Superior Tanning Company

In the Matter Of SUPERIOR TANNING COMPANY and NATIONAL LEATHER WORKERS ASSOCIATION, LOCAL 43 Case No. C-560.-Decided August 23, 1939 Leather Tanning Industry-Interference, Restraint, and Coercion: anti-union statements at plant mass meeting in presence of officers and foremen ; prepara- tion by employer and presentation to employees of individual contracts of employment during union membership campaign ; coercing employees into signing individual contracts of employment , each containing blank space for insertion by employee of name of "representative"; questioning employees regarding union activities ; ordered, to cease giving effect to individual contracts of employment and to give written notice of their invalidity to each employee who signed such a contract-Discrimination : discharge for union membership and activity; alle- gations of, dismissed as to six employees , sustained as to one-Reinstatement Ordered: of discharged employee ; of employees non-discriminatorily laid off, on preferential basis as employment arises-Back Pay: awarded : to discharged employee ; not to include period between date of Intermediate Report recom- mending dismissal and date of Decision-Remedial Order: plant notices to be posted in both English and Polish. Mr. Lee Loevinger, for the Board. Jacobson, Merrick, Nierman & Silbert, by Mr. David Silbert and Mr. Robert B. Shapiro, of Chicago, Ill., for the respondent. Mr. Leon M. Despres, of Chicago, Ill., for the Association. Mr. Louis Newman, of counsel to the Board. DECISION AND ORDER STATEMENT OF THE CASE Upon a fourth amended charge 1 duly filed by National Leather Workers Association, Local 43, herein called the Association, the National Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board, by the Regional Director for the Thirteenth Region (Chicago, Illinois), i On June 4 , 1937, a charge was filed by the Committee for Industrial Organization. An amended charge was filed June 21, 1937, by Rudolph J. Burkey, an individual. A second amended charge and a third amended charge were filed by Tannery Workers Organizing Committee on October 22 and November 17, 1937, respectively. On Decem- ber 2, 1937, a supplemental charge was filed by United Tannery Workers Union. A fourth amended charge , upon which the present proceeding is based , was filed by National Leather Workers Association , Local 43 , on February 5, 1938 . All of these charges, except the first, were signed by Burkey either individually or as organizer. Each of the amended charges was in substitution for, rather than supplementary to, the charge or amended charge filed prior thereto. 14 N. L. R. B., No. 75. 942 SUPERIOR TANNING COMPANY 943 issued its complaint, dated February 7, 1938, against Superior Tan- ning Company, Chicago, Illinois, herein called the respondent, alleg- ing 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 Rela- tions Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein called the Act. Copies of the com- plaint accompanied by notice of hearing were served on the respondent and the Association.2 The complaint alleged in substance that the respondent on various dates during 1937-discharged and thereafter refused to employ seven named employees 3 because they had joined and assisted the Associa- tion, thereby discriminating in regard to their hire and tenure of employment and discouraging membership in the Association, and that the respondent otherwise interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in their exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act by urging and warning them not to become or remain members of the Association, by soliciting its employees to sign indi- vidual contracts of employment, and by interrogating them as to their union affiliation. Thereafter, the respondent filed its answer, dated February 12, 1938, in which it denied the material allegations of the complaint and affirmatively alleged that Adamczewski and Oppenheim were discharged for cause, that Woodward was laid off because of ter- mination of the kind of work he was doing, and that Terranova, Dolnick, Semenaro, and Stempinski were not discharged but only temporarily laid off along with approximately 110 other employees because of lack of work. Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held on February 14, 15, 16, and 17, 1938, at Chicago, Illinois, before George Bokat, the Trial Exam- iner duly designated by the Board. The Board, the respondent, and the Association 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 on the issues was afforded all parties. At the close of the Board's case and again during the course of the hearing thereafter and at the close of the hearing, the respondent moved to dismiss the complaint. The respondent also moved at the hearing to strike from the complaint the allegations of interference, restraint, and coercion contained in paragraph 7 thereof. These motions were denied by the Trial Exam- iner. A motion by counsel for the Board at the close of the hearing to amend the complaint to conform to the proof on matters such 2 Although a copy of the complaint and notice of hearing was served on the respond- ent apparently less than 5 days prior to the hearing herein, no objection was made by the respondent and its answer to the complaint was duly filed. O Vincent Terranova, Steve Dolnick, Daniel Semenaro, Ben Stempinski, Harry Oppen- heim, Ulysses Woodward, and Steve Adamczewski. '944 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD as names, spelling, and dates was granted by the Trial Examiner. During the hearing, the Trial Examiner also ruled on other motions and on objections to the admission of evidence . The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner and finds that no preju- dicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The parties were given leave by the Trial Examiner to argue orally at the close of the hearing and to submit briefs, but failed to do either. Thereafter, the Trial Examiner filed his Intermediate Re- port, dated April 15, 1938, copies of which were duly served on the parties to the proceeding . He found that the respondent had engaged in unfair labor practices affecting commerce, within the meaning of Section 8 (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act, but that none of the employees named in the complaint had been discriminatorily laid off or discharged because of union membership or activity. The Trial Examiner recommended that the respondent cease and desist from its unfair labor practices and that it also take certain affirma- tive action, but that the allegations of the complaint as to the dis- charge of the seven named employees be dismissed. On April 29 , 1938, the respondent filed with the Board exceptions to the record and to the Intermediate Report and requests for oral argument and for leave to file a brief . On April 30, 1938, the Asso- ciation filed with the Board exceptions to the Intermediate Report and a supporting memorandum . On June 10, 1938, the Association moved to reopen the hearing for the purpose of taking additional evidence as to events occurring subsequent to the hearing. The respondent, on June 14, 1938, filed . a "motion to strike" the Associa- tion's motion to reopen the hearing . By order dated August 19, 1938, the Board denied the Association's motion to reopen. There- after, pursuant to notice duly served on the parties, oral argument was had before the Board at Washington , D. C., on November 22, 1938. The respondent was represented by counsel and participated in the argument ; the Association did not appear . The respondent, on November 29, 1938, submitted a "Memorandum of Authorities," which has been considered by the Board. The exceptions filed by the parties have also been considered by the Board and are found to be without merit, except as they are consistent with the findings, conclusions, and order set forth below. Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following : FINDINGS OF FACT I. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT The respondent is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Illinois, having its office and only plant in the city of Chicago, Illinois. It is engaged in the tanning of hides and the sale and distribution of the finished leather. The raw hides used SUPERIOR TANNING COMPANY 945 by the respondent in its business are purchased from dealers who obtain the hides from stockyards, meat packers, and country butchers in various parts of the United States. The major source of the respondent's supply of hides is a dealer in Chicago, but approxi- mately 13 per cent of the respondent's requirements come from dealers outside the State of Illinois. Approximately 80 per cent of the respondent's product is sold and shipped to customers outside the State of Illinois. No sales offices are maintained by the respond- ent outside Chicago, but it employs three salesmen, of whom one covers the New England States, one covers the New York area, and ,one covers the rest of the country. Gross sales by the respondent during 1937 were approximately $2,408,000. H. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED National Leather Workers Association, Local 43, is a labor organiza- tion affiliated with the Committee for Industrial Organization, herein called the C. I. O. It admits to membeirship all tannery workers in the Chicago area, except those occupying supervisory positions. Until March 1937, the tannery workers who later formed the As- sociation were organized as United Leather Workers International Union, Local 79, affiliated with the American Federation of Labor. At a meeting of Local 79 in March 1937, it was voted to cease paying per capita dues to United Leather Workers International Union and -to seek affiliation with the C. I. O. The subsequent organizing cam- paign among the respondent's employees was instituted by the C. I. O. and continued by the Tannery Workers Organizing Committee and the United Tannery Workers Union, both affiliated with the C. I. O. During this period, membership application cards signed by em- ployees of the respondent requested membership in the C. I. 0., rather than in any international or local union. On October 1, 1937, Local 43 was chartered by National Leather Workers Association, affiliated with the C. I. 0.4 The C. I. 0., the Tannery Workers Organizing Committee, and the United Tannery Workers Union are labor organizations, within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.5 'At the hearing the respondent took the position that the fourth amended charge, upon which the proceeding is based, was improperly filed by the Association and is invalid, because the Association is not the representative of the complaining witnesses in the proceeding . To support this position , the respondent requested production by the Association of certain records. The Trial Examiner denied this request and, as we have already ruled , correctly so. Aside from the testimony in the record as to the labor organization in which the men regarded themselves as having membership , it is proper under Section 1 0 (b) of the Act and Article II, Section 1, of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 2 , for any labor organization to file a charge with the Board . There is no question as to whether the filing of the fourth amended charge was authorized by the Association. s Hereinafter in this Decision , the term "C . I. 0." will be used interchangeably to refer to the Committee for Industrial Organization , the Tannery Workers Organizing Committee, or the United Tannery Workers Union. 946 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Interference, restraint, and coercion; the meetings of May P20, 1937; the individual contracts Immediately after the Supreme Court decisions of April 12, 1937, upholding the validity of the Act as applied to employers and em- ployees engaged in industrial operations , the C. I. O. began a mem- bership campaign among the respondent's employees which was sub- sequently continued by the Tannery Workers Organizing Committee. By May 20, 1937, approximately 100 of the respondent's employees had joined the C. I. O. The respondent at that time had approxi- mately 270 employees, including those in supervisory positions. On the morning of May 20, the respondent arranged a conference during working hours between its officers and a group of its em- ployees. In addition to its president, Meyer Katz, its vice president, William M. Katz, and its secretary -treasurer, Solomon Katz, the respondent had present at this conference its counsel , Lewis F. Jacob- son. The group of between 25 and 30 employees at the conference were chosen by Solomon Katz and attended at the respondent's re- quest. So far as the record shows , these men had no advance notice either of the meeting or of its purpose. The respondent contends that its purpose in calling the meeting was to discuss "our mutual problems" with its employees and to ascer- tain whether there was any dissatisfaction among them. According to the respondent's officers, May 20, 1937, was the thirtieth anniver- sary of the founding of the company, and the respondent wanted to give its employees some indication on that date of its desire to con- tinue the friendly relationship which had theretofore prevailed be- tween them. The respondent's counsel, Jacobson, had been consulted some time prior to May 20, and had suggested that the way to find out what, if anything, the men wanted was to meet with them. The tes- timony adduced by the respondent also indicates that the desire to give its employees some earnest of its continued good will was in part prompted by apprehension that the general industrial unrest then prevalent throughout the country might affect the respondent's operations. The respondent would have us believe that the morning conference of May 20 constituted an open and fruitful discussion of wages, hours, and working conditions . Testimony was given that the men were invited to and did make suggestions and requests, that these were then discussed, and that the provisions on which agreement was reached were written out in pencil by Jacobson and, as thus roughly drafted, approved by the men. It is admitted that the conference lasted between half an hour and an hour. Solomon Katz, called by the respondent, did not remember who suggested that the decisions SUPERIOR TANNING COMPANY 947 made at the conference be embodied in individual contracts of em- ployment. One of the responent's employees, Adamczewski, testified at the hearing that it was the respondent's counsel who urged the use of individual contracts of employment and that he also disparaged the idea of unionization. Adamczewski also testified that counsel for the respondent was the only one who spoke at the morning conference. It is evident from the record that Adamczewski is al- most completely unable to understand English and he admitted at the hearing that he could not follow what was said during the conference. In any event, Jacobson telephoned the proposed form of contract to the printer from the respondent's plant immediately following the morning conference, and then left. The respondent then called a meeting of all its employees, which began some time between 12: 30 and 1: 30, immediately following the lunch period. The printed con- tracts were delivered to the respondent shortly before the beginning of the afternoon meeting, and Jacobson returned in time to be present when it began. The meeting was held in the respondent's plant during working hours. Steve Dolnick, an employee, learned of the meeting from his foreman. Daniel Semenaro and Vincent Terranova, employees, at- tended the meeting at the request of their foremen, Czonstke and Jandow, and Terranova saw Jandow urge other employees to attend. Albert Villastriga, an employee, testified that the foremen instructed the men to go downstairs to the shipping room in which the meeting was held ; and Harry Oppenheim testified that he was told by the respondent's vice president, William Katz, not only to go to the meeting but also to "speak up for us." It is evident from the record that the respondent's employees were clearly given to understand that their attendance at the meeting was expected by the respondent. After stating that the Company and the group of 25 to 30 employees who attended the morning conference "had agreed to an individual ,contract," Jacobson read the proposed form of individual contract to the employees assembled at the afternoon meeting and then had the contract translated into Polish by Foreman Czonstke. It is admitted that Jacobson spoke to the respondent's employees for approximately, an hour, but there is some conflict in the testimony as to what he said. Six employees 6 testified that Jacobson spoke of unions in dis- paraging fashion. Semenaro further testified that Jacobson advised the meli not to join a union, and Terranova stated that Jacobson threatened the men with discharge if they joined a union. Dolnick and Adamczewski both testified that Czonstke, the foreman who Vincent Terranova, Steve Dolnick, Ulysses Woodward, Daniel Semenaro , Harry Oppen- helm, and Albert Villastriga. 948 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD translated the proposed form of contract into Polish, also spoke disparagingly of "outside" unions. Terranova and Villastriga both testified that Jacobson urged the individual contracts on the men ,T and Adamczewski testified in similar vein with respect to Czonstke. Solomon Katz, the respondent's secretary-treasurer, admitted that. Jacobson .discussed unions at the afternoon meeting of May 20, but claimed that Jacobson said in effect only that some unions such as those led by William Green and John L. Lewis are all right, but that other unions are run by racketeers. He further testified that Jacobson told the men that they, could join or refuse to join any union and that they could sign "our contract" and still join a union if they wanted to do so; Dolnick and Villastriga, both of whom attended the meeting, specifically denied that the latter statement was made by Jacobson. The respondent's vice president, William M. Katz, testified substan- tially to the same effect as did Solomon Katz. Frank Czonstke, fore- man, admitted having translated the contract into Polish at the meet- ing of May 20 but denied having made any explanation or comment. He further testified that he could not remember what Jacobson said at the meeting, but then went on to explain that he was somewhat hard of hearing and had been unable to hear most of what was said. Despite his infirmity, Czonstke did remember hearing that it was the thirtieth anniversary of the founding of the company, that contracts would be given out, and that those who so desired could sign. He could not remember hearing anything said about unions. Stanley Jandow, another foreman who attended the meeting of May 20, testi- fied that Jacobson read and explained the proposed form of contract and then told the men that some unions were good and some were bad. Jandow could not recall what else Jacobson said or how long he spoke. We regard the testimony given by the foremen, Czonstke and Jandow, as unreliable because of their common failure of memory as to all of what Jacobson said except a few alleged remarks tending to support the respondent's position. Czonstke's testimony is par- ticularly unconvincing because of the peculiarly selective quality of his "defective hearing which permitted him to understand the alleged occasion for the meeting of May 20 and the intention of the re- spondent as expressed by Jacobson that employees were not to be compelled to sign individual contracts, but which prevented him from hearing anything further. The testimony given by William and Solomon Katz is contradicted by the testimony of the seven em- 7 Villastriga admitted on cross-examination by counsel for the respondent that Jacob- son told him personally after the meeting that he did not have to sign a contract. Vil- lastriga was secretary of the Association and was obviously more fluent in the use of English than most of the other men.. SUPERIOR TANNING COMPANY 949 ployees whose names appear above, one of whom, Villastriga, was still employed by the respondent at the time of the hearing. There are differences in the testimony given by these employees, but in the main they tend to substantiate each other as to the tenor of the remarks made by Jacobson and Czonstke at the meeting. We ac- cept their testimony as completely discrediting the evidence adduced by the respondent. Our decision in this respect finds support in the fact that Jacobson's talk at the meeting of May 20 admittedly included some discussion of unions, a subject which seems to us en- tirely irrelevant if it was the purpose of the meeting merely to grant certain requests of the respondent's employees. We are also per- suaded by the respondent's failure to call as a witness the man pre- sumably best qualified to testify to what was said at the meeting, Jacobson. Villastriga's testimony that he saw a stenographer at the meeting whom he had never before seen at the respondent's plant went unchallenged, and no stenographic minutes of the meet- ing were produced at the hearing. Even without the statements made by Jacobson and Czonstke, the meeting of May 20 would unmistakably have evidenced to the respondent's employees its preference for dealing with them on an individual basis. They could not have otherwise interpreted Jacob- son's reading the form of employment contract prepared by the re- spondent and Czonstke's translating it into Polish in the presence of the respondent's officers at a meeting called by the respondent and. held in its plant during working hours. The statements anent unions which we have found were made at the meeting by Jacobson and Czonstke indicated more directly to the assembled employees the respondent's aversion to unions and its determination not to counte- nance union membership among its employees. The meeting of May 20 was, in purpose and effect, a flagrant violation of the right to self-organization guaranteed the respondent's employees by the Act. Printed copies of the individual contracts were distributed before the close of the meeting held during the afternoon of May 20. Czonstke and Jandow, the foremen, both admitted at the hearing that they assisted in distributing the contracts to the men. Ter- ranova testified that after the meeting foremen came through the various departments with printed copies of the contract and that his foreman requested him to sign and told him that everyone was signing. Terranova signed a contract. Adamczewski testified that after the meeting. of May 20 William Katz gave him six copies of the contract and told him to sign one and to give the others to his "partners." Adamczewski did not sign one of the contracts at once, but finally did so after Meyer Katz and William Katz had promised him a month's vacation if he signed. Meyer Katz was not called as a witness at the hearing, but William Katz denied ever having 950 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD said to Adamczewski or having heard it said to him that he would get a month's vacation if he signed a contract. Dolnick testified that after the meeting of May 20 Jandow, the foreman, came up to Dolnick's department and said to everyone in general, "God damn it, sign the contract." Dolnick further testified that the day following the meeting of May 20 a number of printed copies of the contract were placed on a table in his department and that the foreman urged the men to sign. About 10 or 10:30 a. m. on that day, Jandow sent Dolnick downstairs to William Katz's office, where Dolnick signed one of the contracts. After he did so, Dolnick was taken into an inner office by William Katz and there questioned by William Katz in English and by Meyer Katz in Polish about union activities and meetings and the number of the respondent's employees who attended such meetings. When Dolnick stated that he had seen 50 or 60 of the respondent's employees at a union meeting, Meyer Katz indicated with a show of impatience that someone else had told him that only 6 or 7 of the respondent's em- ployees had attended. Meyer Katz, as we have already pointed out, did not testify at the hearing, but William Katz denied ever having urged Dolnick to sign a contract, ever having had Dolnick in his office, ever having asked Dolnick about the Association, or ever having heard Meyer Katz talk to Dolnick. Dolnick also testified that he knew what was in the contract when he went downstairs to sign it, but that the foreman did not give the men an opportunity to talk about the contract but simply drove them into signing it. Woodward testified that he was given a copy of the contract by Frank Sims, floorman on the second floor, one evening when he was ready to go home and that he signed it without particularly looking it over. The testimony given by Woodward at the hearing shows that he was entirely unfamiliar with the provisions of the contract. Stempinski testified that he signed one of the contracts directly after the afternoon meeting of May 20, 1937, when Stanley Jandow, the foreman, swore at him. It appears from the record that Stempinski is not able to read English. Oppenheim testified that Czonstke, the foreman, gave him a copy of the contract after the meeting of May 20, and that he took it home, signed it, and brought it back the next day. He has never read the contract and he signed it because William Katz said on the day of the meeting that he would get a bonus. Semenaro testified that he is unable to read English and that he signed the contract at the request of Jandow, the foreman. He further testified, however, that he took a copy of the contract home with him and that his wife read it, so that he knew what was in it; that he had no objection to it; and that "everybody was satisfied." He also testified that on the evening of May 20 William Katz told Semenaro and the other men in his department that they could join SUPERIOR TANNING COMPANY 951 the union. Villastriga testified that after the meeting of May 20 William Katz came upstairs to see him and then took him to the respondent's office to talk to Jacobson, counsel for the respondent. Jacobson questioned him about union membership and told him that he ought not to "take it as a personal matter" that Jacobson had spoken against the union and that Villastriga had spoken for the union. Villastriga, who was one of the two employees of the re- spondent who did not sign the contract, admitted that he was not criticized for refusing to sign and that he was not treated unfairly, despite his union membership and activity. He also admitted that during his talk with Jacobson after the meeting of May 20 the latter did not tell him that he should not belong to the union, and that he was told by Jacobson that he' did not have to sign the contract. Frank Czonstke, the foreman, denied ever having sworn at the men or ever having told any of them to sign the contract. He ad- mitted that some of the men asked him whether they should sign, but stated that his reply to their questions was that it was entirely up to them. Czonstke himself signed one of the contracts, Stanley Jandow, the other foreman, also denied ever having sworn at the men or ever having told any of them to sign the contract. He ad- mitted that some of the men in his department asked him what he thought of the contract, but testified that he told them to use their own judgment, although he, personally, thought the contract was all right. We find on all the evidence that the respondent's employees were coerced by the respondent into signing the individual contracts pre- sented to them at the meeting of May 20 and thereafter. Even if no explicit compulsion of their signatures had taken place, it is clear that the contracts were presented with the full weight and authority of the respondent's approval behind them. To make assurance doubly sure, the respondent instituted a campaign which could have left no doubt in the minds of its employees as to the advisability of their signing the contracts. Czonstke and Jandow both admitted having discussed the contracts with the men, and their denial of having urged the men to sign the contracts cannot be accepted by us in view of the testimony to the contrary contained in the record. We further find, on the basis of the testimony given by Dolnick and Villastriga and of the respondent's failure to call Meyer Katz as a witness, that the respondent interrogated Dolnick and Villastriga in an attempt to obtain information as to the union affiliation and activities of its employees. These inquiries and the manner in which the respondent forced the contracts upon its employees are both entirely consonant with the events which we have found took place at the afternoon meeting of May 20; they cannot be reconciled with 190935-40-vol. 14-61 952 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD the benevolent desire which the respondent claims prompted its entire course of action. The provisions of the contracts which were signed in May 1937 by all but two of the respondent's employees and which by their terms expired December 31, 1937, are set forth below.8 I EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT Between Superior Tanning Company , and -------------------- Employee. To promote steady employment at the highest and fairest wages, to maintain harmony and to prevent strikes and labor troubles for the worker or management , it is agreed : 1. Steady Employment.-The Company has provided steady employment for over 30 years , during wars , panics, depressions and prosperity, and the Company hereby employs the above named Employee , on the same basis of steady employment , to do the work now or hereafter assigned to him in the -------------------- department, and he hereby agrees to perform such work efficiently and properly. 2. Wages.-The Company shall pay and the Employee shall receive wages for each hour worked , payable on each Tuesday for the immediately previous calendar week, at the rate of wages per hour as increased on March 27, 1937. 3. Guarantee of Further Increases in Wages.-The Company has for thirty years been in the front rank in raising and paying the highest wages which its business and competition has permitted , and desires to continue to do so in the future . Therefore, whenever during the life of this contract the rate of wages per hour for the same kind of work shall be increased by. a majority of other tanneries in Chicago , over the rates paid this Employee, the Company agrees immediately to raise such rate of wages to equal such increased rate. The Company agrees to pay as high wages per hour as may be gen- erally paid in other leading tanneries in Chicago for like work. 4. Further Increases in Wages.-The Company further agrees to reserve the right to increase wages of the Employee in the event: (a) That there shall be a general increase of wages in the plant; (b) That the business of the Company shall improve; ( c) To recognize special merit or efficiency of the employee. 5. No Reduction in Rate of Pay.-During the life of this contract, the rate of pay shall not be reduced. 6. Bonus and Vacations.-At Christmas time in each year, the Company shall pay a bonus to the Employee who has worked continuously for at least one year, a sum equal to one week's wages, as a bonus , or, in lieu thereof, such employee shall be entitled to one week 's vacation , with pay, at a time agreed upon ; and if be or she shall have worked continuously for at least six months and less than one year, then be or she shall be entitled to half such bonus or vacation. 7. Preference and Seniority.-In all cases of temporary lay off for any reason, the Company shall give preference to the Employee in re-employment, and to all others similarly situated, before any new help is employed for the same work . The Company may stagger available work on a fair and proportionate basis before employing new help for such work. (DISCHARGE) The Company may discharge only for such reasonable and proper causes as are common and lawfully grounds therefor including inefficiency, insubordination or violation of rules of safety or plant regulations. 8. Adjustments.-The Company will endeavor to adjust with the Employee all com- plaints and disputes by negotiation , if possible. If it cannot be so adjusted, the Employee hereby selects ____________________ as his representative and arbitrator; and the Company will select its representative , and they shall promptly hear and adjust all such complaints , or failing to do so shall select a third arbitrator, which three shall promptly bear, adjust and arbitrate every such complaint or dispute. The decision of a majority of such Board to be final on both Employee and Employer. 9. Termination.-Nothing herein shall prevent the Employee from terminating this contract at any time on first giving two weeks' written notice to the Company, of his intention so to do. This contract shall remain in full force and effect until Decem- ber 31, 1937, and then may be renewed by mutual consent from year to year thereafter only upon such terms as may be entirely satisfactory to the Employee and the Company. Dated May ____, 1937. SUPERIOR TANNING COMPANY. Employer -------------------- Employee SUPERIOR TANNING COMPANY 953 As to the effect of the contracts, Solomon Katz testified for the re- spondent that a week or two after May 20, 1937, the "representa- tives" e named by the employees in the individual contracts called a meeting of their own, and then requested the respondent to grant a raise in pay. This request was discussed and granted. The trimmers on one occasion sent their "representative" to ask that they be moved to another part of the plant, and this request was granted. On an- other occasion, the tackers through their "representative" requested that skins be delivered to them on the fourth floor, instead of their having to go downstairs themselves to get the skins after they left the staking machines. This request, too, was granted, although it en- tailed the respondent's hiring an extra man. At still another time, the men had a meeting and then requested that the respondent repair the washrooms and keep them in better order. The request was granted. Solomon Katz further stated at the hearing that numerous other requests "that I just don't happen to remember" were made and granted. William Katz, the respondent's vice president, testified at the hear- ing that he was in charge of personnel for the respondent. On cross- examination he made the following statements with respect to. the contract : that the contracts signed by the men did not change the pre-existing terms of employment; that he did not examine the con- tract either before or after the meeting of May 20, did not discuss.i.t with Jacobson, and has never carefully gone over it; that, despite the contract, he has simply continued following the policy he thought right for the respondent in personnel matters; that he regarded the provisions of Section 3 of the contract, referring to other tanneries in Chicago, as meaning tanneries making the same kind of leather as did the respondent; that he does not know how many such tanneries there are, or which they are; that no investigation has been made of wages generally paid in other Chicago tanneries; and that .no em- ployee has ever asserted any rights under the contract. On redirect examination by counsel for the • respondent, he stated that vacations, bonuses, and group requests for raises in pay made through repre- sentatives were all innovations introduced by the contracts. He also stated that since the contracts were signed he has followed seniority to a certain degree in laying off and discharging men; and that em- ployees will probably present grievances through the "representa- tives" named in the contracts, although they were never actually instructed that they could do so. 9 The record does not indicate how many of the respondent's employees inserted the names of "representatives" in the contracts they signed or how these "representatives" were selected. It does, however, appear that between 25 and 30 "representatives" were named. 954 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD About Christmas of 1937, in anticipation of the termination of the contracts signed by the men in May, the respondent called a meeting of the "representatives" named in the contracts. The meeting was held at the respondent's plant during working hours, and the "repre- sentatives" who attended did so pursuant to instruction. Included among the "representatives" requested by the respondent to attend were a number who had then been temporarily laid off by the re- spondent because of lack of work. To the approximately 25 or 28 "representatives" who attended the meeting, William and Solomon Katz .submitted proposed changes in the 1937 contracts which the respondent regarded as desirable. The meeting lasted about an hour, and the proposed changes in -the contract were then forwarded to the respondent's counsel, Jacobson, who presumably prepared and had printed the form of contract for 1938. The printed copies, ,when received by the respondent, were distributed to the men by the "representatives" named in the 1937 contracts. The respondent then had approximately 212 employees, of whom all but one, Villa- striga, signed. The 1938 contract was substantially the same as the form used during 1937. The differences between the two are worth mentioning. Section 2 of the 1938 contract provided for payment of employees "at the rate of wages per hour, or per production, now being paid (which gives full effect to all general increases in wages made on March 27, 1937 and in June, 1937)." The provision in Section 6 for a bonus or vacation was limited in the 1938 contract to employees who had worked continuously for the respondent for 1 year, as compared with the 1937 contract which also gave a half week's bonus or vacation to employees who had worked between 6 months and a year. Section 7 of the 1938 contract changed the provision governing discharges by giving the respondent the right to discharge without notice for causes in addition to those stated in the 1937 contract. Section 8 of the 1938 contract, dealing with the arbitration of complaints and disputes,10 was the same as the 1937 contract, except that Solomon Katz was named in each contract as the respondent's representative in any arbitration proceeding that might be instituted. Section 9 of the 1938 contract changed the employee's right to terminate the con- tract to require only 1 week's notice. In addition, however, the respondent was also given the right in Section 9 to terminate the contract on '2 weeks' notice "In case of war or damaging competition by reason of louver costs of foreign or domestic labor or other cause 10 It may be seriously doubted whether the arbitration provisions in the contracts were valid under the Illinois law. Cocalis v. Nazlides, 308 111. 152, 139 N. E. 95 (1923) see White Eagle Laundry Co. v. Slaacek, 296 Ill. 240, 129 N. E. 753 (1921). But at. Preble V. Architectural Iron Workers' Union of Chicago, Local No. 63, 260 Ill. App. 435 (1931). SUPERIOR TANNING COMPANY 955 which the Company deems vital to the normal operation of its busi- ness and to maintaining maximum employment." Section 9 of the 1938 contract further provided that "Before terminating for any rea- son, the Company pledges to endeavor by fair and earnest negotia- tion to arrive at some basis completely satisfactory to the Employee and the Company, so as to permit the Company to stay in business, operate its plant on a normal basis and to maintain maximum em- ployment, and to remain in the front. rank in paying the highest wages which its business and competition will permit, and under such circumstances this contract shall remain in full force and effect until December 31, 1938." Section 5 of the 1938 contract stated, as did the same paragraph in the 1937 contract, that the rate of pay "shall not be reduced" during the life of the contract, but added "except as it may possibly be effected [sic] by Article 9." We are of the opinion that the 1938 contracts are as clearly within the proscriptions of the Act as the 1937 contracts. The respondent, in "negotiating" the 1938 contracts, made no pretense at providing an opportunity for concerted consideration by its employees of the contracts presented for signature. Changes in, the 1937 form of con- tract were proposed and prepared by the respondent and were pre sented to the "representatives" named in the 1937 contracts at a single short meeting called by the respondent. It may be seriously doubted whether the so-called "representatives," even if we regard them as having been duly designated as such, were empowered by the contract to act in any capacity other than as arbitrator in disputes arising under the contract. In any event the 1938 contracts, like the 1937 contracts, were characterized by a complete lack of opportunity for genuine collective bargaining between the respondent and the "repre- sentatives" of its employees. It is not surprising that the major change accomplished by the "negotiations" for the 1938 contracts was emasculation of what was perhaps the most important provision of the 1937 contract, the guarantee of no reduction in pay, so as to make the guarantee in the 1938 contract subject to contingencies so broad in scope and so vague in phraseology as to leave the decision for all practical purposes in the hands of the respondent. With the memory of the tactics used by the respondent in connection with the 1937 contracts only 7 months before fresh in their minds, the employees of the respondent required no compulsion other than the distribution by their "representatives" of the 1938 contracts in final printed form to convince them of the necessity for signing the con- tracts. We find that the 1938 contracts were simply a continuation of the 1937 contracts and were no less an exercise of the respondent's economic power over its employees for the purpose of interfering with, restraining, and coercing them in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. 956 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD. It was testified for the respondent at the hearing that, in April and May 1937, it did not know of the C. I. O.'s membership cam- paign among the respondent's employees and that, in any event, it was not interested in whether or not its employees joined a union. It appears, however, that in March or April of that year Ulysses Woodward told Solomon Katz that he had signed a union member- ship application card, and that he explained to Katz how he had happened to do so. Woodward also testified that, a week or two after he signed a membership application card, Czonstke spoke to him about it and told him that unionization was a racket. Czonstke denied knowing that Woodward was a member of a union, but did not specifically deny the remarks attributed to him by Woodward. It was admitted at the hearing by William Katz, the respondent's vice president, that in May 1937 he saw one of the respondent's employees, John Tollick, passing out handbills in front of the re- spondent's plant. He denied, however, having noticed what kind of handbills they were. We have already referred to the testimony given by Dolnick, an employee, that on May 21, 1937, he was ques- tioned by Meyer and William Katz as to the union activities of the respondent's employees and that Meyer Katz then indicated that the information obtained from Dolnick did not coincide with informa- tion already in his possession. Adamczewski also testified that the day after he signed his "union card" Meyer Katz approached him; while he was at work, accused him of having attended a union. meeting the night before, and asked what had been said at the meeting. Thereafter, Meyer Katz several times charged Adamczew- ski with being president of the union. On all the evidence, we find that the respondent in April and May of 1937 was aware of the membership campaign then being conducted by the C. I. O. among the respondent's employees. Knowing of the C. I. O. campaign, the respondent consulted with its counsel, Jacobson, and then arranged the two meetings of May 20, 1937. It is our opinion that those meetings were intended to be, and were, only a pretense by the respondent at bargaining col- lectively with its employees. The employees who attended the, morning meeting were hand-picked by the respondent and were con- fronted at the meeting by the respondent's officers and a skilled and experienced lawyer. Even had they had the opportunity to engage in genuine collective bargaining, the men would have done so com- pletely without preparation and without any knowledge or informa- tion as to the desires of the employees they "represented." Handi- capped as they were, however, no such opportunity for genuine collective bargaining was given them or, indeed, could have been given at a meeting which lasted not more than an hour and possibly substantially less than that. We cannot believe that it was possible, SUPERIOR TANNING COMPANY 957 in that short period of time, not only to initiate, consider, and discuss questions as to wages, hours, and working conditions, but also to draft and have approved a proposed form of contract, without a complete disregard of even the barest essentials of true collective bargaining. The contracts were printed at the direction of the respondent's counsel and, presumably, at the respondent's expense. The printed contracts and the respondent's counsel both appeared at the re- spondent's plant in time for the afternoon meeting of May 20. The respondent's pretense at collective bargaining then collapsed com- pletely. If the men who attended the morning conference were, regarded by the respondent as the representatives of its employees, there was no legitimate reason for the respondent's calling a meeting of all its employees and asking them to sign individual contracts of employment; if the men at the morning meeting were not regarded by the respondent as the representatives of its employees, and we do not see any possible basis for their having been so regarded, it was sheer coercion for the respondent to confront its employees at the afternoon meeting with the fait accompli of the printed contracts and to tell the employees, as Solomon Katz testified Jacobson did, that the respondent and the men at the morning meeting "had agreed to an individual contract." As we have stated above, we believe that the testimony given by the employees as to the substance of the remarks made by Jacobson at the afternoon meeting is entitled to credence over the testimony given by the respondent's officers and foremen. It is evident that the meeting was a challenge to the attempted unionization of the respondent's employees, a challenge which was understood as such by the employees and to which they capitulated when they signed the individual contracts of employment. Our conclusion as to the purpose and effect of the meeting is but- tressed by the respondent's failure to call Jacobson as a witness and by the unexplained presence of a stenographer at the meeting. Finding, as we have, that the testimony given by the respondent's officers and foremen as to the meeting of May 20 is not entitled to credence, we are further constrained by the evidence to disbelieve, their denials of the role attributed to them in inducing the re- spondent's employees to sign the individual contracts and in attempt- ing to elicit information as to union activities from Adamczewski, Dolnick, and Villastriga. We are convinced that the inquiries, the, meetings of May 20, and the individual contracts were all integral parts of a carefully formulated program on the part of the re- spondent to discourage its employees from becoming or remaining members of an "outside" union and to erect a permanent barrier in 958 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD the path of any future attempts to organize them. It is a technique not without precedent.,,- We find that, by urging and warning its employees not to join the C. I. O. or any other "outside" union, by interrogating its employees as to their union affiliation and activities, by the meetings of May 20, 1937, and what there occurred, and by preparing and presenting the individual contracts of employment of 1937 and 1938 and urging and persuading its employees to sign them, the respondent has inter- fered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in their exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. B. The discharges and lay-offs 1. Vincent Terranova, Steve Dolnick, Daniel Semenaro, and Ben Stempinski All four of these men were employed as finishers in the re- spondent's finishing department, and all were laid off on November 26, 1937. Terranova was first employed by the respondent on July 24, 1934, and prior to November 26, 1937, had. never been laid off. He was a finisher throughout the period of his employment by the respondent, during which he received three raises. The only com- plaint ever made about, his work was caused by use of a special finish, approximately 11/2 years prior to his lay-off, which was later discontinued by the respondent. He joined the C. I. 0. in May 1937 and was active in attending meetings and obtaining members, per- suading six other men to sign membership application cards. He was laid off by his foreman, Frank Czonstke, presumably tempo- rarily. In January 1938 he applied for employment by the re- spondent and was told by William Katz that no work was available. Katz did not then suggest to Terranova that he apply again at a. later date. Terranova desires to be reemployed by the respondent. Dolnick was first employed by the respondent on April 3, 1.934. Prior to Novmber 26, 1937, he was never laid off. On several occa- sions Stanley Jandow, a foreman, told him that his work wag satisfactory. He joined the union of which Rudolph J. Burkey was organizer on January 17, 1937, and thereafter distributed membership application cards to about 25 men. Jandow admitted at the hearing that he was told by Dolnick that the latter had become a union "Cf. Matter of Williams Manufacturing Company, Portsmouth , Ohio and United Shoe Workers of America . Portsmouth, Ohio, 6 N. L. R. B. 135; Matter of Newark Rivet Works and Unity Lodge No. 420, United Electrical & Radio Workers of America, C. I. 0., 9 N. L. R . B. 498; Matter of The Stolle Corporation and Metal Polishers, Buffers, Platers, and Helpers International Union, 13 N. L. R. B. 370. SUPERIOR TANNING COMPANY 959 member. Dolnick was laid off by Czonstke, the foreman, who told Dolnick that it was only temporary and that he would be recalled in a week or two. No request for reemployment was therefore ever made by Dolnick, although he still desires employment with the respondent. Semenaro was first employed by the respondent on April 9, 1934, and was continuously employed as a finisher from that date until he was laid off on November 26, 1937. No complaints were ever made about his work and he received two increases in pay during the course of his employment. He admitted, however, that things were rather slow in his department at the time he was laid off. He joined the C. I. 0. in March or April 1937, and informed William Katz that, he had done so; the latter said it was all right. After becoming a member, Semenaro was active in seeking additional members and succeeded in persuading three or four men to apply for membership. He was laid off by Czonstke, the foreman, for lack of work. About 2 weeks prior to the hearing, Semenaro applied to William Katz for employment at the respondent's plant, and was told that there was no work then available but that he would be called if and when there was. At the time of the hearing he had had no employment since his lay-off, although he was scheduled to start on W. P. A. work the following day. Semenaro desires to return to work for the respondent. Stempinski was first employed by the respondent on February 5, 1934, and was thereafter continuously employed in the finishing department until he was laid off on November 26, 1937. No com- plaints were ever made about his work. In March 1937 he joined the C. I. 0. and became active, persuading more than 30 men to sign membership application cards. He testified at the hearing that his foreman knew of his union membership, because he was so active in organizing. He was laid off by Czonstke, the foreman, who said that it would be only for about a week. He has never requested reem- ployment by the respondent, and he has since had no employment or earnings. He would like his old job with the respondent. It is the respondent's position that 11 of 26 or 27 finishers were laid off during the summer and fall of 1937, along with a substantial number of employees in other departments, because of a drastic de- crease in business, and that Terranova, Dolnick, Semenaro, and Stem- pinski were part of the group so laid off. Solomon Katz, the re- spondent's secretary-treasurer, stated at the hearing that the respond- ent would rehire all of these men as soon as the respondent's opera- tions warranted it, and before any new employees were engaged. A list of the finishers employed by the respondent, arranged in order 960 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD of seniority, was introduced in evidence at the hearing. Contrary to the claim made by each of these four men, that on November 26, 1937, there were other finishers in the respondent's employ who were junior in length of employment but who nevertheless were not laid off, the list prepared by the respondent shows that the finishers were laid off in strict order of seniority. Aside from the unsupported statements of the men themselves, there is no evidence contradicting the respondent's schedule. We are of the opinion that the evidence does not sustain the alle- gations of the complaint as to Vincent Terranova, Steve Dolnick, Daniel Semenaro, and Ben Stempinski. We find that the respondent did not, in laying off these four men, discriminate in regard to their tenure of employment or any term or condition of their employment, and thereby discourage membership-in a labor organization. 2. Ulysses Woodward Woodward was first employed by the respondent in 1922 or 1923, and continued in its employ without interruption until he was laid off on December 2 or December 3, 1937.12 At various times during the course of his employment Woodward worked in the smoke house, the pickling room, the coloring room, the shipping room, and the fin- ishing room. For 10 years he was floorman in the fininshing room on the third floor of the respondent's plant, doing the work of a jan- itor or porter and general handy man. He testified that no com- plaints were ever made as to his work. Woodward joined the C. I. 0. in March of 1937 and was active in trying to obtain additional members. Being the only one of approx- imately 100 Negro employees of the respondent who had joined the C. I. 0., he attempted to persuade the others to join. Woodward testified that the finishing-room foreman, Czonstke, knew that he was a member of the C. I. 0., and the respondent's secretary-treasurer, Solomon Katz, admitted at the hearing that he was told in March or April of 1937 that Woodward had signed a C. I. 0. membership application card. Woodward also testified that after he joined the C. I. 0. Czonstke began "picking" on him, and that the relationship between them became so unpleasant that Woodward finally went to Solomon Katz, some time in April 1937, and requested that he be transferred out of the finishing room. The request was granted, and Woodward was transferred to the yard where his work consisted of unloading hides and other supplies delivered to the plant, baling and ' Woodward testified that his employment was terminated December 2, and the re- spondent's secretary-treasurer, Solomon Katz, testified Woodward's employment was terminated December 3, 1937. SUPERIOR TANNING COMPANY 961 loading trimmings and other byproducts of the respondent's tanning operations, and generally keeping the yard clean. The respondent contends that Woodward was not discharged, but only laid off because of the decline in business during the summer and fall of 1937 and also because the respondent changed its method of operation so as to make unnecessary the full-time services of an employee in the yard. Testimony was given by witnesses for the respondent to the effect that part of the work formerly done by Wood- ward in the yard is now done in the plant by men in other depart- ments during their spare time, and that the other work formerly done by Woodward in the yard is also handled by employees who are regularly engaged in other work but whose time is not fully occupied. Solomon Katz stated at the hearing that Woodward, like Terranova, Dolnick, Semenaro, and Stempinski, will be returned to work when business improves and before any new employees are hired. The testimony as to the temporary nature of his severance from employment is borne out by Woodward, who testified that the Tues- day following his lay-off, when he came in for his pay check, he was told by the respondent's vice president, William Katz, that he would probably be recalled in 2 or 3 weeks. Woodward also testified that some time after his lay-off he called at the respondent's plant to see whether work had become available, and that he was then told both by William Katz and by Solomon Katz that he had not been dis- charged and that he would be recalled. On the other hand, Wood- ward stated at the hearing that there was plenty of work to be done at the time he was laid off and that on various occasions since his lay-off he has seen men in the yard at the respondent's plant doing the same kind of work that Woodward did. The respondent not only denied this, but also introduced evidence tending to show that two other men doing odd jobs and janitor work in the plant were laid off in December 1937. The finishing-room foreman, Czonstke, testified for the respondent (1) that the man who took Woodward's place in the finishing room when Woodward was transferred to the yard in April 1937, and who was junior in length of service to Woodward, also was laid off, and (2) that both the floorman in the finishing room at the time of the hearing and the only other man then doing porter's work in the plant had been employed by the respondent for approximately 20 years. Czonstke further testified that the friction between him and Woodward was caused by the latter's reporting for work late on several occasions. Since being laid off, Woodward has earned $22, and at the time of the hearing he was employed by the W. P. A. Woodward stated that he would like to return to work for the respondent. The Trial Examiner found in his Intermediate Report that Wood- ward's lay-off was not due to his union membership or activity, and 962 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD we agree that the evidence does not sustain the allegations of-the complaint in this respect. We find that the respondent did not dis- criminate in regard to Woodward's tenure of employment or any term or condition of his employment, and thereby discourage member- ship in a labor organization. 3. Harry Oppenheim Oppenheim was first employed by the respondent in 1917 or 1918, and continued in the respondent's employ without interruption until he was discharged on November 10, 1937. Various kinds of work were done by Oppenheim during the course of his employment with the respondent, and at the time of his discharge he was engaged in a process known as dipping. This consisted of immersing the almost finished sole leather in vats of heated wax, to give the leather the proper finish and to make it water-repellent. It is the respondent's position that Oppenheim was discharged be- cause he improperly dipped approximately 100 sides or pieces of sole leather on the morning of November 10, 1937, and burned them. Sol- omon Katz testified for the respondent that the skins, if properly dipped, would have had a market value of about $5 a skin, whereas in their damaged condition they brought a total of approximately $130, thereby causing the respondent a loss of about $370. William Katz and Czonstke, the foreman, both testified that they saw the burned skins in the sorting room or the shipping room during the afternoon of November 10, 1937, and that the respondent's custom of shipping immediately all sole leather which had been dipped indi- cated that the burned skins they saw that afternoon had been dipped that day. Solomon and William Katz both testified that Oppenheim was the only man engaged in dipping sole leather on November 10, 1937, but Czonstke could not remember on the stand whether that was so. Oppenheim's testimony tends to establish that, -while he was the only man dipping skins on November 9 and the morning of November 10, another man began operating the second dipping vat about noon of the second day. Oppenheim also flatly denied at the hearing that he had burned any skins, and further testified that this was the first complaint ever made as to his work and that Czonstke and Meyer Katz had always told him that his work was entirely sat- isfactory. According to Oppenheim, Czonstke gave no reason for discharging Oppenheim at the time, saying simply that he was sorry he had to do it. Oppenheim did not ask what the reason was. It also appears from the record that the actual decision to discharge Oppenheim was made by William Katz, who testified at the hearing that he thought the reason for the burning of the skins was that Oppenheim, who was paid on an hourly basis, had tried to stretch SUPERIOR TANNING COMPANY 963 the dipping of a comparatively small number of skins into a full day's work. Oppenheim had joined the union February 19, 1937, and was active in obtaining other members. He testified that some time during March he was told by William Katz that the latter knew of Oppen- heim's union membership, but did not care; William Katz denied this at the hearing. Solomon Katz also denied that he knew Oppenheim was a member of the union. The Trial Examiner found that Harry Oppenheim was discharged for cause and not because of his union activity or affiliation. We are of the opinion that the record, while far from conclusive on the ques- tion of whether or not Oppenheim actually burned the skins as alleged, does not support any conclusion other than that the reason for Oppenheim's discharge was the respondent's belief, correct or incorrect, that he had done so. On all the evidence, we find that the respondent did not discriminate in regard to Oppenheim's tenure of employment or any term or condition of his employment, and thereby discourage membership in a labor organization. 4. Steve Adamczewski Adamczewski was first employed by the respondent in 1924 and, except for a period of approximately 9 months during 1929 when he voluntarily left his job, worked as a staker for the respondent con- tinuously until his discharge on June 12, 1937.13 He testified at the hearing that the respondent's officers and foremen praised his work continuously and regarded him as the best staker in the respondent's employ. This testimony was borne out by Albert Villastriga, another staker, who testified that he worked in the same room with Adamczewski and not far from him, that he never heard Adam- czewski reprimanded for having done poor work, that Adamczewski was the staker who ordinarily was called upon to do the extra lots and samples requiring the best work, and that during January 1937 Adamczewski was requested by Meyer Katz, the respondent's presi- dent, to train new stakers, a task not assigned to anyone other than Adamczewski was requested by Meyer Katz, the respondent's presi- William Katz, and Frank Czonstke that they never praised Adam- czewski's work as a staker. On the contrary, Solomon Katz testified that the respondent had been having trouble with Adamczewski's work for about a year prior to his discharge, in that improperly 13 This was the date given by Solomon Katz, the respondent's secretary-treasurer, at the hearing. Adamczewski testified that he had last worked for the respondent on Saturday, June 19. 1937. Katz's testimony was presumably based on the respondent's records and, as in the case of the seniority list produced by the respondent in connection with the lay-offs considered by us in Section III B 1 above , we accept the evidence based on recorded data. 964 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD staked skins had been coming through to the sorting room from the staking machines for approximately that period of time, and that this stopped after Adamczewski had been discharged. Czonstke testified that, during a period of about a year prior to Adamczewski's discharge, he "caught" Adamczewski on 10 or 15 different occasions improperly staking skins, and that he told the "boss" about it twice. Czonstke also testified that complaints by the finisher foreman, that the skins were not taking their finish properly because they had not been well staked, stopped after Adamczewski's discharge. Czonstke explained his failure to discharge Adamczewski prior to June 12, 1937, on the ground that he did not like to discharge a "family man." Stanley Jandow, foreman of the finishers, corroborated Czonstke's testimony, stating that he saw Adamczewski time and again fail to give skins the proper number of strokes in the staking machine and that he reported this to Adamczewski's foreman, Czonstke. Im- proper staking of skins was directly denied by Adamczewski at the hearing, and Villastriga testified that about the same number of im- properly staked skins were returned for restaking after Adam- czewski's discharge as before. Adamczewski joined the C. I. 0. a "couple of weeks" before he was discharged, probably during May 1937. He was extremely active in soliciting members from among the respondent's employees, and persuaded more than 20 of the men to sign membership application cards. Shortly after Adamczewski joined the C. I. 0., Meyer Katz, the respondent's president, spoke to him about it in vile terms. The day following the first C. I. 0. meeting attended by Adamczewski, he was questioned by Meyer Katz as to what had been said at the meeting. Thereafter, Meyer Katz several times came to Adam- czewski at his staking machine and charged him with being president of the C. I. 0. Solomon Katz denied at the hearing that he had known of Adamczewski's C. I. 0. membership and activity, but Meyer Katz was not called as a witness and Adamczewski's testi- mony as to Meyer Katz's remarks is uncontradicted. Notice of his discharge was given to Adamczewski by his fore- man, Frank Czonstke. Adamczewski testified at the hearing that Czonstke, on June 12, 1937, said that he did not know why Adam- czewski was being discharged, and that Czonstke referred Adam- czewski to the "boss," who had then already left for the day. The following Monday morning, Adamczewski spoke to Meyer. Katz at the respondent's plant and was told by him that Adamczewski was the best staker the respondent had but that Solomon Katz had "kicked" about him. In addition, Meyer Katz told Adamczewski that Monday, according to Adamczewski's testimony, that there was no opening for him and that all the machines were already being operated. SUPERIOR TANNING COMPANY 965 Villastriga corroborated Adanczewski's testimony as to the cir- cumstances under which the discharge took place, stating that no one told Adamczewski the reason for his discharge at the time and that Adamczewski's foreman brought him his pay check that day a few minutes after 12, when everyone had left the plant. For the re- spondent, Czonstke denied that Adamczewski made any inquiry as to the reason for his discharge. Solomon Katz testified that the immediate reason for Adam- czewski's discharge was the fact that he had been seen staking skins improperly, both the day he was discharged and the day before. When Solomon Katz saw Adamczewski placing skins which had not been fully staked on the pile of finished skins, he told Czonstke that if Adamczewski were seen -doing that again he was to be discharged. The following day, Saturday, Czonstke claims to have seen Adam- czewski staking skins improperly again, whereupon he reported it to Solomon Katz and was instructed to discharge Adamczewski. In addition to Adamczewski's direct denial at the hearing of the charge that he had staked skins improperly, it seems to us extraordi- nary that an employee whose work had been more than satisfactory for 12 or 13 years should suddenly have been found so inexpert. The fact that Adamczewski, shortly after the general meeting of the respondent's employees on May 20, 1937, circulated among the stakers a petition addressed to the respondent requesting an increase in the stakers' piece rates seems to us the more reasonable explanation for the respondent's dissatisfaction with Adamczewski. This circu- lation of the petition among the stakers, and the leading part which Adamczewski was accused by Meyer Katz of playing and which he did play in the organizing campaign of the C. I. 0., coupled with the unconvincing nature of the testimony as to Adamczewski's alleged inefficiency, lead us to the conclusion that he was discharged because of his C. I. 0. membership and activity. Adamczewski has had no other employment since his discharge on June 12, 1937. Though the record is not entirely clear, it appears that Adamczewski, at the time of his discharge and prior thereto, was earning between $35 and $40 a week. We find that the respondent, by discharging Adamczewski on June 12, 1937, discriminated in regard to his hire and tenure of employ- ment, thereby discouraging membership in the C. I. 0. and inter- fering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. Iv. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of.the respondent set forth in Section III above, oc- curring in connection with the operations of the respondent described 966 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 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 respondent has interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in their exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, we shall order it to cease and desist there- from and to take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act and to restore, as nearly as possible, the conditions which existed prior to the commission of the unfair labor practices. We have found that the individual contracts of employment signed by the respondent's employees were intended to and did impede the efforts and right of the employees to form, join, or assist labor organi- zations and to engage in concerted activities for their mutual aid and protection, and we have also found that the respondent, by its .officers and supervisory employees, persuaded and coerced its employees to sign the individual contracts. To restore the status quo and to free the respondent's employees from the restraint and interference in- volved in and exerted by these illegal contracts, we shall order the respondent to cease giving effect thereto and to give written notice to each employee who signed such a contract that the contracts are invalid and void because they were entered into pursuant to an unfair labor practice within the meaning of the Act, that they will there- fore be discontinued as a term or condition of employment and will not in any manner be enforced or attempted to be enforced, and that the employees are not required or expected to deal with the respond- ent through the "representatives" named in the contracts. We shall also order the respondent to post appropriate notices in its plant, in both English and Polish '14 advising its employees to the same effect. This part of our Order will extend to any modification, continuation, extension, or renewal of the individual contracts and to any similar form of contract for a period subsequent to December 31, 1938. We have also found that the respondent discharged Steve Adam- czewski because of his membership in and activities for the C. I. 0., thereby discouraging membership in the C. I. O. and interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. We shall, therefore, order the respondent to offer Adamczewski immediate and full reinstatement without prejudice to his seniority and other rights and privileges, and to make him whole for any loss of pay he has suffered by reason of "Matter of Los Angeles Brick & Clay Products Co. and Alberhill Clay Products Workers' Union No. 373, 11 N. L. It. B. 750. SUPERIOR TANNING COMPANY 967 his discharge, by payment to him of a sum equal to that which he normally would have earned as wages from the date of his discharge to the date of the offer of reinstatement, less his net earnings 15 during said period. Following our practice in these matters, we shall exclude the period from the date of the Intermediate Report, April 15, 1938, to the date of the Order herein in computing Adamczew;wski's back pay, since the Trial Examiner found that his discharge did not con- stitute an unfair labor practice and recommended dismissal of the complaint as to him.- With respect to the five employees 17 who were only temporarily laid off by the respondent because of lack of work and whom the re- spondent has stated it will return to work on a preferential basis as soon as business conditions permit, we have accepted the respondent's position and we shall, therefore, dismiss the complaint as to them and not order their reinstatement. In view, however, of the respond- ent's unfair labor practices, as set forth in Section III above, we feel it is possible that the respondent will not reemploy these five men, even if their former positions or substantially equivalent positions become available. To effectuate the policies of the Act we shall, therefore, require the respondent to place -Vincent Terranova, Steve Dolnick, Daniel Semenaro, Ben Stempinski, and Ulysses Woodward on a preferential list for employment as it arises.18 Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following : CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Committee for Industrial Organization, Tannery Workers Or- ganizing Committee, United Tannery Workers Union, and National Leather Workers Association, Local 43, are labor organizations, within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act. "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 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 America, Lumber and Sawmill Workers Union, Local 2590, 8 N. L. R. B. 440. Monies received 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. 1e Matter of E. R. Haffelfinger Company, Inc. and United Wall Paper Crafts of North dmerica, Local No. 6, 1 N. L. It. B. 760. 17 Vincent Terranova, Steve Dolnick, Daniel Semenaro , Ben Stempinski, and Ulysses Woodward. 18 Matter of American Numbering Machine Company and International Association of Machinists, District # 15, 10 N. L. R. B. 536; Matter of American Manufacturing Concern and Local No. 6, Organized Furniture Workers, 7 N. L. It. B . 753; Matter of Benjamin Levine, doing business under the name and style of Estellite Fixtures Company and International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local Union No. 438, 6 N. L. R. B. 400. 190935-40-vol. 14-62 968 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 2. By discriminating in regard to the tenure of employment of Steve Adamczewski and thereby discouraging membership in Com- mittee for Industrial Organization and National Leather Workers Association, Local 43, the respondent has engaged in and is engag- ing in unfair labor practices, within the meaning of Section 8 (3) of the Act. 3. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in their 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. 4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce, within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. 5. By laying off Vincent Terranova, Steve Dolnick, Daniel Seme- naro, Ben Stempinski, and Ulysses Woodward, and by discharging Harry Oppenheim, the respondent has not engaged in unfair labor practices, 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 re- spondent, Superior Tanning Company, Chicago, Illinois, and its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from : (a) Discouraging membership in Committee for Industrial Organization or National Leather Workers Association, Local 43, or any other labor organization of its employees, by discharging, laying off, or refusing to reinstate any of its employees or in any other manner discriminating in regard to their hire or tenure of employ- ment or any term or condition of their employment; (b) Interrogating its employees as to their union affiliations or activities, or in any other manner maintaining surveillance over its employees in their exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act for the purpose of interfering with their activities on behalf of Committee for Industrial Organization, National Leather Work- ers Association, Local 43, or any other labor organization; (c) Giving effect to the individual contracts of employment in the form noted in the findings of fact above Is or to any modification, continuation, extension, or renewal thereof or to any similar form of contract for any period subsequent to December 31, 1938; 19 Board Exhibits Nos. 2 and 3. SUPERIOR TANNING COMPANY 969 (d) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of their rights 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 bargaining or other mutual aid and protection, as guaranteed in Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will effectuate the policies of the Act : (a) Offer to Steve Adamczewski immediate and full reinstate- ment to his former position without prejudice to his seniority and other rights and privileges; (b) Make whole Steve Adamczewski for any loss of pay he has suffered by reason of his discharge by paying to him a sum of money equal to that which he would normally have earned as wages during the period from the date of his discharge to the date of the Inter- mediate Report herein (April 15, 1938) and the period from the date of this Order to the date of the respondent's offer of reinstate- ment, less his net earnings during said periods; provided that the respondent shall deduct from the amount otherwise due him monies received by him during said periods .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 gov- ernments which supplied the funds for said work-relief projects; (c) Place Vincent Terranova, Steve Dolnick, Daniel Semenaro, Ben Stempinski, and Ulysses Woodward on a preferential list to be offered employment as it arises, on the basis of seniority by classifica- tion, before any other persons are hired; (d) Give separate, written notice to each of its employees who has signed an individual contract of employment in the form set forth in the findings of fact above 20 or any modification, continua- tion, extension, or renewal thereof or any similar form of contract for any period subsequent to December 31, 1938, that such contract was entered into pursuant to an unfair labor practice, within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act, that it is invalid and void, that it will therefore be discontinued as a term or condition of employment and will not in any manner be enforced or attempted to be enforced, and that the employee is not required or expected to deal with the respondent through the "representative" named in the contract; (e) Immediately post notices, in both English and Polish, in con- spicuous places in each department of the respondent's plant, stating : to Board Exhibits Nos. 2 and 3. 970 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD (1) that the respondent will cease and desist as provided in para- graphs 1 (a), (b), (c), and (d) of this Order, and (2) that the respondent will take the affirmative action set forth in paragraphs 2 (a), (b), (c), and (d) of this Order; (f) Maintain such notices for a period of at least sixty (60) consecutive days from the date of posting; (g) 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 therewith. AND IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the allegations of the complaint with respect to Vincent Terranova,, Steve Dolnick, Daniel Semenaro, Ben Stempinski, Ulysses Woodward, and Harry Oppenheim be, and they hereby are, dismissed. MR. WILLIAM M. LEISERSON took no part in the consideration of the above Decision and Order.