Harvey Chalmers & Son, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 10, 1947

75 N.L.R.B. 434 (N.L.R.B. 1947)

In the Matter of HARVEY CHALMERS &-, SON, INC. and TEXTILE
WORKERS UNION OF AMERICA (CIO)
Case No. 3-C-08.-Decided December 10, 1947 -
Mr. Stanley D. Kane, for the Board.
Mr. H. Andrew Sclzlusberg, of Gloversville, N. Y., for the re-
spondent.
Mr. Harry Poze f slay, of Gloversville, N. Y., for the Union.
DECISION
AND
ORDER
On January 15, 1947, Trial Examiner Wallace E. Royster issued his
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the
respondent, Harvey Chalmers S, Son, Inc., had engaged in and was
engaging in certain unfair labor practices, and recommending that it
cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set
forth in the copy of the Intermediate Report attached hereto. There-
after, the respondent filed exceptions, a supporting brief, and a request
for oral argument 1 That request was granted by the Board on Janu-
ary 27, 1947, but was subsequently revoked on October 1, 1947. At
that time the Board specifically afforded the parties 20 days within
which to file supplemental briefs or written arguments setting forth
the matters which would have been covered in oral argument. A
supplemental brief in lieu of oral argument was thereafter filed by the
respondent, which objected to the revocation of oral argument.
The Board has considered the rulings of the Trial Examiner made
at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The
rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Inter-
mediate Report, the exceptions and briefs filed by the respondent, and
the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclu-
sions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner with the exceptions
and additions set forth below .2
1 Under Section 203 43 of the Rules and Regulations of the Board , the granting of oral
argument before the Board Members is discretionary.
2 The provisions of Section 8 (1) of the National Labor Relations Act, which the Trial
Examiner herein found were violated , are continued in Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act as
amended by the Laboi Management Relations Act, 1947.
75 N. L . R. B., No. 55.
434
HARVEY CHALMERS & SON, INC. 435
1. The Trial Examiner found that on June 7, 1946, Eleanor Lang-
ley, secretary to Harvey Chalmers, the respondent's president, dis-
tributed letters of resignation from the Union to the respondent's
employees after Chalmers had made a speech in which he announced
certain new employee benefits. The record reveals, and we find, that
these letters were distributed to the employees and signed by them
before that speech was made. We nevertheless agree with the Trial
Examiner's conclusion that the respondent's announcement of new
employee benefits constituted a violation of Section 8 (1) of the Act,
even though it was made after the employees concerned had withdrawn
from the Union.
The record supports the Trial Examiner's finding that on or about
May 31, 1946, Chalmers questioned employee Perfetti concerning the
latter's possession of Union authorization cards.3 Later that day,
he further questioned Perfetti concerning the surrender of those cards;
and on June 3, 1946, he conferred with his attorney and Perfetti in
an effort to reach an agreement whereby the latter would attempt
to induce his fellow employees to abandon the Union. With this
background, we conclude that the announcement of new employee
benefits on June 7, 1946, was intended to, and did, constitute a re-
ward for the employees' withdrawal from the Union, and that it was
also intended to insure against their rejoining the Union.4 In ad-
dition, we find that the circulation of the withdrawal letters by
Chalmers' secretary in itself constituted an independent violation
of Section 8 (1) of the Act.°
2. The Trial Examiner found that the respondent further violated
Section 8 (1) of the Act by depriving employee Perfetti of the op-
portunity to work a full schedule and overtime from approximately
June 1 to August 1, 1947, because of the latter's membership in and
activity on behalf of the Union. In consonance with this finding,
the Trial. Examiner recommended that Perfetti be made whole for
his loss of earnings during that period. He w-,ls in the respondent's
employ at the time of the hearing, so no question of reinstatement
is before us.
We agree that the record supports the Trial Examiner's finding,
but we do not adopt his recommended remedy. The record shows,
as the Trial Examiner found, that Perfetti, in his efforts. to bargain
individually, colluded with the respondent to deprive his fellow em-
ployees of their rights under Section 7 of the Act. Under the cir-
3 Inasmuch as the complaint herein does not allege that this interrogation constituted
proscribed activity within the meaning of Section 8 ( 1) of the Act , we make no ruling on
this point.
Matter of Automatic Screw Machine Company , 52 N. L . R. B. 488.
s Matter of Ames Harris Neville Company , 67 N. L . R. B. 422.
766972-48-vol. 75--29
436, , DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
cumstances , we are of the opinion that the purposes of the Act would
not be effectuated by ordering that Perfetti be made whole for his
loss of earnings.'
ORDER,
Upon the entire record in the case and pursuant to Section 10 (c)
of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board hereby orders that the respondent, Harvey Chalmers
Son, Inc., and its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Discouraging membership in Textile Workers Union of Amer-
ica (CIO), or in any other labor organization of its employees, by
disdriminatorily depriving any of its employees of the opportunity
to work a full schedule;
(b) Offering its employees benefits to persuade them to abandon
membership in or activity on behalf of Textile Workers Union of
America (CIO), or in any other manner interfering with, restraining,
or coercing its employees in the exercise of the right to self-organi-
zation, to form labor organizations, to join or assist Textile Workers
Union of America (CIO), or any other labor organization, 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 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) Post at its plant in Amsterdam, New York, copies of the notice
attached hereto, marked "Appendix A." I Copies of said notice, to
be furnished by the Regional Director for the Third Region, shall,
after being duly signed by the respondent's representative, be posted
by it immediately upon receipt thereof, and maintained by it for sixty
(60) consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including
all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reason-
able steps shall be taken by the respondent to insure that said notices
are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material;
(b) Notify the Regional Director for the Third Region in writing,
within ten (10) days from the date of this Order, what steps the
respondent has taken to comply herewith.
MEMBER GRAY took no part in the consideration of the above De-
cision and Order.
e Cf Matter of Thompson Cabinet Co , 11 N . L. R B. 1106.
In the event that this Order is enforced by decree of a Circuit Court of Appeals, there
shall be inserted in the notice , before the words "A Decision and Order," the words, "A.
Decree of the United States Circuit Court of Appeals, Enforcing
HARVEY CHALMERS & SON , INC. 437
APPENDIX A
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to a Decision and Order of the National Labor Rela-
tions Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National
Labor Relations Act, we hereby notify our employees that :
WE WILL NOT in any manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce
our employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization,
to form labor organizations, to join or assist TEXTILE WORKERS
UNION OF AMERICA (CIO) or any other labor organization, to
bargain collectively through representatives of their own choos-
ing, and to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of col-
lective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection.
All our employees are free to become or remain members of the
above-named union or any other labor organization. We will not
discriminate in regard to any term or condition of employment against
any employee because of membership in or activity on behalf of any
such labor organization.
HARVEY CHALMERS & SON, INC.,
By -------------------- -------------
(Representative ) (Title)
Dated------------------------
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof,
and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
INTERMEDIATE REPORT
Mr. Stanley D Kane, for the Board.
Mr. H. Andrew Schlnsberg, of Gloversville, New York, for the respondent.
Mr. Hairy Pozef'thy, of Gloversville, New York, for the Union.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon a charge duly filed June 10, 1946, by Textile Workers Union of America
(CIO), heieui called the Union, the National Labor Relations Board, herein
called the Board, by its Regional Director for the Third Region (Buffalo, New
York), issued its complaint dated October 31, 1946, against Harvey Chalmers &
Soar, Inc, Amsterdam, New York, herein called the respondent, alleging that the
respondent had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices affecting
commerce within the meaning of Section 8 (1) and 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 Union.
With respect to unfair labor practices , the complaint , as amended at the hear-
ing, alleged in substance that the respondent from on or about May 1, 1946. to the
date the complaint issued , attempted to bribe employees to abandon the Union
438 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
and to refrain from Union activity, expressed disappi oval of the Union; stated that
Union organization would result in no benefit to the employees, threatened eiir-
ployees with loss of employment if they assisted or became members of the Union,
compelled employees to sign letters revoking their Union membership, on or about
June 7, 1946, offered and gave its employees pay increases and other benefits for
the purpose of dissuading thei)i from joining or assisting the Union, and on or
about June 1, 1946, for a period of approximately 2 ionths, withdrew from one,
Jerome Perfetti, the privilege of working overtime and decreased his regular
working hours to his financial loss because of his membership in and activity
on behalf of the Union. The respondent's answer, dated November 18, 1946,
denied the commission of unfair labor practices.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held on December 2 and 3, 1946, in Amster-
dam, New York, before the undersigned, the Trial Examiner duly designated by
the Chief Trial Examiner The Board, the respondent, and the Union were repre-
sented by counsel and all 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 A motion by Board's counsel to conform
the pleadings to the proof in minor matters such as dates and names was granted
over the objection of counsel for the respondent. Counsel for each party argued
orally on the record and each was advised that he might file briefs and/or proposed
findings and conclusions with the undersigned. None has been filed
Upon the entire record in the case and from his observation of the witnesses,
the undersigned makes the following: -
FINDINGS OF FACT
I THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
Harvey Chalmers & Son, Inc, is a New York corporation having its principal
office and place of business in Amsterdam, New York, where it is engaged in the
design, manufacture, and sale of pearl and casein buttons During the 12-month
period preceding the hearing, raw materials having a value in excess of $25,000,
were shipped to the respondent from points outside the State of New York and
during the same period finished products having a value of more than $25,000,
were shipped by the respondent to points outside the State of New York The
respondent conceded, for the purpose of the hearing, that it is engaged in commerce
within the meaning of the Act.
IT. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED)
Textile Workers Union of America is a labor organization affiliated with the
Congress of Industrial Organizations,'admitting, to membership employees of the
respondent.
III THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
Interference, restraint, and coercion
Evidence in support of the allegations in the complaint. was adduced almost
entirely from the testimony of Jerome Perfetti, an employee of the respondent for
more than 20 years. Since the respondent called no witnesses and offered no
evidence, Perfetti's testimony is undenied. In argument, counsel for the respond-
ent urged that this testimony be disregarded, characterized Perfetti as a vague,
contradictory, and unreliable witness, and argued that no finding adverse to, the
HARVEY CHALMERS & SON, INC. 439
respondent should be based on his testimony. The undersigned has scrutinized
Pertetti's testimony and has come to the conclusion that it is worthy of belief.
It is found that Perfetti was a truthful witness: that his frequent inability to
recall precise dates and his occasional confusion as to the sequence of events
are not, under the circumstances, ind icia of untruthfulness or unwillingness to
describe completely and accurately the happenings about which he was questioned.
Generally, no attempt will be made herein to set forth the various conflicts in
dates arising in Perfetti's testimony. The undersigned is convinced, and there-
fore finds, that the happenings hereinafter described occurred in the sequence
given
Perfetti performed his task as a button counter in a room on the fourth floor
of the respondent's factory under Foreman Joe Dorn and Forelady Mary Hoag,
both of whom also supervised the work of the approximately 20 girls in the same
department. Perfetti, one of the more senior workers, earned approximately
$57 to $59 on a piece-work basis, by working about 48 hours a week. About May
15, 1946, Pertetti joined the Union and shortly thereafter suggested to Harvey
Chalmers, respondent's president, that he be granted a week's vacation with pay.'
Chalmers refused the request, stating that too great expense was involved, and
advised Perfetti to go back to work and "forget it." Within a few days, the
respondent hired- a number of boys, who became known in the plant as "com-
mandos." They were assigned to machines customarily serviced by Perfetti a
with the result that his opportunity to work was lessened and his earnings cur-
tailed. Perfetti complained to Foreman Joe Dorn that he was being "blocked-
off" from the machines lie normally would work and, when no promise of relief
ivas forthcoming, renewed his complaint to Harvey Chalmers and Superintend-
ent Fred Aber. Chalmers told him that he must accept the arrangements.
Perfetti continue(] to protest the use of "commandos" until Aber said "I got
something on you, I got something on you ; you are fired " 3 On Chalmers' sugges-
tion,-Perfetti returned to work and his discharge was never effectuated. On
returning to the sorting room, he related his experience to his Forelady, Mary
Hoag, and speculated on the reasons which would cause Aber to discharge him.
Hoag said she thought "it was something about the Union."
According to Perfetti, this led hun to question the security of his employment
and, reflecting upon his near escape from discharge after more than 20 years
of service, he initiated an organizing campaign for the Union among the em-
ployees in the sorting room. Apparently his activity came to the notice of the
respondent, for about May 31, 1946, he was called aside by Harvey Chalmers
and asked if he had any "blue cards"' in his pocket ; if so, how many ; and if
they were signed Later, in the same day, Chalmers again attempted to secure
the designation cards from Perfetti and sought to learn i pon what terms Per-
fetti would surrender them Perfetti stated that all he wanted was "security."
Chalmers then suggested a conference with respondent's attorney in which Per-
fetti concurred. Upon the assumption, apparently, that he and Perfetti would
reach agreement by which Perfetti would undertake to have the employees aban-
don the Union, Chalmers urged Perfetti to secure the return of the designation
cards immediately. Perfetti refused when Chalmers would not agree to ap-
broach each employee with him
I It is not found that Perfetti was on this occasion acting in behalf of other employees.
There is no evidence that "commandos" worked at other assignments
A few days before this occasion, Aber advised Perfetti not to be concerned about the
"commandos" as "there [was] going to be a lot of work from out West."
• Union authorization cards were printed on blue stock.
440 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
On the Monday following, June 3, Perfetti and Chalmers met with the latter's
attorney, Harry Borst. Perfetti reiterated his request that lie be made secure
in his employment and that lie be assured of a wage of $65 00 for a 40-hour
week. Either Borst, in Chalmers' presence, or Chalmers suggested that Per-
fetti might be given a chicken farm as compensation for leading the-employees
out of the Union. Perfetti protested that he did not seek a reward of such value.
After further bargaining, the respondent agreed to submit a contract to Per-
fetti's attorney embodying terms to which the respondent was agreeable. In
a day or two, Perfetti allegedly rejected what he considered to be an unsatis-
factory offer 6 from the respondent in this connection, having in the interim
come to the conclusion that he should receive a cash payment of $2.000. A form
of contract which was admittedly submitted by the respondent to Perfetti's
attorney is attached hereto as "Appendix A." 6 No contract resulted and, ap-
parently, no further negotiations took place between the respondent and Perfetti.
On June 7, 1946, Chalmers spoke to the employees in the sorting room during
working hours, telling them of the immediate institution of a paid vacation policy ;
the creation of a welfare fund at respondent's expense ; and other benefits more
fully described below. Following this, Chalmers' stenographer, Eleanor Langley,
gave to each employee a letter prepared for signature, in the following form :
AMSTERDAM, N. Y., June 7, 1946.
Mr. GERMANO PERFETTI,
66 James Street, Amsterdam, N. Y.
DEAR MR. PERFETTI: I herewith make formal request that you return to
me within twenty-four hours the C. I. O. application ticket which I signed.
The reason for this is that I wish to withdraw my signature. Please under-
stand that the law gives me the privilege of doing so.
Yours truly,
All who had designated the Union signed such letters, thus repudiating their
earlier action, and deposited them on Perfetti's machine. Later in the day, a
notice over the signature of Chalmers appeared on respondent's bulletin board
summarizing the newly offered employee benefits as follows
It has been the consistent policy of the new management insofar as financial
conditions enabled it, to continuously improve the conditions of the workers.
We have heretofore informed you of certain benefits that would be coining
to you. We are new very glad to notify you that we are able to give you
the following new benefits, which, we feel confident, will bring about ,the
spirit of cooperation which is so necessary to permit a company to operate so
successfully :
1. One (1) week's vacation with pay, the first week in July. The factory
will be closed for that week
2. We will create a welfare fund into which we will pay $250 00 a week
for one year. From the proceeds of this fund we will pay the following :
A. Five (5) paid holidays through the year.
B. A week's extra pay on November 29.
5 The undersigned sustained an objection by respondent' s counsel when counsel for the
Board sought to elicit testimony from Perfetti with regard to a form of contract allegedly
submitted by the respondent to Perfetti's attorney when no showing was made that the
document in question could not be produced and when it was not clear that Perfettl's
attorney, who allegedly received the writing from the respondent, was not available as a
witness.
6 Perfetti denied seeing this writing until shown to him on the witness stand.
HARVEY CHALMERS & SON, IN C. 441
C. We will purchase a group insurance policy, which policy will give to
the employees the following benefits:
(1) A life insurance policy of $1,000 00.
(2) if you are disabled by accident or nonoccupational sickness, you will
receive certain weekly benefits for a substantial number of weeks.
(3) Hospitalization benefits.
(4) -Surgery benefits up to $150 00 per operation.
HARVEY CHALMLERS & SON, INC
[ S igned] HARVEY CHALMERS.
Conclusions
The undersigned is convinced that Perfetti was an object for discrimination
because of his membership in and activity on behalf of the Union. The assign-
ment of "commandos" to work on machines which he had customarily operated,
within a few days after he became a Union member, with the result that his
earnings were materially lessened, is a circumstance which, standing unexplained,
gives rise to a reasonable interence of discrimination. At no prior time during
his more than 20 years of employment had his opportunity to work been similarly
curtailed and, so far as the record shows, no other employee was similarly affected.
No reason'for such discrimination is suggested in the record save that Perfetti
had joined the Union. On the very day that the "commandos" interfered with
his work opportunity, Superintendent Aber offered to discharge him and re-
marked "1 got somethn r on you " Forelady Hoag's expressed opinion that Aber
had reference to the Union, while of course not proof of such a conclusion, is
evidence that Perfetti's Union membership was no secret. The undersigned finds
that the respondent was aware that Perfetti was a Union member on the day of
these happenings.
Perhaps all this is susceptible of umoeent explanation Possibly witnesses
could have been produced by the respondent to refute Perfetti's testimony and
the adverse inferences :wising therefrom No such explanation was attempted,
however, and no such evidence was offered- The undersigned finds, therefore,
that from the period of approximately June 1 to August 1, 1946, Perfetti was
deprived of opportunity to work a full schedule-and deprived of opportunity to
work ovettune because of his membership in and activity on behalf of the Union
find flint the respondent Iliereby violated Section S (1) of the Act
Evidence of other N iolation. of the same section is equally clear and similarly
unretuted Unwilling to meet Perfetti's price to secure the repudiation of the
Union by the employees in the sorting room, the respondent resorted to more
direct action ; announced immediately the institution of the employee benefits
herembetore set forth ; and simultaneously circulated letters for signature where-
by the employees withdrew from the Union. Thus the respondent's objective was
accomplished Thus also, it is found, the respondent further violated Section 8
(1) of the Act.
In the somewhat peculiar congeries of incidents here recited, some further
rationalization ot'these findings is perhaps indicated. As has been found, Per-
fetti became a subject for discrimination when he joined the Union and then,
unexpectedly, found himself in a tactical position for individual bargaining.
The undersigned is convinced that although Perfetti's negotiations with the re-
spondent concerning a contract had for their purpose the securing to Perfetti of a
preferred position as an individual, they actually amounted, despite his protesta-
tions to the contrary, to collusion between Perfetti and the respondent to deprive
442 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the employees of their right under Section 7 of the Act, to be represented by an
agency of their own choice The fact that Perfetti was for a time willing to be a
party to such an arrangement ' does not remove the onus of the violation from the
respondent.
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 respondent described in Section 1, above,
have a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, tratl ic, and commerce
among the several States and such of them as have been found to constitute unfair
labor practices , tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce
and the free flow of commerce
V. THE REMEDY
S'ince it has been found that the respondent engaged in unfair, labor practices
within the meaning of Section 8 (1) of the Act, the undersigned will recommend
that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action in order
to effectuate the policies of the Act
Since it has been found that the respondent discriminated against Perfetti.by
depriving hnn of opportunity to work a full schedule from about June 1 to August
1, 1946, with the result that Perfetti's earnings were decreased during that period,
and since it has been found that the respondent was motivated in such action by
Perfetti's membership in and activity in behalf of the Union, it will be recorr
mended that the respondent make Perfetti whole for the loss he sustained thereby
by payment to him of a sum of money equal to that which he normally would have
earned less his net earnings ° during that period.
Other acts of the respondent which have been found to constitute unfair labor
practices coupled with the discrimination against Perfetti, indicate an attitude of
opposition to the purpose of the Act generally. That the order may be co-extensive
with the threat of future violations, it will be recommended that respondent-cease
and desist from violating the Act in any manner.10
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact, and upon the entire record in the
case, the undersigned makes the following:
CONCLUSIONS of LAW
1 Textile Workers Union of America (CIO) is a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act
2 By discriminating in regard to the conditions of employment of Jerome
Perfetti ; by offering preferred employment status to Perfetti in consideration of
his abandonment of union activity ; and by offering and granting benefits to
employees to persuade them to abandon the Union, the respondent discouraged
membership in Textile Workers Union of America (CIO), interfered with, re-
Peifetti denied that lie at any time had a purpose of acceding to the iespondent's plan.
The nndeisigned is pcisunded to a contrary conclusion
8 This particular aspect of respondent s unfair labor practices was not alleged to consti-
tute at violation of Section 8 (3) of the Act However, Board's counsel urged at the
opening of the hearing that Perfetti be made whole for this loss.
U Here net earnings would consist of his actual earnings for woik peiforined for the re-
spondent and any additional eainings made during hours when he noimally would have
been employed by i espondent
10 See D' L R B v E:rpress Publishing Company, 312 U S 426.
HARVEY CHALMERS & SON, INC. 443
strained, and coerced its employees tit the exercise of the rights guaranteed in
Section 7 of the Act, and thereby engaged in unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section S (1) of the Act.
3 The aforesaid unfair laboi practices are unfair labor practices affecting
commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and conclusions of law and upon
the entire record in the case, the undersigned hereby recommends that the
respondent, Harvey Chalmers & Son, Inc, Amsterdam, New York, its officers,
agents, successors, and :issigns shall :
1 Cease and desist from :
(a) Discouraging inembeisli p in Textile Workers Union of America (CIO)
or in any other labor organization of its employees by discriminatorily depriving
them. or any of them, of opportunity to work a full schedule;
(b) Offering employees benefits to persuade them to abandon membership
in or activity on behalf of Textile Workers Union of America (CIO) or iu any
other manner interfering with, restraining , or coercing its employees in the
exercise of their right to self-organization, to form labor organizations, to join
or assist Textile Workers Union of America (CIO), or any other labor organi-
zation , to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing,
and to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining
or other niutual aid or protection, as guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action, which the undersigned finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Make Jerome Perfetti whole for any loss of pay he may have suffered by
reason of the discrimination by the iespondent against hun by payment to him
of a snip of money equal to that, which lie normally would have earned as wages
during the period of disci unination less his net earnings during that period;
(b) Post at its plant in Amsterdam, New York, copies of the notice attached
hereto marked "Appendix Il " Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the
Regional Dnectoi foi the Thud Region shall, after being duly signed by the
respondent, be posted by it uuinediately upon receipt thereof, and maintained
by it for sixty (60) con.ecutive dais thereafter, iu conspicuous places, including
all places where notices to employees customarily ate posted; Reasonable steps
shall be taken by the iespondent to insure that said notices are not altered,
defaced. or covered by any otbei material ;
(c) Notify the Regional 1)irectoi for the Third Region within ten (10) days
from the receipt of thus Intermediate Report what steps the respondent has taken
to comply hereN,% itit
It is further recommended that unless on or before ten (10) clays from the
date of the ieceipt of this Intermediate Report, the respondent notifies said
Regional Director tit writing that it will comply with the foregoing recom-
mendations, the National Libor Relations Board issue an order requiring the
respondent to take the action aforesaid
As pi o1 ided iii Section _O3 9 of the Rules and Regulations of the National
Labor Relations Board, Sei tea 4, effective September 11, 1946, any party or
counsel for the Board may, within fifteen (15) clays from the date of service
of the order transferiuiy the case to the Board, pursuant to Section 203.38 of
said Rules and Regulations, file with the Board , Rochambeau Building, Wash-
ington 25, D. C., an original and four copies of a statement in writing setting
444 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
forth such exceptions to the Intermediate Report or to any other part of the
record or, proceeding (including rulings upon all motions or objections) as he
relies upon, together with the original and four copies of a brief in support
thereof; and any party or council for the Board may, within the same period,
file an original and four copies of a brief in support of the Intermediate Report
Immediately upon the filing of such statement of exceptions and/or briefs, the
party or counsel for the Board filing the same shall serve a copy thereof upon
each of the other parties and shall tile a copy with the Regional Director.
Proof of service on the other parties of all papers filed with the Board shall be
promlitly made as required by Section 203 65. As further provided in said
Section 203.39, should any party desire permission to argue orally before the
Board, request therefor must be made in writing to the Board within ten (10)
days from the date of service of the order transferring the case to the Board.
Dated January 15, 1947.
APPENDIX A
NVALLACE E. RoYSTER.
Trial Eiaminer.
THIS AGREEMENT made this ----- day of June, 1946, between HARVEY CHALMERS
& Solo, INC., a domestic corporation organized and existing under the laws of the
State of New York with its principal office located in the City of Amsterdam,
Montgomery County, New York, party of the first part, and GERMANO PERFETTI,
of 66 James Street, in the City of Amsterdam, Montgomery County, New York,
party of the second part.
WHEREAS, the second party has been in the employ of first party in the City of
Amsterdam for more than twenty (20) years and has held, during said time, the
position-of button counter in first party's mill in the City of Amsterdam, and dur-
ing said time, the relationship between said parties has been on a friendly basis
and the second party has always been courteous to, and faithfully carried out the
orders of, the officials and supervisory personnel of first party and
WHEREAS, second party has lately become concerned about the permanency of
his said position with first party and
WHEREAS, first party recognizes the ability of second party to perform his said
work as button counter and his courteous conduct and willingness to faithfully
carry out the orders of the officials of first party and its supervisory personnel,
and being desirous of having second party continue his said work, as he has in the
past and of relieving the concern of second party and of assuring second party a
permanent position as a button counter in its said mill as far as it is able and
within the limitations as hereinafter specified, the parties hereto do mutually
agree as follows : ,
First party shall continue to employ second party as a button counter at its
Amsterdam mill for such period of time as second party efficiently performs such
work, and shall pay him at the same wage rate as be now receives, except that,
in the event that the wage rate of employees in the Amsterdam mill of first party
shall increase or decrease, the wage rate of second party shall be increased or
decreased in the same percentage. Second party shall receive the same benefits
as first party shall grant to its other employees at Amsterdam, including vacations
with pay and participation in a welfare fund and other benefits, if, when and for
such periods of time as such benefits shall be granted by first party to its employees.
The said employment of second party by the first party shall be subject to the
following limitations:
HARVEY CHALMERS & SON, INC. 445
First party shall be under no obligations to pay second party, except when the
type of work now performed by second party is used by first party in its Amster-
darn mill and only for work actually performed by second party. First party shall
be under no obligation to employ second party at said work when its said mill
at Amsterdam is not in operation, or in the event that a new method of button
counting comes into use, so that the type of work now performed by second party
in the counting of buttons is discontinued by first party, or if for any other reason
the work now performed by second party for the counting of buttons is not used
by first party at its Amsterdam mill.
Second party agrees to faithfully and efficiently to perform said work and to
be courteous to, and obey the orders of, the officials and supervisory personnel of
first party.
It is further agreed that this contract shall terminate if second party is unable
to, or refuses for thirty (30) days to perform his said work.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the first party has caused its corporate seal to be here-
unto affixed and this agreement executed by its President the day and year first
above written and second party has signed this agreement and affixed his seal
thereto the day and year first above written.
HARVEY CHALMERS & SON, INC.,
By ------------------------------------
(President)
STATE OF NEW YORK,
County of Montgomery, ss:
City of Amsterdam,
On this ------ day of June, Nineteen Hundred and forty-six before me per-
sonally came HARVEY CHALMERS 2nd, to me personally known, who, being by me
duly sworn, did depose and say that he resides in the City of Amsterdam, New
York, that lie is the President of HARVEY CHALMERS & SON, INC., the corporation
described in, and which executed, the within instrument ; that he knows the seal
of said corporation; that the seal affixed to said Instrument is such corporate
seal ; that it was so affixed by order of the Board of Directors of said corporation;
and that he signed his name thereto by like order.
------------------------------------
STATE OF NEw Yolix,
County of Montgomery, ss:
City of Amsterdam,
(Notary Public)
On this ------ day of June, Nineteen Hundred and forty-six, before me, the
subscribed, personally appeared GERMANO PERFETTI, to me personally known and
known to me to be the same person described in and who executed the within
Instrument and he duly acknowledged to me that he executed the same.
(Notary Public)
APPENDIX B
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the recommendations of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor
Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, we hereby notify our employees that:
WE WILL NOT in any manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our em-
ployees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to form labor or-
446 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ganizations , to join or assist TEXTILE WORK E RS UNION OF AMERICA ( CIO), or
any other labor organization , 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 or protection
WE WILL make Jerome Perfetti whole for any loss of pay suffered as a re-
sult of-the discrimination against hint
All our employees are free to become or remain members of the above-named
union or any other labor organization . We will not discriminate in regard to
any term or condition of employment against any employee because of member-
ship in or activity on behalf of any such labor organization.
HARVEY CHALMERS & SON, INC.,
By ------------------- -----------
(Representative ) ( Title)
Dated ------------------------
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof , and must not
be altered , defaced, or covered by any other material.