American Book-Stratford Press, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 30, 1948

80 N.L.R.B. 914 (N.L.R.B. 1948)

In the Matter Of AMERICAN BooK-STRATFORD PRESS, INC. and LOCAL 1,
UNITED OFFICE AND PROFESSIONAL WORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO
Case No. 2-C,5963.-Decided November 30, 191f8
DECISION
AND
ORDER
On December 20, 1946, Trial Examiner J. J. Fitzpatrick issued his
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the
Respondent had engaged 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." Thereafter, the Respondent and the attorney
for the Board filed exceptions and supporting briefs. The Union filed
a memorandum adopting the exceptions and brief of the attorney for
the Board. Oral argument was requested by the Respondent. The
Board refused this request because of the congested condition of the
Board's docket but accorded the parties permission to file supplemental
briefs in lieu thereof. The Respondent thereafter filed a supplemental
brief pursuant to such permission.
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made at
the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed 2 The
Board has considered the Intermediate Report, the exceptions and
briefs, and the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the findings,
conclusions and recommendations of the Trial Examiner, insofar as
they are consistent with this Decision and Order.
1. The Trial Examiner found, as fully set forth in the Intermediate
Report, that, by certain activities of its officers and of its supervisory
employees, the Respondent interfered with, restrained, and coerced
its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them in Section 7
of the Act. We agree with this conclusion, but limit the grounds for
our finding to the following activities :
1 Section 8 (1) and (3) of the National Labor Relations Act which the Trial Examiner
found were violated are continued in Section 8 (a) (1) and 8 ( a) (3) of the Act, as
amended by the Labor Management Relations Act, 1947.
2 Pursuant to Section 3 (b) of the Act as amended , the National Labor Relations Board
has delegated its powers in connection with this proceeding to a three-man panel, consisting
of Chairman Herzog and Members Houston and Reynolds.
80 N. L. R. B., No. 142.
914
AMERICAN BOOK-STRATFORD PRESS , INC. 915
a. The statement of President Satenstein to employee De Refler that
he would not let the Union get into the shop.
b. The inquiry of President Satenstein of his private secretary,
Elaine Ross Krapp, as to how she intended to vote in the Board-con-
ducted election; his assertion to her that he would do anything to
defeat the Union; and his statement to her that he would have her name
placed upon the eligibility list in the Board election if she would vote
against the Union.
Satenstein undoubtedly had the right to question his private secre-
tary, who was a confidential employee, as to whether or not she was
a union member in order to determine whether he wished to employ
her in a confidential capacity. He did not, however, have the right
to go beyond this point. His inquiries and assertions, detailed above,
constituted an attempt to coerce Krapp in her vote, to tamper with the
secrecy of a Board-conducted election, and to bring about the defeat
of the Union by unlawful means.
c. The promulgation of the rule against the distribution of "litera-
ture of any kind" on the Respondent's premises and its subsequent use
as the basis of a threat to discharge an employee seen distributing
union pamphlets before office hours.
The circumstances under which the rule was promulgated, as they
appear in the record and are accurately set forth in the Intermediate
Report, show that its specific purpose was the prevention of the dis-
tribution of union literature on plant property, regardless of whether
such distribution took place during working hours or not. While an
employer has the right to prevent the delay and disruption of his work
by the distribution of union literature during working hours, lie does
not have a right to prevent such distribution outside working hours on
the employee's own time, where, as in the instant case, it does not ap-
pear that such a prohibition was necessary to preserve plant disci-
pline.3 The employee who was threatened with discharge for the vio-
lation of the rule was engaging in a legitimate union activity before
working hours on her own time. It therefore follows, and we find,
that both the promulgation of the rule and its discriminatory use
under the circumstances here disclosed constitute a violation of the
Act.
d. The attempt of President Satenstein, under the circumstances
appearing in the Intermediate Report, to force certain of his em-
ployees to sign affidavits stating that they had not seen any of the
Respondent's officers engaging in anti-Semitic activities.
The charge of anti-Semitism on the part of the Company's officers
was raised by the Union in a flyer distributed at the gates of the
N. L R B v Le Tovrnean Company of Georgia, 324 U. S 793.
817319-49-vol. 80 59
916 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
plant before working hours on September 14, 1945. A few hours
later, Satenstein summoned three union members, of whom at least
two were prominent union leaders,4 and questioned them as to whether,
inter alia, they knew of any anti-Semitism on the part of the Com-
pany's officers. He informed them that they would shortly be re-
quired to embody their reply in an affidavit which would be prepared
by his attorney.
It is clear that the charge of anti-Semitism was identified in the
minds of both Satenstein and the employees as union activity and that
the signing of the affidavits was recognized as affecting the Union.
When the three employees who had been requested to sign the affidavits
gathered in the plant to discuss the matter, Satenstein characterized
their meeting as "union activity." When Satenstein requested his
private secretary, Elaine Ross Krapp, to sign the affidavit, she refused
on the ground that signing such a document would weaken the Union
by repudiating its position in favor of the Respondent's position, and
that she had promised to remain neutral in union matters. We are
convinced that the Respondent was using its economic power to force
the employees to repudiate the position of the Union and to disas-
sociate themselves from union group activity. Such coercion is vio-
lative of the freedom to engage in such activity guaranteed by the
Act.
2. We do not find, as did the Trial Examiner, that the discharge of
Josephine Greenberg and Esther Bernstein was violative of the Act.
Josephine Greenberg:
The Respondent contended that she was discharged because she used
vulgar language at the time of the announcement of the election
results. Greenberg admitted that she had used the language in ques-
tion and that Satenstein had told her that that was the reason for her
discharge. The Trial Examiner noted that the Respondent's male
employees often used rough language without reprimand, and con-
cluded that under these circumstances, a discharge for the use of one
offensive word was so unreasonable as to be incredible. He therefore
concluded, in view of the Respondent's anti-union bias and its disap-
pointment in the outcome of the election, as revealed by the record, that
Greenberg's discharge was motivated by hostility to the Union and
was occasioned by Satenstein's discovery of her union adherence.
While these factors are substantial and cast serious doubt upon the
Respondent's alleged motive for the discharge, we are not persuaded
that Greenberg's discharge was designed to discourage union mem-
s Selma De Refer, until a few days previously, had been co -chairman of the Union;
Mildred Friedman had been one of the authors and distributors of the flyer.
AMERICAN BOOK-STRATFORD PRESS, INC. 917
bership, especially in view of the absence of evidence that she was an
active member or advocate of the Union.
Esther Bernstein:
Satenstein testified that he discharged Bernstein because she refused
to tell him either why she was in the die room during working hours
(a place which, he asserted, she had no legitimate reason to be) or
what she was discussing while there. Bernstein, although denying
that she refused to tell Satenstein of the nature of her errand to the die
room, admitted that she had refused to divulge the subject of her
conversation. The Trial Examiner, noting that Satenstein was aware
from other sources that the conversation was about the affidavits which
the other three members of the group had been requested to sign, and
that he knew that Bernstein was the co-chairman of the union com-
mittee in the plant, found that Satenstein discharged her because he
believed that she had called the meeting on company time in her
capacity of union co-chairman, and would not admit the fact. We are
unable to agree with the Trial Examiner's conclusion that Bernstein's
discharge was unlawful. Satenstein undoubtedly had a right as an
employer to require an explanation of a meeting of four employees
upon company time and in a part of the building to which he believed
at least some of them could have no legitimate errand. We are satis-
fied that Bernstein's discharge was due to Satenstein's extreme annoy-
ance at what he considered a stubborn refusal by Bernstein to answer a
question which he believed to be both legitimate and necessary. More-
over, it is clear that Bernstein was in fact participating in a union
meeting on company time, for which she could have been properly
discharged.
3. For reasons appearing in the Intermediate Report, we agree with
the Trial Examiner that Mildred Friedman was discriminatorily dis-
charged and that the discharge of Elaine Ross Krapp was not violative
of the Act.
4. We find, in agreement with the Trial Examiner, that the Re-
spondent's admitted refusal to bargain with the Union constituted a
violation of Section 8 (a) (5) of the Act.
On January 4, 1947, after the Trial Examiner had issued his Inter-
mediate Report in the instant case, the Respondent filed a motion with
the Board petitioning the Board to conduct an election under Section
9 (c) of the Act on the ground that the Regional Director's certifica-
tion of the Union following an election of August 28, 1945, is stale and
that a majority of the employees had expressed a desire for a new
election. On January 9, 1947, the attorney for the Board filed a
memorandum in opposition to the motion. We have considered the
918 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
motion and find that it does not raise any issue not previously con-
sidered by the Trial Examiner. It is hereby denied.
We agree with the Trial Examiner that the policies of the Act can
best be effectuated by requiring the Respondent to bargain collectively
with the Union. However, since issuance of the Intermediate Report,
the Act has been amended to deny utilization of the Board's processes
directly to aid the bargaining position of a labor organization which,
like the Union herein, has not complied with the provisions of Section
9 (f), (g), and (h) of the Act. Our Order in this respect will, there-
fore, be conditioned upon compliance by the Union with the above-
cited provisions of the Act within 30 days 5 from the date of the order.
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, American Book-
Stratford Press, Inc., New York City, and its officers, agents, succes-
sors, and assigns, shall :
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Discouraging membership in any labor organization of its em-
ployees, by discharging or refusing to reinstate any of its employees or
in any other manner discriminating in regard to their hire or tenure
of employment or any term or condition of employment;
(b) Refusing to bargain collectively with Local 1, United Office and
Professional Workers of America, CIO, if and when said labor or-
ganization shall have complied within 30 days from the date of this
order, with Section 9 (f), (g), and (h) of the Act, as amended, as the
exclusive representative of all office employees, excluding confidential
secretaries and supervisors, in respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of
employment, or other conditions of employment;
(c) Interrogating its employees concerning their union affiliations,
activities or sympathies, or in any other manner interfering with,
restraining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of the right of
self-organization, to form labor organizations, to join or assist any
labor organization, to bargain collectively through representatives of
their own choosing, and to engage in concerted activities for the pur-
pose 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 Mildred Friedman immediate and full reinstatement
to her former or substantially equivalent position, without prejudice
5 Matter of Marshall and Bruce Company, 75 N. L. R. B. 90.
AMERICAN BOOK-STRATFORD PRESS, INC. 919
to her seniority or other rights and privileges and make her whole for
any loss of pay that she may have suffered as a result of the discrimi-
nation against her, by payment to her of a sum of money equal to the
amount which she normally would have earned as wages during the
period from the date of the Respondent 's discrimination against her
to the date of the Respondent 's offer of reinstatement , less her net
earnings during said period;
(b) Upon request , bargain collectively with Local 1, United Office
and Professional Workers of America , CIO, if and when said labor
organization shall have complied within 30 days from the date of
this order , with Section 9 ( f), (g), and (h) of the Act, as amended,
as the exclusive representative of all office employees , excluding con-
fidential secretaries and supervisors , in respect to rates of pay , wages,
hours of employment , or other conditions of employment;
(c) Post at its plant at New York City copies of the notice attached
hereto and marked "Appendix A." 6 Copies of said notice, to be
furnished by the Regional Director for the Second Region , shall, after
being duly signed by the Respondent 's representative , be posted by
the Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof and maintained by it
for thirty ( 30) consecutive days thereafter and also for an additional
thirty ( 30) consecutive days in the event of compliance by the Union
with the filing requirements of the Act, as amended, in conspicuous
places, including all places where notices to employees are customarily
posted ; and
(d) Notify the Regional Director for the Second Region in writing,
within ten ( 10) days from the date of this order , what steps the
Respondent has taken to comply therewith.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint be, and it hereby is, dis-
missed , insofar as it alleges that the Respondent discriminated in
regard to the hire and tenure of employment of Josephine Greenberg,
Esther Bernstein , and Elaine Ross Krapp.
0 In the event that this order is enforced by a decree of a Court of Appeals, there shall
be inserted before the words , "DECISION AND ORDER" the words , "A DECREE OF THK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS ENFORCING."
920 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
APPENDIX A
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to a Decision and Order 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 employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization,
to form labor organizations, to join or assist any labor organiza-
tion, 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 BARGAIN collectively upon request with LOCAL 1, UNITED
OFFICE & PROFESSIONAL WORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO, if and when
said labor organization shall have complied within 30 days from
the date of this order, with Section 9 (f), (g), and (h) of the Act,
as amended, as the exclusive representative of all employees in the
bargaining unit described herein with respect to rates of pay, hours
of employment, or other conditions of employment, and if an
understanding is reached, embody such understanding in a signed
agreement. The bargaining unit is :
All office employees of the Respondent, excluding confi-
dential secretaries and supervisors.
WE WILL OFFER to Mildred Friedman immediate and full rein-
statement to her former or substantially equivalent position
without prejudice to any seniority or other rights and privileges
previously enjoyed, and make her whole for any loss of pay suf-
fered as a result of the discrimination.
All our employees are free to become or remain members of any
labor organization. We will not discriminate in regard to the hire
or tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment
against any employee because of membership in or activity on be-
half of any such labor organization.
AMERICAN BOOK-STRATFORD PRESS, INC.
Employer.
Dated -------------------------- By --------------------------
(Representative ) ( Title)
AMERICAN BOOK-STRATFORD PRESS, INC . 921
INTERMEDIATE REPORT
Mr. James C . Paradise , for the Board.
McLanahan , Merritt & Ingraham , by Mr. Henry Clifton , Jr., of New York City,
for the respondent.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon a second amended charge duly filed on October 24, 1945, by Local 1, United
Office & Professional Workers of America, CIO , herein called the Union, the
National Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board, by its Regional Director
for the Second Region ( New York , New York ), issued its complaint dated Octo-
ber 14, 1946 , against American Book-Stratford Press, Inc., herein called the re-
spondent , alleging that the respondent had engaged in and was engaging in unfair
labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8 (1), (3) and
(5) and Section 2 (6) and ( 7) of the National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449,
herein called the Act. Copies of the complaint and the second amended charge,
accompanied by notices of hearing thereon, were duly served upon the respondent
and the Union.
With respect to the unfair labor practices the complaint alleged in substance
that at all times since August 25 , 1945, the Union has been the exclusive repre-
sentative of a majority of the employees within an appropriate unit ; that the
respondent : ( 1) on or about September 4, 1945, and at all times thereafter failed
and refused to bargain collectively with the Union , although since that date and
particularly on September 4, 28, and October 11, 1945, and on numerous other oc-
casions between said dates , the Union requested the respondent to bargain with
it; (2) discharged Josephine Greenberg on or about August 29, 1945, Esther
Bernstein and Elaine Ross Krapp on or about September 14, 1945, and Mildred
Friedman on or about September 19, 1945, and at all subsequent times failed and
refused to reinstate any of them , because they joined or assisted the Union or
engaged in other concerted activities for the purposes of collective bargaining or
other mutual aid or protection ; ( 3) from on or about June 1945, to September
1945, vilified , disparaged and expressed disapproval of the Union, interrogated its
employees concerning their Union affiliations , urged, persuaded and warned its
employees to refrain from assisting , becoming members of or remaining members
of the Union , urged its employees to form a bargaining committee as an alterna-
tive to the Union, threatened its employees with discharge or other reprisals if
they joined or assisted the Union , attempted to keep under observation and sur-
veillance the activities of the Union or the concerted activities of its employees,
promulgated and enforced a rule forbidding the distribution or reading of Union
literature and the solicitation of Union memberships in the plant , and thereafter
disseminated anti -union propaganda in the plant and solicited employees to
oppose the Union; and ( 4) by all said acts the respondent has interfered with,
restrained , and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in
Section 7 of the Act.
The respondent thereafter , on October 31, 1946, filed its answer wherein it ad-
mitted the appropriateness of the unit alleged in the complaint and that the
Union had requested bargaining rights but alleged that it was not required to
bargain with the Union because it did not represent a majority of the employees
and that the election conducted on August 25, 1945, as well as the Regional Di-
rector 's report on the respondent's objections to the election , were null and void.
The answer further admitted the posting of a non-distribution rule in the plant
and that Greenberg , Bernstein and Krapp were discharged on or about the dates
922 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
alleged in the complaint, but alleged that such discharges were for cause. It al-
leged that Friedman resigned about September 19, 1945, and denied the commis-
sion of any unfair labor practices.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held in New York City from October 31 to
November 5, 1945, before J. J. Fitzpatrick, the undersigned Trial Examiner duly
appointed by the Chief Trial Examiner. At the hearing, the Board and the re-
spondent were represented by counsel. All parties participated in the bearing and
were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine wit-
nesses and to introduce evidence bearing upon the issues. At the conclusion of
the hearing, the undersigned without objection, granted a motion by counsel for
the Board to conform the pleadings to the proof in formal matters, and reserved
ruling on a motion by counsel for the respondent to dismiss the complaint for
lack of proof. The latter motion is disposed of by the recommendations herein-
after made. Oral argument was waived by the parties but they were given time
to file briefs with the undersigned after the close of the hearing. Briefs have
been received from counsel for the respondent and the Board.
Upon the entire record in the case, and from his observation of the witnesses,
the undersigned makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
The American Book-Stratford Press, Inc., is a New York corporation having its
principal office and place of business at 75 Varick Street, Borough of Manhattan,
New York City. It also has warehouses at Hudson Street, New York City, and
Bay Street , Jersey City, New Jersey . It is engaged in the book manufacturing
business . The principal materials used are cloth and boards . During the past
year it purchased materials of the value of about $500 ,000, of which more than 10
percent were shipped to the plant from places outside the State of New York.
During the same period , its manufactured goods exceeded the value of $1,000,000,
of which probably more than 10 percent thereof were shipped by it to places out-
side the State of New York . The respondent concedes that it is engaged in inter-
state commerce and that it is subject to the jurisdiction of the National Labor
Relations Act.'
IT. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Local 1, United Office & Professional Workers of America, CIO, is a labor
organization admitting to membership employees of the respondent.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Chronology of events
The respondent has a total of about 800 employees. Those employed in the
plant proper and particularly the composing room, the paper room, the press
room, and the bindery, represented by a number of AFL unions and by the Typo-
graphical Union, unaffiliated, have for many years had contractual relations with
the respondent. So far as the record discloses, none of the other employees of
1 The findings as to the business of the respondent is based upon a stipulation of the
parties.
AMERICAN BOOK-STRATFORD PRESS, INC. 923
the respondent have been represented by labor organizations and there is no
background or history of prior unfair labor practices a
Included among the respondent's employees are approximately 46 office workers
wh( apparently have never prior to July 1945, been represented by a union but
have dealt individually with the respondent in matters concerning wages, hours
and working conditions. The record discloses that beginning in June 1945 some
of the office workers became interested in securing the charging union to repre-
sent them in collective bargaining with the respondent. As a result of the
organizational activity that followed thereafter, the Union on July 24, 1945,
filed a petition in the Regional Office claiming to represent a majority of the
office employees 3 On July 31, 1945, the respondent and the Union signed an
agreement for an election to be held among the office workers, under the super-
vision of the Board's Regional Director, on August 28, 1945, to determine whether
or not those employees desired to be represented by the Union.
Pursuant to this agreement the election was held in the respondent's office on
August 28, 1945, from 4: 30 to 5: 30 p in. All the 46 eligible office employees voted
and the tally sheet showed that 22 had voted against and 24 for the Union. On
September 27, 1945, the Regional Director filed a report overruling objections
to the election previously filed by the respondent and, pursuant to the conditions
and terms of the election agreement, found that the Union was the exclusive
representative of all the employees in the defined unit.
In the meanwhile, on September 24, 1945, a petition, dated the same day,
signed by 39 of the office employees and requesting a new election, was filed
with the Regional Director. Subsequent to the election the Union sent two
telegrams to the respondent requesting that it set a date for bargaining confer-
ences with the Union. The respondent acknowledged receipt of these telegrams
but no bargaining conferences developed as a result thereof. The last communi-
cation of the Union to the respondent was a letter dated October 11, 1945, wherein
the Union insisted that the respondent set a date for an immediate conference.
This letter was not answered by the respondent.
B. Interference, restraint, and coercion
During the period when some of the respondent's office employees were
endeavoring to secure a majority representation in the Union and also to obtain
bargaining rights for that organization, the respondent promulgated and posted
a rule prohibiting the distribution among office employees, on the respondent's
premises, of any kind of pamphlets, literature or other reading matter. A
racial issue was also injected into the campaign. Respondent's president, Sidney
Satenstein, queried employees about the racial issue and the Union. The facts
and circumstances surrounding (a) the issuance of the no-distribution rule and
the manner of its enforcement, and (b) the questioning of employees, will be
discussed herein in the order named.
S It was stipulated that the Regional Office of the Board wrote the respondent on October
16, 1946, that the United Packinghouse Workers of America, CIO, had filed a petition
claiming to represent a majority of the employees at the respondent ' s Jersey City ware-
house; and that on October 25, 1946 , the Regional Office wrote the respondent that the
same union had that day filed a charge alleging the discriminatory lay-off of some ware-
house employees, and that the charge had been referred to a Field Examiner for
investigation.
8 The petition alleged that the appropriate unit included all office employees except two
confidential secretaries and a head bookkeeper . The petition was later amended to specify
a unit of all office employees , excluding confidential secretaries and supervisors.
924 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
1. The no-distribution rule
During the campaign for membership in the Union and about the middle of
July 1945, copies of a pamphlet headed "An Open Letter To Management At
American Book Stratford Press" was left on the desk of each of the office em-
ployees before working hours. There is credible testimony that management also
received copies of this pamphlet at the time. The document bore the signatures
of employees Selma DeRefler' and Herbert Lindheimer as co-chairmen of the
Union committee, and also the signatures of employees Ruth Fetterman, Mildred
Friedman, and Helen Leo. It was well written and set forth in dispassionate
language the reasons why the employees in the office wanted a union. It ex-
plained that they had chosen the charging union because its members were
"white collar and professional workers" like the respondent's office employees,
it had been quite successful in securing job security and decent salaries for
employees in other plants, and was an "honest, democratic union." The pamph-
let closed with the following appeal to the respondent :
We believe that as a liberal American you cannot but recognize the legal
rights of your employees to organize into a union, and to respect their
intelligence and maturity in choosing their own way in the settlement of
their problem.
On Monday, August 20, 1945, there appeared in the New York World-Telegram
an article under the by-line of Nelson Franks headed, "Office Workers Quit CIO
Union, Call It Red." The article, quoting a former member of the Union, criti-
cized the Union for dilatory tactics in securing the National Labor Relations
Board to conduct elections for its members, stated that the Union's head organizer
had been a member of the "Communist Political Association," accused the Union
of being more interested in radical political activities than in protecting its
members, and referred to Lewis Merrill, National president of the Union, as "a
well known defender of the Communist Party, who attended the secret sessions
of the recent Communist Convention." The same day, President Satenstein
purchased a large number of the newspapers containing this article, had the
article marked with red crayon, the newspapers turned so that the marked por-
tion appeared on top, and during business hours placed copies of the paper on
the desk of each of the office workers. The article was also clipped from one
of the newspapers and posted on the bulletin board in the office.
At about the same time and prior to the August 28 election, President Satenstein
had prepared and posted on the bulletin board the following :
TO THE MEMBERS OF THE OFFICE STAFF OF AMERICAN BOOK-
STRATFORD PRESS
The Company recognizes the right of every employee to join any union that
he may wish to join. And such membership in a union will not affect an
employee's position with this company. On the other hand, we feel that it
should be made equally clear to each employee that it is not at all necessary
for him to join any labor organization, despite anything he may be told to
the contrary. Certainly, there is no law which requires or is intended to
compel an employee to pay dues to, or to join any organization.
When our employees ask about unions, we give them the same advice as
when they ask about any other problems affecting wages of working people.
' DeRefier left the respondent 's employ ip April 1946 . She married thereafter. Her
married name , Bernstein , is not used herein to avoid confusion with Esther Bernstein,
referred to hereafter.
AMERICAN BOOK-STRATFORD PRESS, INC . 925
We say to them : First, figure out for yourself what you are going to get
out of it. If you go into a union, they have got you, but what have you got?
We think our employees ought to consider whether it is necessary for them
to pay a union every month for the privilege of working at the American
Book-Stratford Press, or whether any union can or will do more for them than
they can do through a bargaining committee which they can set up among
themselves.
The forthcoming election is for many of you the most important one you
have ever voted in. It bears directly on your welfare and that of those
dependent on you. To what kind of leadership are you going to entrust your
future with the Company? Is it unselfish or is it not? Is it interested in your
personal, individual, welfare, or is it self-seeking? On the basis of its past
record is it open and above-board and dependable, or don't you know? These
decisions you will make through your ballot.
So when it comes to the final analysis, you are voting on whom you want to
have for your leader. In this election you have two choices:
1. Do you want outside people, having no connection with the plant and
working through a committee of employees, to represent you; or
2. Will you be better off working through your own bargaining committee
which you may set up among yourselves and over which you will have exclu-
sive control without paying dues to an outside organization or the necessity to
taking orders from those who cannot possibly be as intensely interested in
your welfare as you are?
Without any union you may still bargain and get all the facts and determine
what you want to do and do it through your own committee.
AGAIN WE SAY: THE DECISION IS SOLELY YOURS TO MAKE.
SIDNEY SATENSTEIN.
In addition to being posted, a copy of the above communication was handed to
each of the office employees as they left the plant by Harold Steineck, the office
manager.
At or prior to the time of the distribution and posting of the World-Telegram
article above referred to, the respondent posted on the bulletin board the
following:
NOTICE
The distribution of literature, pamphlets and other reading matter among
office employees on company premises is found to be interfering with the
efficient conduct of the company's business and from this date must be
discontinued.
This regulation shall apply to all reading matter of every character, and
failure to conform will be grounds for disciplining of employees violating
same.
AMERICAN BOOK-STRATFORD PRESS,
By (s) Sidney Satenstein
SIDNEY SATENSTEIN, President.
Before working hours on election day, August 28, employees Helen Leo and
Josephine Greenberg placed on the desks of each of the office employees the
following pamphlet :
DIGNITY AND DEMOCRACY
Mr. Satenstein proposes that we form our "own" office committee. He
admits that collective bargaining IS necessary for his employees.
926 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
But collective bargaining for wage increases and better conditions is a
complicated business. It's something new to us. We can't do it without help.
It's common sense. When we're sick, we call an "outsider" the Doctor.
When Mr. Satenstein needs advice he calls HIS union, the Book Manufac-
turers Institute, or his lawyer ... all outsiders. They don't work in
American Book.
Mr. Satenstein underestimates the intelligence of his employees. We're not
naive. We know that :
1. Such an office committee is NOT an independent organization of the
employees, but is completely under the employer's control. That is why the
U. S. Gov't has declared such committees illegal.
2. In the Union we WILL elect our own bargaining committee, department
by department, and when we sit down to bargain with Management, we will
have the United States Government behind us, and the power and strength
of the labor movement to back us up.
3. We are absolutely helpless alone. We NEED the advice, experience and
backing of organized people in the book field and in the CIO.
This is the U. S. A. Forming trade unions is one of the rights for which
we fought this war. Re-forming trade unions is one of the first things our
Armies have done in every liberated country. Trade Unions are an extension
of our democracy . . . right into the office. That's what a YES vote means.
A "NO" vote is a vote for NOTHING.
Issued by : American Book-Stratford Press Chapter, Local 1, UOPWA, CIO.
uopwa #1.
Abut 9: 30 that morning Leo was called to the president's office where Saten-
stein, in the presence of Vice-President Ammon, asked her if she had distributed
the above leaflet. On receiving an affirmative answer, he told her that such action
was a violation of the respondent's posted rule against distribution of literature
and that she could be discharged for such act.
Several days before the election, President Satenstein secured from a local
judge a copy of a page from the Congressional Record containing a report from
the Dies Committee on Lewis Merrill, the president of the Union, and gave it to
office employee Lillian Brady. About the same time, this Dies report, but with
the name "Cohen" written in ink after Merrill's name, was handed to Mildred
Friedman by Louis Andrews. As will hereafter appear in more detail, when
Friedman was asked by Satenstein on September 14, 1945, to state that there had
been no anti-Semitic action by management, Friedman called Satenstein's atten-
tion, among other things, to the distribution, prior to the election, of this Dies
report on Merrill, and implied that the report came from Satenstein's office which
the latter did not deny.`
2. Questioning of employees ; the racial issue
In June 1945, about the time when organizing activities for the union started,
President Satenstein asked his secretary, Elaine Ross Krapp, if she had heard
any union talk about the office. On receiving a negative response he asked her
6 Satenstein testified that he secured the article on Merrill after Brady had requested
him to obtain what information he could about the Union leaders, and particularly about
Merrill. This Dies report was not offered in evidence but according to statements con-
tained in the Union 's Objections to the Employer 's Conduct , filed contemporaneously with
the Union's Answer to the respondent's Objections to the Election (and which the
respondent in its Answer to the Union's counter -objections did not deny) and part of the
record herein, the Dies Committee Report stated that Merrill was a Communist.
AMERICAN BOOK-STRATFORD PRESS, INC . 927
to report to him any such talk that she did hear thereafter. When Krapp failed
to answer this request, Satenstein said, "You aren't by any chance a member of
the Union, are you?" to which Krapp replied, "Just about."' Satenstein then told
Krapp that it was a disgrace for anyone as close to management as she was to be
thinking of joining such a union ; that the Union was dominated by Communists
and was in disrepute in the labor movement. A few days later Satenstein asked
Krapp if she had told anyone that he knew there was union activity among the
office employees and received a negative response. About the 22nd or 23rd of
July 1945, Aaron Schneider and Charlotte Peterson, union officials, visited Presi-
dent Satenstein at his office. Following the visit of the Union officials, Satenstein
said to Krapp, who had not been present during the interview with the Union's,
representatives but who had ushered them into Satenstein's office and presumably
knew who they were, "Why are they trying to organize only Jewish publishing
houses?" " Krapp replied that she was not aware that such was the fact, where-
upon Satenstein asked, "Well, why do they send Jews down to talk to me?" Krapp
responded that she was not aware of the fact that Miss Peterson was Jewish..
About the end of July B Satenstein asked Krapp if she would tell him how she,
would cast her ballot if given an opportunity to vote in the forthcoming election.
Krapp replied that the answer was obvious as he knew that she was a member of
the Union. Satenstein added that, if Krapp would promise to vote against the
Union, he would fight for her right to vote in the election. During this colloquy,
Krapp said that such statements and questioning by the president of the respondent
amounted to a violation of the law. Satenstein immediately answered that, if
Krapp ever testified that he had questioned her, he would deny it, and she would
be unable to prove it as there were no witnesses . About the middle of August 1945,
Krapp 's title was changed from that of secretary to that of assistant to the pres-
ident. She was also given a $5 a week increase in salary, but her duties were in
no way changed . A few days after this raise had been announced to her, Saten-
stein accused Krapp of assisting in union organization in the office, which accusa-
tion she denied. He then told her that he knew that union people came to her
office. Krapp in effect admitted this to be true but told him that she did not invite
such people. Satenstein commented that he was not "happy" about the situation
and extracted a promise from her that she would be neutral in union affairs.
Reference has heretofore been made to the statement Satenstein issued, dis-
tributed and had posted, which questioned the wisdom of the employees in voting
for a union and suggested that they select a committee of their own to bargain
with the respondent. Satenstein prepared this notice by dictating the original to
Krapp subsequent to her promotion. While Krapp was typing the document,
Mildred Friedman, heretofore referred to, came into her office and Krapp said,
"Look what Satenstein has given to me to type," whereupon Friedman took up.
the notice and started to read it. About that time Satenstein entered the room
and Friedman dropped the typing and left. Satenstein then took Krapp into his
private office and told her that she had betrayed a confidence, that she had no.
right to show a union committee member what he had dictated especially before
Krapp at the time was not a member of the Union, but joined it the next day.
T Sidney Satenstein as well as most, if not all, of the officials of the respondent were
Jewish.
8 It will be recalled that the Union filed a petition for representation on July 24, and.
that on July 31 the respondent stipulated as to the appropriateness of the claimed unit
and agreed to an election.
928 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
he had read the typed copy or had ordered it posted, and that she had "invited
disloyalty."
Prior to the distribution of the first union leaflet in July 1945, which it will
be recalled was signed by a number of the office employees, including Selma
DeRefler as co-chairman of the union's committee of employees, Satenstein called
DeRefler to his office and stated that he understood that she was trying to organ-
ize the office employees ; that he was very much against the Union, as it was
Communistic; that he understood that all the Union members were Jewish and
that all the firms that they had organized were Jewish; that the Union was now
trying to get into the manufacturing field and the first manufacturing firm they
attempted to organize was his which was also Jewish ; that he considered it a
black mark for DeRefler to be active for such an organization, as she was
Jewish. DeRefler denied that race or religion was involved and asserted that
many members of the Union as well as its leaders were not Jewish, and that this
was true of a large number of firms whose employees had been organized by
the Union ; that employees organized regardless of race when they were ready
to do so. Satenstein inquired what the employees could gain by being organized
that he could not give them without the Union. DeRefler answered that the
employees were not organizing because they had anything against Satenstein-
that there was nothing personal about it-but that the employees wanted to
act as a unit and not have to individually bicker for pay raises. After some
further discussion between the two as to various raises in pay that the re-
spondent had granted to the employees in the past, Satenstein reiterated that
he was against the Union and would never let it get into the office 10
As herein otherwise found, Helen Leo assisted in the distribution of a union
pamphlet on company premises before the regular working period the morning
of the election, August 28, 1945, and was criticized by Satenstein later that
morning for so doing. During the interview Satenstein asked Leo if she was
Jewish, and why she wanted a union ; and Vice-President Ammon, who was
present, also inquired why the employees in the office wanted a union when the
work was not hard and they were treated "so nicely."' Leo admitted that she
was a Jew and stated that she wanted a union to represent her so that she
could get a raise in pay without having to "beg and plead for it."
The election was held between 4: 30 and 5: 30 p. in. on August 28 in the private
office of the respondent's secretary, Burr. Shortly before the time set for the
election on August 28, Field Examiner Pascal, assisted by another man, entered
the respondent's offices laden with ballot boxes and other paraphernalia for the
election. Noting the entrance of Pascal and his assistant, Josephine Moen
inquired in the presence of Josephine Greenberg, Mildred Friedman and Al
9 The findings as to what transpired at these various conferences between President
Satenstein and Krapp is based upon a reconciliation of the testimony of both of them.
Satenstein admitted that he probably talked to Krapp after the visit from the Union officials
but could not recall what was said . He admitted that he made inquiries dealing with the
"Jewish problem," but asserted the inquiries were directed to the Union officials and not to
Mrs. Krapp, or in her presence . He testified that he told Krapp before July 31 that he
had no objection to her being a union member but that he would not agree to her being
included in the voting unit.
10 Satenstein admitted that about three times a month he talked to DeRefler in his office
when she was there in the course of her duties. He did not recall any of the incidents
such as shown in the above credited testimony of DeRefler and denied generally that he
had such conversations with her.
11 Ammon was not questioned about this conversation. Satenstein admitted criticizing Leo
for distributing the pamphlets but testified that nothing further was said. Leo's version,
as above found , is credited.
AMERICAN BOOK-STRATFORD PRESS, INC. 929
Oliveri,12 "Why don't they send us some good Irishmen? You have all your
Jews representing you ; " Friedman assured Moen that the two were
government officials and that they could well be Irish. Moen insisted that they
were not Irish, "They don't look it. What do you think, Al?" Oliveri did not
answer this question, but Dorothy Nohrenberg, overhearing the conversation,
commented, "Yeah, I'm sure that they are Irish, just like Louis Merrill.""
There was some further comment in this conversation by Moen to the effect that
Herbert Lindheimer, "is on your side" and "he's Jewish" while Mulcahy "is on
our side" and he is Irish.14 Greenberg became very disturbed about these various
comments of Moen and went over to two other employees in the office, Lena
Berkhoff and another girl whom Greenberg identified only as "Sarah," and bitterly
commented, "Those dirty bastards, they even resort to Jew baiting."
When the voting was over and the tally of votes had been counted about
5:30 p. m. (which was also the quitting time for the office employees), Union
Organizer Peterson came to the door of Burr's office and announced that the
Union had won the election Whereupon a shout of approval went up from many
of the office employees, and Greenberg cried, "That's the end of Jew baiting in
America." 16
Before office hours on the morning of September 14, Union Organizer Char-
lotte Peterson and Mildred Friedman distributed in front of the plant to the
office employees a union pamphlet which stated that on August 28, 1945, the office
employees had selected the Union as their bargaining representative but that
since such date the respondent had refused to bargain with the Union, was en-
12 Oliverl was head of the production unit in the office but was included in the voting
unit. He went by the name of Oliver in the office
13 The finding as to this episode is based upon the testimonoy of Friedman and Greenberg.
Oliver!, although he testified otherwise did not refer to this incident and the others named
were not called as witnesses
14 Lindheimer had previously been selected by the Union, and Mulcahy had been selected
by the respondent , as official observers in the election.
11 President Satenstein and Vice -President Ammon both testified that they were present
at the time the result of the election was announced and that above the shouting, or at
the end of it, they heard Greenberg exclaim , "We beat the bastards ," but that they heard
her say nothing else. Satenstein also testified variously that ( a) at the time, he did
not know who Greenberg was; (b ) that the first information he had relative to the use of
rough language by Greenberg came from employees Moen and Brady , and possibly Dorothy
Nohrenberg , and (c ) that when these employees complained to him he told them that he
had already made up his mind to discharge Greenberg because he had heard her use the
language in the office . He admitted stating in his affidavit in connection with the objec-
tions to the election that he had received reports that Greenberg had said "this is the end of
Jew baiting in America ," and that he had said nothing therein about Greenberg using vile
language in his presence . The group in which Greenberg was standing admittedly
consisted of most of the office employees many of whom had voted against the Union. It
seems reasonable that Greenberg , who was highly emotional and somewhat upset, in her
moment of joy on learning that the Union had won , would have referred to the defeat
of the tactics that she understood were being used against the Union rather than to refer
in opprobrious terms about fellow employees in their presence. Neither Brady , Moen nor
Nohrenberg were called as witnesses to testify as to this incident , and there was no showing
of their unavailability . As will hereafter appear in more detail Greenberg was discharged
on August 29, the morning after the election . Inconsistencies and contradictions in
Satenstein 's testimony as to what happened after the election , as above found , as well as
contradictions in his testimony as to what transpired the next day when he questioned
Greenberg , convinced me that Greenberg used the vulgar expression above referred to prior
to the holding of the election when disturbed by the comments of employee Moen as
above found, and that Satenstein and Ammon were confused as to the facts when they
testified that Greenberg used the expression when the result of the election was announced.
930 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
gaging in other unfair labor practices and was "using the contemptible weapon
of anti-Semitism" to break the Union "chosen by its employees." After work
started that morning, President Satenstein called his secretary, Krapp, into his
office and he asked her if she had ever heard of or experienced any anti-Semi-
tism on the part of respondent's officials. After some discussion, Krapp
stated that she could not answer the question with a categorical "No," that Sat-
enstein had exacted a promise from her that she should remain neutral in union
matters and she felt that if she answered his question in the negative it would
strengthen the respondent's side of a controversy with the Union ; and, further,
that Satenstein himself had in the past made anti-Semitic statements to her.
Krapp was then excused from the room but later that day was discharged, as
will hereafter more fully appear.
The same morning of September 14, Satenstein also sent for Selma DeRefler,
Mildred Friedman, and Ruth Fedderman and posed the same questions to them
individually that he had asked Krapp. Friedman told Satenstein that she could
not give an unqualified negative answer to the question as to whether there was
anti-Semitism in the plant; that she considered the Dies Committee Report on
Louis Merrill anti-Semitic and assumed that it came from his office as no effort
had been made to stop its circulation. Satenstein replied that racial feelings
were matters mostly in people's minds, over which he had no control. DeRefler
told Satenstein that she could technically answer "No" to the question about
anti-Semitism, but that the question and answer was really a "cover up," be-
cause there was open anti-Semitism in the office by various workers and as
Satenstein had done nothing to stop it, he had shown that he also was anti-
Semitic. Satenstein replied that he was not aware that anything like that ex-
isted in the office and that lie would take measures to correct it "' Ruth Fedder-
man was in Florida at the time of the hearing and did not testify. The record
does not disclose what transpired in the interview she had with Satenstein rela-
tive to the questionnaire, but apparently she did not sign an affidavit.
Later in the day after the above interviews with Satenstein, Friedman who
worked in the service department had occasion to go to the die room to get some
information relative to some dies." She invited DeRefler to accompany her and
on their way Fedderman joined them, although the latter two had no duties at
the time to perform in the stock room. After Friedman had secured the infor-
mation she needed about dies, the three women, who had entered through the
corridor entrance," spent about 10 minutes in the (lie room discussing the advis-
ability of signing affidavits relative to anti-Semitism which Satenstein had pre-
viously stated would be prepared for their signatures.
Someone then rattled at the corridor door which was closed and it proved to
be Esther Bernstein of the billing department who had a few days before been
elected to succeed Friedman as co-chairman of the Union committee, but who
16 A few days later DeRefler did sign an affidavit containing a categorical "No" the answer
as to whether there was any anti-Semitism in the office. This, as well as other affidavits
Satenstein secured from other employees were used in answering the Union's counter-
objections to the respondent's conduct during the election
19 The die room so called. was really not a separate room but consisted of that portion
of the larger stock room adjoining the main corridor of the office where dies were kept and
records filed. On the other side of the stock room was a door that opened into the receiving
room, but the only direct entrance to the die room was through the corridor door which
was ordinarily kept locked. President Satenstein and the head of the stock room were the
only ones with keys thereto
"The record is not clear as to whether the die room door was open at the time or whether
Friedman secured a key thereto from the stock room manager.
AMERICAN BOOK-STRATFORD PRESS, INC. 931
had come to get some supplies for her department. After Bernstein secured the
supplies she listened for some minutes to the discussion which continued among
the other three women, but took no part therein excepting to announce that she
would never sign such an affidavit. As Bernstein was about to depart through
the stock room into the receiving room, the corridor door was unlocked and
Satenstein appeared. He demanded that they explain what they were doing
in the die room and was told that they were discussing the advisability of sign-
ing the affidavits. Satenstein ordered the four girls to return to their work, but
later sent for and questioned each one individually in the presence of Ammon as
to how they had come to go to the locked die room and what they had discussed
therein. Fedderman and Deletler admitted that they had no business in the
stock room. Friedman stated that she went to the room for die information
and proved it by showing him the particular Job she was working on. During
his individual discussion with Friedman, Satenstein was told that Bernstein
had recently been elected co-chairman of the Union committee. Each of these
employees excepting Bernstein reiterated individually that they discussed
the signing of the affidavits in the room. Bernstein, interrogated last, refused
to answer Statenstein's questions as to what was being discussed in the die room,
and was discharged as will hereafter appear in more detail."
Late in the afternoon of September 18, Satenstein sent for Friedman and gave
her an affidavit to sign. Friedman read the paper and noted that the question
relative to anti-Semitism in the plant was answered with a categorical "No." She
refused to sign the document on the ground that the answer to this question did
not contain the reservations that she had previously specified in her discussion
with Satenstein. The next morning Friedman was relieved of her job, as will
hereafter appear in more detail.
3 Conclusions
Although the respondent for a number of years has been dealing amicably with
unions as the representative of employees in various production departments of
its plant, the record here discloses an entire lack of enthusiasm toward organiz-
ing the office employees. President Satenstein prior to the August 28 election,
made that clear to all by his posted and distributed notice wherein he disparaged
any benefits representation by an outside union might bring, and suggested that
the office workers elect a bargaining committee composed of their own members..
He underscored this attitude against outside representation by telling his private
secretary, Krapp, and also employee DeRefler, that the Union was dominated by
Communists and that he would employ any means he could to defeat its efforts
to become the bargaining agent for the office employees. The respondent dis-
paraged the Union and its leaders by the Dies Committee report and the distri-
bution and posting of the World-Telegram article; and discouraged membership
in the Union by the questioning of Leo by Satenstein and Ammon. Satenstein
injected anti-Semitism into the controversy by his comment to Krapp, that the
Union was composed of and headed by Jews and that it sought only to organize
Jewish-owned concerns. At the time the respondent was distributing anti-union
propaganda of the above type among the office workers prior to, the election, it
issued and posted a broad plant rule which forbade the Union protagonists to
distribute literature on the premises to explain and counteract the false issues
It The findings as to the questioning of employees relative to, the affidavit and what
transpired in the stock room and thereafter is based upon a reconciliation of the testimony
of Friedman. DeRelter, Bernstein Saten,,tein, and Ammon.
817319-49-vol 80-60
932 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
thus raised. Finally, to meet union criticism of its anti-Semitism attitude, the
respondent attempted with some success to inveigle Jewish employees into sign-
ing affidavits to the effect that the respondent was not anti-Semitic.
It is probably true, as argued by the respondent, that the pre-election statement
issued over President Satenstein's signature and distributed to the office em-
ployees did not, standing alone, constitute a violation of the Act under the deci-
sions of the Courts and the Board, because it contained no coercive statement or
threat of reprisal against the employees. When such a statement is made, how-
ever, by a respondent contemporaneously with other acts of interference such as
is found above, the entire course of conduct spells out a designed plan to inter-
fere with the rights of the employees to organize. It is therefore found that by
the above acts and entire course of conduct the respondent has interfered with,
restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed by
Section 7 of the Act.
C. Discrimination
Josephine Greenberg started to work for the respondent in February of 1944
at $24 a week. Thereafter she benefitted by two increases in pay. No question is
raised here as to her ability as a worker. As heretofore found, before working
time on election day, August 28, she and Helen Leo distributed on the desks of
the office employees a mimeograph copy of a union statement which in effect
answered the previously issued and distributed statement over President Saten-
stein's signature and explained why the employees would benefit by representation
through an outside union 20 Later in the day and about the time the election was
to start at 4: 30 p in., Greenberg was present and heard remarks of an anti-Semitic
nature by employees Moen and Nohrenberg. Incensed by these statements re-
flecting on her race, Greenberg remarked to two other employees, "Those dirty
bastards, they even resort to Jew-baiting." There is credible testimony that rough
language such as the expression above used, though not customary, was on occa-
sion used by women employees as well as others in the office, and with no criticism
from management. About 5: 30 that afternoon, which was also quitting time,
when it was announced that the Union had won the election, there was consid-
erable excitement in the office and some cheering, and Greenberg gleefully
shouted "That's the end of Jew baiting in America." The next morning President
Satenstein sent for Greenberg and accused her of using in the office the expression
"dirty bastards" and "Jew baiting." Greenberg admitted using the terms and
apologized for doing so. She explained that her feelings had run away with her
because of the anti-Semitism of some of the workers. Satenstein asked why she
had not reported these anti-Semitic comments to him as she knew that he also
was Jewish. Greenberg replied that the incident happened during the election.
She again apologized but Satenstein refused to accept the apology and discharged
her forthwith." She has not since been reemployed by the respondent.
The expression "dirty bastards" is hardly one that you would expect a lady to
use. However, the circumstances that brought about the employment of the
expression must be considered. Whether we take Greenberg's version, which has
been credited, that she used the expression in an aside comment to two fellow
20It will be recalled that later the same morning that President Satenstein criticized
Leo for participating in this distribution and threatened to discharge her for violating
respondent's no-distribution rule.
21 Although discharged as of August 29, Greenberg was paid up to and including
September 7, 1945.
AMERICAN BOOK-STRATFORD PRESS, INC. 933
workers about the time the election was to start, or accept Satenstein's version,
which has not been credited, that the expression was used immediately after the
announcement of the result of the election, the expression was used at a time of
high emotional strain and excitement. It is also noted that there is credible testi-
mony other than that of Greenberg that rough language including the word "bas-
tard," while not common was certainly not unusual among the women workers
in the office, and that no one had ever been criticized or disciplined for using such
language prior to the Greenberg case. It is clear from this record that the re-
spondent, and particularly President Satenstein, was disappointed in the results
of the election, and in view of the interference heretofore found on the part of the
respondent and the discriminatory acts and other unfair labor practices here-
after found, the undersigned is convinced that the vulgar language used by Green-
berg served as a convenient pretext for her discharge without previous warning,
but that the real reason therefor was her activity on behalf of the Union. By
the discharge of Greenberg and the failure thereafter to reinstate her the re-
spondent has discriminated in her hire and tenure of her employment to discourage
membership in the Union in violation of the Act.
Esther Bernstein was employed in the billing department in September 1944,
and no question is raised as to her ability as a worker. She joined the Union
in July 1945, and was discharged on September 14 of that year, following the
die room incident heretofore referred to. She has not since been rehired by
the respondent. Prior to her discharge on September 14, she was questioned
individually by Satenstein as to why she was in the die room and what was
discussed therein among the women. Bernstein explained that she went to the
die room for supplies, but refused to tell Satenstein what was discussed while
she was in the room. Satenstein testified that he discharged Bernstein be-
cause (a) she had no business or reason for going to the die room, and (b)
because she refused to divulge to him what was discussed while she was present
in the room. There is credible testimony that the cards or forms used by Bern-
stein in the performance of her ordinary duties were kept in the stock room
which as heretofore found included the die room. Bernstein's testimony is
credited that she went to the die room in the course of her duties as pricing
clerk. Under the circumstances there is no merit in the first reason given for
the discharge. As to her failure to discuss what transpired in the die room
in her hearing, disregarding the fact that Satenstein had been told that the
discussion was about signing the affidavit when he first entered the die room that
morning, it can be conceded that the respondent was entitled to know when em-
ployees were wasting company time, and also, probably, what they were doing
while so neglecting their duties. But having ascertained that certain employees
were visiting on company time, it is questionable whether it was entitled to
pry into their private conversation even in those circumstances. In this in-
stance the discussion involved matters affecting the Union. Bernstein had re-
r' It is also noted that Vice-President Ammon, who was present during the interview with
Greenberg, testified on cross-examination that he did not "recall" whether any reference
to Jews was made during this interview. After having his memory refreshed by quotations
from Satenstein's affidavit, he testified that Satenstein "may have" asked Greenberg why
she had not brought the anti-Semitic statements to his attention before. Ammon further
testified that anti-Semitic expressions by an employee would be considered more serious
than the use of obscene language. Nevertheless, although the record clearly shows without
dispute that anti-Semitic remarks were made by employees and the matter came to the
attention of management, so far as the record discloses no disciplinary action was taken
against the anti-Semitic workers.
934 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
cently been elected co-chairman of the Union committee of which fact Saten-
stein had knowledge. Bernstein was not a party to the union discussion and
only heard portions thereof. She knew that Satenstein had been told that the
discussion was about the affidavits but did not know the results of the private
interviews with the others in the die room. In view of Satenstein 's anti-union
attitude as heretofore found, Bernstein 's refusal to give him any information
about the die room conference is understandable. Furthermore, the conference
in the die room relative to the affidavit was justified even on company time
in view of the fact that Satenstein himself had raised the issue the same morn-
ing on company time and it was up to the other three girls , DeRefler, Friedman,
and Fedderman, who had been questioned about the affidavits to make up their
minds whether they would actually sign them. After Satenstein had learned
that the die room discussion was about signing the affidavits that he had re-
quested , further investigation was not indicated or justified . In this connec-
tion it is noted that no disciplinary action of any kind was taken against the
other three employees found in the die room although they were in the room
at least twice as long as Bernstein was, and two of them admittedly had no
duties whatsoever to perform in the die room at the time . Under the cir-
cumstances it is found that Satenstein 's second reason for Bernstein 's discharge
is also without merit. It is quite evident from this record that Satenstein was
convinced that Bernstein , as the newly elected chairman of the union com-
mittee, had called the die room meeting on company time, and discharged her
because she would not admit such to be the fact. Even if this assumption was
true the summary discharge of Bernstein under the circumstances would have
been discriminatory in my judgment.
From the entire record it is found that by the discharge and refusal there-
after to reinstate or rehire Bernstein , the respondent has discriminated as to
her hire and tenure of employment to discourage membership in the Union, in
violation of the Act.
Elaine Ross Kropp came to the respondent as President Satenstein 's private
secretary in May 1945 , at a salary of $45 a week . In addition to the usual
stenographic and file work she edited the plant magazine and read manuscripts
for Satenstein ' s literary agency. About the middle of August 1945, she was
given an unsolicited salary increase of $5 a week , acrd her classification was
changed from that of private secretary to assistant to the president . Her work,
however , remained the same.
As heretofore found , prior to this increase , Satenstein questioned Krapp about
union activities among the office employees , and when he found out that she
was about to become a member of the Union lie told her that it was a disgrace for
anyone as close to management as she was to be a union member , stated that the
Union was dominated by Communists , and urged her to vote against the Union
if given the opportunity . After her reclassification Krapp promised Satenstein,
at his request , that she would not be active in union affairs. Thereafter, how-
ever, and prior to August 28, when typing Satenstein's statement to the em-
ployees relative to the Union , Krapp showed the typed copy to Mildred Fried-
man, then co-chairman of the employees ' union committee . Satenstein criticized
Krapp severely for the breach of trust and said that be had lost confidence in
her but did nothing further about the matter at the time , at least so far as
Krapp knew 23
41 The following is Satenstein's testimony as to what he told Krapp at the time of the
above incident. "I told her that this, in my opinion-that in my opinion she had betrayed
a confidence , that she was my confidential secretary, she had no right morally, or any
AMERICAN BOOK-STRATFORD PRESS, INC. 935
As heretofore found, on September 14, after the Union had distributed a
pamphlet charging the respondent with anti-Semitic acts towards its employees,
Satenstein called Krapp to his office and asked her if she was Jewish and if
she had been granted time off for Jewish Holidays. Upon receiving an affirma-
tive answer to these questions, he asked Krapp if she had ever noticed any anti-
Semitic acts or statements on the part of the respondent's officials. Krapp re-
fused to answer this question with a categorical "No," giving as reasons that
she had promised Satenstein to be neutral in union affairs, and that she had
heard Satenstein himself make anti-Semitic statements. Krapp was then ex-
cused from the room, but late that afternoon Satenstein again called her and
told her that she was being released, but that he would like her to remain on
until her successor was broken in to the work. Krapp asked if she was being
released because of the incident with Friedman. Satenstein replied that she
,was being discharged for disloyalty. She refused his request to train her suc-
,cessor and has not since been rehired.
Although the respondent did not give Krapp any specific notice that she was
actually going to be discharged, prior to September 14, 1945, the record shows
without dispute that she was aware of the fact that Satenstein had been dis-
satisfied with her "attitude" from shortly after the time when she was reclassi-
fied as assistant to the president. Prior to the incident with Friedman, Saten-
stein told Krapp that he had observed union people conferring with her in her
,office, and that lie was very unhappy about the situation. There is other testi-
mony, undenied and credited, that after the Friedman incident, Satenstein took
steps to secure a successor to Krapp. He testified that a few days thereafter,
he telephoned to the Blair Personnel Agency and asked them to send to him
for interview any applicants they might have who could qualify as his secre-
tary ; that thereafter he interviewed a number of applicants ; that he inter-
-viewed Edith Brett before September 14 and agreed to hire her. Although Saten-
stein has not been credited in other matters, in this instance he was corroborated
in large part by Brett. The latter, who started to work for Satenstein as his
private secretary and Krapp's successor on September 19, 1945, testified without
dispute and credibly that she applied for a position through Blair's Personnel
Agency on September 10 and later the same day Blair's telephoned her about a
position at the respondent's; that about 5: 30 p. m. that afternoon she reached
Satenstein and arranged for an appointment the next morning, September 11;
that Satenstein interviewed her the next morning and told her that he would
let her know his decision later in the day ; that in the afternoon of September
11, Satenstein told her that she could have the job and she could start to work
in about 10 days or 2 weeks; but that about Friday, September 14, Satenstein
telephoned her that his secretary was leaving sooner than expected and re-
^quested that she start work the following Monday, September 17; that she was
unable to report on Monday as requested but did report on September 19, Wednes-
other type of right to show anybody , any member of a union committee what I had dictated
to her before I had read it and ordered it to be put up as a public notice, that I might have
wanted to correct it. I might have changed my mind and never have had it put up on
the board , and it was a confidential matter between us, and that I had lost all confidence
in her because of it and I thought her conduct had been dastardly , to say the least. I said
that I had told her previously that she had to-she could not work for me if she had
divided loyalty, that she was working for management, and her loyalties had to be with
management. I explained to her again by saying that she was not a member of the unit
eligible for balloting in the forthcoming election , and therefore she had no right to do
anything against management interest."
936 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
day. Furthermore, a reading of Krapp's testimony shows that on September
14, when notified of her discharge, she expressed no surprise but inquired of
Satenstein if it was because of the paper she had shown to Friedman. It is
therefore found that shortly after the incident with Friedman prior to the elec-
tion on August 28, 1945, Satenstein made such arrangements and inquiries as
he could to secure a competent successor to Krapp, and that prior to September
14, 1945, Krapp knew that she was not satisfactory to Satenstein.
The record in this case makes it clear that Krapp's actual severance from
the respondent's service was advanced possibly a day or two because of her
refusal to answer the question about anti-Semitism in the plant in a manner
acceptable to the respondent, but it is also clear that her successor had been
hired sometime prior to September 14 and that she was actually discharged,
regardless of the actual time when she ceased working, because of the breach
of confidence several weeks before. In any event, Krapp having refused to stay
on several days after September 14 was not injured by her discharge on September
14. Although not free from doubt in view of the unfair labor practices of the
respondent as found herein, the undersigned finds that Krapp was discharged
legitimately because of her breach of trust prior to the electionR4
Mildred Friedman began to work for the respondent part time in October
1943 at an hourly rate. In January 1944 she became a full time employee in
the service department as follow up clerk at $25 a week. Her job was to see
that all materials needed to print and bind a book were in the plant at the
right time, and to transmit the information to the binding department. This
involved direct contact by her with the publisher, outside printers, die manu-
facturers and various departments in the respondent's plant. After her full
time employment she received three advances in pay, two of them, including a
raise on July 1, 1945, being merit raises, and at the time of her release on Sep-
tember 19, 1945, she was earning $33 a week.
In the summer of 1945, there was a total of eight employees in the service
department which was headed by Al Oliveri. Oliveri had no authority to hire or
fire the employees under him, but the usual procedure when changes were con-
templated in the department personnel was for Oliveri to make recommendations
for hiring or discharging, as the case might be, to Harold Steineck, the office
manager.
Friedman joined the Union in July 1945 Thereafter she was elected co-chair-
man of the Union committee. As such co-chairman, and as has been heretofore
found, she signed the first union pamphlet stating why the office employees
needed a union, which was distributed in late July or early August of that year.
She also assisted Union Organizer Charlotte Peterson in the distribution of the
Union pamphlet on the morning of September 14, which among other things
charged the respondent with being anti-Semitic. Later that same morning
President Satenstein asked her if she would sign an affidavit to the effect that
there was no anti-Semitism on the part of the respondent's officers, and she
replied that if she answered "No" to such a question it would have to be with
reservations. She also participated with other employees in the die room dis-
cussion that was interrupted by Satenstein the same morning. Late in the
afternoon of Tuesday, September 18, 1945, Friedman was called to Satenstein's
office and shown an affidavit which had been prepared for her signature which
contained a categorical "No" to the question therein propounded as to whether or
14 Cf West Temas Utility Company, etc, 22 N L. R. B 522, 560.
AMERICAN BOOK-STRATFORD PRESS, INC. 937
not the respondent's officers engaged in anti-Semitism. Friedman refused to
sign the document because the answer to the above question did not contain
the reservations as previously stated by her. The next morning, about 10 o'clock,
Office Manager Steineck informed her that the service department was being
consolidated, her work was being absorbed by others in the department and
she would no longer be needed. He offered her a job as office tabulating clerk
at $26 a week, but she declined the offer. While arranging for Friedman's pay
check Steineck requested her to sign a letter of resignation but she refused to
do so. She has not since been rehired by the respondent. Prior to Steineck's
statement to her on September 19, she had never been told that a consolidation
of the department was being considered or that her job was in jeopardy. Nor
had her work at any previous time been criticized in any way by her super-
visors Her department head, Oliveri, did not know of Friedman's release until
Friedman informed him of the fact on September 19.
It is the respondent's contention that Friedman was not discharged but that
she voluntarily quit her job ; that when her position in the service department
was eliminated as the result of necessary consolidation, she was offered and
refused the only position available.
Considerable testimony appears in the record regarding efforts on the part of
management to develop a "well rounded" service department so that all working
therein would be reasonably familiar with other phases of the department work
in addition to their own. To that end and early in the summer of 1945 Oliveri,
with the approval of higher management, arranged to train Friedman as well as
others in phases of the department work other than their own particular job and
in which it was deemed that they lacked sufficient training or experience. Every-
thing appears to have progressed smoothly in this respect for Friedman until
about a week before her demotion. It was then, according to the testimony of
Office Manager Steineck, that Oliveri reported to him that Friedman was not
learning about the other phases of the work very rapidly, and on Oliveri's
recommendation and after discussing the matter with Vice-President Ammon, it
was decided to replace Friedman by Louise Andrews (who had had considerable
experience in the service department, but at the time was working in the office
of the bindery superintendent). Steineck was substantially corroborated in this
testimony, by Vice-President Ammon. However, on cross-examination, Steineek
testified that Oliver! did not recommend Friedman's removal, but that the idea
for her demotion came either from Ammon or Steineck Steineck further ad-
mitted that Louise Andrews was transferred to the service department about the
first week in September (which was almost 2 weeks before Friedman's removal)
because the service department was short handed due to the resignation of
Herbert Lindheimer on August 31, 1945,26 and the discharge of Josephine Green-
berg on August 29 heretofore referred to. Other credible testimony shows that
while Andrews took over Friedman's duties for a while after the latter' s release,SB
she was working in the service department prior to Friedman's departure.
Furthermore, Oliveri, in charge of the service department and who was ordinarily
consulted by management about changes in department personnel, testified
credibly that he did not recommend Friedman's removal or demotion and that
the first lie knew about it was when Friedman herself told him. Moreover, a
25 Lindheimer was in charge of composition matters in the service department. He
resigned to accept a better paying position elsewhere.
26 Andrews continued in the service department until about December 1945 when, her
husband having been released from the Armed Services , she left the respondent 's employ.
She was not a witness at the hearing.
938 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
careful reading of President Satenstein's, Vice-President Ammon's and Office
Manager Steineck's testimony relative to Friedman leads to the conclusion that
management did not decide on her demotion until the day it took effect, or the
day before (September 18), which was the day Friedman refused to sign the
affidavit relative to anti-Semitism in the plant.
Although President Satenstein was Jewish, the record makes it clear and the
undersigned finds that he not only had knowledge of anti-Semitism existing
among his office employees, but that he took advantage of and gave impetus to
such talks by his comments reflecting on Jews, as hereinbefore found, as a means
of combatting the organization of the office employees which he opposed. It is
therefore found that the demotion of Friedman on September 19, 1945, was not
for legitimate business reasons, but was brought about because of her union
activities including her refusal to sign the affidavit relative to anti-Semitism,
and that the demotion was in fact a constructive discharge. By such act the
respondent has discriminated as to the hire and tenure of employment of Fried-
man to discourage membership in the Union in violation of the Act.
D. The refusal to bargain
1. The appropriate unit
On July 31, 1945, the respondent and the Union entered into an agreement
for a consent election to be held under the supervision of the Regional Director
in a unit consisting of "all office employees of the company, excluding confiden-
tial secretaries and all supervisory employees with authority to hire, promote,
discharge, discipline, or otherwise effect changes in the status of employees, or
effectively recommend such action." On August 28, 1945, an election was held
covering the employees in this unit. The complaint herein alleges and the
answer admits the appropriateness of this unit. Accordingly, the undersigned
finds that all office employees of the respondent, excluding confidential secre-
taries and all supervisory employees with authority to hire, promote, discharge,
discipline, or otherwise effect changes in the status of employees, or effectively
recommend such action, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of col-
lective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
2. Representation by the Union of a majority in the appropriate unit
At the election held on August 28, 1945, pursuant to the agreement, all of the
46 eligible office employees voted. Of these 22 voted against the Union and 24
voted in favor of the Union. Thereafter the respondent filed with the Regional
Director objections to the election wherein it was alleged that prior to the
election the Union adherents engaged in various types of illegal activity which
unduly influenced the election and "should render the election void." In sup-
port of these allegations in the objections, the respondent also filed with the
Regional Director eight affidavits and one unverified statement. The affidavits
and statement referred to various items of literature distributed by the Union,
solicitation by some of the Union's adherents during business hours, the rough
language used by Josephine Greenberg and anti-Semitism in the plant, most
of which matters have heretofore been discussed in detail in this report. On
September 27, 1945, the Regional Director found that the objections did not
raise substantial or material issues relative to the conduct of the election, and
found that pursuant to Section 8 of the agreement and the authority therein
granted to the Regional Director, the Union was the exclusive representative of
all the employees in the unit defined for the purposes of bargaining with respect
AMERICAN BOOK-STRATFORD PRESS, INC. 939
to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other conditions of employment.
Under the terms of the election agreement the Regional Director had free and full
authority to rule upon objections to the election. Under the agreement also his
finding in that respect was conclusive. All the documents presented to and con-
sidered by the Regional Director in arriving at the above decision were received
as exhibits in the present case. A study of those documents clearly shows that
in arriving at the above conclusions the Regional Director did not act arbitrarily
or capriciously. No further additional testimony at the present hearing was re-
ceived or offered to support the respondent's objections to the election, nor did
the respondent offer any evidence to establish arbitrary or capricious conduct
by the Regional Director.
At the hearing in the present case, the respondent introduced into evidence a
petition dated September 20, 1945, addressed to the Second Regional Office of
the Board and signed by 39 of the office employees, all of whom presumably are
within the defined unit, the body of which reads as follows :
We, the undersigned, employees of the American Book-Stratford Press,
Inc., 75 Varick St., N. Y. C., respectfully request the privilege of a new
election based on the following facts which have been brought to light since
the original election was held.
Before the Union agitation began, this office was run on a friendly, in-
formal basis, and all employees cooperated with each other for the general
welfare of the firm. Friendships made in the office were continued outside.
Due to the high pressure methods of the union organizers, some of the people
who voted for the union, if given the opportunity to reconsider the propo-
sition, would not vote in the affirmative, for the employees realize that man-
agement has always treated them fairly and decently.
At the present time it is an unhappy office, and we believe that if a new
election was granted, it would show that a majority of the employees would
not vote for union representation.
This petition was received in the Regional Office on September 24, and was
before the Regional Director at the time he made his findings and decision on
September 27 overruling the objections to the election, as above found. The
petition was mailed to the Regional Office presumably by the employees who
signed it and not by management. The record shows that the petition was cir-
culated for signatures among the employees in the office force by various em-
ployees who were included in the unit and eligible to vote. One employee, Helen
Leo, whose signature appeared thereon, testified that she signed the document
when it was brought to her by Louise Andrews, heretofore referred to, because
she was afraid that if she did not she might lose her job 27 Under the circum-
stances, and in the light of the unfair labor practices of the respondent hereto-
fore found to have taken place prior to September 20, 1945, the date of the peti-
tion, there can be no finding that the petition represents the true and uninfluenced
desires of the signers thereof. Furthermore, under numerous Board decisions,
such an expression from employees under the circumstances herein shown, can
not nullify the result of a legal and properly conducted election.
27 This testimony of Leo as to the reason why she signed the petition was received over the
objection of respondent and subject to a motion to strike . The undersigned is of the
opinion that under the circumstances as shown by this record the reason why Leo signed
the petition is material and relevant . The motion to strike the testimony is therefore
overruled.
'940 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The undersigned therefore finds that on August 28, 1945, and at all times
thereafter, for reasons set forth in this report, the Union was and now is the
duly designated representative of a majority of the employees in the aforesaid
unit, and that by virtue of Section 9 (a) of the Act, the Union was, and now is,
the exclusive representative of all the respondent's employees in such unit for
the purposes of collective bargaining with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of
employment, and other conditions of employment.
3. The refusal to bargain
On September 28, 1945, after the Regional Director had overruled the respond-
ent's objections to the election as above found, the Union wired the respondent
requesting an immediate appointment for a collective bargaining conference.
The respondent replied to this wire on October 1, stating that it could not comply
with the request for a date for a bargaining conference until it had consulted
with its attorney. On October 11, 1945, by letter to the respondent, the Union
stated that for several weeks it had been trying to secure an appointment with
the respondent for collective bargaining purposes, and requested an immediate
appointment28 The respondent did not answer the October 11 letter. In its
answer to the complaint, the respondent alleged that it was not in duty bound to
bargain collectively with the Union for the reason, among others, that the Union
was not the exclusive representative of all employees in an appropriate unit
within the meaning of the Act. That was essentially its position at the hear-
ing, but no grounds other than that stated in its answer were presented at the
hearing.
It is therefore found that on September 28, 1945, and on October 11, 1945, and
thereafter, the respondent has refused to bargain collectively with the Union
as the exclusive representative of its employees in an appropriate unit, and has
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 the respondent set forth in Section III, above, occurring in
connection with the operations of the respondent described in Section I, above,
have a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce
among the several States, and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and
obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that the respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor prac-
tices, the undersigned will recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and
take certain affirmative action in order to effectuate the policies of the Act.
Having found that the respondent has violated Section 8 (1), (3), and (5) of
the Act, the undersigned will recommend that the respondent cease and desist
therefrom. The respondent's course of conduct discloses a purpose to frustrate
self-organization among its office employees. In addition to the refusal to bargain,
28 Prior to the September 28 telegram above referred to, the Union , on August 31, had
'wired the respondent requesting a conference on September 6. The respondent answered
this wire to the effect that it could not agree to a conference as requested until the objections
to the validity of the election had been decided.
AMERICAN BOOK-STRATFORD PRESS, INC. 941
the respondent interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the
exercise of the rights guaranteed under the Act by expressing disapproval of the
Union, by questioning employees as to their union affairs, and by other anti-union
statements and conduct heretofore discussed. Moreover, the respondent discrim-
inatorily treated employees Greenberg, Bernstein and Friedman by discharging
them for their concerted activities on behalf of the Union. Because of the respond-
ent's unlawful conduct and its underlying purpose, the undersigned is convinced
that the unfair labor practices found are persuasively related to other unfair
labor practices proscribed in the Act, and that danger of their commission in the
future is to be anticipated from the respondent's conduct in the past. The pre-
ventive purposes of the Act will be thwarted unless the recommendations are
coextensive with the threat. In order, therefore, to make effective the guarantee
of Section 7, to prevent a recurrence of unfair labor practices and thereby mini-
mize industrial strife which burdens and obstructs commerce, and thus effectuate
the policies of the Act, it will be recommended that the respondent cease and
desist from in any manner infringing upon the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of
the Act.
As the undersigned has found that the respondent discriminated in regard to the
hire and tenure of employment of Josephine Greenberg, Esther Bernstein, and
Mildred Friedman, it will be recommended that the respondent offer to each of the
above three named employees immediate and full reinstatement to her former or
substantially equivalent position,°D without prejudice to her seniority and other
rights and privileges. The undersigned will further recommend that the respond-
ent make each of them whole for any loss of pay she may have suffered by reason
of the respondent's discrimination against her, by the payment to her of a sum of
money equal to the amount which she normally would have earned as wages from
the date of the discrimination against her to the date of the offer of reinstatement
less her net earnings 30 during such period.
Having found that the evidence failed to sustain the allegations of the complaint
that the respondent discriminated in regard to the hire and tenure of employment
of Elaine Ross Krapp, it will be recommended that such allegations of the
complaint be dismissed
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record in the
case, the undersigned makes the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Local 1, United Office & Professional Workers of America, CIO, is a labor
organization , within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
2 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
29 In accordance with the Board 's consistent interpretation of the term , the expression
"former or substantially equivalent position" is intended to mean "former position wherever
possible , but if such position is no longer in existence , then to a substantially equivalent
position " See Matter of The Chase National Bank of the City of New York, San Juan,
Puerto Rico, Branch, 65 N L R B 827.
30 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 , 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.
942 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (1) of the
Act.
3. By discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of Jose-
phine Greenberg, Esther Bernstein, and Mildred Friedman, thereby discouraging
membership in Local 1, United Office & Professional Workers of America, CIO,
the respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 8 (3) of the Act.
4. All office employees of the respondent, except confidential secretaries and
supervisory employees with authority to hire, promote, discharge, discipline, or
otherwise effect changes in the status of employees or effectively recommend such
action, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining
within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
5. Local 1, United Office & Professional Workers of America, CIO, was on
August 28, 1945, and at all times thereafter has been and now is the exclusive
representative of all the employees in the aforesaid unit for the purposes of
collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (a) of the Act.
6. By refusing to bargain with Local 1, United Office & Professional Workers of
America, CIO, on September 23, 1945, and at all times thereafter as the exclusive
representative of all the employees in the unit found appropriate, the respondent
has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices, within the meaning of
Section 8 (5) of the Act.
7. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices, within the
meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
8. The respondent has not discriminated in regard to the hire and tenure of
employment of Elaine Ross Krapp.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law and upon
the entire record, the undersigned recommends that the respondent, American
Book-Stratford Press, Inc., New York City, New York, its officers, agents, succes-
sors, and assigns shall:
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Discouraging membership in Local 1, United Office & Professional Workers
of America, CIO, or any other labor organization, of its employees, by discharging
any of its employees because of their membership in or affiliation with such
organization, or by discrimination in any other manner in regard to their hire
and tenure of employment or terms or conditions of employment ;
(b) Refusing to bargain collectively with Local 1, United Office & Professional
Workers of America, CIO, as the exclusive representative of all office employees,
except confidential secretaries and supervisory employees with authority to hire,
promote, discharge, discipline, or otherwise effect changes in the status of
employees or effectively recommend such action, in respect to rates of pay, wages,
hours of employment, or other conditions of employment;
(c) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its em-
ployees in the exercise of the rights to self-organization, to form labor organiza-
tions, to join or assist Local 1, United Office & Professional Workers of America,
CIO, or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively through repre-
sentatives of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted activities for the
purposes of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection as guaranteed
in Section 7 of the Act.
AMERICAN BOOK-STRATFORD PRESS, INC. 943
2. Take the following affirmative action which will effectuate the policies of
the Act:
(a) Offer to Josephine Greenberg, Esther Bernstein, and Mildred Friedman,
and each of them, immediate and full reinstatement to her former or substantially
equivalent positions without prejudice to her seniority or other rights and
privileges ;
(b) Make whole Josephine Greenberg, Esther Bernstein, and Mildred Fried-
man, and each of them, for any loss of pay she may have suffered by reason of
respondent's discrimination against her, by payment to her of a sum of money
equal to the amount she normally would have earned as wages during the period
beginning August 30, 1945, with respect to Greenberg, September 15, 1945, with
respect to Bernstein, and September 20, 1945, with respect to Friedman, the
day following the dates on which they were respectively discharged, to the date
of the respondent's offer of reinstatement less their net earnings during said
period ;
(c) Upon request bargain collectively with Local 1, United Office & Professional
Workers of America, CIO, as the exclusive representative of all office workers,
excepting confidential secretaries and supervisory employees with authority to
hire, promote, discharge, discipline, or otherwise effect changes in the status of
employees, or effectively recommend such action, with respect to rates of pay,
wages, hours of employment, and other conditions of employment, and if an
agreement is reached, embody such agreement in a signed, written contract ;
(d) Post on its bulletin board in its office in New York City copies of the
notice attached hereto marked "Appendix A." Copies of such notice, to be
furnished by the Regional Director for the Second Region, shall, after being
duly signed by the respondent's representative, be posted by the respondent
immediately upon receipt thereof, and maintained by him for sixty (60) con-
secutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places including all places where notices
to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the
respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any
other material;
(e) Notify the Regional Director for the Second Region in writing within
ten (10) days from the date of the receipt of this Intermediate Report what
steps the respondent has taken to comply herewith.
It is further recommended that unless on or before ten (10) days from the
date of the receipt of the Intermediate Report, the respondent notifies said
Regional Director in writing that it will comply with the foregoing recommen-
dations, the National Labor Relations Board issue an order requiring the
respondent to take the action aforesaid.
It is also recommended that the complaint be dismissed insofar as it alleges
discrimination in the, hire and tenure of employment of Elaine Ross Krapp.
As provided in Section 203.39 of the Rules and Regulations of the National
Labor Relations Board, Series 4, effective September 11, 1946, any party or
counsel for the Board may, within fifteen (15) days from the date of service
of the order transferring the case to t^e Beard, pursuant to Section 203.38 of said
Rules and Regulations, The with the Board, Rochambeau Building, Washington
25, D. C., an original and four copies of a statement in writing setting 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
.,ny party or counsel for the Board may, within the same period, file an original
944 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
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 file a copy with the Regional Director. Proof of service on the
other parties of all papers filed with the Board shall be promptly 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.
J. J. FITZPATRICK,
Trial Examiner.
Dated December 20, 1946.
APPENDIX A
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 wrLL 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 LOCAL 1, UNITED OFFICE & PROFESSIONAL WORKERS OF AMERICA,
CIO, or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively through repre-
sentatives of their own choosing and to engage in concerted activities for
the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection.
WE WILL BARGAIN collectively upon request with the above-named union
as the exclusive representative of all employees in the bargaining unit de-
scribed herein with respect to rates of pay, hours of employment, or other
conditions of employment, and if an understanding is reached, embody such
understanding in a signed agreement. The bargaining unit is:
All office employees of the respondent, excluding confidential secre-
taries and all supervisory employees with authority to hire, promote,
discharge, or otherwise effect changes in the status of employees, or
effectively recommend such action.
WE WILL OFFER to Josephine Greenberg, Esther Bernstein, and Mildred
Friedman immediate and full reinstatement to their former or substantially
equivalent positions without prejudice to any seniority or other rights and
privileges previously enjoyed, and make them whole for any loss of pay
suffered as a result of the discrimination.
All our employees are free to become or remain members of LOCAL 1, UNITED
OFFICE & PROFESSIONAL WORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO, or any other labor organiza-
tion. We will not discriminate in regard to the hire or tenure of employment
or any term or condition of employment against any employee because of mem-
bership in or activity on behalf of any such labor organization.
AMERICAN BOOK-STRATFORD PRESS, INC.,
Employer.
Dated -------------------------- By-------------------------------------
(Representative ) ( Title)
NOTE.-This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof and
must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.