The Bell & Howell Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 5, 1943

46 N.L.R.B. 700 (N.L.R.B. 1943)

In the Matter of THE BELL & HOWELL COMPANY and UNITED ELEa-
TRICAL, RADIO AND MACHINE WORKERS OF AMERICA, C. I. O.
Case No. C-2336.-Decided January 5, 1943
Jurisdiction : camera and motion picture equipment manufacturing industry.
Unfair Labor Practices
Interference, Restraint, and Coercion: anti-union statements; inquiries into
union affiliation,of employees and into progress of union's organizational drive ;
letter to employees indicating opposition to union activities ; announcement
of unprecedented paid vacations and picnic, in midst of union's organizational
campaign.
Discrimination: discharge of one employee and refusal to -reinstate another
after lay-off, because of union activity. !
Remedial Orders: cease and desist unfair labor practices; employee not desiring
reinstatement, awarded back pay from date, of discriminatory discharge to
date when he obtained other 'permanent employment ; employee desiring
reinstatement, awarded reinstatement and back pay from date of discrimina-
tory refusal to reinstate to date of offer of reinstatement.
0
Mr. Robert T. Drake, for the Board.
Fyffe & Clark by Mr. Albert J. Smith, of Chicago , Ill., for the
respondent.
Mr. Oscar Geltman, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon an amended charge duly filed by the United Electrical, Radio
and Machine Workers of America, affiliated with the C. I. 0., herein
called the Union, the National Labor'Relations Board, herein called
the, Board, by its Regional Director for the Thirteenth Region
(Chicago, Illinois), issued its complaint dated August 3, 1942, against
The Bell & Howell Company, at Chicago,, Illinois, 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 (3) and Section 2 (6) and, (7) of the
National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein called the Act.
1 46 N. L. R. B., No. 84.
700
THE BELL & HOWELL COMPANY 701
Copies of the complaint , accompanied by a notice of hearing, were
duly served upon the respondent and the Union.
With respect to the unfair labor practices , the complaint alleged in
substance that the respondent : ( 1) on or about July 3, 1941, dis-
charged William Kruck , and on or about October 24 , 1941, discharged
Everard Hall and has since refused to reinstate them, because,they
joined and assisted the Union; ( 2) in April 1937 and from April
1941 to date , questioned its employees about their membership in and
activities on behalf of the Union ; advised, urged, discouraged, and
warned its employees against affiliation with or activities on behalf
of the Union; granted wage increases and other benefits as part of a
course of action designed to combat and interfere with the self-
organization of its employees ; in May 1941, initiated and sponsored
the formation of an organization called The Bell & Howell Inde-
pendent Employees ' Association , herein called the Independent; and
by the above -described acts interfered with, restrained , and coerced,
its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed by the Act.
The respondent filed its answer on August 13, 1942, in which it
denied that it had committed any unfair labor practices. ,
Pursuant to notice , a hearing was held on August 31 and September
1 and 2, 1942 , at Chicago, Illinois, before Will Maslow , the Trial
Examiner duly designated by the Acting Chief Trial Examiner.
The Board and - the respondent 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.
At the close of the Board's case, counsel for the respondent moved
to dismiss the complaint . The motion was denied . At the conclusion
of the hearing , counsel for the respondent . again moved to dismiss
the complaint . This motion was denied , except that the Trial Ex-
aminer reserved ruling on that part of the motion which related to
the Independent , and subsequently , in his Intermediate Report,
granted the motion insofar as it related to the Independent . Motions
made at the close of the hearing by both the Board's attorney and
the respondent to conform the pleadings to the proof with respect to
minor matters, were granted. During the, course of the hearing, the
Trial Examiner made a number of rulings on other motions and on
objections to the admission of evidence . The Board has reviewed
the rulings of the Trial Examiner and finds that no prejudicial error
was committed . The Trial Examiner denied the respondent 's motion
to exclude from evidence a partial report of proceedings before a
subcommittee of the Committee - on Education and Labor of the
United States Senate, 74th Congress , which referred to certain alleged
702 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD '
conduct of the respondent in 1934. He also denied the respondent's
motions to strike from the record the, testimony of John Leonard
Greis and Joe Oberg pertaining to the discharge of certain employees
in 1934. We hereby reverse these rulings and grant the respondent's
motions to exclude the report and to strike the testimony in question.
The Trial Examiner's rulings, with the exceptions just noted, are
hereby affirmed. The parties were advised they might, if they so
desired, argue orally before and file briefs with the Trial Examiner
at the close of the hearing. None of the parties argued orally, but
the respondent filed a brief with the Trial Examiner.
On September 16, 1942, the Trial Examiner filed his Intermediate
Report, copies of which were duly served upon the parties. The
Trial Examiner found that the respondent had engaged in, and was
engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce, within the
meaning of Section 8 (1) and (3) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the
Act. ' He recommended that the respondent cease and desist from
said unfair labor practices and take certain affirmative action designed
to effectuate the policies of the Act, including the reinstatement of
Everard Hall, and the payment to him of wages lost. The respondent
thereafter filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and a support-
ing brief. The Board has considered the exceptions and the brief
filed by the respondent and insofar as the exceptions are inconsistent
with the findings, conclusions, and order set forth below, finds them
to be without merit.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE .RESPONDENT
The Bell & Howell Company is an Illinois, corporation with its
principal office in' Chicago, Illinois, where it is engaged in the manu-
facture, sale, and distribution of cameras, projectors, and motion pic-
ture equipment: It operates a manufacturing, plant located at 1801
Larchmont Avenue, Chicago, Illinois, herein called the Larchmont
plant, and another at. 4045 North Rockwell Street, Chicago, Illinois,
herein called the Rockwell plant, and also maintains a service plant in
Hollywood, California. During the year 1941, the respondent pur-
chased aluminum, steel, lenses, and lacquers worth in excess of $200,000,
of which more than 25 percent was shipped to its manufacturing plants
from points outside the State of Illinois. During the same period, the
respondent sold finished products worth in excess of $400,000, of which
more than 50 percent was'shipped-by it to points outside the State of
Illinois. As of June 1942, the respondent employed about 697 em-
THE BELL & HOWELL COMPANY 703
ployees in its Larchmont plant and about 608 employees in its Rockwell
plant. The respondent admitted at the hearing that it ,was ,engaged
in commerce within the meaning of the Act, and subject to the juris-
diction of the Board.
II. THE ORGANIZAT>ON INVOLVED
United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America, affiliated
with the C.I.O., is a labor organization, admitting' employees of the
respondent to membership. -
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Interference, restraint, and coercion
William Kruck, whose discriminatory discharge is discussed in'
Section III B, infra, was employed by the respondent from 1929 to
1935, when he left the respondent's employ and worked as a tool and
die maker at the Rock Island Arsenal. In April 1937, he was rehired
by the respondent as a tool maker. During the rehiring interview,
John Mouser, toolroom superintendent in charge of the tool designing
and the tool making departments, asked Kruck whether he had be-,
longed to the union at the Rock Island Arsenal. Kruck replied that
all tool makers at the arsenal were union men and added: "... this.
asn't a union shop so I don't think it would do me any good.
Mouser then said, "Yes, it would be the best thing if you forgot about
that kind of stuff." This conversation took place in the presence of
Knute Boo, foreman in charge of the toolroom.
In April 1941, Kruck was initiated into the Union, being the first,
of the respondent's employees to join. ' On May 14 or 15 he was active,
in the plant, in soliciting the respondent's employees to join the Union.
On May 15, union leaflets were for the first time distributed to the
employees.' About May 16, 1941, Van Valkenburgh, a supervisory
employee in charge of time-study work, asked•Kruck to visit the Larch-
mont plant to discuss the Union with J. H. McNabb, president of the
respondent. Kruck refused. During the conversation he received a
telephone call from David Goldsmith, the respondent's assistant per-
sonnel director, who asked Kruck to visit the respondent's main office
to try to settle the matter. Kruck refused, stating he could do nothing
without the union shop committee. On another occasion, in June
1941, Goldsmith telephoned Kruck at the latter's house. Expressing
surprise at finding Kruck at home, Goldsmith stated that everyone
thought Kruck even slept at the Union's office. Goldsmith then asked
i The respondent collected and maintained a file of the Union's leaflets
704 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Kruck what the latter's position in the Union would be, if he were made
a supervisor. ' Kruck replied that he did not want such a promotion,
as it would make him ineligible for union membership.
Late in May or early in June 1941, Kruck began to wear a union
button designating him as chief union steward. The first day Kruck
wore the • button, Hendricksen, his foreman, told Kruck that he had
led a union-when he was younger but had lost his job when the em-
ployees had withdrawn their support; and he warned Kruck not to
stick his neck out any farther than he could pull it hack. On another
occasion, in June 1941, Hendricksen told Kruck that he had been
"bawled out" at a foremen's meeting for not knowing that Kruck
belonged to the Union before he started to wear the union button or
before the Union began to distribute leaflets.
-Foreman Boo told Kruck, in June 1941, to have nothing to do with
the Union as it was "a bunch of racketeers" and there was no need for
a union in the respondent's plant. During this conversation, Mouser
approached and asked Kruck in which department the Union had
started. When Kruck refused to answer, Mouser said : "You are sup-
posed to keep this thing burning." Kruck finally admitted that the
Union had started in the toolroom, whereupon Mouser displayed
anger.
Everard Hall, whose discharge is discussed in Section III C, infra,
joined the Union on May 16, 1941, and was thereafter made a shop
steward for the Union. He was one of a half-dozen stewards who
wore union buttons openly in the plant. A few days after Hall first
put on the union button, Russell Ostrand, foreman in charge of the
salvage department, where Hall-was then employed, asked him where
he had obtained the button. Hall replied that he had obtained it from
the Union.' Within, an hour Hall received instructions to work at his
bench only and not to work in or go through other departments in the
plant. Previously Hall's work had required him frequently to visit
other departments.
Around May 1941, Andrew C. Cederblade, an employee in the snag-
ging department,- was asked by Colby, foreman of that department,
whether he had joined the Union. In September 1941, Hall was trans-
ferred to the snagging department, where'he was the only, employee
wearing a union button. Shortly after Hall's transfer, Colby again
asked Cederblade whether he had joined the Union, ,and also asked
what the chances were of the Union "getting in." In the same con-
versation Colby stated that the Union was a "flop," and inquired
whether Cederblade did not agree. Colby then discussed the question
of promotion with Cederblade, stating that he wanted to know a little
more about him before promoting him, and explaining that the re-
spondent wanted to know more about an employee than just what he
THE BELL & BOWELL COMPANY 705,
did in the shop. On October 18, 1941, Colby engaged Hall in con-
versation, and inquired whether, Hall was a member-of the Union.
Hall pointed to his union button. Colby then asked whether Hall
had been a member of the Union before he,%das hired by the respondent,
and when Hall replied in the negative, Colby asked how he had hap-
pened to sign up with the Union. Colby also questioned Hall as to
whether the Union had signed up many employees in the plant, and
in the snagging department.
Neither Mouser, Boo, Van Valkenburgh, 'Goldsmith,, Hendricksen,
Ostrand, nor Colby were called as witnesses; and the foregoing find-
ings are based upon the uncontradicted testimony of Kruck, Hall, and
Cederblade, which we credit, as did the Trial Examiner.
On May 21, 1941, J. H. McNabb, president of the respondent, wrote
the following letter to all of the respondent's employes: -
Our policies regarding the following subjects have been the same
for many years. These policies have not been changed and they
will not be changed in the future.
1.. We will pay the highest wages, provide the best working
hours and conditions and provide the steadiest work that our
business can afford.
In line with this policy, effective May 5, 1941,, a general pay
increase was given to all hourly rated employees ...
Many have asked about plants for this year's vacation period.
This year,, the week of July 7 has been designated as Vacation
'Week for all factory employees who are eligible ...
* * * * *
2. Every employee will be protected with respect to his length
of service and his opportunity for advancement based on merit. ' It
has always been the policy of the management to encourage the
development of improved skill by upgrading. Advancements are
made from within as we are able to develop and recruit personnel
capable of filling vacancies or assuming increased responsibility.
No employe with ambition needs to remain in,his present classifi-
cation if he desires to advance.
3. Every employe will be protected in his right to present
grievances or suggestions and have them carefully and consider-
ately treated by the management.
4. Every employe will be protected in his right to work in our
plant, and he doesn't have to belong to or support a labor union
of any kind in order to receive - fair and equal treatment and
consideration. The solicitation of labor union memberships or
the collection of fees or dues' on company property or company
time is prohibited. '
504080=43=vo1 46-45
0
706 DECISIONS - OF' NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
As stated above, it is our policy to provide steady work ' for our
-employes-the record in this respect speaks for itself. We are,
devoting much time, effort and money to the development of new
designs to take up the slack which will come with the discontinu-
ance of war work. This is being done so that we may continue our
long range policy of providing steady work for our employes.
We are all going to continue to live together and work together
for a long time , and all that we ask is that our relations continue
to be as pleasant and harmonious as they have been in the past.
Yours sincerely;
BELL AND HOWELL COMPANY,
J. H. MCNABB, President.
The vacations announced in this letter were the first ever granted to
the respondent 's hourly paid employees . We'are convinced , and find,
that in this letter, issued only 6 days'after . the Union had first dis'trib-
uted ' organizational literature at its plant , the respondent sought to
deter its employees from joining the Union by advising them that they
heed-not-"belong to or support a labor union of any kind " in order to
secure for themselves ' the economic advantages which the respondent
had theretofore gratuitously accorded and which it now, gratuitously
announced for the future . We also fin'd •tha't the letter plainly'indicated
to the employees the respondent 's opposition to their union activities.
About 2 weeks after sending the foregoing letter and at a time when
the Union was holding a series of open-air meetings in the vicinity of
the Rockwell plant, the respondent announced that,a picnic for its em-
ployees would be held shortly thereafter, on June 14,1941. The respond-
ent furnished transportation , food; and prizes' for this picnic: Like
the vacations announced in the . letter of May 21, the picnic' thus
tendered the employees was without precedent in the respondent's labor
relations history. At the hearing 'the'respondent offered no evidence
to explain why it arranged the 'picnic and announced the award of
paid vacations in the midst of the Union's organizational campaign.
We find, as did the Trial Examiner , that these gratuities were extended -
by the respondent, and announced to the employees at- that particular
time, in order to diminish the employees ' interest in self-organization.
In summary, the respondent, whose antipathy to unionism was
expressly indicated by Mouser 's advice to Kruck in 1937 , countered
the organizational campain of the Union in the spring and summer of
1911 by intimidatory and hostile statements and conduct of its super-
visory employees and assistant personnel director, unwarranted in-
quiries regarding the progress of the Union's organizational drive,
attempts to dissuade Kruck, the Union's chief steward, from continu-
ing his activities on behalf of the Union, the award 'to its, employees
of economic benefits not theretofore conferred , and by its letter of
THE BELL & HOWELL COMPANY 707
May 21, 1941, which plainly belittled the economic advantages of
self-organization and conveyed the respondent's hostility to the Union.
We find that the respondent, by its entire course of conduct, above
described, has interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees
in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
The complaint alleged that the respondent interfered with, re-
strained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guar-
anteed by the Act, inter alia, by granting wage increases and by spon-
soring the formation of the Independent. The Trial Examiner recom-;
mended dismissal of these allegations, pointing out, with respect to
a.wage increase which became effective on May 5, 1941, that the Union's
organizational campaign had not at that time come into the open. The
Union: filed, no exception to these recommendations., Upon consider-,
ation of the record; we agree with the Trial Examiner that the evi-
dence does riot ,sustain the aforesaid allegations of the complaint, with
regard to the wage increases and the Independent. ', We shall, accord-;
ingly, dismiss the complaint with respect to said-allegations.
B. The_ discharge of William Kruck
William`-Kruck was hired by the respondent in 1929 as a tool and
die-maker' apprentice. He served a formal apprenticeship of, about 6
years and in"June 1935 received a journeyman's certificate. ,'He`.left
the `employ of the respondent on October '1935,' at' which time - his,
earnings were 65 cents per hour.. In 1937, he was reemployed by. the'
respondent as a, toolmaker, at 90 cents per hour. ' As we have found;
in Section III A, supra; he was warned by Mouser at that time, to,forr
get about union activity. In February 1940, he was transferred -to' the`
tool designing department with the privilege of returning to tool mak=
ing if work should become slack in the new department. In May 1940
he was retransferred to toolmaking, and in February 1941 he was again',
transferred to tool designing, where he worked as -a tool designer until
July •3, 1941, the date of his dismissal herein alleged to be `discrin' i'-
i atory. About January 1941, Kruck notified the respondent that he had
been called by, his Selective-Service Board. The respondent coinmun-
icated with the Board and obtained a 6 month's deferrrient for Kruck
stating : ".. we feel we cannot replace him without, greatly slowing
up our work."' By March 1941, Kruck had been given three individual
merit increases which brought his earnings'up to $1.05. 'As we have
noted, Goldsmith, the respondent's assistant personnel director, on
one occasion discussed with Kruck the possibility'of promotion, a sug-
gestion which Kruck rejected on the ground that he did not want: t(v
resign from the Union.
Kruck, as we have stated above, was the first of the respondent's em=
ployees to join the Union. He was the Union's chief shop steward and
708 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
wore a button designating him as such; and he was active in soliciting
the respondent 's employees to join the Union. In June 1941 , he pre-
sided at several of the open 'air meetings which were held by the Union
near the Rockwell plant. The statements made to him by Hendricksen,
his foreman in the tool designing department ,, and by Van Valken-
burgh, Goldsmith , Mouser and Boo,2 indicate that the respondent was
aware of his leadership in the Union.
On July 3, 1941 , Hendricksen gave Kruck a printed dismissal
notice, the reason for dismissaLstated on the notice being lack, of
,materials . Kruck told Hendricksen that he did not believe that-
that was the -reason for his discharge and wrote on the notice, on
a line , provided for the employee 's version of the reasons for his
dismissal ', "for going into a trade union. " He testified without con=
tradiction , and we find-, as did the Trial Examiner, that Hendricksen
then said : "Now, I told you in the beginning not to stick your neck
out further than you could pull it back."
At that time there were 18 persons employed in the tool designing'
department under Hendricksen Eight of this group , with the rating
of "tool draftsman ," "junior designer" or "clerk," had average earn-
ings of 68 cents an hour and did the simpler work in the department.
The remaining 10, having : the titles of "senior , designer,". "layout
designer," "designer checker" and "tool layout men" av'eraged $1.43
an hour . Kruck's title was senior designer . His rate of pay was
then $1 .10 an hour , lowest in the group of 10 . A tool draftsman,
and a junior designer were also laid off on the day Kruck was
dismissed , but Kruck avas the only employee laid off from the group
of 10 higher paid employees. No evidence was offered by the repond-
ent to show , and the record does not indicate , whether there' was in
fact ' a shortage of materials on July 3 which necessitated the lay-off
of 1 senior designer from Kruck's 'department ; nor did the respond-
ent explain why, or upon what basis Kruck was selected for lay-off.
An official of the respondent testified that in general , it was the,
respondent 's practice to lay off employees in•'the - order- determined.
by their comparative ability' and merit, without regard td 'seni'o'r'ity
unless other factors were equal; but the respondent introduced .no
evidence to show that. the application of this policy required the
dismissal of Kruck. Hendricksen 's reminder , to Kruck that he had
been warned not to "stick his' neck out " indicates that other reasons
motivated the lay-off,., . ' •
• In view of Kruck's long; and apparently satisfactory record as an
employee of the respondent, his leadership in the Union ,'the respond-
ent's antipathy toward the Union as indicated by our findings in
? See Section III A; supra.'
THE BELL .& HOWELL COMPANY 709
.Sectioii III A, supra, and Hendricksen's remark to Kruck at the time
of Kruck's dismissal, and in the absence-of ,any satisfactory evidence
that there was other reason for the dismissal, we are convinced that
the respondent discharged Kruck because of his union membership
and activity. We find, as did the Trial Examiner,, that the respond-
ent by its discharge of Kruck on July 3, 1941, discriminated with
-regard to his hire and tenure Of employment, thereby discouraging
membership in the Union, and that by said discrimination it inter-
fered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise • of
the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
C. The discharge of Everard Hall
Everard Hall was hired by the respondent in December 1940. He
began work in the salvage department of the Larchmont plant, and
was thereafter transferred to the same department in the Rockwell
plant. In September 1941, salvage work in the Rockwell plant was
discontinued, and Hall was assigned to the snagging department,
where he was employed until October 24, 1941, the date of his dis-
missal herein alleged to be discriminatory.
'Hall joined the Union on May 16, 1941, and was thereafter. made
a shop steward. He was one of the half dozen stewards who wore
union buttons openly in the plant, and was the only one in the
,snagging department to wear a union button. Hall solicited about
50 persons to join the Union. As we have found above, Colby, Hall's
foreman in the snagging department, indicated to both Hall and
Cederblade that he was hostile toward the Union, and found occa-
sion to inquire how Hall had happened to join it.
Hall was laid off on October 24, 1941. Colby, who gave him his
dismissal notice, told Hall that he was being laid off for lack of work
because he was one of the new men in the department. One other
employee, who. had worked in the department for 4 years, was laid off
on the same,day. On the following day Hall called on Goldsmith, the
respondent's assistant personnel director, arid asked whether he. could
be transferred to other work. Goldsmith replied that he had been
looking for work fol 6 other men all day and that he saw no chance
for Hall. He then'said that the respondent was converting its pro-
duction to war work which process would take from 6 to 8 months.
Hall asked whether he would be called back after such conversion, and
was told to consider his lay-off a permanent one. Approximately a
week later; he registered with the Illinois Employment Service, and a
representative of this agency communicated with Goldsmith in an
attempt to have Hall rehired by the respondent. On November 13,
1941, the Union filed its first amended charge in this proceeding, alleg-
ing in part that the respondent had discharged and refused to rein-
'710 DECISIONS-OF ' NATIO\TAL `;LABOR- RELATIONS BOARD
state Hall because of his union activities. In. January: 1942, 'Hall
'went to the respondent's Rockwell plant and attempted to see the per-
sonnel - men, and in their absence, asked the timekeeper - whether, the
'respondent was doing any hiring. The respondent transferred 2 em-
ployees into Hall's department on November 8, 1941, approximately
2 weeks after- Hall was dismissed; thereafter it hired into that depart-
ment, 8 new employees in December°1941, f'nd 13 new employees in
February 1942. Hall was not recalled to work.
The Trial -Examiner found that Hall's lay-off on October 24, 1941,
was discriminatory. - Although we regard the circumstances of the
lay-off as suspicious we do not concur in this finding, because it ap-
pears that business conditions actually necessitated lay-offs at that
time; 3 that Hall was, in' fact, one of the newest men in his depart-
ment; and that another employee who had worked in the department
for 4,years was laid off on the same day. In the circumstances we
are not convinced that Hall was selected for lay-off because of his
union activities. However, the respondent's failure to rehire him
when he was seeking, reinstatement and other employees were being
added to the department, 'stands ott a different footing. The re-
spondent's opposition to the Union and its knowledge, of Hall's
prominence in the Union are clearly established. Both Colby, the
foreman in Hall's department, and Goldsmith, the personnel man to
whom Hall applied for reinstatement, had indicated their concern
regarding the Union's organizational activities and their objection
thereto. Upon consideration of these facts and upon the entire record,
'we are satisfied and find, as did the Trial Examiner, that the respond-
ent refused to reinstate Hall because of his union membership and
activity. In the absence of any showing that Hall was unqualified
to fill either of the two positions filled by the transfer of other em- _
ploye,es on November 8, 1941, we find that on that date the respondent
,discriminated against Hall with' regard to his hire and tenure of
employment, thus discouraging membership in the Union, and that it
thereby interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the
.exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of they respondent set forth in Section III, above, oc-
curring in connection with the operations of the respondent described
in Section I,.above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relation to
.trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States and tend to lead
S About 5 days after Hall's dismissal , the Union distributed outside the respondent 's plant,
.n circular captioned "Lay Offs Hit Bell and Howell workers ," which stated : "Due to
,priorities the Company now has a shortage of materials for consumer goods: Last Friday
lay-offs started." '
THE BELL & HOWELL COMPANY 711
-to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and -the , free
flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that the respondent has engaged in unfair labor prac-
tices,' we shall order it to cease and desist therefrom, and to take
certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
We have found that the respondent discriminated in regard to the
hire and tenure of employment of William Kruck and Everard Hall.
We shall therefore require the respondent to make them whole for such
loss as they may have'suffered by 'reason of such discrimination. Since
William Kruck testified that he is at present employed elsewhere,
under a contract which does not expire until December 31, 1943, and
is not willing to accept reinstatement because of and until' the expira-
tion of the contract, we shall not order the respondent to offer to him
reinstatement to his former position, but shall order the respondent to
pay to William Kruck-a sum of money equal to that amount, which
,be would normally have earned as wages from the date of his discharge
to July 21, 1941, the date when he obtained other permanent employ-
ment, less his net earnings 4 during said period. Since Everard Hall
testified that he would accept reinstatement, we shall -order the re-
'spondent to offer him immediate and full reinstatement to his former
position or to a substantially equivalent position, without prejudice
to his seniority and other rights and 'privileges, and to make him
whole for any loss of pay he may have suffered by reason of the re-
spondent's discrimination against him, by 'payment to him of a sum
of money equal to the amount which he normally would have earned
as wages from November 8, 1941, the date of said discrimination, to
the date of the offer of reinstatement, less his net earnings 5 during
said period.
Upon the basis of the, foregoing facts and upon the entire record in
the case the Board makes the following :
CONCLIISIONS OF LAW
J
1. United Electrical,' Radio and Machine Workers of America,
affiliated-with the C. I. 0., is a labor organization within the meaning
of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
4 By "net earnings" is meant earnings less expenses , such as for transportation , room, and
board , incurred by an employee in connection with obtaining work and working elsewhere
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 A,meric4, 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 shall be considered as
earnings . See Republic Steel Corporation v N. L R. B , 311 U. S. 7.
5 See footnote 4 supra. -
71.2 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
2. By 'discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of "em-
ployment of William Kruck and Everard Hall, thereby discourag-
ing membership in United Electrical, -Radio and Machine Workers
of America, affiliated with the C. I. 0., the respondent has engaged
in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (3) of
the Act.
3. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees
in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the
respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices,
within the meaning of Section 8 (1) of the Act.
4. 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
-respondent, The Bell & Howell Company, Chicago, Illinois, and its
officers, agents, successors, and assigns shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Discouraging membership in United Electrical, Radio and
Machine Workers of America, affiliated with the C. 1. O. or any
other labor organization of its employees by discriminating in regard
to hire or tenure of employment-or any term or condition of employ-
ment of its employees ;
(b) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or co-
ercing its employees in,the exercise of the right to self-organization,
'to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively
through representatives of their own choosing, or 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) Make whole William Kruck for, any loss of wages he may
.have suffered by reason of the respondent's. discrimination against
him, by payment to him of a sum of money equal to that which he
would normally have earned as wages from July 3, 1941, the date
of his discharge, to July 21, 1941, less his net earnings during said
period;
(b) Offer to Everard Hall immediate and full reinstatement to
his former or a substantially equivalent position without prejudice.
.to his seniority or other rights and privileges;
(c) Make whole -Everard Hall for any loss of wages he may have
suffered by reason of the respondent's discrimination against him,
THE BELL & HOWELL COMPANY 713
by payment to him of a sum of money equal to the amount which he
normally would have earned as wages from November 8, 1941, to
the date of the offer of reinstatement, less, his net earnings during
said period.
(d) Post immediately in conspicuous places throughout its Rock-
well and Larchmont plants in Chicago, Illinois, and maintain for
a period of at least sixty (60) consecutive days from the date of
posting, notices to its employees stating : (1) that the respondent
will not engage' in the conduct from which it is ordered to cease and
desist in paragraphs 1 (a) and (b) of this Order; (2) that the re-
spondent will take the affirmative action set forth in paragraphs 2
(a), (b), and (c) of this Order; and (3) that its employees are free
to become or remain members of the,United Electrical, Radio and
Machine Workers of America, affiliated with the C. I. 0., and that
the respondent will not discriminate against any employee because
of his membership in or activity on behalf of such organization;
(e) Notify the Regional Director for the Thirteenth Region in
writing within ten (10) days from the receipt of this Order what
steps the respondent has taken to comply therewith.
IT Is FU TRER ORDERED that the complaint herein, insofar as it
alleges that the respondent interfered with, restrained, and coerced-
its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section '7
of the National Labor Relations Act by initiating or sponsoring the
formation of t}ie Bell & Howell Employees' Association,' and by
granting wage increases to its employees, be, and the same is hereby
dismissed.
r