Patriarca Store Fixtures, Inc.

In the Matter of PATRIARCA STORE FrxTURES, INC. and MORRIS KOMINSKY Case No. C-413.Decided April 5, 1939 Store and Restaurant Fixtures Manufacturing Industry-Interference, Re- straint, and Coercion : expressing preference for certain labor organization ; offer to give stock to members of bargaining committee ; refusal to recognize any union affiliated with C. I. O.Discrimination: lock-out and discharge of all employees ; discharge of salesman ; for union activity and to discourage member- ship in Union-Reinstatement: ordered as to discharged salesman-Back Pay: awarded to all employees for period of lock-out; awarded to discharged salesman from date of discharge to date of offer of reinstatement-Withdrawal of Offer to Give Stock: ordered. Mr. Bernard J. Donoghue , for the Board. Godfrey d Cambio , by Mr. Frank C. Cambio, of Providence, R. I., for the respondent. Mr. William F. Guffey, Jr., of counsel to the Board. DECISION AND ORDER STATEMENT OF THE CASE Upon charges duly filed by Morris Kominsky, the National Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board, by A. Howard Myers, its Regional Director for the First Region (Boston, Massachusetts), issued and duly served its complaint dated January 5, 1938, against Patriarca Store Fixtures, Inc., Providence, Rhode Island, 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) and (3), and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein called the Act. At the hearing the complaint was amended to conform to the proof and to include a specific allegation that the respondent, by offering to give shares of stock in the respondent company to three members of the Patriarca Grievance Committee, herein called the Committee, engaged in an unfair labor practice within the meaning of Section 8 (1) of the Act. 12 N. L. R. B., No. 11. 93 94 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD With respect to the unfair labor practices the complaint, as amended, alleged in substance (1) that the respondent discharged Morris Kominsky on May 22, 1937, and at all times since has refused to reinstate him because he assisted the Committee and engaged in concerted activity with other employees of the respondent for the purposes of collective bargaining and other mutual benefits, and thereby discouraged membership in the Committee; and (2) that by the statements, acts, and conduct of its agents, and by its conditional offer to give to Michael Palmieri, Anthony Semoneau, and Anthony Meldon 1 a bonus consisting of stock in the respondent, the respondent has interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exer- cise of the rights guaranteed by the Act. On January 8, 1938, the respondent filed an answer to the complaint admitting its corporate existence, the nature of its business, and the discharge of Morris Kominsky, but denying all other material allega- tions of the complaint, and stating that Kominsky was discharged in accordance with a contract of hire entered into between the parties on February 10, 1936. Pursuant to due notice, a hearing was held on January 13 and 14, 1938, at Providence, Rhode Island, before P. Wolf Winer, the Trial Examiner duly designated by the Board. The Board and the re- spondent 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 afforded all parties. During the course of the hearing, the Trial Examiner made several rulings on objections to the admission of evidence and on motions, including the Board's motion to amend the complaint and the respondent's motion to dismiss the complaint.2 In view of the facts set forth below, it becomes unnecessary to rule upon the action of the Trial Examiner, with respect to amendment of the complaint. The Board has reviewed the other rulings of the Trial Examiner and finds that no prejudicial errors were committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. On February 3, 1938, the Trial Examiner filed his Intermediate Report in which he found that the respondent had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8 (1) and (3), and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act, and recommended that the respondent be ordered to cease and desist from its unfair labor practices and to take certain affirma- tive action to remedy the situation brought about by said unfair labor practices. The Trial Examiner also recommended that Morris 1 Referred to in the record as Anthony Meldon or Meldonlan. 2 The Board's motion was made at the close of its case. The respondent's motion was made at that time and was renewed at the close of the hearing. PATRIARCA STORE FIXTURES, INC. 95 Kominsky be reinstated with back pay, determined by his average weekly commissions during the 6 months immediately preceding the discharge. Thereafter, Kominsky filed exceptions to the Iittermedi- ate Report. These exceptions are disposed of in Section V hereof. On September 8, 1938, the Board, pursuant to Article II, Section 36, of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations- Series 1, as amended, issued its order 3 reopening the case for further proceedings and authorizing its Regional Director for the First Region to accept an amended charge and to issue an amended com- plaint and notice of hearing. On October 24, 1938, Kominsky filed amended charges and thereafter, the Board, by A. Howard Myers, its Regional Director for the First Region, issued and duly served its amended complaint dated October 25, 1938, against the respondent. The amended complaint contained all the allegations of the original complaint and in addition thereto alleged, in substance, (1) that on or about April 19, 1937, the respondent locked out all of its em- ployees, and that on or about April 27, 1937, the respondent dis- charged all its employees and did thereby engage in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (3) of the Act; and (2) that on or about December 24, 1937, the respondent made a condi- tional offer to give Michael Palmieri, Anthony Semoneau, and Anthony Meldon a bonus consisting of stock in the respondent, and did thereby engage in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (1) of the Act.4 Thereafter the respondent filed an answer to the amended complaint dated October 31, 1938, denying that it is engaged in interstate commerce and that it has engaged in any of the unfair labor practices alleged in the amended complaint. Pursuant to notice duly served upon the respondent and Morris Kominsky, a hearing for the purpose of adducing further evidence was held on December 1, 1938, at Providence, Rhode Island, before Joseph L. Maguire, the Trial Examiner duly designated by the Board. The Board and the respondent were represented by counsel and par- ticipated in the hearing. Full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing upon the issues was afforded all parties. At the beginning of the hearing the attorneys for the respondent and the Board entered into a stipu- lation which, subject to approval by the Board, provided that both the Board and the respondent might adduce additional evidence, that the charge as amended, the amended complaint, and the answer to the amended complaint be substituted for the original charge, complaint, and answer, and that the Board treat as the complete record in this 3 Copies of the Board's order were duly served upon the respondent and Kominsky 4 This allegation was embraced in the Board 's motion , made at the hearing on January 14, 1938, to amend the complaint to conform to the proof. 96 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD case all the testimony taken and exhibits filed pursuant to both the hearing held on January 13 and 14, 1938, and the further hearing held on December 1, 1938. This stipulation is hereby approved. Dur- ing the course of the hearing, the Trial Examiner made several rul- ings on objections to the admission of evidence. The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner and finds that no preju- dicial errors were committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. On January 13, 1939, the Board, pursuant to Article II, Section 38 (d), of National Labor.Relations Board Rules and Regulations- Series 1, as amended, ordered the issuance of Proposed Findings, Proposed Conclusions of Law, and Proposed Order and granted the parties herein the right, within ten (10) days from the receipt of said Proposed Findings, Proposed Conclusions of Law, and Proposed Order, to file exceptions, to request oral argument before the Board, and to request permission to file a brief with the Board. On March 7, 1939, the Board, pursuant to Article II, Section 38 (d), of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 1, as amended, issued Proposed Findings of Fact, Proposed Conclusions of Law, and Proposed Order, which were duly served upon the parties. Although more than ten (10) days have elapsed since the issuance of said Proposed Findings of Fact, Proposed Conclusions of Law, and Proposed Order, none of the parties have filed exceptions thereto. Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following : FINDINGS Or FACT I. THE BUSINESS OF TIIE RESPONDENT The respondent, Patriarca Store Fixtures, Inc., a Rhode Island corporation having its sole place of business at Providence, Rhode Island, is engaged in the manufacture, sale, distribution, and instal- lation of store and restaurant fixtures. The size of the respondent's business compares favorably with that of the two leading competitors in Rhode Island. The cash value of the raw materials used by the respondent from January 1, 1937, to January 1, 1938, amounted to $33,348.79, about 72 per cent being shipped to the respondent's plant from outside the State of Rhode Island. For the same period the cash value of the respondent's total output amounted to $81,559.42, of which 60 per cent was shipped outside the State of Rhode Island. At the time of the first hearing the respondent employed approxi- mately 14 persons. PATRIARCA STORE FIXTURES, INC. 97 H. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED Patriarca Grievance Committee is an uiiaffillated labor organization composed of employees of the respondent. 111. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Interference, restraint, and coercion Early in April 1937, the respondent's employees began to organize and, upon their request, were assisted in their activities by an organ- izer for the United Electrical and Radio Workers of America, herein called the United, affiliated with the Committee for Industrial Organ- ization, herein called the C. I. O. Approximately 17 of the then 20 employees of the respondent signed application cards for member- ship in the United. At a meeting of the employees, officers and a bargaining committee of three, which was authorized to present demands to the respondent, were elected. As shown below, the organ- ization of employees ultimately became known as the Patriarca Griev- ance Committee. The secretary of the Committee testified that the organization considered itself to be a local of the United. It is not shown, however, that affiliation with the United was actually effected. On April 17, 1937, the bargaining committee, accompanied by an organizer for the United, presented the Committee's demands to Dominico Patriarca, president-manager of the respondent. Patriarca stated he could not meet the demands, but was asked to reconsider and reply to the Committee by April 20, 1937. On April 19, 1937, when the employees went to work, they found posted on the door this notice : "Closed temporarily on account of labor trouble." On April 20, 1937, the Committee began picketing the plant. Between April 19 and April 27, 1937, several unsuccessful attempts to reach a settlement were made. On April 27, 1937, the respondent posted on the door of the plant a notice discharging all of its employees and advising them to remove their tools and belongings before the end of the day. The respondent continued to confer with the bargaining committee and also with employees of its own choosing, but none of these con- ferences were successful. The chief point of disagreement was whether or not the Committee would affiliate with the C. I. O. The respondent asserted that it did not object to an independent union or to a union affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, herein called the A. F. of L., but that, because of a working agreement which the respondent had with the A. F. of L.5 it was impossible for the In September 1936, the respondent and the A F. of L entered into an agieement which provided that the respondent would employ only A . F. of L. carpenters foi all installation work in Massachusetts. 98 DECISIONS OD' NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD respondent to recognize a union affiliated with the C. I. O. However, Patriarca and Anthony Meldon, the latter a member of the Com- mittee's bargaining committee, both testified that it was wholly impracticable, if not impossible, for the respondent's employees to affiliate with the A. F. of L. inasmuch as a great many crafts were represented in the respondent's shop and each craft would include only two or three of the respondent's employees. On May 5, 1937, the respondent consented to sign an agreement with the United on behalf of the employees upon the condition that James L. Bernard, a conciliator from the United States Department of Labor, adjusted matters with the A. F. of L. It appears that such an adjustment was not effected and when a written agreement naming the United as a party was presented to the respondent on May 7, 1937, it refused to sign the agreement. It agreed, however, to sign an agreement if the United was not a party thereto. Accord- ingly, the Committee agreed to designate itself as the Patriarca Grievance Committee and an agreement between the respondent and the Patriarca Grievance Committee was signed on May 7. D. Patriarca signed the agreement for the respondent and the three members of the bargaining committee selected by the Committee in April signed the agreement for the Patriarca Grievance Committee. The agreement provided that it should remain in effect for 1 year and continue in effect from year to year unless either party shall give notice of its desire to amend 30 days from date of expiration of the agreement. It was, by its terms, applicable to all of the respondent's employees except its bookkeeper. Pursuant to the agreement, the respondent's employees returned to work on May 8, 1937. On December 24, 1937, the respondent by letter offered to give Michael Palmieri, Anthony Meldon, and Anthony Semoneau each two shares of stock in the respondent if they were respectively em- ployed by the respondent on January 1, 1940. The three employees informed the respondent that the offer was accepted. The respondent states that it always gave the employees a Christmas present con- sisting of a small raise in wages, a small amount of cash or some personal gift and that the conditional offer of stock was in the nature of a Christmas gift to the three employees. We cannot accept this explanation of the offer of stock. These offers were made to only three employees, two of whom were members of the bargaining coin- mittee and the third an employee whom the respondent sought to substitute for the other member of the committee. This fact makes paricularly significant Patriarca's testimony that the offers were made "just to get them (the three employees) close to the company so they would be more interested in their work." It is also significant that no outright gift of stock was made, but only an offer to give PATRIARCA STORE FIXT URES, INC. 99 the stock contingent upon continued employment for 3 years. Under all the facts, it is clear that the respondent sought by means of the offers of stock to control the bargaining committee and thereby to control the Committee. Indeed, it appears that the respondent suc- ceeded in this purpose. Anthony Meldon, one of the recipients of the offer, testified that at the time of the hearing the Committee was holding no meetings, collecting no dues, and had heard no grievances. In short the Committee is dormant. We find that the respondent, by locking out and subsequently dis- charging all its employees, by expressing its determination not to bargain with the United, by making the conditional offer of stock to three of its employees, and by other acts set forth above, has inter- fered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist labor organiza- tions, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted activities for the purposes of collective bargaining and other mutual aid and protection as guar- anteed in Section 7 of the Act. B. The locle-out The complaint alleges that the respondent locked out all its em- ployees on April 19, 1937, and discharged all of them on April 27, 1937. The plant was admittedly closed on April 19 because of the organizational activities of the respondent's employees. Patriarca stated in a letter to the C. I. 0. dated April 19, 1937, that the respond- ent closed its plant because "we thought it would give the employees an opportunity to check on other shops, and would bring the matter to a point sooner." He testified, however, that the plant was closed because he anticipated a sit-down strike. Although Patriarca testi- fied that Palmieri, a member of the Committee and the respondent's foreman, told him there was going to be a sit-down strike, it does not appear that the Committee had so determined or so advised the respondent. Moreover, the only explanation of the discharge of all the respondent's employees was stated in the discharge notice which was posted on April 27: The company heartily regrets the decision and attitude taken by the employees, which leaves us no alternative than to advise you to seek employment elsewhere. The record leaves no doubt that the respondent locked out and then discharged all its employees for the purpose of destroying the effec- tiveness of the newly formed Committee. As stated above, all the respondent's employees except L. Mon- silillo, were reinstated on May 8, 1937. Monsilillo, who was seriously 169134-39-voI. 12--8 100 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD ill when the plant reopened, was denied reinstatement when he sub- sequently made application therefor. The complaint does not allege that such reinstatement was discriminatorily denied. We shall not, therefore, order the respondent to reinstate him. We find that the respondent has discouraged membership in the Committee by locking out and subsequently discharging its em- ployees, thereby discriminating in regard to hire and tenure of their employment. C. The discharge of Morris Kominsky On April 24, 1937, while on the picket line, Morris Kominsky, the only salesman employed by the respondent, attempted to dissuade Cornelius J. Mulcahy, a representative of the A. F. of L., from en- tering the respondent's offices. Thereupon, Patriarca, the president- manager, opened the office door and punched Kominsky in the back. Two days later Kominsky received notice of discharge effective May 22, 1937.° The notice gave no reason for the discharge. When the plant reopened on May 8, 1937, Kominsky returned to work with the other employees and continued to work until May 22. However, when Kominsky reported for work on the Monday fol- lowing May 22, he was told that his employment was at an end. The respondent contends that Kominsky was incompetent and in- efficient; that he made certain discrediting remarks about the re- spondent to customers; that he was unable to work in harmony with the management; and that it no longer needed a salesman. The respondent claims that the discharge was predicated upon these grounds. Kominsky admitted that on two occasions he made discrediting remarks about the respondent to customers. However, these re- marks were made several months before Kominsky was discharged and they were prompted by Patriarca's conduct and use of abusive language directed toward one customer and made in the presence of another customer. It seems that Kominsky's purpose in making the remarks was to soften the harsh effect of Patriarca's conduct rather than to discredit the respondent. We think Korinsky's remarks did not contribute to his discharge. The evidence does not sustain the respondent's claim that Kominsky was incompetent and inefficient. The sales report and commission sheet from March 1936 to May 1937, inclusive ,7 shows that Komin- sky's sales for April 1937, the month in which Kominsky was given his notice of discharge, were substantially greater than his sales in "At the time of his discharge , Kominsky was working under a written contract dated February 10, 1936, which provided for 4 weeks' written notice prior to termination of employment. 7 Board Exhibit No. 5. PATRTARCA STORE FIXTURES, INC. 101 any one of 10 of the entire 15 months' employment, and compared favorably with the remaining 4 months. April sales were consider- ably larger than those in any of the preceding 3 months of 1937. The evidence shows, moreover, that Kominsky on a number of oc- casions prior to his discharge, tendered his resignation and that on each occasion the respondent induced Kominsky to remain in its employ by making certain concessions. There is considerable uncontradicted testimony concerning many disagreements between Patriarca and Kominsky. Patriarca testified that within 3 months after Kominsky was employed, disagreements arose concerning sales policies and the manner in which Kominsky's commissions should be figured. It suffices to note, however, that although such disagreements continued at intervals during the entire period of Kominsky's employment, the respondent never saw fit to discharge Kominsky until he became active in organizing the respondent's employees. On the contrary, Kominsky testified that he tendered his resignation in June 1936, twice in September 1936, and again on December 12, 1936, and that on each of these occasions the respondent made certain concessions to Kominsky and thereby induced him to remain in the respondent's employ. The respondent did not contradict this testimony except that Patriarca did state that he continued Kominsky's employment after he tendered his resigna- tion on December 12, 1936, because Kominsky's wife requested him to do so. The fact remains that the respondent at that time did modify the working agreement in Kominsky's favor and thereby induced him to remain in the respondent's employ. The respondent's claim that it no longer needs a salesman is not supported by the evidence. That the respondent contemplates use of a salesman is indicated by the fact that the agreement of May 6, signed prior to the effective date of Kominsky's discharge, makes specific reference to a salesman. Moreover, after Kominsky's dis- charge, the respondent attempted to secure someone who could do both selling and drafting and, with this purpose in mind, interviewed several persons. It did not, however, employ anyone to replace Kominsky. The respondent further claims that Kominsky resigned on May 5, 1937, and thus prior to the effective date of his discharge. The evi- dence does not support this claim. It appears that Kominsky offered to resign if the respondent would immediately pay him all commis- sions due him and sign an agreement recognizing the United and reinstating all employees. The respondent did not fulfill these con- ditions and Kominsky clearly ceased working because of his discharge and not as a result of a resignation. Not only does the evidence fail to support the reasons advanced by the respondent for the discharge of Kominsky, but it indicates clearly 102 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD that the discharge was pr6mpted by Kominsky's activities on behalf of the Committee. Kominsky was elected secretary of the Committee in April and was an active participant and leader in the attempts of the employees to organize and to bargain collectively with the respondent. He was a member of the bargaining committee selected by the Committee and after the plant was closed took charge of the activities on the picket line. He received notice of his discharge at a time when his organizational activities were most effective. We find that the respondent discharged Kominsky on May 22, 1937, because of his activities on behalf of the Committee. By said dis- charge of Kominsky the respondent has discriminated against him, thereby discouraging membership in a labor organization, and has interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. For a period of 7 weeks subsequent to his discharge on May 22, Kominsky was unemployed. At the end of the 7-week period, he obtained employment selling used cash registers and earned approxi- mately $25 per week. He was so employed at the time of the original hearing. He testified that he desired reinstatement in the employ of the respondent. IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE We find that the activities of the respondent set forth in Section III above, occurring in connection with the operations of the respond- ent described in Section I above, have a close, intimate, and substan- tial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States, and tend to lead and have led to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce. V. THE REMEDY We have found that the respondent has interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of their right to self- organization. We shall order the respondent to cease and desist from so doing. We have found that as a part of the said interference, restraint, and coercion, the respondent made a written offer to give Anthony Meldon, Michael Palmieri, and Anthony Semoneau each two shares of stock in the respondent if they are in the respondent's employ on January 1, 1940. We shall order the respondent to make written withdrawal of said offer. We have found that the respondent discriminated against all its employees from April 19 to May 8, 1937. We shall order the respond- ent to make whole all employees on its pay roll as of April 19,1937, for PATRIARCA STORE FIXTURES, INC. 103 any losses they may have suffered by reason of the discrimination by the payment to each of them, respectively, of a sum equal to the amount, which each of them normally would have earned during the period from April 19 to May 8, 1937, less his net earnings 8 during said period. For the reasons stated above we shall not order the respondent to rein- state Monsilillo. We shall, however, include him among the em- ployees who are entitled to back pay during the period from April 19 to May 8, 1937. We have found that the respondent discriminated in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of Morris Kominsky by discharging him on May 22, 1937. We shall order the respondent to offer Kominsky reinstatement and to make him whole for any loss of pay he has suffered by reason of his discharge, by payment to him of a sum equal to the amount which he normally would have earned as net commis- sions from the date of his discharge to the date of the respondent's offer of reinstatement, less his net earnings during said period. At the time of his discharge, Kominsky earned as commissions 4 per cent of the gross sales of the respondent. His expenses as salesman amounted to approximately $20 per week. The Trial Examiner recommended in his Intermediate Report that the amount Kominsky would normally have earned as wages during the period from his dis- charge to the date of the respondent's offer of reinstatement be deter- mined on the basis of his average weekly net commissions during the 6-month period immediately preceding his discharge. Thereafter, Kominsky filed exceptions to such recommendation and alleged that said determination should be upon the basis of his average net com- missions over the entire 15-month period of his employment. Under all the circumstances, we conclude that the said determination should be based upon the weekly average net commissions of Kominsky dur- ing the 12-month period immediately preceding his discharge. Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following : CONOLusIONs OF LAW 1. Patriarca Grievance Committee is a labor organization, within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act. e By "net earnings " is meant earnings less expenses , such as for transportation, room, and board, incurred by an employee in connection with seeking work or working else- where than for the respondent , which would not have been incurred but for his unlawful discharge and the consequent necessity of his seeking employment elsewhere See Matter of Crossett Lumber Company and United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of Ameieca, Lumber and Sawmill Workers Union, Local 2590, 8 N L R. B. 440 Monies re- ceived for work performed upon Federal , State, county , municipal, or other work-relief projects are not considered as earnings, but, as provided below in the Order, shall be deducted from the sum due the employee, and the amount thereof shall be paid over to the appropriate fiscal agency of the Federal, State , county, municipal , or other govern- ment or governments which supplied the funds for said work -relief projects. 104 DECISIONS Or NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 2. The respondent, by discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of its employees, and thereby discouraging membership in a labor organization, has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices, within the meaning of Section 8 (3) of the Act. 3. The respondent, by interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices, within the meaning of Section 8 (1) of the Act. 4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce, within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. ORDER Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and conclusions of law, and pursuant to Section 10 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that Patriarca Store Fixtures, Inc., and its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall : 1. Cease and desist from : (a) Discouraging membership in Patriarca Grievance Committee, or any other labor organization of its employees, by discharging any of its employees because of membership in Patriarca Grievance Com- mittee, or any other labor organization, or by discriminating in any other manner in regard to their hire or tenure of employment; (b) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of their 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 purposes of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, as guaranteed in Section 7 of the National Labor Rela- tions Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Offer immediate and full reinstatement to Morris Kominsky to his former or substantially equivalent position; (b) Make whole Morris Kominsky for any loss of pay he has suffered by reason of the respondent's discrimination in regard to his hire or tenure of employment by payment to him of a sum of money equal to that which he normally would have earned as net commis- sions, figured in the manner outlined in Section V hereof, during the period from the date of such discrimination to the date of the offer of reinstatement, less his net earnings during such period, de- ducting, however, from the amount otherwise due him, any monies received by said employee during said period for work performed PATRIARCA STORE FIXTURES, INC. 105 upon Federal, State, county, municipal, or other work-relief projects; and pay over the amount, so deducted, to the appropriate fiscal agency of the Federal, State, county, municipal, or other government or gov- ernments which supplied the funds for said work-relief projects; (c) Make whole all its employees on its pay roll as of April 19, 1937, for any loss of pay they have suffered by reason of the re- spondent's discrimination in regard to their hire and tenure of em- ployment by payment to each of them respectively, of a sum of money equal to that which each of them normally would have earned as wages or net' commissions during the period from April 19 to May 8, 1937, less the net earnings of each of them during said period, deducting, however, from the amount otherwise due to each of said employees, any monies received by said employees during said period for work performed upon Federal, State, county, municipal, or other work-relief projects; and pay over the, amount, so deducted, to the appropriate fiscal agency of the Federal, State, county, municipal, or other government or governments which supplied the funds for said work-relief projects; (d) Make written withdrawal of the offer to give Anthony Meldon, Michael Palmieri, and Anthony Semoneau shares of stock in the re- spondent company on condition that they are in the respondent's em- ploy on January 1, 1940; (e) Post immediately in conspicuous places throughout its plant and maintain for a period of at least sixty (60) consecutive days after posting, notices stating (1) that the respondent will cease and desist as aforesaid; and (2) that the respondent has withdrawn its offer to give shares of stock to the three named employees; (f) Notify the Regional Director for the First Region in writing within ten (10) days from the date of this Order what steps the respondent has taken to comply herewith.