Pearlstone Printing & Stationery Co.

In the Matter Of PEARLSTONE COMPANY, DOING BUSINESS AS PEARLSTONE PRINTING & STATIONERY COMPANY and ALLIED PRINTING TRADES COUNCIL, AFFILIATED WITH THE AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR Case No. C-631.Decided October 07, 1939 Printing Industry-Interference, Restraint, and Coercion : anti-union state- ments-Discrimination : discharges for union affiliation and activity-Testify- ing Under the Act: discharges for testifying at hearing-Reinstatement Ordered: discharged employees-Back Pay: awarded dicharged employees-Refusal to Bargain : charges of, not sustained. Mr. Charles Y. Latimer, Mr. Herbert O. Eby, and Mr. David Y. Campbell, for the Board. Mr. David Pearlstone, of St. Louis, Mo., for the respondent. Mr. Allan Lind, of counsel to the Board. DECISION AND ORDER STATEMENT OF THE CASE Upon charges duly filed by Allied Printing Trades Council, herein called the Council, the National Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board, by the Regional Director for the Fourteenth Region (St. Louis, Missouri), issued its complaint dated March 25, 1938, against Pearlstone Company doing business as Pearlstone Printing & Sta- tionery Company,' St. Louis, Missouri, herein called the respondent, alleging that the respondent had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce, within the meaning of Section 8 (1), (3), and (5) and Section 2 (6} and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein called the Act. Copies of the complaint, accompanied by notice of hearing, were duly served upon the respondent and the Council. No answer to the complaint was filed by the respondent. With respect to the unfair labor practices the complaint alleged, in substance, that the respondent discharged William Blank on 1 Incorrectly designated in the complaint as Pearlstone Printing & Stationery Company. The pleadings were amended at the bearing to recite the correct name. 16 N. Ti. R. B., No. 66. 636 PEARLSTONE COMPANY 637 August 14, 1937, and has since refused to reinstate him for the reason that he joined and assisted a union and engaged in concerted activities with other employees of the respondent for the purpose of collective bargaining and other mutual aid and protection; that on or about August 16, 1937, and thereafter the respondent refused to bargain collectively with the Council as the exclusive representative of its production and maintenance employees, exclusive of clerical and office employees and officers of the respondent, said employees consti- tuting an appropriate bargaining unit and a majority thereof having designated the Council as their representative for the purposes of collective bargaining; and that the respondent, by the aforesaid and other acts, intimidated, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. Pursuant to the notice a hearing was held in St. Louis, Missouri, on March 31, 1938, before Gustaf B. Erickson, the Trial Examiner duly designated by the Board. The Board was represented by coun- sel, and the respondent's secretary appeared and testified at the hear- ing. Full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing upon the issues was afforded all parties. On April 29, 1938, the Trial Examiner filed his Intermediate Report, copies of which were duly served upon the respondent and the Council. He found that the respondent had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce, within the meaning of Section 8 (1), (3), and (5) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act, and recommended that the respondent cease and desist from such practices and make whole William Blank, who he found was discriminatorily discharged, for any loss of pay he may have suffered by reason of his discharge. He also recommended that the respondent bargain collectively with the Council. On March 16, 1939, the Board, acting pursuant to Article II, Sec- tion 36, of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regula- tions-Series 1, as amended, ordered that the record be reopened, a further hearing be held, and the proceeding be remanded to the Regional Director. The Board further ordered that the Regional Director be authorized to accept an amended charge, to issue an amended complaint, and to serve notice of further hearing. Upon amended charges duly filed by the Council, the Regional Director issued an amended complaint dated March 27, 1939, alleging that the respondent had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (1), (3), (4), and (5) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. Copies of the amended complaint accompanied by notice of hearing were duly served upon the respondent and the Council. The respondent did not file an answer to the amended complaint. 638 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD With respect to the unfair labor practices the amended complaint set forth the allegations of the complaint dated March 25, 1938, and in addition alleged, in substance, that the respondent discharged Theodore Runzi on April 13, 1938, and has since refused to reinstate him for the reason that he joined ,tnd assisted a union and engaged. in concerted activities with other employees of the respondent for the purpose of collective bargaining and other mutual aid and pro- tection; and that the respondent discharged William Wood and Charles Schaefer on or about April 18 and 23, 1938, respectively, and has since refused to reinstate them for the reason that each of them gave testimony under the Act, and because they joined and assisted a union and engaged in concerted activities with other em- ployees of the respondent for the purpose of collective bargaining and other mutual aid and protection. Pursuant to the notice, a further hearing was held in St. Louis, Missouri, on April 3, 1939, before Samuel H. Jaffee, the Trial Ex- anuner duly designated by the Board. The Board was represented by counsel and participated in the hearing. No appearance was made on behalf of the respondent. At the conclusion of the hearing, a motion by counsel for the Board to conform the pleadings. to the proof was granted by the Trial Examiner. The ruling is hereby affirmed. On June 27, 1939, the Board ordered that the Intermediate Report of the Trial Examiner, Gustaf B. Erickson, be vacated and set aside, and acting pursuant to Article II, Section 38 (d), of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations- Series 1, as amended, or- dered the issuance of proposed findings of fact, proposed conclusions of law, and proposed order. The order further provided that the parties shall have the right, within 10 days la from the receipt of said proposed findings, conclusions of law, and order, to file excep- tions, to request oral argument before the Board, and to request permission to file a brief with the Board. On September 30, 1939, the Board issued Proposed Findings of Fact, Proposed Conclusions of Law, and Proposed Order, copies of which were duly served upon the respondent and the Council. No exceptions to the Proposed Findings, Proposed Conclusions of Law, and Proposed Order have been filed by the parties within the time limit set by the Board's Rules and Regulations-Series 2. U pon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following : 1n Article II, Section 37, of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations- Series 2, effective July 14 , 1939, provides that the parties shall have the right to file exceptions within 20 days from the receipt of proposed findings , conclusions of law, and order. P.EARLSTONE COMPANY FINDINGS OF FACT I. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT 639 The respondent is engaged in the business of commercial printing and in the manufacture and sale of office supplies. Its only plant and place of business is located at St. Louis, Missouri. Approxi- mately 65 per cent of all the raw materials used by the respondent, consisting of ink, paper, and materials used in the manufacture of office supplies, are obtained either directly from out-of-State sources or from companies that procure such materials from sources out- side Missouri. During the year 1937 the respondent's gross sales amounted to $50,000. Approximately 15 per cent of the respondent's finished products, including printing material and office supplies, are shipped to points outside Missouri. The respondent advertises by mail in 30 States, of the United States. II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED Allied Printing Trades Council, St. Louis, Missouri, is a labor organization affiliated with the American 'Federation of Labor. The following local unions in St. Louis are members of the Allied Print- ing Trades Council: Bookbinders Union No. 18; Bindery Women's Union No. 55; Electrotypers Union No. 36; Franklin Association No. 43; Mailers Union No. 3; Paper Handlers, Flymen, Sheet Straighteners and Stock Room Employees Union No. 16; Photo- Engravers Union No. 10; Printing Pressmen's Union No. 6; Stereo- typers' Union No. 8; Typographer Union No. 3; Typographical Union No. 8; and Web Pressmen's Union. No. 38. The above local unions are labor organizations admitting to mem- bership employees of, the respondent as well as other employees engaged in the printing industry in and around St. Louis, Missouri. By a resolution, adopted in 1937, the local unions authorized the Allied Printing Trades Council to represent their members in col- lective bargaining with employers.. III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Interference, restraint, and coercion The Council began its organizational drive among the respond- ent's employees in June 1937. Shortly after the campaign began the respondent's secretary, David Pearlstone, and its president, Isa- dore Pearlstone, manifested their hostility toward the Council by telling certain employees that the respondent would close up its shop and go out of business before it would sign up with the union. On several later occasions in 1937 Isadore Pearlstone reiterated his 640 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD hostility by stating that,the "union or government or anybody else couldn't make him sign up with the union." ' Isadore also told his employees that the union was "the bunk" and that it was com- posed of a "bunch of thieves." We find that, by the foregoing stateinents made by the respond- ent's officers, Isadore Pearlstone and David Pearlstone, the respond- ent' interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act. B. The discharges 1. William Blank William Blank had been employed by the respondent on at least three different occasions in the 8-year period prior to 1937. On each occasion he was released because of a decrease in production. He was recalled in January 1937 and was engaged as foreman - and general manager of the pressroom. As such he received the highest salary paid any of the respondent's employees. Prior to the events described below Blank was considered an efficient and competent employee by the respondent. Blank was a member of Printing Pressmen's Union No. 6, and on July 7, 1937, he signed a card authorizing the Council to represent him for the purposes of col- lective bargaining. In June 1937, shortly after the Council started its organizational campaign among the respondent's employees, David Pearlstone, sec- retary of the respondent, began asking Blank questions concerning the Council and the effect of its campaign upon the employees. On several occasions he questioned Blank about union meetings and the number of employees who had become members of the local unions. At the same time the respondent began to find fault with Blank's work and his management of the pressroom. Several days prior to his discharge Blank encountered some dif- ficulty in running off an onion skin printing, job. Due to the thin- ness and glossiness of the paper this type of a job is very difficult to handle and is so considered by pressmen. Blank testified that after running off the first 500 sheets of the 20,000-sheet job he remedied the defect and experienced no further trouble. The testimony was uncontradicted and we find that the defect was caused by the press or the paper and not by Blank's carelessness. On the following-day David Pearlstone accused Blank of ruining the entire job. On August 14, 1937, Blank was discharged. At the time of the discharge, David Pearlstone did not mention the foregoing incident, but told Blank that, while he was a good pressman and mechanic, the last few weeks of his employment showed that he was not a good manager. PEARLSTONE COMPANY 641 Shortly after the discharge, David Pearlstone told Charles Schae- fer, who replaced Blank as foreman, that if any employee in the shop caused any trouble he would have to be replaced. According to Schaefer, Pearlstone said, "for instance, Mr. Blank, he messed around with the union and you see where he is at." This testimony was uncontradicted and we find that Pearlstone made the statement attributed to him by Schaefer. We are satisfied that Blank was discharged because of his union membership and his suspected union activities. In view of his ques- tioning by Pearlstone with respect to union activity and Pearlstone's statement to Schaefer set forth above we do not believe that Blank lost his efficiency as a manager shortly after the advent of the Council in the respondent's plant. Moreover, the respondent of- fered no evidence to show in what respects Blank's services had become unsatisfactory. We find that on August 14, 1937, the respondent discriminated against William Blank in regard to the hire and tenure of his em- ployment thereby discouraging membership in a labor organization and interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act. At the time of the hearing Blank was employed in Indianapolis, Indiana, earning $50 a week. While working for the respondent he had been earning $40 a week. He testified that he did not desire reinstatement. Between the date of his discharge and the date of the first hearing Blank earned approximately $1,000. 2. Schaefer, Wood, and Runzi Charles Schaefer, a pressman, replaced Blank as a foreman after the latter's discharge. Schaefer signed a card on June 10, 1937, au- thorizing the Council to bargain for him. On March 31, 1938, he testified as a witness for the Board at the first hearing. His testi- mony supported the allegations of the complaint that the respondent discriminatorily discharged Blank and engaged in other conduct which interfered with the employees in the exercise of their rights under the Act. Shortly after the hearing was held David Pearl- stone told Harry Lewis, the respondent's shipping clerk, that those employees who had testified at the hearing would not be retained. On April 1, 1938, the day after the hearing, David Pearlstone berated Schaefer stating that thereafter he wanted the "very peak of production." Schaefer asked Pearlstone whether or not his pro- duction in the past had been satisfactory. Pearlstone admitted that his work in the past had been quite satisfactory, but stated, "since the hearing you might think you own the place. I want you to know I am going to be in the shop and watch you. I see you have 642 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD to be watched, too, and from now on I will be in the shop watching you all the time." Thereafter, Pearlstone, who had been the re- spondent's chief salesman, assumed most of the managerial duties formerly performed by Schaefer. As a result, Schaefer was reduced to the status of an ordinary employee. On or. about April 19, at the end of the day, David Pearlstone in- formed Schaefer that, since the plant was to be shut down, he need not report to work on the following day. William Wood, Theodore Renzi, and Martin Sievers, the other pressmen, were also given the same instructions. On the following day, however, Schaefer returned to the plant and discovered that it was in full production. David Pearlstone had completely taken over Schaefer's managerial duties, while Wood and Runzi's positions were taken by other employees. Sievers had evi- dently been recalled and was working. When Schaefer came into the shop David Pearlstone told him there was not "much doing." .Schaefer thereupon left the plant. When he returned on the follow- ing day, April 23, Pearlstone told him that there was no work for him. On April 24, 1938, the respondent inserted an advertisement in a local newspaper calling for applicants to fill the position of pressroom foreman. Schaefer noticed the advertisement and when he returned to the plant on May 2 to get his pay check he asked David Pearlstone if he had been discharged. Pearistone replied, "Well, not exactly, when we get work for you we will send for you." Just before Schaefer left the shop Isadore Pearlstone remonstrated with him con- cerning the "trouble" the Board and the Council had caused Schaefer. Before Isadore could elucidate upon the subject he was silenced by David Pearlstone. We find that the respondent discharged Charles Schaefer on or about April 19, 1938, for the reason that he gave testimony under the Act. We also find that the respondent by discriminating in regard to his hire and tenure of employment, thereby discouraged member- ship in a labor organization and interfered with, restrained, and co- erced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed by Sec- tion 7 of. the Act. At the time of the hearing Schaefer had secured steady employment at a printing establishment and was earning more than he had been earning while working for the respondent. He testified .that he did not desire reinstatement with the respondent unless it operated under union conditions. Schaefer earned approximately $500 from the date of his discharge to the date of his securing steady employment. William Wood began working for the respondent in the spring of 1936. He was employed as a pressman and was an efficient workman, PEARLSTONE COMPANY 643 being frequently complimented on his work by the respondent's officers. He was a member of Pressmen 's Union No. 6 and had au- thorized the Council to represent him for the purposes of collective bargaining. Wood testified at the first hearing as a witness for the Board. Immediately after the hearing the respondent began laying Wood off at odd hours during the day. This had not occurred previous to the hearing and was done despite the fact that there was work enough to keep him'occupied. On Friday, April 15, Wood began printing a 25,000-sheet job. After he had set up the presses and had run off a few sheets to see how the job was going to . run the workday ended. Wood left the job intending to complete it on the following Monday which was in accordance with his usual practice . When he returned to work on Monday the job was finished . Roy McCoy, a general maintenance employee, acting under the direct orders of David Pearl- stone, had completed the job. On Monday evening, April 18,, Wood, received a telegram ,froin, the respondent telling him not to report to work on the next day and requesting him to telephone before coming to work on April 20. Wood, however, believing that he had been replaced, came to the shop on April 20 without telephoning in advance . He discovered that McCoy and a new employee were operating the presses in his and Runzi's 2 stead. Wood thereupon requested an explanation for the change. David Pearlstone told him that he was discharged because of unsatisfactory work. . Wood had frequently been complimented with respect to his work and had never been advised by the respondent that his work was un- satisfactory. It is apparent that the respondent desired to rid itself of Wood because he had testified at the hearing and because of his membership in a labor organization. We find that Thomas Wood was discharged on or about April. 20, 19381 for having given testimony under the Act. We also find, that by the discharge the respondent discriminated in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of Thomas Wood thereby discouraging mem- bership in a labor organization and interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act. Wood obtained a part-time job as pressman on May 6, 1938. Ile desires reinstatement because of the steadier work and higher salary obtainable at the respondent 's plant. Since his discharge and. up to March 25, 1939 , Wood earned $1,248.61. Theodore Run-,?, began working for the respondent in the spring of'1937. He worked on the average of 41/2 days a week. Runzi was 2 The discharge of Runzi is considered below. 644 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD a member of Pressmen's Union No. 6 and on June 18, 1937, had au- thorized the Council to represent him for the purposes of collective bargaining. While he did not testify at the hearing of March 31, 1938, he was present during the proceeding. Immediately after the hearing the respondent started to lay off Runzi although production had not decreased. On April 1, 1938, the day after the hearing, he was laid off and was not recalled until April 4. He then worked 2 days and was again laid off. He was not re- called until April 11. On April 13, when he was again laid off, he was told to telephone in advance before coming to work. On April 15 Runzi telephoned as instructed and was informed by David Pearl- ;tone that there was no work and that he might as well stay home. On April 21 Runzi returned to the plant and pointing to a new employee who was operating a press asked David Pearlstone if he had been discharged. Although Pearlstone denied that he had been discharged he advised Runzi to look for other employment, telling him, "In the future when you are looking for employment, don't use the employees entrance, use the office." It is plain that Runzi was discharged because of his membership in the Pressmen's Union and his attendance at. the first hearing in this case. The reduction in his work immediately following the hearing and his discharge along with Schaefer and Wood find no other explanation in the record. We find that on or about April 15, 1937, the respondent discrimi- nated against Theodore Runzi in regard to the hire and tenure of his employment thereby discouraging membership in a labor organ- ization and interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act. Runzi obtained a position as a job pressman with the Prohaska Printing Company on July 27, 1938. However, at the hearing he expressed a desire to be reinstated because the respondent's plant was more accessible than the one in which he was working. C. The alleged refusal to bargain Representatives of the Council met with the respondent for the purposes of collective bargaining on July 1, 6, and 13, 1937. The allegation that the respondent refused to bargain collectively rests upon the respondent's attitude which it made manifest at these meetings.3 8 Two witnesses, John Warrington , president of the Council , and Edward Cloonan, representative of the Council , testified with respect to the alleged refusal to bargain. Our findings herein are based upon the testimony of Cloonan who apparently had more accurate information than Warrington, and who testified after having refreshed his recollection from the minutes of the meeting of the Council 's organizing committee. PEARLSTONE COMPANY 645 At the first meeting, which David Pearlstone attended on behalf of the respondent, representatives of the Council announced that the Council represented a majority of the production employees and left a form contract with him. Pearlstone stated that he would study the contract and the meeting adjourned. The subsequent conferences with David Pearlstone on July 6 and 13 are described by Cloonan as follows : We asked him what arrangements had been made in the in- terinm, if any, and we asked him if lie had studied over the terms of the contract and scale prices and he said he hadn't had time to study it and there was some conversation and while it was rather important, I can't recall it any more. Another en- gagement was made at that particular time to see Mr. Pearl- stone later. On July 13th Mr. Pearlstone's attitude was entirely different and I wouldn't say was friendly at the other meeting, but the last meeting was worse. We tried to 'come to some understanding with Mr. Pearlstone and couldn't get any and he said he was going to call his lawyer and his lawyer was out of town and he said he had sent to Washington for a copy of the National Labor Board Act or Wagner Act rather, and we said we could get a copy right here and he said he didn't want to have anything to do with this Board here and when we asked him what we were to do about it, he said he didn't know, we .could do as we pleased, he didn't care what we did. We ter- minated our conference with Mr. David Pearlstone and left there and came over and filed charges against him. On the same day the Council filed charges with the Regional Director. Later in the day another conference was arranged, this time with Isadore Pearlstone, the respondent's president. The con- ference was thus described by Cloonan : A.... We filed charges against him and a conference was arranged by the Regional Director here, and I don't know the senior Pearlstone's name, but he led us to believe at that conference that some arrangement could be worked out. He led us to believe the only thing that would hold up any future negotiations in the future, he would have to see the other two directors of the company. I don't know whether lie mentioned his wife at that time or not but he did mention his son. Q. Did he make any counter proposal to you? A. No, Sir, he merely asked for time. It seemed as if it was with the understanding to make arrangements to meet the con- ditions of the organizations. 646 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Q. Have you heard from Mr. Pearlstone since then? A. No, sir. Q. Have you attempted to see Mr. Pearlstone since then? A. No, sir, I haven't. Q. Do you know whether your committee has attempted to see him since then? A. No, sir, but I am certain that they haven't. On the basis, of the foregoing testimony we are not satisfied that the respondent refused to bargain collectively with the Council. Presumably the second conference on July 13 had cleared the path for further negotiations. No arrangements were made, however, for subsequent meetings, and the failure of the Council thereafter to request that negotiations continue remains unexplained in the record. Nor does it appear from Cloonan's testimony that the failure of the parties to arrive at an agreement during the conferences described above was attributable to any absence of good faith on the, part of the respondent. While the case is by no means free from doubt, we find that the evidence does not sustain the allegations of the complaint that the respondent refused to bargain collectively with the Council. It is therefore unnecessary to make findings with respect to the appro- priate unit or the representation by that Council of a majority of the employees therein. IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of the respondent set forth in Section III, A and B above, occurring in connection with the operations of the respondent described in Section I above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce. V. THE REMEDY We have found that the respondent, by its anti-union statements and in other ways, interfered with, restrained, and coerced its em- ployees in the exercise of rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act. We shall order the respondent to cease and desist from such practices. We have found that the respondent discriminatorily ^ discharged William Blank and Theodore Runzi. We have also found that the respondent discharged. Charles: Schaefer and William Wood for hav- ing given testimony under the Act. We shall therefore order the respondent to offer William Wood and Theodore Runzi immediate and full reinstatement to their former positions without prejudice to their seniority or other rights and privileges, and further, we shall PEARLSTONE CO âIPANY 647 order the respondent to make them whole for any loss of pay they have suffered by reason of their respective discharges by payment to each of them of a sum equal to the amount 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 4 during such period. Both Charles Schaefer and William Blank testified that they did not desire reinstatement., However, both are entitled to. back pay by'virtue of the'=respondent's',liirlawful acts in discharging them.' Accordingly, we shall order the respondent to make them whole for any loss of pay they may have suffered by reason of their respective discharges, by payment to each of them, respectively, of a sum equal to the amount which he would have normally earned as wages from the date of his discharge to the date on which he obtained the em- ployment in which he was engaged at the time of the hearing wherein he testified that he did not desire reinstatement, less his net earnings during said period. Since the evidence does not show that the respondent refused to bargain with the Council, we shall order the dismissal of that portion of the complaint which alleges a violation of Section 8 (5) of the Act. On the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following : CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1: Allied Printing Trades Council of St. Louis, Missouri, and each of the local unions which comprise its membership are labor organ- izations, within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act. 2. By discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of employ- ment- of William. Blank,. Theodore Runzi, Charles Schaefer, and William Wood, and thereby discouraging membership in a labor organization, the respondent has engaged in ' and is engaging in 4 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 TVorkers Union, Local 2.590, 8 N. L. R. B. 440. Monies received for work performed upon Federal, State, county, municipal, or other work-relief projects 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..goyernment or governments which supplied the funds for said work-relief projects. 5 Schaefer qualified his testimony by saying that he did not desire reinstatement unless the respondent operated under union conditions. Since these conditions were not pre- vailing at the time of his discharge we consider his testimony as tantamount to a refusal to accept reinstatement. Cf. Matter of Horace G. Prettyman, et al. and International Typographical Union, 12 N. L. R. B. 640. 'Matter of Skinner and Kennedy Stationery Company and St. Louis Printing Pressman's Union No. 6. Inc., et al., 13 N. L. R. B. 1186. 247383-40-vol. 16-42 648 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD unfair labor practices, within the meaning of Section 8 (3) of the Act. 3. By discharging Charles Schaefer and William Wood for having given testimony under the Act, the respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices, within the meaning,of- Section 8 (4) of the Act. 4. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices, within the meaning of Section 8 (1) of the Act. 5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce, within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. 6. The respondent has not engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (5) of the Act. ORDER Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and conclusions of law, and pursuant to Section 10 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the respondent, Pearlstone Company, doing business as Pearlstone Print- ing & Stationery Company, St. Louis, Missouri, and its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall: ° 1. Cease and desist from : (a) Discouraging membership in Allied Printing Trades Council, or any of its affiliates, or any other labor organization of its em- ployees, by discriminating against its employees in regard to hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment; (b) Discharging or otherwise discriminating against any of its employees for giving testimony under the National Labor Relations Act ; (c) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of the right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted activity for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, as guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will effectuate the policies of the Act : (a) Offer to William Wood and Theodore Runzi immediate and full reinstatement, respectively, to their former positions without prejudice to any rights and privileges previously enjoyed by them; (b) Make whole William Wood and Theodore Runzi for any loss of pay they have suffered by reason of their discharge by payment PEARLSTONE COMPANY 649 to each of them, respectively, of a sum equal to that- which each would normally have earned as wages from the date of his discharge to the date of the offer of reinstatement, less his net earnings dur- ing such period ; provided, however, that the respondent shall deduct from the amount otherwise due td each of the said employees, monies received by said employees during. such period' for work performed upon Federal, State, county, municipal, or other work-relief proj- ects, and pay over the amount, so deducted, 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; .(c) Make whole William Blank and Charles Schaefer for any loss of pay they have suffered by reason of their discharge by payment to each of them, respectively, of a sum of money equal to that which each would normally have earned as wages from the date of his discharge to the date upon which each of them started working steadily in the employment in which he was engaged at the time of the hearing wherein he testified that he did not desire reinstate- ment, less his net earnings during said period; provided, however, that the respondent shall deduct from the amount otherwise due to each of the said employees, 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 sup- plied the funds for said work-relief projects; (d) Post immediately in conspicuous places throughout its plant and maintain for a period of at least sixty (60) consecutive days, notices stating that the respondent will cease and desist in the man- ner aforesaid and that it will take the affirmative action set forth in 2 (a), (b), and (c) of this Order; (e) Notify the Regional Director for the Fourteenth Region within ten (10) days from the date of this Order what steps the respondent has taken to comply herewith. AND IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the allegation of the complaint that the respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (5) of the Act be, and it hereby is, dismissed. MR. WILLIAM M. LEISERSON took no part in the consideration O f the above Decision and Order.