J. Chesler & Sons Company

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 2, 1939

13 N.L.R.B. 1 (N.L.R.B. 1939)

In the Matter of NATHAN CHESLER, REUBEN CHESLER, ABRAHAM CHES-
LER AND SAMUEL KALM, DOING BUSINESS UNDER THE NAME AND STYLE
OF J. CHESLER & SONS COMPANY and NovELTY MIRROR WORKERS"
UNION, LOCAL No. 7
Case No. C-800.-Decided June 2, 1939
Mirror, Hardware , and Related Products Manufacturing Industry-Interfer-
ence, Restraint , and Coercion: anti-union statements ; threats of discrimination ;
promise of higher pay ; questioning employees regarding union activities-
Espionage : surveillance of meetings , charges of, dismissed for want of evidence-
Discrimination : discharge ; for union activity-Testifying Under Act: in view
of findings of discriminatory discharge , unnecessary to decide whether state-
ments made constitute "testimony" within meaning of Section 8 (4) of the Act-
Reinstatement Ordered: discharged employee-Back Pay: awarded to discharged
employee-Unit Appropriate for Collective Bargaining: all employees , excluding
clerical and supervisory employees ; no controversy as to-Representatives: proof
of choice : consent election-Collective Bargaining: meeting with union repre-
sentatives but with no bona fide intent to reach an agreement ; refusal upon
request to discuss terms of a proposed collective bargaining agreement ; failure
to offer counterproposals; insistence that the union first organize the respond-
ents' competitors ; refusal to embody in a 30-day agreement conditions to which
no objections on the respondents ' part were raised ; respondent ordered, upon
request, to bargain with union , and if an understanding is reached , to embody
such understanding in a written signed agreement.
Mr. Jacob Blum, for the Board.
Mr. David 7'. Smith, of New York City, for the respondent.
Mr. John K. Odisho, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon charges and amended charges duly filed by Novelty Mirror
Workers' Union, Local No. 7, 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 com-
plaint dated April 16, 1938, against Nathan Chesler, Reuben Chesler,
Abraham Chesler and Samuel Kalm , doing business under the name
and style of J. Chesler & Sons Company, New York City, herein called
13 N. L. R. B., No. 1.
1
2 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the respondents, alleging that the respondents had engaged in and
were engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce, within
the meaning of Section 8 (1), (3), (4), and (5) and Section 2 (6)
and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein
called the Act.
The complaint and accompanying notice of hearing were duly
served upon the respondents and the Union. With respect to the
unfair labor practices , the complaint, as amended,' alleges in sub-
stance that the respondents (1) on and after August 19, 1937, refused
to bargain collectively with the Union although the Union had been
designated by the majority of the respondents' employees within an
appropriate unit as their representative for the purposes of collec-
tive bargaining ; (2) on or about July 28, 1937, discouraged member-
ship in the Union by discharging Joseph Barbera, an employee, be-
cause he had joined and assisted the Union; (3) so discharged said
Joseph Barbera for the additional reason that he had given testi-
mony under the Act; and (4) by the foregoing acts and refusals, by
urging, persuading , and warning their employees to refrain from
becoming members of the Union, threatening them with discharge
and other reprisals if they remained members of the Union, and
keeping under surveillance the meetings and meeting places of the
Union, interfered with, restrained, and coerced their employees in the
exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. The re-
spondents duly filed an answer to the complaint, in substance admit-
ting that all of the employees of the respondents' mirror department
in the respondents' Brooklyn plant exclusive of clerical and super-
visory employees constitute a unit appropriate for the purpose of col-
lective bargaining, and that the Union is and has been the exclusive
bargaining agent of employees of the respondent within such unit,
but denying the alleged unfair labor practices.
Pursuant to the notice, a hearing was held in New York City on
May 16, 17, and 18, 1938, before Charles E. Persons, the Trial Ex-
aminer duly designated by the Board. The Board and the respond-
ents were represented by counsel and participated in the hearing.
Full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses,
and to introduce evidence bearing upon the issues was afforded all
parties. The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner
upon motions and objections to the admission of evidence made at
'On March 10 , 1939, the Board , for the purpose of conforming the allegations of the
complaint to the proof adduced at the hearing , issued, and served upon the respondents, an
amendment to the complaint . On the same day the Board notified the respondents of
their right, within 10 days, to file an answer to the amended complaint , and granted the
respondents permission to submit , with such an answer , a request for a hearing and a
statement of the nature of the proof to be offered at such hearing . The respondents have
not filed an answer to the amended complaint nor requested a hearing thereon.
NATHAN CHESLER 3
the hearing and finds that no prejudicial errors were committed. The
rulings are hereby affirmed.
Pursuant to permission granted at the hearing by the Trial Ex-
aminer, the respondents filed a brief which the Board has considered.
On July 21, 1938, the Trial Examiner filed his Intermediate Report.
He found that the respondents had engaged in and were 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, but that the re-
spondents had not kept the meetings and meeting places of the Union
under surveillance, and recommended that the respondents cease and
desist from their unfair labor practices and, affirmatively, reinstate
Joseph Barbera with back pay, and, upon request, bargain collec-
tively with the Union. He recommended, further, that the complaint,
in so far as it alleges that by keeping the meetings and meeting places
of the Union under surveillance the respondents engaged in unfair
-labor practices, within the meaning of Section 8 (1) of the Act, be
dismissed. Copies of the Intermediate Report were duly served on
the respondents and the Union. No exceptions to the Intermediate
Report were filed.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENTS
The respondents are partners having their principal office and place
of business at Brooklyn, New York. They are engaged in the manu-
facture, sale, and distribution of mirrors, hardware, and related
products. The mirror and hardware operations are conducted on
separate floors of the same building and for all purposes are distinct
departments. This proceeding concerns the mirror department only.
Two-thirds of all the raw material, consisting of glass, brass, chem-
icals, and iron castings, purchased by the respondents from May 15,
1937, to May 14, 1938, came from points outside the State of New'
York. During the same period, finished products, consisting of
mirrors and clocks from the mirror department, and locks and knobs
from the hardware department, amounting in value to over $100,000,
were shipped to customers in all the States of the United States and
in foreign countries. At the hearing, the respondents stipulated that
they are engaged in interstate commerce, within the meaning of the
Act and, further, that they would not contest the jurisdiction of
the Board in this proceeding or in any court.
The respondents employ approximately 60 persons in their mirror
department.
4 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Novelty Mirror Workers' Union, Local No. 7, is a labor organiza-
tion affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, admitting to
membership all employees in the respondents' mirror department, ex-
cluding supervisory and clerical employees.
I III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Interference, restraint, and coercion
The Union started to organize the respondents' employees in the
spring of 1937. Almost immediately, J. Ferrarini, foreman of the
mirror department, indicated to the employees that the respondents
were intensely hostile toward the Union. A. Giri, an employee,
testified that after the Union had distributed circulars among the
respondents' employees in the early part of June, Ferrarini said to
him : "You know if you were in my place you would do the same
thing that I am doing. I have got to look out for the boss' interest,
and I have got to look out for my job, and I have got to see that
these papers don't go along and that they don't organize the shop
because the boss doesn't want the shop organized" ; that Giri made
a non-committal reply, whereupon Ferrarini said : "All right, but
it is going to be bad for you because the boss is going to find out
whether you are trying to organize, and that the first thing you
know, they are going to give you less time and lay you off." Giri
testified further that after J. Barbera's discharge on July 28, dis-
cussed below, Ferrarini said to him : "When the boss don't want you,
he always has got ways of getting rid of you."
J. Blumental, G. Aiosa, and C. Parletto, employees, testified that
during the summer of 1937, Ferrarini on several occasions ques-
tioned them about the Union, their affiliation, and the iidentity of
those responsible for the distribution of union circulars. Blumental
testified, in addition, that Ferrarini told him that he might as well
.forget about the Union because it would never win. Although Fer-
rarini denied the activities attributed to him, we do not credit his
denials. We find that he engaged in them substantially as testified
by Giri, Blumental, Aiosa, and Parletto.
Aiosa testified without contradiction that DiMicelli , assistant fore-
man, said to him: "What do you want to belong to the Union for?
You will never gain anything out of that. You might get a few more
dollars, but you won't like it much. You stick with us, and before
you know it you will get a good position."
Giri and J. Barbera testified that while the latter was changing
his clothes preparatory to leaving the respondents' plant after his
NATHAN CHESLER 5
discharge on July 28, S. Kalm, one of the partners, said to Ferrarini :
"If you hear anybody talk about the Union in the shop, let me know,
and I will throw them right out." Kalm denied having made this
statement. We credit Giri and Barbera's assertions over Kalm's
denial.
We find that the respondents, by the foregoing acts of Ferrarini,
DiMicelli, and Kalm, interfered with, restrained, and coerced their
employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of
the Act.
Although the complaint alleges that the respondents have kept
under surveillance the meetings and meeting places of the Union,
no evidence was introduced in support of such allegation. We find,
therefore, that the respondents have not kept under surveillance the
meetings and meeting places of the Union.
B. The discharge of Joseph Barbera
Joseph Barbera was employed by the respondents in September
1936 as a floorboy at $10 a week. He was laid off in November 1936
and called back in March 1937, at which time he was put to work
as a glass cutter and given a raise of $1. On June 14, 1937, he was
laid off for about 2 weeks, and on July 28, 1937, discharged. Shortly
before his lay-off, and again, shortly before his discharge Barbera
received an additional increase of $1 a week.
Barbera joined the Union early in May 1937, and thereafter became
active in union affairs, soliciting members, and distributing leaflets.
N. Chesler, one of the respondents, testified that he observed Barbera
on several occasions distributing handbills and soliciting employees
to join the Union. Barbera's union activity was thus known to the
respondents. Three or four other employees were laid off with
Barbera on June 14. Upon Barbera's return to work on about June
27, Ferrarini told him that his lay-off on June 14 resulted from the
respondents' mistaken belief that he had joined the Union. At the
time of his return to work Barbera was still a member of the Union,
and he continued his activities in its behalf.
On July 27, 1937, Barbera participated in a conference at the
Regional Office of the Board regarding the lay-off of T. G. LaBella,
one of the employees who had been laid off on June 14. In the
presence of N. Chesler, Barbera stated that the respondents had dis-
charged LaBella for his union activities. The next day Barbera
was discharged.
The testimony as to what occurred on the day of Barbera's dis-
charge is in sharp conflict. We find, however, that during the after-
noon Barbera was assigned to aid Samuel Agnello, an employee in
the silvering department, in an operation known as screening.
187930-39-vol. 13-2
6 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Agnello, having occasion to confer with Maurice Mernoff, office man-
ager, sent Barbera after him. As Barbera passed through the cut-
ting department he met Alois Landgraf, an employee, who requested
him to bandage Landgraf's injured arm. While Barbera was aiding
Landgraf, John Pyra, who at that time was engaged in sweeping
the cutting department, approached Barbera and questioned him re-
garding the Union. Barbera refused to enter into a discussion, sug-
gesting that Pyra see him after working hours. Shortly thereafter,
Kalm, one of the respondents, in the presence of Ferrarini,, the fore-
man, and DiMicelli, an assistant foreman, accused Barbera of talking
unionism to employees during working hours, and summarily dis-
charged him.
Ferrarini, who at the hearing accepted full responsibility for
Barbera's discharge, first testified that the sole reason for the dis-
charge was Barbera's violation of the plant rule forbidding employees
to leave their place of employment and move about among the de-
partments. He stated that this rule was based on the fact that car-
borundum, used in grinding and boring glass, if carried on the
clothing of employees moving about among the departments, is very
destructive to mirrors. Later, however, Ferrarini admitted that
Barbera "didn't violate anything that had to do with carborundum."
Ferrarini finally stated that Barbera was discharged for violating a
rule against talking to a man in another department. Aside from
Ferrarini's testimony which implies a rule so drastic as to be in-
credible,2 there is no evidence that the respondents required their em-
ployees to refrain from talking to one another, or from occasionally
leaving their posts. We think that the respondents used Barbera's
2 Ferrarini testified on cross-examination as follows :
Q. You didn't inquire as to why, he ( Barbera ) was in the cutting room?
A. I didn ' t have to ask him. He was out of his department.
Q. You didn 't know whether he had received permission to go to the lavatory
or not?
A. I am not interested in that. All I know is, he was out of his department.
He was talking to a man three or four minutes.
Q. You mean if a man received permission to go from his department to the lava-
tory, and you find him in the cutting room where he doesn 't belong, he is to be
discharged ?
A. Absolutely.
Q. Even though he got permission to go to the lavatory?
A. Absolutely . I fire him . . . If a man comes out of the toilet and is talking
to anybody in the department , I fire him. That is a strict rule.
Q. Even though the other party may have stopped him and did the talking?
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
I would fire him.
You would only fire the one?
Only the one.
You wouldn't fire the man who stopped him and did the alking?
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Because he belongs in that department.
Even though he did the stopping?
Yes, sir.
And you wouldn't inquire into further?
No.
NATHAN CHESLER 7
alleged violation as a pretext to discharge him. We find that the
respondents discharged Barbera because of his union activities, in-
cluding his participation in the conference held at the Regional Of-
fice, and thereby discriminated in regard to his hire and tenure of
employment, discouraged membership in the Union, and interfered
with, restrained, and coerced their employees in the exercise of their
rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
In view of our finding that the respondents discriminatorily dis-
charged Barbera for his union activities, it is unnecessary to decide
whether the statements made by Barbera at the Regional Office of
the Board constitute "testimony," within the meaning of Section
8 (4) of the Act, and whether, therefore, the respondents have
engaged in unfair labor practices, within the meaning of that
provision.
Between the date of his discharge and the time of the hearing,
Barbera obtained 3 weeks' employment earning a total of $45. At the
time of the hearing he was. unemployed and desired reinstatement.
C. The refusal to bargain collectively
1. The appropriate unit
The complaint alleges that all the employees in the respondents'
Brooklyn plant, exclusive of supervisory and clerical employees,
constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargain-
ing. The respondents by their answer admit that all the employees
of the respondents' mirror department in the respondents' Brooklyn
plant, exclusive of clerical and supervisory employees, constitute an
appropriate unit. At the hearing, it was agreed that this proceed-
ing concerns only the mirror department of the respondents' plant.
We find that all the employees in the respondents' mirror depart-
ment, excluding supervisory and clerical employees, constitute a
unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining and that
said unit will insure to employees of the respondents the full benefit
of their right to self-organization and to collective bargaining and
otherwise effectuate the policies of the Act.
2. Representation by the Union of the majority in the appropriate
unit
On August 19, 1937, the Union won a consent election conducted
by the Board among the employees of the respondents within the
appropriate unit. In their answer, the respondents admit that the
Union is and has been since August 19, 1937, the exclusive bargain-
ing agent of the employees in said unit.
S DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
We find that on August 19, 1937, and at all times thereafter, the
Union was and has been the duly designated representative of a
majority of the employees in the appropriate unit, and, pursuant
to Section 9 (a) of the Act, was and is the exclusive representative
of all the employees in such unit for the purpose of collective bar-
gaining in respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, or
other conditions of employment.
3. The refusal to bargain
Two principal bargaining conferences were held between repre-
sentatives of the Union and N. Chesler, one of the respondents.
The first meeting occurred in the office of the respondents about
2 weeks after the consent election of August 19, 1937. The union
representatives presented a proposed collective bargaining agreement
to Chesler for consideration. Its principal provisions contemplated
a closed shop, 40-hour week, minimum wage scale, general wage in-
crease, the payment of wages in cash on a certain day each week,
protection of employees against discrimination, protection of em-
ployees temporarily absent from work because of illness against dis-
placement, protection of employees against charges for accidental
damage to merchandise, adjustment of disputes, suspension of strikes
and lock-outs pending the determination of disputes, no reduction of
wages during the term of the agreement, and deduction of weekly
union dues from the wages of each employee. After a cursory glance
at the agreement, Chesler stated that he was opposed to the wage
increase, minimum wage scale, and closed-shop clauses. He refused
the request of the union representatives to discuss the agreement,
clause by clause, but consented to take the agreement under
advisement.
Two or three weeks later the union representatives met again with
Chesler and requested him to sign the agreement.8 He refused.
Without making any counterproposals, he reiterated his opposition
to the wage increase, minimum wage scale, and closed-shop clauses.
Beyond asserting that the Union should organize the respondents'
competitors before he would agree to sign a contract with it, he re-
fused to discuss the terms of the proposed agreement. In response
to a request for a list of the respondents' competitors, he stated that
the respondents had competitors in New York, Pennsylvania, Mary-
land, and Japan. Finally, the union representatives requested
Chesler to sign a 30-day provisional contract, guaranteeing the right
8 Between the first and the second conferences, N. Chesler talked with J. Masso, one of
the union representatives. Their conversation added nothing to what had been accom-
plished at the first meeting.
NATHAN CHESLER 9
of collective bargaining, but in all other respects maintaining plant
conditions in status quo. Chesler again refused. At the close of the
conference the union representatives asked whether they might meet
with Chesler again. He replied, "You may call me if you want to."
There the negotiations ended. One of the union representatives
testified that he made several further attempts to reach Chesler, but
was unsuccessful. The other stated that he gave up attempting to
bargain with the respondents as a lost cause.
In determining whether or not the respondents fulfilled their ob-
ligation to bargain, we are faced at the outset with Chesler's refusal,
upon request, to discuss the several clauses of the proposed agree-
ment. It appears that the 40-hour week, demanded by the Union,
was already in effect at the plant. So, too, as demanded by the
Union, the respondents pay wages in cash on a certain day each week.
Moreover, Chesler testified that the Union's demand that there be no
discrimination for union activities was unobjectionable to the re-
spondents. At the hearing, the respondents contended that inasmuch
as these provisions were already in effect there was no need to dis-
cuss them. The contention is specious.4 The Union may reasonably
have desired express agreement regarding them. Such agreement
would safeguard its members against lengthened hours and irregular
wage payments, would give them verbal assurance against repetition
of the treatment accorded Barbera.6 At least in the case of these
items, discussion would presumably have afforded a basis for agree-
ment. By refusing to discuss, Chesler forestalled the possibility of
such agreement although he had no objection to the demands per se.
We must conclude that he objected to making any agreement.
Chesler is the partner in charge of sales. His duties took him out
of the plant a great deal, thus rendering difficult the efforts of the
union representatives to arrange meetings. He is comparatively un-
informed regarding wages and working conditions in the plant. Yet,
though S. Kalm, the partner in charge of production, was present in
the plant, only Chesler represented the respondents in the bargaining
conferences. This circumstance hampered the progress of the nego-
tiations. Chesler admitted, for example, that although he objected
to the minimum wage clause he was unaware to what extent, if any,
the minimum wages requested by the Union were already in effect
at the plant, and that he failed to inform himself in that regard be-
tween the two meetings with the union representatives. Thus, had
Chesler been prepared to discuss, or had Kalm attended the confer-
ences, and had the respondents intended to agree where agreement
* J. Masso, one of the union representatives , testified , on cross -examination, that "There
was no need to discuss the hours." For reasons stated in the text, we disagree.
s See Section B, supra.
10 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
was possible, it is not unlikely that the minimum wage demand, too,
would have been resolved.
Under the circumstances of this case, it cannot be argued that an
impasse was reached upon the merits of the various demands ad-
vanced by the Union. On the contrary, while the union representa-
tives requested discussion of each clause, Chesler, objecting to three
of them, would discuss none. We believe that Chesler entered the
negotiations intending to agree to nothing.
The close of the negotiations confirms our conclusion. Insistence
that the Union first organize competitors, some of whom are in
Japan, is tantamount to flat refusal to enter into an agreement.
Finally, Chesler refused to embody in a 30-day agreement conditions
to which no objections on the respondents' part were raised. We
have repeatedly pointed out the obligation of employers to embody
in a binding agreement understandings reached with duly designated
representatives of their employees.6
We find that the respondents refused to bargain collectively with
the Union as the representative of their employees in respect to rates
of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other conditions of em-
ployment, and thereby interfered with, restrained, and coerced their
employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of
the Act. -
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
We find that the activities of the respondents set forth in Section
III above, occurring in connection with the operations of the respond-
ents described in Section I above, have a close, intimate, and sub-
stantial 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
As we have found that the respondents discriminatorily discharged
Joseph Barbera, we shall order the respondents to offer him immedi-
ate reinstatement to his former position and to make him whole,
for any loss of pay he may have suffered by reason of his discharge,
by payment to him of a sum equal to the amount which he normally
would have earned as wages from the date of the discharge to the
6 Matter of St. Joseph Stock Yards" Company and Amalgamated Meat Cutters J Butcher
Workmen of North America, Local Union No 159, 2 N. L R. B 39; Matter of Federal
Carton Corporation and New York Printing Pressmen's Unson. No . 51, 5 N. L. R. B. 879;
Matter of Inland Steel Company and Steel Workers Organizeng Committee and Amalga-
mated Assocsatson of Iron , Steel, and Ten Workers of North America, Lodge Nos. 64, 1010,
and 1101, 9 N. L. R . B. 783.
NATHAN CHESLER 11
date of the respondents' offer of reinstatement, less his net earnings
during said period.
Having found that the respondents refused to bargain collectively
with the Union, we shall order them, upon request, to bargain col-
lectively with the Union as the exclusive representative of their
mirror-department employees, excluding clerical and supervisory
employees, and if understandings are reached, to embody such under-
standings in a signed agreement.
We shall further order the respondent to cease and desist from
its unfair labor practices.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record
in the case, the Board makes the following :
CONCLUSIONS OF LAw
1. Novelty Mirror Workers' Union, Local No. 7, is a labor organi-
zation, within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
2. By discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of em-
ployment of Joseph Barbera, thereby discouraging membership in
the Novelty Mirror Workers' Union, Local No. 7, the respondents
have engaged in and are engaging in unfair labor practices, within
the meaning of Section 8 (3) of the Act.
3. All the employees in the mirror department of the respond-
ents' Brooklyn, New York, plant, excluding clerical and supervisory
employees, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of col-
lective bargaining, within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
4. Novelty Mirror Workers' Union, Local No. 7, was on August
19, 1937, and at all times thereafter has been, the exclusive repre-
sentative of all such employees for the purposes of collective bar-
gaining, within the meaning of Section 9 (a) of the Act.
5. By refusing to bargain collectively with Novelty Mirror Work-
ers' Union, Local No. 7, as the exclusive representative of its em-
ployees in an appropriate unit, the respondents have engaged in
and are engaging in unfair labor practices, within the meaning of
Section 8 (5) of the Act.
6. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in
the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the
7 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 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.
12 DECISIONS OF i' ATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
respondents have engaged in and are engaging in unfair labor prac-
tices, 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.
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
respondents, Nathan Chesler, Reuben Chesler, Abraham Chesler, and
Samuel Kalm, doing business under the name and style of J. Chesler
& Sons Company, and their agents, successors, and assigns shall:
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Discouraging membership in Novelty Mirror Workers' Union,
Local No. 7, or any other labor organization of its employees, by
discharging or refusing to reinstate any of their employees, or in
any other manner discriminating in regard to their hire and tenure
of employment or any term or condition of their employment;
(b) Refusing to bargain collectively with Novelty Mirror Work-
ers' Union, Local No. 7, as the exclusive representative of all the
employees in the mirror department of their Brooklyn, New York,
plant, excluding clerical and supervisory employees;
(c) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing
their employees in the exercise of their rights to self-organization, to
form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively
through representatives of their own choosing, or 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 Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Offer to Joseph Barbera full and immediate reinstatement to
his former position without prejudice to his seniority and other
rights and privileges;
(b) Make whole Joseph Barbera for any loss of pay he has suffered
by reason of the respondents' discrimination against him by payment
to him of a sum of money equal to that which he would normally have
earned as wages from date of the respondents' discrimination against
him to the date of the respondents' offer of reinstatement, less his net
earnings during said period; deducting, however, from the amount
otherwise due him monies received by him during said period for
work performed upon Federal, State, county, municipal, or other
work-relief projects; and pay over the amounts so deducted to the
appropriate fiscal agency of the Federal, State, county, municipal,
NATHAN CHESLER 13
or other government or governments which supplied the funds for said
work-relief projects;
(c) Upon request, bargain collectively with the Novelty Mirror
Workers' Union, Local No. 7, as the exclusive representative of all
the employees in the mirror department of their Brooklyn, New
York, plant, excluding clerical and supervisory employees, in respect
to rates of pay, wages, hours of work, and other conditions of employ-
ment, and if an understanding is reached on any such matters, embody
such understanding in a written signed agreement;
(d) Immediately post notices in conspicuous places in the respond-
ents' plant at Brooklyn, New York, and maintain such notices for a
period of at least sixty (60) consecutive days, stating that respondents
will cease and desist in the manner'set forth in 1 (a), (b), and (c),
and will take the affirmative action set forth in 2 (a), (b), and (c)
of this Order;
(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.
MR. Wu mAM M. LEISER$oN took no part in the consideration of the
above Decision and Order.