Huch Leather Co.

In the Matter of HUGH LEATHER COMPANY and GENERAL C. I. O. UNION Case No. C-638.-Decided February 17, 1939 Leather Tanning Industry-Interference, Restraint , and Coercion : antiunion statements ; employer ordered to cease interference-Unit Appropriate for Col- lective Bargaining : production and maintenance employees , excluding supervisory and clerical employees , timekeepers , and engineers ; no controversy as to- Collective Bargaining : charges of failure to bargain collectively dismissed- Discrimination : lay-offs; discharges ; charges of, not sustained. Mr. Stephen M. Reynolds, for the Board. Russell, Murphy & Pearson, by Mr. Lawrence L. O'Connor, of Chicago, Ill., for the respondent. Mr. Leon M. Despres and Mr. M. J. Myer, of Chicago, Ill., for the Union. Mr. Lester Asher, of counsel to the Board. DECISION AND ORDER STATEMENT OF THE CASE Upon charges and amended charges duly filed by General C. I. O. Union, herein called the Union, the National Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board, by Leonard C. Bajork, Regional Director for the Thirteenth Region (Chicago, Illinois), issued its complaint dated January 5, 1938, against Huch Leather Company, Chicago, Illinois, herein called the respondent, alleging that the respondent had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8 (1), (3), and (5) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein called the Act. The complaint alleged, in substance, (1) that from May 1, 1937, up to and including the date of the issuance of the complaint, the respondent discriminated against employees who joined the Union by laying them off for various periods of time and by permitting them to work fewer hours than non-union employees; (2) that between July 2 and July 8, 1937, the respondent attempted to induce its em- 11 N. L. R. B., No. 37. 394 HUCH LEATHER COMPANY ET AL. 395 ployees to vote against the Union in a consent election scheduled for July 9, and threatened its employees with wage and hour cuts in the event that the Union won the election; (3) that the respondent dis- charged Ben Kashmere on or about August 6, 1937, and Michael Wlodyga, Paul Paranich, Ernest Kovacich, and Walter Borys, on or about September 29, 1937, because of membership and activity in the Union, and has since refused to reinstate them; (4) that on June 10, July 8, August 4, 1937, and at all times thereafter, the respondent refused to bargain collectively with the Union which had been desig- nated as their bargaining representative by a majority of the re- spondent's employees in an appropriate unit. The complaint and notice of hearing thereon were duly served upon the respondent and the Union. Pursuant to the notice, a hearing was held at Chicago, Illinois, on January 13, 14, 15, 17, and 18, 1938, before P. H. McNally, the Trial Examiner duly designated by the Board. The Board, the respondent, and the Union were represented by counsel and participated in the hearing. Full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing upon the issues was af- forded all parties. At the commencement of the hearing, the respondent filed an answer to the complaint, in which it admitted the allegations as to the nature of its business and the unit appropriate for the purposes of collec- tive bargaining, but denied the allegations concerning the alleged unfair labor practices. During the hearing the Trial Examiner reserved ruling upon a motion of the respondent to strike certain testimony. The motion was granted in his Intermediate Report subsequently filed with the Board. At the close of the Board's case, the respondent moved to dismiss the complaint. The Trial Examiner denied this motion. During the course of the hearing, the Trial Examiner made a num- ber of rulings on motions and on objections to the admission of evidence. The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner and finds that no prejudicial errors were committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. On May 14, 1938, the Trial Examiner filed his Intermediate Report in which he found that the respondent had engaged in and was en- gaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (1), (3), and (5) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. As to the dis- charge of Ben Kashmere, Michael Wlodyga, and Ernest Kovacich, however, he found that the evidence did not sustain the allegations of the complaint. The Intermediate Report concluded with the state- ment that any request for oral argument before the Board should be made within ten (10) days from the receipt of said report. On May 396 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 26, 1938, the respondent filed objections to the Intermediate Report. The respondent has made no request for oral argument before the Board. We have reviewed the objections to the Intermediate Report, and, save as they are consistent with our findings, conclusions, and order set forth below, we find them to be without merit. For the reasons hereinafter set forth, the Board does not follow in all respects the findings and recommendations as made by the Trial Examiner. Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following : FINDINGS OF FACT I. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT The respondent, an Illinois corporation with its plant at Chicago, Illinois, is engaged in the business of tanning, coloring, preparing, selling, and distributing leather which is used for the manufacture of shoes, coats, gloves, and belts. During the period from July 1, 1937, to January 1, 1938, the re- spondent purchased $225,000 worth of raw hides, for the most part horsehides, through brokers in New York City and other cities of the United States. Approximately 55 per cent of the raw hides were obtained from various countries in Europe and South America; the remainder, except about 1 per cent, from States of the United States other than Illinois. During the same 6 months the respondent also expended $54,000 for the purchase of miscellaneous oils, greases, barks, and chemicals utilized in its processing operations. Practically all of these materials originated in South America and in States out- side of Illinois. During the same period the respondent shipped approximately $350,000 worth of finished pelts, 90 per cent being shipped to points outside the State of Illinois. II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED General C. I. 0. Union is a labor organization admitting to mem- bership the production and maintenance employees of the respond- ent, excluding supervisory and clerical employees, timekeepers, and engineers. III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. The alleged refusals to bargain collectively 1. The appropriate unit The complaint alleges that the production and maintenance employees of the respondent, excluding supervisory and clerical em- ployees, timekeepers, and engineers, constitute an appropriate bar- gaining unit within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act. This HUGH LEATHER COMPANY ET AL. 397 allegation was admitted by the respondent in its answer. The unit alleged corresponds to the group eligible for membership in the Union. We find that the production and maintenance employees of the respondent, excluding supervisory and clerical employees, timekeep- ers, and engineers, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining, and that such a unit insures to the employees 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 and the alleged refusals to bargain collectively A list of the respondent's employees in the appropriate unit as of June 10, 1937, contains 208 names. The greatest number of persons employed by the respondent from the time of this June 1937 pay roll until January 1, 1938, was 211, excluding officials, but including clerical employees. There were introduced in evidence 143 member- ship application cards of the Union,' each bearing a different signed or printed name of an employee in the appropriate unit. After a comparison of the application cards with the company pay-roll rec- ords, counsel for the respondent stipulated that 119 of the applica- tion cards bore the authentic signatures of persons who were em- ployed by the respondent on June 10 and who continued in its employ until after August 4, 1937. Although none of the cards was dated, Rudolph J. Burkey, an organizer for the Union, testified that all the application cards had been signed by June 1, 1937, and Frank David, an employee of the respondent, testified that he had secured a majority of the signatures, that only three cards had been signed after June 1, and that no cards had been signed after June 10, 1937. In May 1937 the Union filed a charge alleging that the respondent had discharged three of its employees because of their activity on behalf of the Union. On June 10 Louis Huch, president of the respondent, attended a conference at the office of the Regional Di- rector and agreed to reinstate the employees with back pay. Burkey, who was present at the conference as a representative of the Union, announced to Huch that the Union represented a majority of the employees of the respondent. Huch replied that he was unwilling to accept application cards as evidence of a majority and that he would not deal with the Union unless it was designated as the bar- 'Each card contained the following statement : I, the undersigned , desiring the benefits of union organization hereby apply for membership in the General C. I. O. Union , until assigned to the union in my industry. I hereby authorize the Committee for Industrial Organization to represent me in collective bargaining with my employer. 398 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD gaining representative of a majority of the employees voting in a consent election. The Union agreed to the holding of a consent election. Subsequently the consent election which had been agreed upon was scheduled for July 9, 1937. On July 7, 1937, a group of 12 employees conferred with Louis Huch in his office. Since as a result of this meeting the 'Union with- drew its consent to the election scheduled for July 9, the evidence with respect to this conference will be discussed in detail. The record reveals contradictions in the testimony concerning the moving spirit behind the calling of the meeting. Frank David testi- fied that "a fellow by the name of Bob, I don't know his last name, came up to me, and he said, `Frank, they are holding a meeting downstairs,' he claimed it was called by Louis Huch." No other proof was offered tending to show that the meeting was held at the instance of Huch. On the other hand, the testimony of Julius Gins- berg, a member of the Union, was to the effect that the meeting was held at the behest of the employees themselves. Ginsberg testified as follows : I was talking to another fellow (Joe Drysch) that works in the department . . . We had heard rumors going around about the tannery that was next to us, that they were going to give their men a week's vacation and a ten per cent raise in pay. There were also rumors going around that we might receive the same thing at the Huch Leather Company, so we were talking it over and we decided to get a man from each department; that somebody would go around the floors and get a man from each department so that we could get together and talk it over . . . Then they were going in to see Mr. Huch in his office to see what he had to say about it, and also to tell him our story . . . Drysch went and got permission from our super- intendent, Mr. Schrader, to see Mr. Huch, to ask him if he would see the men. I went around all of the floors and called each man to go down there; in the afternoon. Then they all got together and they went in there. Shortly after noon on July 7, 12 employees filed into Huch's office. Eleven of them were members of the Union. Frank David, who at- tended the meeting as a representative of the stakers on the third floor and who testified on behalf of the Board, gave the following version of the meeting : We all sat down, and then Louis Huch started to talk, and asking questions, and Steve Mizialko stood up, and he said, "Well, Mr. Louis Huch, we came to hear your side of the story, not to be answering any questions." So Mr. Huch started to talk and . . . he said, "When the boys want the C. I. 0., they can have that, and if they want the American Federation of HUCH LEATHER COMPANY ET AL. 399 Labor, they can have that. If they want the Independent Union, they can have that. If they want a shop union, they can have that." But then he said, "Why pay the outsiders?" ... Then Mr. Huch started asking questions . . . he said, "What are you here for?" And I told him, "Well, I came here to say that we stakers would like to see that we make the same amount. every week, like the rest of us . . ." He said he can only give a 10 per cent raise and a week's vacation with pay, and he said "If you think the C. I. 0. can get you more, go to it." Stanley Baran, also a witness for the Board, stated that during the meeting Huch said that he did not want a union in the plant, that he did not want the trouble of bargaining with the C. I. 0. However, Wlodyga, another Board witness, testified that there was no discussion of the C. I. 0. during the conference. The testimony of Joseph Drysch, a member of the Union and a witness on behalf of the respondent, is in substantial agreement with the testimony of Louis Huch. Both testified, in substance, that when the men walked into Huch's office they told him that they had heard rumors of a vacation and a raise in pay; that Huch replied that the best he could give them was a week's vacation and a 10-per cent raise in pay; and that Huch further stated that as far as the election was concerned, if the employees voted for the C. 1. 0. he would do business with the C. I. 0. and the men would have to use the C. I. 0. as their representative. Huch denied that he had given the impression that if the Union won the election the salary increases and program of vacations would not go into effect. He testified that, "the only reason why I offered them the 10 per cent is because it looked to me like the whole gang was going to walk out on me and leave me sitting there with a hide house full of hides and with all these orders on the books. I have never discussed it with anybody. I told them that on the spur of the moment, to keep them satisfied, to keep them working." Late in the afternoon of July 7, Huch received a telephone call from the office of the Board's Regional Director announcing that the Union had withdrawn its consent to the election scheduled for July 9, on the ground that Huch had intimidated his employees by announcing the 10-per cent increase and the week's vacation. As a result of this action taken by the Union, the consent election was not held. We find that the meeting at which Huch announced the wage in- creases and vacation policy was held at the insistence of his employees. We further find that the evidence does not establish that Huch's action in granting the requests of the employees concerning wages and con- ditions of employment constituted an interference with their rights of self-organization or that Huch advised the employees against join- ing the Union or voting for it in the election. 400 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD On July 8 Burkey and several other representatives of the Union appeared at the offices of the respondent, told Huch that the consent election was called off, and handed him the following letter: As we informed you more than a month ago, we, the under- signed, have been designated as the exclusive collective bargain- iVg agency by substantially more than 50% of all of your produc- tion employees at your Chicago plant at the above address. We have repeatedly requested that you recognize us as the exclu- sive bargaining agency of all of your production employees with reference to wages, rates of pay, hours of work, and other condi- tions of employment. You have repeatedly refused to recognize us as such exclusive bargaining agency. Again we demand that you recognize us and bargain with us collectively with reference to the above matters. We are prepared to meet with you at any reasonable time and place which you suggest. If it is convenient for you, we suggest a collective bargaining conference on Friday afternoon, July 9th, 1937, at 1: 00 p. m. in our office at 1550 West Van Buren Street, Room 106. We believe that you know very well that we do hold written authorizations from an overwhelming majority of your produc- tion employees. However, if there is any doubt whatsoever in your mind, we are very happy to turn over all of the written authorizations to the National Labor Relations Board for check- ing against your payroll records at this time. We do not believe that this procedure is necessary; but if you insist on it, we shall be glad to comply immediately. In the meantime, however, it is not necessary to hold any elec- tion because the overwhelming majority of the employees have already spoken, and the will of the majority, which has already been expressed, should be given effect. Under the law, therefore, since no election is necessary, we are asking that you bargain collectively immediately; and upon your failure to do so, we shall press civil and criminal charges imme- diately. Huch advised the representatives of the Union that he would not attend the meeting suggested in the letter. He said, "You say you have a majority of my men. You will have to prove it to me. The only way to do that is by means of a vote . . . If you have a vote and you win, why I will sign up with you ..." On August 4 Huch attended a conference at the office of the Regional Director. Counsel for the Union was present and requested Huch to bargain collectively with the Union as the representative of his employees. Huch replied, "I am willing to deal with you, but why don't you have a vote so everything will be settled? I am not HUGH LEATHER COMPANY ET AL. 401 going to take anybody's word that you have my men signed up. I would rather have a vote, then we will all be treated fair." The complaint alleges that the respondent refused to bargain col- lectively with the Union on June 10, on July 8, and on August 4, 1937. Until July 7, 1937, both the Union and the respondent were willing to determine the question of representation by a consent election. Thereafter the Union withdrew its consent and prevented the elec- tion from taking place as scheduled. Through this action, taken on the eve of the election, the Union itself in effect conceded that a doubt existed, in spite of the application cards, as to whether it did in fact represent a majority after July 7. As the reason for the withdrawal of its consent the Union pointed to the meeting of July 7 and the action of the respondent in grant- ing increases and a week's vacation. As we have heretofore stated, however, the meeting of July 7 was held at the insistence of the em- ployees of the respondent and the granting of increases and improve- ments in the conditions of employment was not under the circum- stances an interference with the right of self-organization. As pointed out in subsection B below, Joe Petrich, the respondent's as- sistant superintendent, made a number of derogatory statements about the Union shortly before the consent election was scheduled to be held. There was at no time, however, any claim that the withdrawal of the Union's consent to the election was predicated upon such state- ments by Petrich. Under all the circumstances, we conclude that the facts presented do not warrant a finding that the respondent has refused to bargain collectively. The allegations contained in the complaint that the respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices within the mean- ing of Section 8 (5) of the Act will therefore be dismissed. B. Interference, restraint, and coercion Three employees of the respondent, Ernest Kovacich, Paul Par- anich, and Walter Borys, testified, in substance, that on July 3, 1937, the assistant superintendent, Joe Petrich, called together the men working on the lime vats and told them that although he could not stop them from voting for the Union, it would be better if they voted for the company; that he told the men that it would be better for them if they would stick with the company because in that case they would receive raises and a week's vacation; and that he said, "the C. I. 0. was nothing but a bunch of Bolsheviks." Petrich, when called as a witness for the respondent, denied that he had called a meeting of the men on July 3 or that he had spoken to the men about the C. I. 0. He testified as follows : ... about four or five fellows came around to me .. . They came to me and told me that they were threatening them 402 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD about joining the union . . . So I turned around and I said, "Boys, I can't say nothing and I won't say nothing. I want you to understand me, that you can do whatever you please about it." That's all that was said from my side; then the boys started discussing the press articles . . . They talked about the articles that they read in the papers, and I said that I read the articles, but I didn't say nothing else about it. The Trial Examiner who conducted the hearing and who was thus in a position to judge as to the credibility of the various witnesses concluded that Petrich made the statements attributed to him. It is to be noted in this connection that Petrich also testified that he never received any instructions from Louis Huch with respect to the C. I. 0. and its activities among the employees of the respondent. Ruch, on the other hand, testified at length to the fact that about the middle of May 1937 he called his supervisory force, which included Petrich, into his office, told them that the Union had been passing out hand- bills among the employees, and warned them all that they should not say anything to the men either in favor of or against the C. I. 0. Petrich was unable to remember any such meeting with the president of the respondent, and declared that Huch had never told him to "keep his hands off" in connection with the C. I. 0. We find that the respondent, by virtue of the statements of its assistant superintendent, Petrich, has interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. D. The alleged discrimin.atorj lay-offs and discharges During the first 6 months of 1937, the operations of the respondent were at a peak. The pay rolls for this period showed an average of 200 employees, as against the normal pay roll of about 160 employees. During the last half of 1937, however, the operations of the respond- ent fell off very rapidly, and by the end of the year the pay roll had been reduced to 79 men. The following is a list of the number of skins which were soaked during and after May 1937: May----------------------------------------------------- 32,488 June ---------------------------------------------------- 26,010 July----------------------------------------------------- 20,918 August --------- ----------------------------------------- 13,665 September----------------------------------------------- 14,204 October ------------------------------------------------- 11,429 November----------------------------------------------- 11,286 December----------------------------------------------- 6,866 The complaint alleges that after May 1, 1937, the respondent dis- criminated against employees who joined the Union by laying them off for various periods of time and by permitting them to work HUCH LEATHER COMPANY ET AL. 403 fewer hours than non-union employees. Drayer, a staker, testified that after July 9, "every time it is a little dull, I was one of the first ones sent home. There was fellows with one-third of the seniority I had around there, and they worked, and I was sent home." On cross-examination, however, Drayer stated that on the days he was sent home early all the men who were performing similar operations were also sent home and that there had been no work left on the staking machines. David, another staker, testified that he had been sent home early and had lost from 1 to 3 hours of work on several days during the first 2 weeks of July. He admitted, however, that the stakers who had put in full time during this period were also members of the Union. The evidence that members of the Union were permitted to work fewer hours than non-union employees is too uncertain and lacking in material detail to establish discrimina- tion. Accordingly, we find that the allegations of the complaint with respect to the discriminatory lay-offs are not sustained. The complaint further alleges that the respondent discharged Ben Kashmere, Ernest Kovacich, Michael Wlodyga, Paul Paranich, and Walter Borys for the reason that each of them was a member of the Union and had been prominent in activities of the Union. Ben Kashmmere began work for the respondent on May 3, 1937, and was employed as a trimmer. He signed a membership application card in the Union during the early part of June 1937, and was active in soliciting other members. On August 26, 1937, the respondent's superintendent told Kashmere that since production was slackening and he was one of the newest men, he would have to be laid off. At the time of the hearing, Kashmere had not been reinstated by the respondent. Only two persons were then employed as trimmers, both of them having greater seniority than Kashmere. Kashmere testified that "although I am the newest trimmer on the floor, I am not the newest man on the entire floor." He contended that he should be given the position being filled by Kenneth Wilson, a roll-jack machine operator, who was hired by the respondent 2 weeks later than Kashmere. The respondent adduced proof that Kashmere was not tall enough to operate the roll-jack machine on heavy leather and that Wilson performed additional duties as a checker in the buffing department. The Trial Examiner found that the evidence did not establish that the respondent had laid off Kashmere because of his membership and activity in the Union, and the Union did not except. We agree with the Trial Examiner, and, accordingly, find that the respondent, by laying off Ben Kashmere, did not discriminate in regard to his hire and tenure of employment to discourage membership in the Union. Ernest Kovacich was employed by the respondent as a lime han- dler from September 1936 until he was laid off on September 29, 404 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 1937. He joined the Union during May 1937. At the time he was laid off, all the lime handlers who were retained by the respondent possessed greater seniority. Kovacich was taken ill on October 24, 1937, and had not fully recovered at the time of the hearing. During his illness he received payments of $10 a week from the respondent under a group dis- ability insurance plan. The Trial Examiner found that insufficient evidence was intro- duced to sustain the allegation that Kovacich was laid off because of his union membership or activities, and the Union did not except. We agree with the Trial Examiner and find that the respondent, by laying off Ernest Kovacich did not discriminate in regard to his hire and tenure of employment to discourage membership in the Union. Michael Wlodyga had been employed as a hand-setter for about 17 months when he was laid off on October 5, 1937. He had been active in soliciting members for the Union. During April 1937, the respondent installed a machine-setter. Sub- sequently the respondent reduced its force of four hand-setters, two of them being laid off prior to October 5. Only one hand-setter, John Mach, was retained after Wlodyga was laid off. Mach had been working for the respondent for 10 years. We sustain the finding of the Trial Examiner, to which the Union did not except, that the evidence does not establish that Wlodyga was laid off because of his activities in the Union. Accordingly, we find that the respondent, by laying off Michael Wlodyga did not dis- criminate in regard to his hire and tenure of employment to dis- courage membership in the Union. Paul Paranich started to work for the respondent on January 28, 1935, and was employed as a laborer in the limehouse. On May 3, 1937, he joined the Union. He testified that he was active in soliciting members for the Union, but that he had not succeeded in obtaining any signatures upon application cards. During the summer of 1937, there were 10 men employed in the limehouse under the supervision of Petrich, the assistant superin- tendent. Because of the reduced number of skins which were being soaked in the lime vats, three men in this department were laid off on about September 26, and Paranich, Kovacich, and Borys were laid off on September 29. Of the four men who were retained in the limehouse, three had greater seniority than Paranich, but the fourth, Zugich, had started to work for the respondent on June 24, 1935. Zugich was not a member of the Union. However, on the respond- ent's pay-roll records he was classified as a hide cutter as well as a lime handler, and Huch testified that none of the other men in the limehouse were able to do this work and that it requires great skill. HUCH LEATHER COMPANY ET AL. 405 Paranich admitted that Zugich had done hide cutting during extra hours, but stated that if given the opportunity he would also try to do it. The pay-roll records submitted by the respondent reveal that Zugich was laid off on December 26, 1937. On about November 1, 1937, Paranich spoke to Petrich and re- quested reinstatement. To quote his testimony, "I go to him and ask for the reason I am laid off. He says it is because I don't do what kind of work he wants, and he says that I smoke too much on the cigarettes." Paranich further testified that he had once tried to clean out the vats and mix a new lime solution after the hides had been removed, but that no one had given him a shovel; that he never asked for a shovel again; and that thereafter he would always smoke cigarettes while the vats were being cleaned. We are satisfied that the lay-off of Paranich on September 29, 1937, occurred in connection with a slackening in the operations of the limehouse, and that Zugich, despite his lack of seniority, was retained because of his ability to perform additional duties. We are also convinced that Paranich neglected his duties. On the basis of the above facts we find that the respondent, by laying off Paul Para- nich did not discriminate in regard to his hire and tenure of em- ployment to discourage membership in the Union. Walter Borys started to work for the respondent, also as a laborer in the limehouse, on September 25, 1934. He joined the Union dur- ing May 1937. On September 29 he was laid off, and at the time of the hearing he had not been reinstated. Of the lime handlers who were retained by the respondent, two of them, Zugich and Ignatz Matusik, had less seniority than Borys. The latter testified that he had never done any hide cutting. As hereto- fore stated, we conclude that Zugich was retained because of his ability to do the work of hide cutting. With respect to Matusik, who had 2 months' less seniority than Borys, the uncontradicted testimony of Petrich as to the reason for laying off Borys is as follows : At the time the work went so much down, why, I didn't have enough work for the men, so I called them together. I said, "Boys, I have to lay some of you fellows off . . . The youngest (the fellows that started last) should go first . . ." My opinion was that this man Borys came later. Anyway, they were so close together that I was sure that this man was hired later .° .. I looked at everyone when I was talking to them. I said, "Are you the youngest?" Well, they didn't give me no answer so I took it for granted who was the youngest. Nobody complained about it at that time. 161275-39-vo1 xi-27 406 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Matusik was also a member of the Union. Although he was em- ployed by the respondent at the time of the hearing, since the end of September 1937 he had been laid off for a period of over 2 weeks. We find that the respondent, by laying off Walter Borys, did not discriminate in regard to his hire and tenure of employment to discourage membership in the Union. IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE We find that the activities of the respondent set forth in Section III7 B, above, occurring in connection with the operations of the respondent described in Section I above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States, and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce. Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following : CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. General C. I. O. Union is a labor organization, within the mean- ing of Section 2 (5) of the Act. 2. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (1) of the Act. 3. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce, within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. 4. The respondent has not engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (3) and (5) 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 Rela- tions Act, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the respondent, Huch Leather Company, and its officers, agents, suc- cessors, and assigns, shall : 1. Cease and desist from in any manner interfering with, restrain- ing, or coercing its 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 concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargain- ing and other mutual aid and protection, as guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. HUGH LEATHER COMPANY ET AL. 407 2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will effectuate the policies of the Act : (a) Immediately post notices in conspicuous places throughout its plant, and maintain such notices for a period of at least sixty (60) consecutive days, stating that the respondent will cease and desist in the manner aforesaid; (b) Notify the Regional Director for the Thirteenth Region in writing within ten (10) days from the date of this Order what steps the respondent has taken to comply herewith. AND IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint be, and it hereby is, dismissed in so; far as it alleges that the respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (3) and (5) of the Act.