examiner is reversed and Respondent Rejected Exhibit No. 6 is hereby admitted into evidence and made part of the record in the case. Various rulings were made by the Trial Examiner during the course of the hearing on other motions and on objections to the admission of evidence. The Board has reviewed these rulings and finds that no prejudicial, errors were committed. With the exception of the ruling above referred to, the rulings of the Trial Examiner are hereby affirmed. After the close of the hearing the respondents filed a brief with the Trial Examiner. ` On November 21, 1941, the Trial Examiner filed his Intermediate Report, finding that the respondents had engaged in unfair labor practices affecting commerce, within the meaning of Section 8 (1), (3), and (5) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act, and recommend- ing that the respondents cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action deemed necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act. Thereafter the respondents filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report, and a brief. On January 27, 1941, pursuant to notice duly served upon the respondents and the Union, a hearing for the purpose of oral argu- ment was held before the Board in Washington, D. C. The re- spondents were.represented by counsel and participated in the hearing. The Union did not appear. The Board has considered the respondents' exceptions to the In- termediate Report and their brief and, insofar as the exceptions are inconsistent with the findings, conclusions, and order set forth below, finds them to be without merit. 1 Respondent Rejected Exhibit No. 5 2 Respondent Rejected Exhibit No. 6 266 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENTS AAA Dental Laboratory, a partnership, and United States Dental Company and AAA Dental Laboratories, Inc., Delaware corporations, have their offices and places of business at 1555-1557 Milwaukee Ave- nue, Chicago, Illinois, and, as shown in Section III-D, below, jointly form a single enterprise, engaged in the manufacture and sale of artificial dentures. In 1940 the respondents purchased raw materials valued at about $40,000, approximately 40 percent of which represented materials se- cured from sources outside the State of Illinois. During the same period the respondents' net sales were approximately $254,000, ap- proximately 80 percent of which represented sales to customers out- side the State of Illinois. The respondents admit that they are engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. _ .II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED Dental Mechanics, Laboratory Technicians, Assistants and Helpers Union is an unaffiliated labor organization admitting to membership laboratory employees of the respondents. III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A: The refusal to bargain and other acts of interference with self-organization 1. The appropriate unit The complaint alleges, and the'answei of the respondents admits, that all laboratory workers engaged in the manufacture and repair of artificial dentures at the Chicago plant of the respondents, exclud- ing the foreman, assistant foreman, inspector, and all other employees at the plant, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of col- lective bargaining.3 As stated below,. the respondents have recog- nized the Union as,the representative of employees in this unit. 3A stipulation entered into by the parties at the hearing, as recorded in the official transcript describes the unit agreed upon as consisting of "all laboratory workers taking part in the repair and manufacture of artificial dentures,. excluding the foreman, assistant foreman, inspector and including all other employees now employed by the company 's plant in Chicago " ( Underscoring supplied ) It is ' clear from the entire record , however , that the unit agreed upon included only non -supervisory laboratory workers. AAA DENTAL LABORATORY 267 We find that all laboratory workers engaged, in the manufacture and repair of artificial dentures at the Chicago plant of the respond- ents, excluding the foreman, assistant foreman, inspector, and all other employees at the plant, at all times material herein constituted and now constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of bollective bargaining, and that said unit insures to employees of the respondents the' full benefit of their right to self-organization and to collective bargaining, and otherwise effectuates the policies of the Act. 2. Representation. by the Union of a majority in the appropriate unit The first general organizational meeting of the respondents' em- ployees was held on December 26, 1940. According to the testimony of Irving Tatkin, recording secretary of the Union, and according to' union records, 31 employees in the appropriate unit signed appli- cations for membership in the Union at that meeting. At a_ conference at the Board's Regiol ial Office on February 8, 1941, the respondents and the Union agreed upon the appropriate unit, and further agreed that there were 42 employees in such unit. A check of the Union's cards against company records made by a Field Examiner of the Board disclosed that as of February 8, 1941, 34 employees within the appropriate unit had signed union cards. The respondents did not except to the Trial Examiner's finding that on December 26, 1940, and thereafter a majority of the employees in an appropriate unit had selected the Union as their bargaining rep- resentative.4 - We -find that on December 26, 1940, and at all times thereafter, the Union has been the duly designated representative of a majority of the respondents' employees in an appropriate bargaining unit, and that, pursuant to Section 9 (a) of the Act, the Union was and is the exclusive representative of employees in such unit for the pur- 4 As is hereinafter stated , a strike was • called, on February - 24, 1941 , as a result of the respondents' unfair labor practices Operations were continued during the strike, some new employees being hired The strike was terminated by the Union on March 5, 1941 , without remedy of the unfair labor, practices , and thereafter substantially all the employees still on strike were reinstated Some of the persons hired during the strike were also retained Undcf'these'circumstances , any possible loss of majority, by the Union clearly resulted from the respondents ' unfair labor practices, and we so find. Such a loss cannot operate to change the bargaining representative once freely selected . National Labor 'Relations Board v Bradford Dyeing Assoomatson, 310 U. S, 318, enf'g Matter pf Bradford Dyeing Association ( U. S. A ) (a corporation) and Textile Workers' Organizing Committee of the C . 1. 0, 4 N L' R `B 604; Windsor Manufacturing Co Y. National Labor Relations Board, 118 F. (2d) 494 (C C. A 3) enf'g Matter of John J. Oughton, et at. and Textile 'Workers Organizing ' Committee ( C. 1 0.), 2d, N L R B. 301, National Labor Relations Board v. Chicago Apparatus Company, 116 F. (2d) 753 (C. C. A..7), enf'g Matter of Chicago Apparatus- Company and Federation of Architects, Engineers, Chemists and Tech niemans;. Local 107, 12 N L R B. 1002. 268 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD poses of collective bargaining in respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other conditions of employment. 3. The refusal to bargain and other acts of interference a. Chronology of events Discontent concerning wages produced a move toward organiza- tion by the laboratory employees during the summer of 1940. Ernest E. French, supervisor of the work, was aware of this dis- content and discussed the matter with' Voyle C. Johnson 5 on several occasions. In October some of the employees, including French and Charles Paetow, testified in the respondents' behalf at a hearing held by the Post Office Department, on charges alleging that the respondents were using the mails to defraud. Just prior to the hear- ing Johnson told French that if the respondents successfully de- fended the suit, wage increases would be given. Johnson further stated that the respondents would probably be advised within 30 days after the hearing of the decision in the cases When no wage increases were forthcoming, the employees decided, in the latter part of November or early in December, to form an unaffiliated union. Several meetings were held in French's apartment, at least one of which was attended by Foreman Maski. Petitions were also circulated among the employees and signed by substantially all the laboratory workers. On December 12, 4 employees received wage increases and subse- quent to December 26, when the incipient organization took form, the respondents made 16 further wage adjustments.7 On December 22 the employees secured legal advice and were instructed by counsel to call a general meeting and to secure applica- tion for membership cards to be signed by the employees. At the meeting, held on December 26, a majority of the employees signed cards and officers were elected : French, president; Paetow, vice president; Tatkin, secretary; and Albert Mutton, treasurer. On December 23, 24, and 27 a committee of the employees at- tempted to secure a meeting with Johnson. Elizabeth Klingler, e As appears in Section III-D , infra, Voyle C. Johnson, hereafter referred to as Johnson , is the beneficial owner of the business. O The respondents were not advised of the disposition of the case until July 1941, when they were informed that the charges were being disposed of without recommenda, tion of a fraud order. 7 While there is conflict in the record as to the exact dates on which the first organizational meetings were held. Maski admitted that he attended a meeting during which Paetow complained about the wage cut he had received . Paetow received this cut on December 5 Although French and Paetow placed the dates of the meetings earlier, it is clear from Maski's testimony that definite steps toward organization were taken no later than a few days after December 5. 1 I AAA DENTAL LABORATORY 269 then manager of the laboratory and secretary of the respondent United States Dental Company, informed the committee that John- son, was out of town and that she had no authority to negotiate with the employees. Klingler testified that on December 26 or 27 she went to the Regional Office of the Board and was advised that the respondents should arrange a conference with the Union and that she should not discourage union activity. According to the testimony of Paetow, Klingler informed the employees on December 27 that, while the respondents had no objection to their forming a union, "if the union was to organize we would be brought down to-the Labor Relations Board and they would set the salaries and they would be less than what we are getting now." While Klingler denied that she spoke against the Union, she did not deny having made this statement. We find that Klingler made the statement substantially as testified to by Paetow, and by this- statement, for which the respondents are responsible, sought to discourage union activity. Between December 26, 1940, and January 1, 1941,11 Klingler communicated with Johnson, absent on vacation, and was instructed to secure one Lynn Beman as the 'respondents' repre- sentative to deal with the Union. According to the testimony of George Schrubbe, during January or the early part of February, Jensen, the office manager, advised employees in the witness' department that "You are foolish for joining the union. After the union goes through they will only be able to hire the skilled help and pay the skilled wages that union members get when they belong to the union." Jensen was not called as a witness. We find the testimony of Schrubbe to be credible, and that the respondents by Jensen's statement sought to discourage union activity. - A few days before February 8, according to the testimony of French, Johnson advised French to withdraw from the Union be- cause "You [French] now have the regard and the respect of the boys up there, and they think most highly of you, but if you take an active part in union matters you will find things coining up that might make the boys become dissatisfied with you, make them think that you aren't playing fair with them, and you may lose' that respect. And, furthermore, I had in mind making things much better for you." While Johnson testified that he "did not intimate or request or in any way suggest that French not join a union," he did not deny that the conversation took place, did not testify as to what was said, and did not deny making these remarks. The record establishes that Johnson was opposed to the Union, and the 8 On Decemiier 30 the Union also sent a letter to the respondents stating that a majority of the employees had joined the Union and, requesting a conference for the purposes of collective bargaining. 270 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD remarks attributed to Johnson by French are consistent with John-, son's 'attitude as established by the • record. Under all the circum- stances, we accept this testimony of French as being credible, and further, that these remarks constituted an unwarranted attempt by Johnson, to discourage French's union activity 9 Although the respondents retained Beman early in January, the Union was unable to secure a meeting with Beman until February 8. The meeting was held in the Regional Office of the Board, the respondents being represented by Beman and the Union by its attorney and negotiating committee.1° The parties agreed upon the unit, and on the basis of a check of union cards made by a Field Examiner of the Board, the respondents acknowledged that the Union represented a majority of the employees in an appro-' priate unit. The respondents further agreed to recognize the Union as the exclusive representative of employees in such unit. A con- ference to begin negotiations was arranged for February 13. At the meeting -of February 13 the Union presented a proposed contract. There was only brief discussion of the proposed contract, the Union agreeing to adjourn the meeting to allow the respond- ents an opportunity to study the union demands. On February 15, 1941, at the third meeting, the demands were separately discussed. The respondents agreed to the Union's pro- posals with rega'r`d to recognition, vacations, a 40-hour week, and sanitary facilities, ' all of which provided for- the continuation of conditions already in effect." With regard to the Union's proposal for a 3-man arbitration board, the respondents suggested a single arbitrator, to be selected from a list submitted by the American Arbitration Association. The Union objected to this method, and no conclusion was reached. With regard to the Union's seniority proposal, the, respondents, required that seniority be conditioned upon their decisions as to ability. The demands for a union shop and a check-off system were denied. - The greater portion of the meeting was devoted to a discussion of wages. Johnson produced his personal income tax returns for the 9 The record establishes , and the respondents admit , that sometime after the forma- tion of the Union French was relieved of his supervisory duties Since the exact date of the demotion is not established by the record , it is impossible to determine whether French was a supervisory employee at the time Johnson sought to dissuade him from further union activity Even though he,was, Johnson's remarks were not privileged , since the basis of the suggestion was not that French, as a supervisor, was prejudicing the respondents by his union activity . Cf. Matter of Marshall Field if Company and Department Store Employees Union, Local 291, 34 N. L R. B. 1 "The negotiating committee as constituted throughout the conferences consisted generally of employees French , Faetow, Tatkin , Mutton , and Robert Jackman. n According to the undenied testimony of Tatkin, the contract included provisions covering the 40-hour week , vacations , and other conditions already in' effect, as - a precautionaiy measure deemed necessary because of the' I abolition of a 10 -minute rest period after the formation of the Union: 1 AAA DENTAL LABORATORY 27F years, 1937, 1938, and 1939, and other figures concerning the earnings of the respondents, and contended that the respondents could- give no general wage increase as requested by the Union. The union repre- sentatives questioned some of the figures submitted, such' as the amounts paid for legal and advertising services, and the sum of $40,000 allotted,'without explanation, to miscellaneous expenses. The respondents agreed to open their books during the following week for inspection by a certified public accountant to be selected by the Union, and the conference was adjourned to February 22. Schiller, attorney for the Union, testified that he arranged for an acccountant to inspect the books but that, due to pressure of other business in connection with preparation' of income tax returns, the accountant was unable to examine the respondents' books prior to February 22. On the day prior to the conference of February 22 Klingler called six employees into her office and informed them,that if they were interested they could attend the conference between the, Union and the respondents on the following day. Klingler gave no explanation for this act, and the reccord does not establish that any of these employees had requested permission to attend the conference. 'The meeting of February 22 was devoted almost exclusively to a discussion of wage increases. Johnson submitted a summary of the respondents' financial condition. The union representatives pro- tested that the respondents' inability to grant wage increases was not established by the figures, pointing out that large sums of money had been put into expansion, and into advertising and legal fees, paid in part to Johnson. Finally, in response to Schiller's request that the respondents offer a counterproposal on wages, Johnson, accord- ing to the testimony of Schiller and the union representatives, stated, "I won't give- those suckers one damn cent." While Johnson and Beman denied that Johnson used the word "suckers," both admitted Johnson stated that he would not "give a God damn cent" of in- crease. Schiller then stated that the respondents had failed to bar- gain in good faith and that the matter would have to be taken to- the Board. According to the union witnesses and their attorney, Johnson then left the room. While Johnson testified that the union committee terminated the conference and walked out, Beman testi- fied that Johnson left first. The Trial Examiner, who observed the witnesses, found in accordance with the testimony of the union repre- sentatives. Upon the basis of the entire reccord, we find the facts concerning this ' conference to be substantially as testified to by Schiller and the union committeemen. Later on the same day the respondents sent a special delivery letter to ' each of their employees. Beman -testified that the letter was sent because the respondents were "not sure that the union would 272 , DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD give a complete report * * *." The letter , ' in part, is as follows : We have been meeting with a Union Committee and its attor- ney. Today this Committee and its attorney walked out of a conference and apparently broke off negotiations. We therefore feel free to give you a complete report of what took place at all of these meetings. * * * * * * * The Union Committee asked for a "minimum basic wage scale to be established in accordance with" a list the Union Committee's lawyer furnished to us. The list called for wage increases that would raise the pay roll over 100%-for example , "Inspector of Plates and Supervising Technician , $2.50 per hour," or $100.00 a week for forty hours. ' The Union' Committee had big ideas in relation to profits of our business and felt some of the various businesses at 1555-57 Milwaukee Avenue made large profits. The Union Committee however admitted that the wages which AAA Dental Laboratory is already paying to its employees is on the average higher than the wages of any other dental laboratory, in the city of Chicago. Increased wages have been given and are being given as fast as the Laboratory can to employees whose work records show they deserve recognition for production and quality. * * * * * * * STRIKE Since the Union attorney and the Union Committee walked out of the meeting, it is possible that they are going to try to get the employees to strike . If there is a strike we will continue to operate as usual. It is easier to get into strike troubles than to get out of trouble. IF YOU DO NOT WANT TO HAVE A STRIKE, THE TIME TO MAKE YOUR VOICE HEARD IS NOW BEFORE IT IS TOO LATE. We have never refused to meet with the Union Committee and attorney. If, on their limited knowledge , they want to do some- thing that will wreck the business , we cannot agree with them. Our supervisory force will be fair and say nothing about union matters. We ask that there be no talk on this subject by any one during working hours . Mistakes could ruin the business. Various attempts by outside business men are reported to have been made in the past to ruin this business . We believe the Union Committee is honest and will not make any such attempts. AAA DENTAL LABORATORY CONCLUSION 273 We have been entirely fair on the question of having a union. We regret that we are not financially able to comply with all , of the Union Committee's demands at this time. To grant these demands, increases in costs would cause a serious annual wage reduction. You would lose hours of employment. We would lose orders due to increased cost. We are convinced if we granted the Union Committee's demands it would completely wreck the business. We know you are fair minded and will appreciate your giving this matter your careful consideration. [Italics supplied.] Although purporting to give only the actual facts, the respondents misrepresented the facts in this letter. Thus, as we have shown, it was Johnson and not the union committee, as stated in the letter, "who walked out of the meeting." The union committeemen deny, and the respondents introduced no evidence to prove, that the union committee agreed that the respondents paid higher wages than those paid by other local laboratories. Further misrepresentations in the letter were contained in the statements : The Union Committee asked that no employee be discharged without just cause. We agreed to go farther than the Committee requested and have any discharge subject to arbitration; and It was proposed that we increase the selling prices and'pay the men the additional amount. This ',would cut down employ- ment * * *. The Union's proposals had included an arbitration provision. Irv- ing Tatkin, a member of the negotiating committee, denied that the Union had suggested an increase in selling price as a means of meeting wage increases and we credit his denial. The predictable effect of this letter was apparent immediately. The committeemen received many telephone calls the following day, a Sunday, from employees who had received the letter. Many of the employees accused the committee of not properly representing the membership ; others demanded that a strike be called iminediately.12 The committeemen recommended that no action be taken until the following day. At a meeting in the plant the following morning the committee reported its version of the conference of February 22, whereupon the employees voted to strike immediately. Most of the At the union meeting of February 18 the membership had authorized the president and the negotiating committee to call a stiihe in the event that the respondents failed to bargain in good faith. - 463892-42-vol 41--18 274 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD employees left the plant, and picketing began. The plant continued to operate, however, with some of the old employees and with new employees. On the same day Johnson solicited the employees individually to return to work by sending the following letter to a number 'of the strikers: In checking reports made out by Miss Klingler on AAA Dental Laboratory, I notice that you too left work this forenoon. I advised her to hold your job open for you as long as she can. If you care to call upon lne or telephone to me' at my office or home, I shall be glad to talk with you at any time. While Johnson testified that the letter was intended as "an act of charity, to let him know that we were holding the job open for him," he also testified that "I had in mind that if the job is filled while he was out on strike by somebody. else, why, sometimes it is difficult to put that other person out and put somebody else in." Johnson's explanation is thus consistent with the inference that the letter was intended as a warning to the striking employees that their positions would be filled by new employees, and we find accordingly.- On February 27, 1941, 3 days after the strike began, the Union, through its attorney, sent a letter to the respondents asserting that the negotiations had been terminated and the 'strike caused by the respondents' refusal to bargain in good faith, and concluding : However, I want you to know that the Union is ready and willing to negotiate further at all times provided that you are willing to bargain in, good faith as is provided, by law. If you care to negotiate further, please communicate with the President or the Union or the undersigned. The respondents did not reply to this letter. ' On March 5 the Union voted to terminate the strike, to request reinstatement of all striking employees, and to seek further negotia- tion's with the respondents. On the same day it made oral and written application for reinstatement of the 25 employees who were still on strike. The respondents thereafter reinstated or offered reinstate- ment to all the strikers except the 3 who are discussed below. After the strikers returned to the plant the respondents made further individual wage adjustments. Subsequent to the termination of the strike, Schiller, the Union's attorney, made repeated efforts to arrange a conference with Beman. A conference was finally " arranged for March 25, at which time, 11 Several of the strikers thus addressed called at Johnson's office in person or by tele- phone. Johnson admitted that he promised to provide them with taxicabs, police escort, or other reasonable means of protection if they would return to work AAA DENTAL LABORATORY 275 Schiller 'testified, he requested the respondents to enter into a. written contract covering the terms which had been agreed upon, and to nego- tiate further concerning the matters still in dispute. Schiller further testified that Beman refused both requests, stating that he did not believe in "forced negotiations." Beman denied that he had refused any such requests. Nevertheless, Beman testified he recommended to Schiller that "we forget about it" because he, Beman, "didn't see any reason, for our meeting any longer." Beman further testified that he did not believe in forced negotiations and that the Union "pointed a gun at the company when they went on strike."' ' The Trial Ex- aminer, who had an opportunity to observe the witnesses, credited the .testimony of Schiller. Upon the basis of the entire record, we find that on March 25 the respondents refused to negotiate further with the Union. B. Conclusions concerning the refusal to bargain and other acts of interference Although the complaint alleges that the respondents failed to bar- gain collectively with the Union on and after December, 27, 1940, we And, upon the basis of the record and in accordance with the finding of the Trial Examiner, that the delay in opening negotiations from December 27, 1940, to February 8, 1941, was occasioned by Beman's inaccessibility. Nevertheless, the entire course of events establishes beyond doubt that the respondents did not bargain in good faith with the Union. Although the employees had been. discontented for some time be- cause of wage rates, no adjustments were made until the respondents learned that organization was imminent. Faced with this threat, the respondents immediately began making individual wage adjustments. Further individual wage, increase,-, were given after the strike, result- ing in increases for substantially all the laboratory workers em- ployed prior to' the strike. Yet, the bargaining conferences were terminated on February 22 because of the respondents' refusal to grant any wage increases in response to the Union's demand,- osten- sibly because of financial inability. It is clear and we find that the refusal to make any concessions stemmed solely from a preference for individual rather than collective bargaining.14 Our finding is 14 We do not of course imply that an employer is required, in fulfilling his statutory duty to bargain , to grant general wage increase concessions during collective bargaining negotiations . It is apparent here , however , that the respondents ' refusal to make such concessions was based not upon their desire to withhold a general wage increase but upon their desire to withhold from the Union the prestige that the Union would derive from a negotiated increase In granting individual increases to almost all their employees, under the circumstances here present, the respondents clearly demonstrated bad faith in their negoti ations with the Union. 276 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD based not only upon the respondents' willingness to raise wages so long as increases were granted individually but upon their entire course of conduct.15 We have already shown that the respondents sought to dissuade the employees from union activity by threats that organization would have a detrimental effedt'upon their wage problems. The wage raises given, after much delay, only after the move toward organization, were clearly designed to prevent self-organization and we so find.16 It is also apparent, and we find, that by inviting unauthorized em- ployees to the bargaining conference, the respondents sought to create in the minds of the employees a lack of confidence in their bargaining representative.'1 When negotiations were broken off, the respondents sought to undercut the authority of the bargaining representative by addressing their employees directly, promising them individual wage increases and exhorting them against possible concerted strike activity, and by misrepresenting the bargaining conferences 18 When, because of the respondents' unfair labor practices, the employees went on strike, the respondents sought to`break the strike by threatening to fill the places of the strikers and by offering to deal individually with their employees, while at the same time ignoring the Union's letter of February 27 looking toward the reopening of negotiations. Finally, after the Union abandoned the strike, the respondents' lack of good faith became clear beyond doubt when they refused to con- tinue negotiations.:" The strike had not relieved the respondents of 15 It is clearly no defense to the respondents to assert, as they do in their exceptions and brief, that the Union's demands were for a 100-percent wage increase and therefore unreasonable . The record does not establish how much the proposed wage scale would have increased wages. In any event, the respondents precluded exploration of how much less might have been acceptable 10 Cf. Matter of A. S. Abell Company, a Corporation and International Printing and Pressmen's Union, 5 N. L R. B. 644, enf'd as mod , National Labor Relations Board v. A S Abell Co , 97 F. (2d) 951 (C. C. A. 4) ; Matter of The Rstzwoller Company and Cooper's International Union of North America, 15 N. L. R B 15, enf'd as mod., The M. H. Ritzwoller Co. v National Labor Relations Board, 114 F. (2d) 432 (C. C. A. 7) ; Matter of Dixie Motor Coach Corporation, at al. and Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen, 25 N L R B. 869 17 Cf. Matter of Lennox Furnace Co., Inc. and Syracuse Federation of Labor, 20,N. L. R. B. 962; Matter of Jasper Blackburn Products Corp. and District No. 9, International Ass'n of Machinists, 21 N. L R. B 1240. i8 Cf National Labor Relations Board v. Remington Rand, Inc., 94 F (2d ) 862 (C. C. A. 2), cert. denied 304 U. S 576, enf'g with mod., Matter of Remington Rand, Inc. and Remington Rand Joint Protective Board of the District Council Office Equipment Workers, 2 N L R. B. 626; Matter of Kellogg Switchboard and Supply Co, a, corporation and Ain erican Federation of Labor, etc, 28 N L R. B 847. 10 In addition , it is equally clear as the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals held in contempt proceedings in National Labor Relations Board v Knoxville Publishing Co, decided Jan- uary 16, 1942, "While the National Labor Relations Act in all instances does not compel' an employer to enter into a contract with the statutory representative of his employees, it does require him to agree in writing with such agent concerning wages , hours and the established usages or customs prevailing in the conduct of his business in regard to such mattei s " AAA DENTAL LABORATORY 277 the duty to continue negotiations; certainly they were not justified in refusing,because they did not believe in "forced negotiations." We find that on February 22, 1941, and at all times thereafter the respondents refused to bargain collectively with the Union and that' the strike resulted from the respondents' unfair labor practices. We find further that, by their entire course of conduct, including their refusal to bargain with the Union, granting individual in- creases, inviting unauthorized employees to attend the bargaining conferences, seeking to discredit the Union, indicating a preference for individual bargaining, threatening to discharge employees who had gone on strike because of the respondents' unfair labor practices, and by remarks designed to discourage self-organization, the respond- ents interfered with, restrained, and coerced their employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. C. The discriinivaatory discharges Although the respondents agreed on March 5 and thereafter to reinstate all the striking employees, French, Paetow, and Tatkin were never reinstated. The complaint alleges that these employees were refused reinstatement because of their union membership and activity. The respondents deny these allegations and allege affirma- tively that these employees were not reinstated because each was an unsatisfactory workman, because the work previously performed by Tatkin was abolished after the strike, and because each of these employees had engaged in certain unlawful acts. It is clear that none of the three was an unsatisfactory workman. French had been a practicing dentist for many years prior to his employment by the respondents in October 1939. The respondents' advertisements characterize French as "an outstanding authority" on the making of artificial dentures and, until the period of union ac- tivity, all laboratory work had been subject to French's approval. During his employment French's salary had' been increased from $15 to $40 a week and, as previously stated, French and Paetow had been selected by the respondents to testify in their behalf at the hearing before the postal authorities. In view of this affirmative evidence of competency and in view of the vagueness of the testimony, we, as did the -Trial Examiner, attach no weight to the testimony of Maski that French's work was "terrible," to testimony by Miss Lay- ton, appointed manager of the laboratory, after the strike, that she did not approve certain dentures made by French on account of their 278 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL- LABOR RELATIONS BOARD appearance, or to the testimony of Miss Hinkle, not employed by the respondents, that French was "very incompetent." 20 Paetow was employed by the respondents in July 1940, upon the closing of the Oradental Laboratory where he had previously been' employed. The only evidence adduced by the respondents concern- ing Paetow's alleged deficiency related to the quantity and not to the quality of his work. The respondents asserted that they had cut Paetow's wage rate $2 per week in December to bring his cost per unit into line with that of other employees. While we agree with the Trial Examiner who found that the evidence does not establish that the respondents knew of Paetow's union activity at the time of the cut, nevertheless we are not convinced that there is any merit to the respondents`claim that it refused to reinstate Paetow because he was an unsatisfactory workman: Paetow testified that his work so differed from that of other employees that computations based upon the number of units completed, as done by the respondents, would not accurately reflect the value of his services. The respond- ents introduced no evidence which refuted this testimony and ad- mitted that no time study had been made at that time for the differing operations. Paetow's value was likewise attested by the respondents in choosing him to testify in their behalf before the postal authorities: Tatkin had been employed by the respondents for approximately 6 months prior to the strike. 'He first worked as a dig-out man, his duties being to open vulcanizing flasks, remove the dental plates and clean the surplus plaster from the plates. After 21/2 months he was promoted to a vulcanizing job, with a small increase in'pay. Fore- man Maski later transferred him to condensite work, and told him' that his wages would be raised gradually until he received $25 per week. He continued to work in the condensite department until the strike. Maski testified that he had complained to Tatkin on several occasions about his work and that Tatkin's work had not been satisfactory. Tatkin, whose testimony the respondents characterize' in their exceptions as "uniformly more truthful than that of the other complainants," denied that he had ever received any complaints about his work from Maski or from any other supervisory employee. Tatkin' further testified that about 3 weeks before the 'strike, Maski stated that, while the condensite department, in which Tatkin was then working, was going to be eliminated within 2 or 3 months, Tatkin 20 Until July 1940, Hinkle managed the Oiadental Laboratory at Gary, Indiana, a business similar to the respondents ' In July 1940, the Oradental Laboratory was closed by Johnson , its equipment being moved to the respondents ' plant Johnson testified that Oradental had been indebted to him for advertising which lie had placed and to. the respondents for materials . Hinkle, whose stock in Oradental had been pledged for its indebtedness , aided the employees in foaming the Union She was called as a witness by the respondents AAA DENTAL LABORATORY 279 should not worry as Maski would transfer him to other work. Maski did not deny that he made these statements. Under all the circum- stances, 'we accept Tatkin's testimony as credible and reject the testimony of Maski concerning Tatkin's alleged inefficiency, as did the Trial Examiner. It is equally clear that the respondents did not refuse to reinstate Tatkin on March 6 because of the abolition of the condensite depart- ment. Tatkin testified that several other employees, whom he named, performed condensite work after the strike, and the respondents state in their brief that the department was not abolished until a month or two after the strike. In addition to the undenied testimony that Maski had promised to transfer Tatkin to other work when the condensite department was abolished, the respondents introduced no evidence to show that Tatkin was incapable of performing the work done by new employees hired and retained after the strike. The respondents assert that French, Paetow, and Tatkin engaged in a conspiracy to put the respondents out of business in that they : (1) conspired to set up a business in competition with the respond- ents; (2) surreptitiously removed papers and documents from the respondents' premises which they threatened to use for this purpose; (3) represented to the employees that if the respondents did not accede to the Union's demands, they would obtain $200 for each em- ployee and employment in another dental laboratory through the Chicago Dental Society; and (4) in furtherance of these designs solicited aid from the Chicago Dental Society. Hinkle testified that at the early organizational ,meetings, 'the' em- ployees present, particularly French, threatened to put the respond- ents. out of business; that one suggestion made had been to place the employees in a laboratory operated by Paetow ; and that during the discussions French had shown her a bundle of papers which he stated he had removed from the respondents' premises and which he threatened to use to put the respondents out of business in the event their demands were not met. French and Paetow, who at- tended these meetings, denied that they or any employees present had held or expressed any intention to put the respondents out of busi- ness, Paetow further testifying that it was Hinkle who had suggested putting the respondents out of business, and that Hinkle admitted that she was working with a postal inspector to secure evidence for this purpose., While Hinkle denied that she stated that she "would like nothing better than to put Johnson out of business" she did not deny making remarks to this general effect and did not deny that she was working with a postal inspector investigating the respond- ents. Maski, who attended one or more of the meetings, could not recall what was said but believed that it was French",who discussed putting the respondents out of business; 280 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Getz, a union member who deserted the strike, testified that French had shown him a bundle of papers during the strike stating that there was enough information in the package to put the respondents out of business and that upon another occasion French addressed the employees stating that, "if the worst came to the worst" he could "sell out" ,the respondents and each of the employees would receive $200 and be guaranteed employment. Bishop, also a union member who deserted the strike, likewise testified that French had addressed. the employees promising them $200 and permanent positions if they, put the respondents out of business. French did not deny having papers, belonging to the respondents nor addressing the strikers as testified to by Getz and Bishop. The respondents offered in evidence an affidavit secured by John- son from Robert Jackman, a member of the union negotiating com- mittee.. The respondents offered the affidavit for the purpose of establishing that the statements had been made to Johnson and not for the purpose of proving the truth of the matters contained therein. The Trial Examiner excluded the affidavit but directed that it be marked as a rejected exhibit and accompany the record. While the ruling of the Trial Examiner was not prejudicial since he permitted Johnson to testify to the statements made by Jackman, nevertheless the affidavit was admissible for the purpose offered and, in accord- ance with our ruling as contained in the "Statement of the Case," is now before us. According to the affidavit and the oral testimony of Johnson, on March 15 Jackman told Johnson that, during the strike, French and a committee of employees called at the offices of the Chicago Dental Society and asked for a "proposition"; that representatives of the Chicago Dental Society stated that they had no proposition to make; that one of the union committeemen stated they under- stood that the Chicago Dental Society had a proposition for them whereby the strikers were to get a certain sum of money and also get jobs in "regular" dental laboratories; that the representatives of the Chicago Dental Society, while admitting that the Society had spent money to secure evidence to prosecute violations of laws, stated that the Society was not in a position to help the strikers; and that noth- ing had been heard from the Chicago Dental Society since this interview.21 "French testified that a day or two after the strike began , Chapp, a local dentist, suggested to French that the strikers seek aid from the Chicago Dental Society, and that he requested Paetow, Tatkin , and Jackman to accompany him in calling on the Society According to the testimony of 'Paetow , Tatkin, and French and the two representatives of the Chicago Dental Society , called as witnesses by the respondents, the only "proposition " made was a request by French that the Society obtain tem- porary employment for some of the strikers in order to obtain funds to maintain the strike. while it appears, therefore, that the affidavit may not be an accurate account of what occurred, we must deal with the facts as reported to the respondents. AAA DENTAL LABORATORY 281 The Chicago Dental Society is a branch of the American Dental Association. According to its secretary, called as a witness by, the •respondents, the Society assists law-enforcement agencies in the en- forcement of laws pertaining to the practice of dentistry. Johnson testified, and it was not denied, that the Society had furnished the information on which the postal authorities had brought charges against the respondents and on a criminal indictment pending against the respondents in Illinois at the same time. The record also shows that at least French was aware of the activities and interests of the Society prior to the interview. We do not accept as established any fact testified to solely by Hinkle. Not only is her testimony rendered questionable by the inconsistent positions she assumed in her aid to the Union and-at the hearing, but it affirmatively appears that the respondents were unaware of these facts, even if true, prior to the hearing. Hinkle testified that she had not spoken to Johnson concerning these mat- ters prior to the hearing. Johnson asked for an adjournment of the hearing for the purpose of questioning Hinkle, stating that he had not had an opportunity to question her previously, and the respond- ents introduced no evidence that these matters had come to their attention, in any other way. It is clear, therefore, that the re- spondents did not rely upon any such activities in denying rein- statement to these employees. However, the underiied testimony of Hinkle and Getz concerning French's possession of papers belong- ing to the respondents, and of Getz and Bishop, that French led the strikers to believe that he could "sell out" the respondents, coupled with the facts set forth in the affidavit, lend credence to the respondents' contention that they refused to reinstate French because of a reasonable belief that French was not a trustworthy employee. Moreover whether or not the accusations in the affidavit, which mentioned French by name, were true, nevertheless we are persuaded by the record that the respondents believed the accusations to be true and were so motivated in denying French reinstatement. The cases of Paetow and Tatkin rest on totally different grounds however. None of the testimony which we have found credible implicates Paetow or Tatkin as engaging in threats to put the re- spondents out of business. The Jackman affidavit does not name Paetow or Tatkin as members of the committee which visited the Chicago Dental Society, and Johnson did not testify that Jackman or any other person had informed him that they were members of the committee. Therefore, as to these employees, the respondents did not establish any reasonable basis for believing they were engaged in any such activity. 282 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Paetow, along with French, was instrumental in the formation of the Union. While Tatkin did not become interested in the Union until late in December he was thereafter active in its behalf. Paetow` and Tatkin were on the committee which first requested recognition and thereafter were members of the Union's bargaining committee. In view of the prominence of Paetow and Tatkin in union matters, the respondents' proven antipathy towards the Union, and the respondents' failure to establish any reasons for refusing to reinstate Paetow and Tatkin, we find that the respondents re- fused to reinstate Paetow and Tatkin because of their union mem- bership and activity, thereby discouraging membership in the Union and interfering with, restraining, and coercing their employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 -of the Act. D. The joint liability of the respondents The respondents contend that the partnership is engaged in the manufacture of artificial dentures which it sells to the two corporate respondents; that the -respondent United States Dental Company is engaged in the sale of such dentures by mail order and that the respondent AAA Dental Laboratories, Inc., sells such dentures locally. The respondents contend further that each of the com- panies is, operated as a distinct and separate entity; that the em- ployees here involved are` solely the employees of the partnership and that the partnership alone is liable for the unfair labor prac- tices, if any, which have been committed. We find this contention to be without merit. The record shows that the three companies are engaged in a single enterprise conducted by Voyle C. Johnson. The partnership consists of R. M. Johnson and G. F. Sharp, the 10-year old son and 18-year old stepdaughter, respectively, of Johnson. The part- nership assets consist only. of the laboratory equipment which was acquired by the partnership upon foreclosure of a chattel mort- gage executed by the United States Dental Company. The funds for this transaction were supplied from the joint account of John- son and his wife. Although all the stock of the respondent United States Dental Company is held by Johnson's wife, this stock was also purchased from the same joint account. All the stock of AAA Dental Laboratories, Inc., is held by Johnson's sister-in-law who resides in Iowa. The record does not show who paid for this stock. In addition to having thus furnished a substantial por- tion of the initial funds for the enterprise, Johnson admitted that he has loaned the companies large sums of money. All advertising for the companies is handled through an advertising agency owned AAA DENTAL LABORATORY 283 and. operated by Johnson. . Although denied by Johnson, the record establishes that Johnson exercises ultimate control in the manage- ment of all three companies; including the hiring of supervisory employees and the determination of wage rates and other condi- tions of employment. Irrespective of the business or other considerations which resulted in the establishment and maintenance of three separate companies, the record establishes that all three companies are operated as a single integrated enterprise. - All share the premises at 1555-1557 Mil- waukee Avenue, Chicago, Illinois. One person usually acts as general manager for all three companies, the salary being prorated among ,the three companies. The foreman is paid and acts for the partner- ship and the United. French was hired by, and until July 1940 -received all checks from, the respondent United but after that date received weekly checks from both the United and the "AAA Den- tal Laboratories Company." 22 Tatkin testified that while all his work was "addressed to" the United'23 he received his checks from AAA Dental Laboratories, Inc., that he did not know which com- pany was his employer but that he worked for Johnson. Paetow testified that he worked for all three companies; Bishop that he worked for the "AAA Dental Laboratories.' Lack of clear-demar- cation between the functions of the companies resulted in the Union making identic,,ll requests to bargain on each of the corporate re- spondents.24 Indeed the financial statement submitted by Johnson lumps the transactions of all three companies making no distinction based on their asserted separate functions. The advertisements of the United States Dental Company, allegedly only a sales corpora- tion, provide that the United guarantees "each and every set of teeth we make"; carries pictures of "our laboratory"; and speaks of "our department for" operations which, according to the respondents' contention, are done solely,by the partnership. It is apparent, there- fore, that the activities of the three companies are so related and 'commingled that findings and order directed solely against the part- nership would:neither be accurate nor afford an effective remedy.25 We find that the respondents and Voyle C. Johnson are employers within the meaning of the Act. 22 The employees did not clearly distinguish between the partnership AAA Dental Laboratory and the corporate respondent AAA Dental Laboratories, Inc. in their testimony 23 The majority of the respondents' business is by mail order transactions 11 The record establishes that the employees were unaware of the existence of the partnership until December 27, 1940, after the formation of the Union, when a notice ,was posted in the plant stating that R. M. Johnson and G. F Sharp were copartners operating the AAA Dental Laboratory 6Matter of Pennsylvania Greyhound Lines, Inc, et at and Local Division No. 1063 of the Amalgamated Association of Street, Electric Railway and Motor Coach Employees of America, 1 N. L R B .1, enforced 303 U S 261. 284 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE - The activities of the respondents set forth in Section III, above,, occurring in connection with the operations' of the respondents de'- scribed 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 Having found that the respondents have engaged in certain unfair labor practices, we shall order them to cease and desist therefrom and to take certain affirmative action which we deem necessary to effec- tuate the policies of the Act. We have found that on February 22, 1941, and at all times there- after the respondents refused to bargain collectively with the Union. We shall, therefore, order the respondents to bargain collectively with the Union, upon request, as the representative of the employees in the appropriate bargaining unit. . Having found that the respondents have discriminated in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of Paetow and Tatkin, we shall order the, respondents to reinstate these employees 26 to their former or'to substantially equivalent positions, without prejudice to, their seniority and other rights and privileges, and to make them whole for the loss they have suffered by payment to each of a sum equivalent to the amount he would have earned from March 6, 1941,27 to the date of reinstatement, less his net earnings during the same period.28 21 The remedy, providing for reinstatement of Paetow and Tatkin with back pay, is based not only upon our finding that the respondents discriminated against them in regard to their hire and tenure of employment, but also, and independently, upon our finding .that the strike in which they engaged was caused and prolonged by the. respondents' unfair labor practices. Matter of Western Felt Works, a corporation, and Textile Work- ers Oi ganizing Committee, Western Felt Local, 10 N L R. B 407; Matter of United Biscuit Company of America and Biscuit & Cracker Local #1131, Bakery, Tea, Coffee, Yeast if Pretzel Drivers Local #2611i and Auto Mechanics Local 1053, 1. A. of M., 38 N L R B 778 27 Application for reinstatement was made for all the strikers on March 5, 1941, and the respondents introduced no evidence to show that they would have been unable to reinstate any of the strikers, absent discrimination, as of that date The one employee who testified concerning his reinstatement, was reinstated on March 6 28 By "net earnings" is meant earnings less expenses, such as for transportation, room, and board, incurred by an employee in connection with obtaining work and working ,elsewhere than for the respondents, which would not have been incurred but for his unlawful ddischarge and the consequent necessity of his seeking employment elsewhere See Matter of Crossett Lumber Company and United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Lumber and Sawmill Workers Union, Local 2.590, 8 N L. R. B. 440. Monies received for work performed upon Federal, State, county, municipal, or other work-relief projects shall be considered as earnings See Republic Steel Corporation v. National Labor Relations Board, 311 U. S. 7. AAA DENTAL LABORATORY 285 It appears from the record that Paetow also operated a dental laboratory making dentures for local dentists both during the time he was employed by the respondents and, after he was discharged. We intend by our order that no deduction shall be made from the amount to be paid Paetow by the respondents for any income received by Paetow from his own laboratory which he would have received had he continued to work for the respondents. If, however, by virtue of non-employment elsewhere, Paetow has received a greater income from his laboratory than he would have received otherwise such increase shall be accounted as part of,his earnings. Upon the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following : CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Dental Mechanics,. Laboratory Technicians, Assistants and Help ers Union is a labor organization, within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act. 2. R. M. Johnson and G. F. Sharp, a partnership doing business as AAA Dental Laboratory; AAA Dental Laboratories, Inc.; United States Dental Company, and Voyle C. Johnson are employers, within the meaning of Section 2 (2) of the Act. 3. All laboratory workers engaged in the manufacture and repair' of artificial dentures at the Chicago plant of the respondents, ex- cluding the foreman, assistant foreman, inspector, and all other em- ployees at the' plant,' constitute a unit appropriate for the purpose; of collective bargaining, within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the- Act. 4. Dental Mechanics, Laboratory Technicians, Assistants and Help- ers Union was, on December 26, 1940, and at all times thereafter has been, the exclusive representative of all such employees for the pur- poses of collective' bargaining, within the meaning of Section 9 (a) of the Act. 5. By refusing and continuing to refuse to bargain collectively with the Union as the exclusive representative of the employees in the above-stated unit, the respondents have engaged in and are en- gaging in unfair labor practices, within the' meaning of Section 8 (5) of the Act. 6. By discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of employ- ment of Charles Paetow and Irving Tatkin, thereby discouraging membership in a labor organization, the respondents have engaged in and are engaging in unfair labor practices, ' within the meaning of Section 8 (3) of the Act. • 7. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing their employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the At, the 286 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR' RE'IIATIONS BOARD respondents have engaged in and are engaging in unfair labor prac- tices, within the meaning of Section 8 (1) of the Act. 8. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce, within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. 9. The respondents have not discriminated in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of E. E: , French, within the meaning of Section 8 (3) of the Act. ORDER Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and conclusions of law, and pursuant to Section 10 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the respondents R. M. Johnson and G. F. Sharp, a partnership doing -business as AAA Dental Laboratory, AAA Dental Laboratories, Inc., and United States Dental Company, Chicago, Illinois, and the officers,, agents, successors, and assigns of 'each, shall : 1. Cease and desist from : (a) Refusing to bargain collectively with Dental Mechanics, Labo- ratory Technicians, Assistants and Helpers Union as the exclusive representative of the laboratory workers engaged in the manufacture- and repair-of artificial- dentures at the Chicago plant, excluding the foreman, assistant foreman, inspector, and all other employees; (b)- Discouraging membership in Dental Mechanics, Laboratory; Technicians, Assistants and Helpers Union, or in any other labor organization, of their employees by discharging or refusing to rein- state or in any other manner discriminating in regard to the hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of- employment, of their employees ; '(c) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing their employees in the exercise of the right to self-organization, to- form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in con- certed activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, as guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds, will effectuate the policies of the Act : (a) Upon request, bargain collectively with Dental Mechanics, Laboratory Technicians, Assistants and Helpers Union, as the exclu- sive representative of all laboratory workers engaged in the- manu facture and repair of artificial dentures at the Chicago plant, exclud-- ing the foreman, assistant foreman, inspector, and all other employees;, (b) Offer 'to -Charles Paetow and Irving Tatkin- immediate and full reinstatement to their former positions or to substantially'equiva-; AAA DENTAL LABORATORY 287 .lent positions, without prejudice to their seniority or other rights or privileges ; (c) Make whole Charles Paetow and Irving Tatkin for any loss of pay they have suffered by reason of the respondents' discrimination against them by payment to each of a sum of money equivalent to the amount each would normally have earned as wages during the period from March 6, 1941, to the date of the offer of reinstate- ment, less his net earnings, if any, during said period; (d) Post immediately in conspicuous places in the Chicago plant, and maintain for a period of at least sixty (60) consecutive days from the date of posting, notices to their employees stating: (1) that the respondents will not engage in the conduct from which they are ordered to cease 'and desist in paragraphs 1 (a), (b), and (c) of this Order; (2) that the respondents will take the affirmative action set forth in paragraphs 2 (a), (b), and (c) of this Order; and (3) that the respondents' employees are free to become or re-, main members of Dental Mechanics, Laboratory Technicians, As- sistants and Helpers Union and that the respondents will not dis- criminate against any employee because of membership or activity in that organization; (e) Notify the Regional Director of the Thirteenth Region in writing within ten (10) days from,the date of this Order what steps the respondents have taken to comply herewith. AND IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that the complaint, insofar as it alleges that the respondents discriminated in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of E. E. French, be, and it hereby is, dismissed. CHAIRMAN MILLIs took no part in the consideration of the above, Decision and Order.