Jackee Manufacturing Co.

In the Matter of GEORGE STANTON AND IRVING SILVERMAN, DOING BUSINESS UNDER THE NAME AND STYLE OF JACKEE MANUFACTURING Co. * and INTERNATIONAL LADIES' GARMENT WORKERS UNION,- LOCAL 220 Case No. C-1485.-Decided May 31, 1940 Garment Manufacturing Industry-Interference, Restraint, and Coercion: anti-union statements ; threats to close the plant if the employees continued their membership in the Union-Unit Appropriate for Collective Bargaining: all. inside production employees , excluding clerical and supervisory employees, shipping clerks, salesmen , and designers-Representatives: proof of choice: authorizations and membership cards signed by majority in unit-Collective Bargaining : refusal to recognize the Union as exclusive bargaining agent or negotiate with its representatives-Discrimination: discharge for union mem- bership and activity-Reinstatement Ordered: employees discriminated against- Back Pay: awarded employees discriminated against. Mr. Millard L. Midonick, for the Board. . Mr. George Stanton and Mr. James J. Horbatlcin, of New York City, and Mr. Philip Sammeth, of Brooklyn, N. Y., for the re- spondents. Isserman, Isserman cfr Kapelsohn, by Mr. Abraham J. Isserman and Mr. Sol D. Kapelsohn, of Newark, N. J., for the Union. Mr. Ray Johnson, of counsel to the Board. DECISION AND ORDER STATEMENT OF THE CASE Upon charges and amended charges duly filed by International Ladies' Garment Workers Union, Local 220, herein called the Union, the National Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board, by the Regional Director for the Second Region (New York City), issued its complaint dated December 7, 1939, against George Stanton and Irving Silverman, doing business under the name and style of Jackee Manufacturing Co., Jersey City, New Jersey, herein called the respondents, alleging that the respondents had engaged in and were engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce, within 24 N. L. R. B., No. 13. 252 JACKEE MANUFACTURING Co. 253 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. A copy of the complaint , accompanied by notice of hearing, was duly served upon the respondents and the Union. In respect to the unfair labor practices , the complaint, as amended, alleged in substance ( 1) that all inside production employees, em- ployed at the respondents' Jersey City plant, excluding office, clerical, .and supervisory employees, constitute a unit appropriate for the pur- poses of collective bargaining ; (2) that on August 10, 1939, and at all times thereafter, a majority of the respondents' employees in said unit had designated the Union as their exclusive representative for the purposes of collective bargaining ; (3) that on August 14, 1939, and at all times thereafter , the respondents refused to bargain with the Union as the exclusive representative of employees in the appro- priate unit; (4) that the respondent discharged Marie Calabrese on August 25, 1939, and Terry Turman and Catherine Ruggano on August 28, 1939, and thereafter refused to reinstate them because they joined and assisted the Union , and engaged in concerted activi- ties with other employees of the respondents for the purposes of col- lective bargaining and other mutual aid and protection; (5) that the respondents urged, persuaded , and warned their employees to refrain from becoming or remaining members of the Union, threatened them with discharge and other reprisals if they became or remained mem- bers of the Union, threatened to close their Jersey City plant if they became or remained members of the Union, or insisted on the re- spondents' compliance with the terms and conditions of employment embodied in a contract entered into by the respondents and the Union on August 16, 1939; and (6) that by the foregoing , and by other acts, the respondents interfered with, restrained, and coerced their employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. On December 20, 1939, the respondents filed an answer to the com- plaint admitting that they had discharged Calabrese and Ruggano and that they had refused to reinstate them and Torman, but denying the remaining allegations of the complaint, and denying that they had engaged in unfair labor practices. Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held on January 8 and 9, 1940, at New York City, before William B. Barton, the Trial Examiner duly designated by the Board . The Board and the Union were rep- resented by counsel, and the respondents by a representative ; all par- ticipated in the hearing. Full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses , and to introduce evidence bearing on the issues was afforded all parties . During the hearing, counsel for the Board moved to dismiss the complaint in so far as it alleged that 254 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD the respondents discriminatorily discharged Marie Calabrese. The Trial Examiner granted the motion. At the close of the hearing the respondents moved to dismiss the complaint. The Trial Ex- aminer reserved ruling on the motion, and in his Intermediate Re- port denied it. During the course of the hearing the Trial Examiner made several rulings on other motions and objections to the admis- sion of evidence. The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner and finds that no prejudicial errors were committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. On February 6, 1940, the Trial Examiner filed an Intermediate Report, copies of which were duly served upon all parties, finding that the respondents had engaged in and were engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8 (1), (3), and (5) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. He recommended that the respondents cease and desist from engaging in unfair labor practices, that they offer reinstatement with.back pay to Terry Torman and Catherine Ruggano, and that, upon request, they bargain collectively with the Union. Thereafter the respondents filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report, a brief in support thereof, and a request for oral argument before the Board. The respondents subsequently waived oral argument. The Board has considered the exceptions to the Intermediate Report and the respondents' brief in support thereof and, in so far as the exceptions are inconsistent with the findings, conclusions, and order set forth below, finds no merit in them. Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following : FINDINGS OF FACT I. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENTS The respondents are a co-partnership engaged in the manufacture, sale, and distribution of children's and infants' wear. They own and operate a plant in Jersey City , New Jersey, and maintain an office -in New York City. The respondents normally employ approxi- mately 30 persons. During 1939 the respondents purchased for use at their Jersey City plant raw materials consisting of cotton threads and textiles valued at $25,000, approximately 75 per cent of which originated outside the State of New Jersey. During the same period the respondents manufactured goods valued at $60,000, approximately 75 per cent of which were shipped to points outside the State of New Jersey. The respondents admit that they are engaged in interstate com- merce, within the meaning of the Act. • JACKEE MANUFACTURING CO. II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED 255 International Ladies' Garment Workers Union, Local 220, is an unaffiliated labor organization. It admits to its membership all inside production employees employed at the respondents' Jersey City plant, excluding clerical and supervisory employees, shipping clerks, salesmen, and designers. M. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. The sequence of events During the summer of 1939 the respondents' employees became dissatisfied with their working conditions. On August 2 they met to formulate a plan for organizing a union. At this meeting Cath- erine Ruggano was appointed to communicate with the Union for the employees. On the following day Ruggano telephoned the Union's offices in Newark, New Jersey, and arranged for an organizer to meet with representatives of the employees on August 9. After working hours on August 9 the employees met a second time and appointed four of their number, including Ruggano and Terry Tor- man, to meet with the union organizer that evening. On the eve- ning of the same day, the four representatives selected by the em- ployees met with Josephine Del Vecchio, the union organizer, at the home of Ruggano and decided to strike the following morning. At 10 a. m. on August 10, 28 of the respondents' 31 production employees carried the strike into effect. Immediately after the strike began the striking employees went to the office of the Union in Jersey City and signed authorization cards designating the Union as their collec- tive bargaining representative. Shortly afterwards a picket line was established at the plant, the strike continuing for about a week. Dur- ing the strike Irving Silverman, one of the respondents, stated to a group of employees on the picket line that they "were foolish to bother with a union." On August 14, during the period of the strike, the employees met and elected Ruggano shop chairlady and Torman assistant shop chair- lady. On the same day, Ruggano, Torman, and Sadie Reisch, the union manager, met in a conference with the respondents to discuss the grievances of the strikers. During this conference George Stan- ton, one of the respondents, stated in the presence of Torman and Ruggano that the employees should have brought their grievances to his attention before affiliating with a union. Reisch testified that during this conference Stanton also stated that "he could not afford to have a union shop," and asked her to have the employees return to work without union recognition. Stanton denied stating that he 256 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD would close the plant before he would pay the "union scale," but in view of subsequent events, set out below, we do not credit his denial. Shortly after the termination of this conference Stanton telephoned Reisch twice stating that he intended to liquidate his business within a short time and repeating his request that the employees be returned to work without union recognition. Each time Reisch refused to grant the request and during the second telephone conversation sug- gested that Stanton discuss the matter with her superiors in New York City if her decision was not satisfactory. On August 15, 1939, Reisch, Stanton, and Horowitz, an executive of the Union, conferred at the New York offices of the Union. During this conference Stan- ton repeated his request that the employees be returned to work with- out union recognition, but Horowitz, like Reisch, refused to grant the request. On August 16 Stanton went to Reisch's office and stated that since he intended to liquidate his business within a short time, he was willing to negotiate "some sort of an agreement" in order to get the employees to return and complete the remaining work. On the same day the respondents and the Union entered into a contract settling the strike." The contract provided, inter alia, that the Union would be notified before any employee was discharged, and that the re- spondents would enter into a new agreement with the Union if they remained in business after August 30, 1939. On the same day the contract was executed it was ratified at a mass meeting of about 30 production employees. At the meeting a majority of these 30 em- ployees also signed applications for membership in the Union.2 The strike was accordingly terminated the following day. After working hours on Friday, August 25, a discussion occurred in the plant concerning the advisability of the employees signing a petition renouncing their affiliation with the Union. Torman and Ruggano testified that Philip Sammeth, a brother-in-law of Stanton, who represented the respondents at the hearing, initiated the dis- cussion and stated that he would have such a petition ready for the The provisions of this contract are as follows : It is hereby understood that Mr. George Stanton of the Jackee Mfg. Co. . . . is going out of business as soon as he completes work on band in the factory. It is, therefore, agreed that the workers return to finish the work on hand in the factory under the following conditions. 1. No worker shall receive less than $14.00 per week ; or 35¢ per hour, during the entire time of completion of the work. Time and one-half for overtime. 2. No worker shall work more than 40 hours per week. 3. No worker shall be discharged without good and sufficient reason and without first notifying the Union office. Should the above firm decide , after a period of two weeks to remain in business, It obligated itself to sign an agreement with the International Ladies' Garment Workers Union. 2 The Union introduced In evidence 31 application cards. A majority of these cards were signed on August 16, but some were signed subsequent to August 16. JACKEE MANUFACTURING CO. 257 signature of the employees on Monday, August 28. Both Stanton and Sammeth denied this testimony and stated that the discussion was initiated by one of the employees, and that they advised her that this was a matter solely for the decision of the employees, and that if such a petition were drawn, it must be without the assistance of the respondents. It is unnecessary, for the purposes of this de- cision, to resolve the conflict in the testimony as to who initiated the discussion concerning the petition.3 It is clear from all of the testimony that such a discussion took place. On the same afternoon, Stanton informed Torman that in the future Silverman would assume the duties of foreman and that she would be demoted from forelady to machine operator.4 Stanton testified that when he informed Torman of her demotion, she re- plied "that under no circumstances would she go to work as an operator." Torman denied making the statement attributed to her by Stanton and testified that she informed him she would resume work as an operator on August 28, the next working day. Stanton admitted that it was his "impression" that Torman was to return to work as an operator on August 28. In view of Stanton's admis- sion, we find that Torman informed the respondents that she would return to work as an operator on August 28 .5 On August 26 Torman informed Palangio, a union organizer, of the discussion regarding the petition which had occurred the preceding day. Palangio instructed Torman to communicate with Ruggano, the shop chairlady, and for both Torman and the chairlady to meet him on August 28. On the morning of August 28, Ruggano and Tor- man met Palangio and went to a restaurant about a block from the plant for breakfast. While they were in the restaurant Stanton came in and noticed the three seated in a booth. Stanton denied that he knew the identity of Palangio, but the evidence shows that during the period of the strike Stanton entered the plant several times while Palangio was on the picket line directly in front of the plant. We find that Stanton knew that Palangio had been active for the Union during the period of the strike. On the same morning Ruggano, Torman, and Palangio went to Reisch's office in Newark, New Jersey, to ascertain whether the em- ployees "had a right" to refuse to sign such a petition as had been discussed the preceding Friday. Reisch informed Torman and Rug- gano that they should have reported to work instead of coming to see her and sent them back to the plant. Ruggano and Torman arrived The Trial Examiner also found it unnecessary to resolve this conflict in the testimony. 4 Torman was promoted to the position of forelady on August 21, 1939. 5 The complaint does not allege that Torman's demotion was discriminatory. 258 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD at the plant about 1 p. m., but were instructed to wait outside the plant until Stanton arrived .13 When Ruggano and Torman saw Stan- ton at about 2 p. m. and asked if they might return to work, Stanton replied, "No you quit." Ruggano and Torman explained that they had not quit, but Stanton characterized them as "troublemakers" and stated, "Take it any way you want. You're fired." In response to a telephone call from Torman and Ruggano, Reisch went to the plant the same afternoon and found the door locked. Reisch testified that when she knocked at the door it was opened by Silverman, who told her "that Mr. Stanton will have nothing to do with me and that he would have nothing to do with the troublemakers." During the same week Reisch returned to the plant and found the door locked. She knocked several times but received no response.' How- ever, she was able to speak to the employees as they emerged from the plant. When she asked why, in view of the substantial wage increase the Union had secured for them, they had apparently lost interest in the Union, the employees replied, "we -are not opposed to the union, but we do need the job badly and Mr. Stanton told us he would close up if we continued belonging to the union and if we want more than 25 cents an hour." 7 Stanton denied that he ever declared to his employees an intention of closing his plant if they 'continued their membership in the Union, but testified that the re- spondents intended to liquidate their business as soon as they could conveniently do so. On cross-examination, however, Stanton admitted that the demands made by the Union were responsible for the respond- ents' decision to liquidate their business. In view of this admission, the respondents' open hostility to the organization of their employees, their numerous statements that they "could not afford a union shop," and their requests to the Union that the strike be terminated without union recognition, we find, as did the Trial Examiner, that Stanton made the statements attributed to him by the employees. Reisch testified that on August 29 she telephoned Stanton at the New York offices of the respondents, and that after she revealed her identity, she was informed by Silverman that Stanton was out and that the respondents would "have nothing to do with me." Reisch re- quested that Stanton call her, but Stanton did not respond to this request. Reisch further testified that during the same week she made several other attempts to communicate with Stanton by telephone but that Silverman told her each time that Stanton was out and that the 6 Torman and Ruggano were instructed to wait outside the plant by the "cutter." Neither the identity of the "cutter" nor the nature of his duties is clear from the record. 7 Reisch testified that she asked about 25 employees, in a number of different groups, for an explanation of their apparent loss of interest in the Union and that they all made sub- stantially the same reply. JACKEE MANUFACTURING Co. 259. respondents would "have nothing to do with me." 8 Stanton testified that Silverman was never present at the respondents' New York office and therefore could not have answered the telephone when Reisch called. He stated further that he spent most of his time at the New York office of the respondents, that during his absence his secretary was always present, and that no telephone call from Reisch was re- ceived. Silverman was not called to deny the alleged telephone con- versations. The Trial Examiner credited the testimony of Reisch as to the telephone conversations. We find that Silverman made the statements attributed to him by Reisch. In spite of their numerous threats to close their plant or to liquidate their business, the respondents are still operating." B. The discriminatory discharges As noted above, Ruggano and Torman held the offices of shop chairlady and assistant shop chairlady in the Union, respectively. Ruggano was responsible for securing the services of the union organ- izer for the respondents' employees, and both Torman and Ruggano were members of the committee. which met with the organizer on August 9 and decided to call the strike. During the period of the strike, Turman and Ruggano met with the respondents to discuss the grievances of the employees, and on the day of their discharge took the initiative in attempting to frustrate the circulation of an anti-union petition such as had been suggested on August 25. The record shows that Ruggano and Torman were the leaders of the movement to organ- ize the respondents' employees, and were so considered by the respond- ents. The respondents contend that the failure of Torman and Ruggano to report to.work on time on August 28 "clearly constituted justifiable cause for discharge." 10 It is not disputed that Torman and Ruggano 8 Reisch testified that her conclusion that Silverman answered the telephone each time was based upon the fact that on one occasion someone, purporting to be Silverman, an- swered the telephone and that it was the same voice each time . Roisch first testified that she called the respondents ' plant but the record discloses that there is no telephone in the plant and that Reisch 's secretary called a number which Stanton left . This number is on a New York exchange and presumably is the New York office of the respondents. 9 At the time the hearing concluded , on January 9, 1040 , the respondents were still oper- ating, at the same location. Although the respondents filed'a brief with the Board as late as April 8 , 1940, they made no contention that their plant was closed or that their business had been or was going to be liquidated. ?o In their answer to the complaint the respondents denied that they had discharged Tor- man. This denial was apparently based on the contention that Torman quit her job on August 25 when she was demoted from the position of forelady to that of machine operator. We have found above that Torman did not quit her job on August 26, but informed the respondents that she would return to work as an operator on August 28. Although the respondents' answer admitted that Ruggano was discharged , Stanton testified that when he saw Torman and Ruggano in the restaurant on August 28 after work had begun at the plant, he assumed that they had quit. As noted above , however,. when Torman and Rug- 260 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD failed to report for work on time on August 28 or that such failure "constituted justifiable cause for discharge."' The determination of whether or not their failure to report for work on time was the reason for their discharge remains to be considered. When Torman and Ruggano reported for work on the afternoon of August 28, the respondents refused them employment on the ground that they had quit. Only after Torman and Ruggano ex- plained that they had not quit did the respondents take the position that they were discharged. While discharging them, Stanton char- acterized them as "trouble makers." Later in the afternoon when Reisch attempted to secure their reinstatement, Silverman referred to them as "trouble makers." In view of the activity of Torman and Ruggano as leaders for the Union and the lack of other explanation for their characterization by Stanton and Silverman as "trouble makers," we find that the respondents, by such remarks, criticized Torman and Ruggano because of their union membership and activi- ties. The respondents could name only one other employee who had been discharged for being absent from work without permission, and it is conceded that this employee was subsequently offered reinstate- ment. In view of all the evidence in the case, we are convinced that the motivating factor in the discharge of Torman and Ruggano was their activities in behalf of the Union, and that the respondents seized upon their absence from work as a pretext to rid themselves of the two most active union members in the plant. We find that the respondents, by discharging Terry Torman and Catherine Ruggano on August 28, 1939, and thereafter refusing to reinstate them, discriminated against them in regard to their hire and tenure of employment, thereby discouraging membership in the Union, and that by such acts the respondents interfered with, re- strained, and coerced their employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. Both Ruggano and Torman were earning $14.00 per week at the time of their discharge. At the date of the hearing Ruggano had earned $21.50 since her discharge and received $12.00 in unemploy- ment compensation benefits. Ruggano's employment, however, has gano sought to return to work on the afternoon of August 28 and explained that they had not quit, Stanton told them , "Take it any way you want . You're fired." It is clear from the respondents' brief that they are not now contending that Torman and Ruggano quit. We find that Torman and Ruggano were discharged by the respondent on the afternoon of August 28, 1939. Ruggano and Torman were employed by the respondents as machine operators in June and July 1939, respectively. The respondents do not contend that there was any lack of work at the time of the discharges or that the services of Ruggano and Torman were in any way unsatisfactory. As noted above, Torman was promoted to the position of forelady about 4 days prior to her discharge. Subsequent to the discharges the respondents gave both Torman and Ruggano a recommendation to aid them in securing other employment. JACKEE MANUFACTURING Co. 261 been irregular , varying, from 16 to 40 hours per week. Torman has had no employment since her discharge . They both desire rein- statement. C. The refusal to bargain collectively 1. The appropriate unit The Union requests a bargaining unit composed of all inside pro- duction employees employed at the respondents' Jersey City plant, excluding clerical and supervisory employees, shipping clerks, sales- men, and designers. Such a unit has been established in a number of contracts negotiated by the Union with other companies. The con- tract entered into between the respondents and the Union on August 16, 1939, covered the respondents' "workers." The respondents ex- cepted to the Trial Examiner's finding that the unit requested by the Union was appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining. However, they have cited no argument or evidence to show that such unit is inappropriate. In fact, no evidence was offered to show that the above unit is inappropriate. We find that all inside production employees employed at the respondents' Jersey City plant, excluding clerical and supervisory employees, shipping clerks, salesmen, and designers, at all times ma- terial herein constituted, and that they now constitute, a unit appro- priate for the purposes of collective bargaining and that said unit insures to employees of the respondents the full benefit of their right to self-organization and to collective bargaining and otherwise effectuates the policies of the Act. 2. Representation by the Union of a majority in the appropriate unit On August 10, 1939, the respondents employed about 31 inside production employees. At the hearing the Board introduced in evidence certain cards, authorizing the Union to represent the sign- ers for the purposes of collective bargaining, signed on August 9 and 10, 1939, by 28 of the respondents' employees. Between August 16 and 22, 31 inside production employees signed applications for membership in the Union. At the time of the hearing the respond- ents employed 18 inside production employees, 16 of whom had authorized the Union to represent them for the purposes of collective bargaining. We find that on August 10, 1939, and at all times thereafter, the Union was the duly designated representative of a majority of the employees in the appropriate unit, and pursuant to Section 9 (a) 283035-42-vol. 24-18 262 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD of the Act, was the exclusive representative of all the employees in such a unit for the purposes of collective bargaining in respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other conditions of employment. 3. The refusal to bargain The complaint alleges that on August 14, 1939, and at all times thereafter, the respondents refused to bargain collectively with the Union as the exclusive representative of the employees in the ap-' propriate unit. As noted above, at the conference with representa- tives of the Union on August 14, the respondents refused to recog- nize the Union, but sought to have the Union terminate the strike of their employees. This position was reiterated to the Union on three different occasions on August 14 and 15. On August 16 Stan- ton informed the Union that he intended to liquidate his business within a short time and that he was willing to negotiate "some sort of an agreement" in order to get the employees to return and com- plete the remaining work. The respondents and the Union then executed a contract which provided, among other things, that if the respondents should decide to remain in business after a period of 2 weeks they would sign an agreement with the Union. Stanton testified that he had never considered himself bound by the con-- tract and that his only purpose in executing it was to get the em- ployees to return to work. Both before and after August 30, when the contract expired," Reisch made several attempts to meet with the respondents. On each occasion she was informed by Silverman that the respondents would not negotiate with her.12 The -respond- ents are still operating their business 13 but have never concluded a new agreement with the Union. We find that when the respondents entered into the contract of August 16 they had no intention of abiding by it, and that the contract was only a ruse resorted to by the respondents for the purpose of breaking the strike. On August 28, 1939, shortly after Torman and Ruggano were discharged, Reisch went to the respondents' plant to bargain with the respondents relative to their reinstatement. Upon that occasion Reisch was informed by Silverman "that Mr. Stanton will have 1' The parties treated the contract of August 16 as being effective for a period of 2 weeks only. 12 Reisch 's testimony does not indicate that she asked the respondents to bargain with her, either upon the occasions when she called at the plant or when she telephoned the office. It is apparent , however, and we find , that her attempts to meet with the respond- ents , under the circumstances here present . could only have been viewed by the respondents as attempts to negotiate with them . It follows. therefore , that the respondents ' statement that they would have "nothing to do with " [her] constituted a refusal to negotiate. 13 See footnote 9, supra. JACKEE MANUFACTURING CO. 263 nothing to do with me and that he would have nothing to do with the trouble makers." We find that on August 14, 1939, and at all times thereafter, the respondents refused to bargain collectively with the Union as the exclusive representative of their employees in an appropriate unit with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other conditions of employment, and that the respondents have thereby' interfered with, restrained, and coerced their employees in the exer- cise 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, occurring in connection with the operations of the respondents de- scribed in Section I above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States, and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing com- merce and the free flow of commerce. THE REMEDY Having found that the respondents have engaged in certain unfair labor practices, we shall order them to cease and desist from such practices, and further, to take certain affirmative action which we .deem necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act. Having found that the respondents refused to bargain collectively with the Union as the exclusive representative of their employees within an appropriate unit, we shall order the respondents, upon request, to bargain collectively with the Union as such representative. We have found that the respondents, by discharging Catherine Ruggano and Terry Torman, discriminated against them in regard to their hire and tenure of employment. We shall therefore order the respondents to reinstate these employees to their former or sub- stantially equivalent positions without prejudice to their seniority and other rights and privileges, and to make them whole for any loss of pay they have suffered by reason of the discrimination against them by payment.to each of them of a sum of money equal to the amount she would normally 14 have earned as wages from the date of the discrimination against her until the date of the offer of re- instatement to her, less her net earnings 15 during such period. 14 Torman was ill and unable to work for a period of three weeks between the date of her discharge and the date of the hearing. Since she would not have earned anything during this period irrespective of the discrimination against her, the respondent is not required to reimburse her for her loss of wages during this period. 15 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- 264 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 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. International Ladies' Garment Workers Union, Local 220, is a labor organization, within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act. 2. By discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of Catherine Ruggano and Terry Torman, thereby discouraging mem- bership in International Ladies' Garment Workers Union, Local 220, the respondents have engaged in and are engaging in unfair labor practices, within the meaning of Section 8 (3) of the Act. 3. All inside production employees employed at the respondents' Jersey City plant, excluding clerical and supervisory employees, ship- ping clerks, salesmen, and designers, at all times material herein con- stituted, and they now constitute, a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining, within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act. 4. International Ladies' Garment Workers Union, Local 220, is and at all times since August 10, 1939, has been the exclusive representa- tive of all the employees in such unit, for the purposes of collective bargaining, within the meaning of Section 9 (a) of the Act. 5. By refusing, on or about August 14, 1939, and at all times there- after, to bargain collectively with International Ladies' Garment Workers Union, Local 220, as the exclusive representative of all their employees in such unit, the respondents have engaged in and are en- gaging in unfair labor practices, within the meaning of Section 8 (5) of the Act. 6. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing their employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the re- spondents have engaged in and are engaging in unfair labor practices, within the meaning of Section 8 (1) of the Act. 7. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce, within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. where than for the respondent, which would not have been incurred but for her unlawful discharge and the consequent necessity of her seeking employment elsewhere . See Matter of Crossett Lumber Company and United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of Amer- ica, 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 government or governments which supplied the funds for said work -relief projects . See Matter of Republic Steel Cor- poration and Steel Workers Organizing Committee, 9 N. L. R. B . 219, enf'd as modified as to other issues , Republic Steel Corporation v. N. L. R. B., 107 F. ( 2d) 472 (C. C. A. 3). JACKEE MANUFACTURING CO . 265 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 respond- ents, George Stanton and Irving Silverman, doing business under the name and style of Jackee Manufacturing Co., Jersey City, New Jersey, and their officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from : (a) Discouraging membership in International Ladies' Garment Workers Union, Local 220, or any other labor organization of their employees, by discharging or refusing to reinstate any of their em- ployees, or in any other manner discriminating against them in regard to their hire or tenure of employment or any terms or conditions of their employment ; (b) Refusing to bargain collectively with International Ladies' Garment Workers Union, Local 220, as the exclusive representative of all inside production employees employed at the respondents' Jer- sey City plant, excluding clerical and supervisory employees, shipping .clerks, salesmen, and designers; (c) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing their employees in the exercise of the right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in con- certed activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, as guaranteed in Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will effectuate the policies of the Act : (a) Upon request, bargain collectively with International Ladies' Garment Workers Union, Local 220, as the exclusive representative of all inside production employees employed at their Jersey City plant, excluding clerical and supervisory employees, shipping clerks, salesmen, and designers, with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other conditions of employment; (b) Offer to Catherine Ruggano and Terry Torman immediate and full reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent positions, without prejudice to their seniority and other rights and privileges previously enjoyed by them; (c) Make whole Catherine Ruggano and Terry Torman for any loss of pay they may have suffered by reason of the respondents' discrimination in regard to their hire and tenure of employment, by payment to each of them of a sum of money equal to that which she would normally have earned as wages from the date of such 266 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD discrimination against her to the date of the offer of reinstatement, less her net earnings 16 during such period; deducting, however, from the amount otherwise due to each of said employees monies received by said employee during said period for work performed upon Fed- eral, State, county, municipal, and 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; (d) Post immediately in conspicuous places throughout their Jer- sey City plant, and maintain for a period of at least sixty (60) con- secutive days from the date of posting, notices to their employees stating : (1) that the respondents will not engage in the conduct from which they are ordered to cease and desist in paragraphs 1 (a), (b), and (c) of this Order; (2) that the respondents will take the affirmative action required by paragraphs 2 (a), (b), and (c) of this Order; and (3) that the respondents' employees are free to become or remain members of the International Ladies' Garment Workers Union, Local 220, and that the respondents will not discriminate against any employee because of membership or activity in that organ- ization ; (e) Notify the Regional Director for the Second Region in writing within ten (10) days from the date of this Order what steps the respondents have taken to comply herewith. 16 See footnote 15, supra.