Banner Slipper Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 6, 1941

31 N.L.R.B. 621 (N.L.R.B. 1941)

In the Matter of BANNER SLIPPER CO., INC. and UNITED SHOE WORKERS
or AMERICA, AFFILIATED WITH THE CONGRESS OF INDUSTRIAL ORGAN-
IZATIONS and WAYNE SHOE AND SLIPPER WORKERS UNION, INC.,
PARTY TO THE CONTRACT.
Case No. C-1743.-Decided May 6,1941
Jurisdiction : footwear manufacturing industry.
Unfair Labor Practices, -
In General: responsibility, of employer for activities, in behalf of inside union,
by a person who was an official of the town's "trade association."
Interference, Restraint, and Coercion. anti-union statements.
Company'-Dominated Union: formation, of, to forestall "outside" organization-
membership solicitation by representatives -of management on company time
and property-support : permitting use of president's office to sign up members;
permitting meetings to be held on company time and property and shutting off,
the power on the occasion of this meeting : financial support in the form of loans-
interference and discrimination constituting acts of domination : cautioning
recalcitrant employees that unless they join the "inside" union the plant would
shut down ; in contrast to aid given "inside" union at employer's insistance list
of "agitators" was drawn up and used as a means of getting rid of those em-
ployees who favored the "outside" union and were hostile to "inside? union.
Discrimination: discharges for union membership and activity ; refusal to permit
employees, to resume work because they were not members in good standing
under closed-shop contract with company-dominated union ; charges of, dis-
missed as to six employees.
Remedial Orders : disestablishment of company-dominated union; abrogation of
contract; reinstatement and back pay. ,
Mr. Geoffrey J. Cunniff, for the Board.
Mr. David Ger/tzrdt, of New York City, for .the 'Company.
Mr. Julius Crane, of Binghamton, N. Y., and Mr. Leo Goodman, of
Washington, D. C., -for the United. -
Mr. I. B. Rutherford, of Honesdale, Pa., for Wayne Shoe Union.
Mr. Sidney L. Davis, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE -CASE
Charges and amended charges having been filed by United Shoe
Workers of America, herein called the United, the National Labor'
• 31 N. L. R. B., No. 105.
621
622 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Relations Board, herein called the Board, by the Regional Director
for the Fourth Region (Philadelphia, Pennsylvania), issued its com-
plaint dated August 6, 1940, against Banner Slipper Co., Inc., Hones-
dale, Pennsylvania, herein called the respondent, alleging that the
respondent had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices
affecting commerce, within the meaning of Section 8 (1), (2), and
(3) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act,
49 Stat. 449, herein called- the Act. Copies of the complaint, ac-
companied by notice of hearing, were duly served upon the respondent,
the United, and Wayne Shoe and Slipper Workers Union, Inc., which
was named in the complaint as "Party to the Contract" mentioned
therein, hereinafter referred to as Wayne Shoe Union.
Concerning the unfair labor practices the complaint alleged in
substance (1) that the respondent-in or about June, July, August
and September 1939, and at other times down to the issuance of the
complaint, interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in
the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act in that
it suggested and urged them to join and affiliate with Wayne Shoe
Union,'threatened them with dismissal if they joined the United and
that the respondent's Honesdale plant would be closed if the United
organized its employees, disparaged and criticized the United, its
purposes and leaders and informed 'certain employees that if the
United's organizers came into Honesdale, physical violence would be
inflicted upon them, urged and persuaded certain employees to aban-
don membership in and activity for the United and in order to
frustrate the United's organizational activity, offered certain em-
ployees various sums of money to leave the city of Honesdale, caused
circulation among the employees of a petition in order to ascertain
that they did not desire to belong to the United or any other national
labor organization; (2) that during the period from on or about June
26,,1939, down to and including the date of the issuance of the com-
plaint the respondent dominated and interfered with the formation
and administration of Wayne Shoe Union and contributed financial
and other support to it in that during June, July, and August 1939,
and thereafter, it caused and permitted certain' of its supervisory em-
ployees to aid and assist in the formation and administration thereof;
on or about June 26, 1939, caused and permitted, through its agents
and officials, a petition on behalf of Wayne Shoe Union to be signed
in the main office during working hours; in or about June 1939 caused
and permitted one James Arthur to speak to the employees in the
Honesdale plant in order to urge and persuade said employees to
abandon membership in the United and to join Wayne Shoe Union,
I Incorrectly designated in some of the formal papers as Banner Slipper Company. This
was corrected by motion made at the hearing.
BANNER SLIPPER COMPANY, INC. 623
and about said time stated`to various employees through its officers
and agents that membership in Wayne Shoe Union was necessary if
the employees wished to continue working for the respondent; in or
about July, August, and September 1939, through its officers and agents
assisted in collecting dues from its employees to be paid Wayne Shoe
Union and permitted use of facilities at the Honesdale plant during
working hours for said purpose; during July and August 1939 through
its officers and agents aforesaid caused circulation among its employees
of a petition setting forth that their only intention was to be members
of Wayne Shoe Union; in June, July, August, and September 1939
granted Wayne Shoe Union the privilege of placing notices of meet-
ings on bulletin boards but denied a similar privilege to the United,
on or about September 21, 1939, entered into a closed-shop contract
with Wayne Shoe Union, which contract is void and in violation of
the Act; and in numerous other ways did dominate, interfere with,
and contribute financial and other support to,Wayne Shoe Union;
and (3) that the respondent on various stated dates terminated the
employment of and refused to reinstate 18 named employees because
of said employees' membership in and activity for the United, and by
other acts the respondent interfered with, restrained, and coerced its
employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of
the Act.
On August 17, 1940, the respondent filed an answer in which it
denied that it had engaged in the alleged unfair labor practices.
Wayne Shoe Union also filed an answer denying the material allega-
tions of the complaint.
After two postponements ordered by the Regional Director, a
hearing was held, pursuant to notice, at Honesdale,, Pennsylvania,
on September 30 and October 1, 2, 7, 8, 9, and 10, 1940, before William
B. Barton, the Trial Examiner duly designated by the Chief Trial
Examiner. The Board, the respondent, and Wayne Shoe Union were
represented by counsel and the United by its representative. Full
opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses,
and to introduce evidence bearing on the issues was afforded all
parties. During the course of the hearing motions were made to
amend the complaint to conform to the proof as to the spelling of
names. The respondent agreed that such amendments should be
made and the motions were granted. The fourth day of the hearing
counsel for the Board moved "that the complaint be dismissed in
so far as it alleges that one Doris Barnes was dismissed because of
her activities in the Union." The motion was granted.2 At the
close of the hearing the respondent Moved to dismiss the complaint in
2 Counsel for the Board explained that there was no such person as Doris Barnes and the
names was erroneously set forth in the complaint
624 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
its entirety and also moved to dismiss the allegations as to Doris
Bishop, Stella Barnes, and Helen Daniels.3 The Trial Examiner
reserved ruling on these motions, and in his Intermediate Report,
discussed below, granted the motion to dismiss the complaint as to
the three employees above named, and denied the notion to dismiss
the complaint in its entirety. At the close of the hearing Wayne
Shoe Union moved to dismiss the allegations in paragraphs 7 and
9 of the complaint. The Trial Examiner reserved ruling on the
motion and in his Intermediate Report denied it. During the course
of the hearing, the Trial Examiner sustained objections by counsel
for the Board to the introduction in evidence by the respondent of
testimony to show that the respondent on various occasions had made
loans to certain employees, and receipts for such loans. The respond-
ent thereupon made an offer of proof with respect to the foregoing
evidence. This ruling is hereby reversed and the receipts offered by
the respondent are hereby made a part of the record.' We shall
also accept and consider below the offer of proof made by the
respondent. During the course of the hearing, the Trial Examiner
made rulings on other motions and on other objections to the admis-
sion of evidence. The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial
Examiner and finds that no prejudicial errors were committed. Ex-
cept as indicated above, the rulings are hereby affirmed. After the
close of the hearing a brief was submitted to, the Trial Examiner by
counsel for the respondent.
The Trial Examiner thereafter filed his Intermediate Report dated
November 29, 1940, copies of which were duly served upon the parties.
He found therein that the respondent had engaged in and was en-
gaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the
meaning of Section 8 (1), (2), and (3), and Section 2 (6) and (7)
of the Act and recommended that- the respondent cease and desist
therefrom and take certain specified affirmative action deemed neces-
sary to effectuate the policies of the Act. He further recommended
that the complaint be dismissed in so far as it related to the alleged
discriminatory discharge of Mildred Hunter, Doris Bishop, Stella
Barnes, Helen Daniels, and Vincent Polt.
On December 23 and 26, 1940, respectively, Wayne Shoe Union
and the respondent filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report.
Pursuant to notice duly served upon all the parties, a hearing for
the purpose of oral argument was held before the Board' on March
11, 1941, in Washington, D. C. The respondent and Wayne Shoe
3 Counsel for tha respondent also included the name of Doris Barnes in his motion, appar-
ently overlooking the previous ruling which dismissed the complaint as to her.
4 The exhibits in question appear in the record of the hearing as "Respondent 's Rejected-
Exhibits 2, 3 (a), (b ), and (c ), 4, and 5."
BANNER SLIPPER COMPANY, INC. 625
Union appeared by counsel, the United by its representative, and
all participated in the oral argument. The Board has considered
the exceptions to the Intermediate Report filed by the respondent
and Wayne Shoe Union, and the respondent's brief submitted to
the Trial Examiner, and, in so far as the exceptions are inconsistent
with the findings, conclusions, and order set forth below, finds them
to be without merit.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
The respondent is a'corporation organized under the laws of the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and has its principal place of busi-
ness at Honesdale, Pennsylvania. At Honesdale it maintains a plant
in which it manufactures footwear. The principal materials used
at this plant are leather, imitation leather, cotton linings, sewing
thread, and rubber heels. The cost of 'materials used at this plant
in the year 1939 was in excess of $150,000, and the respondent pur-
chased 90 per cent of such materials in States of the United States
other than the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Since 1936 in excess
of 90 per cent of the materials used by the respondent at its Hones-
dale plant have been transported' to it from States of the United
States other than the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. On the basis
of cost the value of all products of the Honesdale plant during the
year 1939 was approximately $600,000. In the manufacture, sale,
and distribution of footwear at its Honesdale plant since 1936 the
respondent has continuously caused in excess of 90 per cent of the
products of said plant to be transported in interstate commerce to
various States of the United States other than the Commonwealth
of Pennsylvania.
H. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
United Shoe Workers of America, affiliated with the Congress
of Industrial Organizations, herein called the C. I. 0., is a labor
organization, admitting to membership employees of the respondent's
Honesdale plant.
Wayne Shoe and Slipper Workers Union, Inc.,b is an unaffiliated
labor organization, admitting to membership employees of the re-
spondent's Honesdale plant.
6 As hereinafter noted, this labor organization was the successor to the Banner Slipper
Union.
626 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Interference, restraint and coercion; the organization of the Wayne
Shoe Union
Prior to June 1939 there had been no labor organization of the
respondent's employees in the Honesdale plant. On or about Mon-
day, June 19, Stanley Jarusik, a trimming-machine operator in the
respondent's plant, told a number of the other employees that on the
following Wednesday evening there would be a meeting of employees
at a place known as Clark's Corners about 4 miles from Honesdale.
The announced meeting took place' and approximately 12 employees
of the respondent attended. Wayne Spetigue, a business agent of
the United, spoke to this group of employees at the, meeting,, telling
them "that he was organizing the company. and he asked them if they
would help . . ." About 300 membership application, cards were
distributed among those present, who soon after the meeting obtained
the signatures of a number of the employees and turned over, the
signed cards to Jarusik. The afternoon of the following day, Thurs-
day, June 22, during working hours Julius Lenschen, superintendent
of the plant, stopped at the trimming machine where Jarusik was ,
at work and said, "I heard that you are one of the fellows that was
starting a union in the shop." The next day during working hours
Lenschen again talked to Jarusik at the machine where the latter
worked, Lenschen telling Jarusik that Jarusik had a family to keep
and had a job. Lenschen also told Jarusik that he would get a bet-
ter job if he changed his ways and that Isador Levy, president of the
respondent, had said that "if we joined the C. I. 0., he would close
the shop down."
On the evening of Friday, June 23, Edgar Bishop and Leslie
Allen, two employees in the plant, called at the home of James A.
Arthur, a Honesdale businessman and president of the Honesdale
Businessmen's and Board of Trade Association, and asked for assist-
ance in starting among the respondent's employees an unaffiliated
labor organization.
Arthur testified that nothing was said on this occasion about keep-
ing the C. I. O. out of the plant, but Bishop, who was called as
a witness by the respondent, and whose demeanor, according to the
Trial Examiner, was adverse to the Board,,testified on cross-examina-
tion that he and Allen probably mentioned to Arthur on this occasion
the desire of himself and Allen "to keep',the CIO out of the plant."
a Our findings above are based on the uncontroverted testimony of Stanley Jarusik.
Lenschen did not testify at the hearing. In its brief the respondent submits that Lenschen
was no longer in the respondent ' s employ. Except for the testimony of Isador Levy, presi-
dent of the respondent , that he did not "think " that Lenschen was in Honesdale , there is
no showing that the respondent made any effort to locate him nor did the respondent request
the Board to issue a subpoena for Lenschen.
BANNER SLIPPER COMPANY, INC. 627-
On the basis of Bishop's testimony we find, as did the Trial Ex-
aminer, that on the evening of June 23, 1939, Bishop, Allen, and
Arthur talked together about their desires of keeping the C. I. O.
out of the Honesdale plant. Arthur on this occasion gave Bishop
and Allen about 200 cards the form of which was in part as foiJows :
The Honesdale Industrial Council, composed of the citizens
of Honesdale, are interested in the well being, of the community
and offer their assistance in securing a position, for you with
the understanding that you will live up to the rules and regula-
tions governing same, and in case of a grievance arising between
employer and employee that cannot be satisfactorily adjusted, are
you willing to submit same to an impartial board of arbitrators?
Signed -------- ---------------------- Yes ------ No ------
Arthur 'told Allen and Bishop to -see how -many employees would
sign the cards "and ,whoever signed those cards we would know was
in favor of the local union."'
The next morning, June 24, at about 7: 45 Arthur saw Bishop• in
front of the former's place of business in Honesdale. Arthur mean-
while had typed a petition and gave Bishop some copies of it. This
petition read as follows :
We, the undersigned, being employees of Banner Slipper Co.,
Inc., of Honesdale, Pa., in consideration of our mutual promises
and agreeffients, and on our own choosing, hereby agree to join
and to establish the Banner Slipper Union for the benefit and
protection of the employees of said Banner Slipper Co., Inc.,
and we hereby authorize and request solely the duly constituted
officers or committee of the said Banner Slipper Union to repre-
sent each of its individually and collectively for the purpose of
bargaining in regards to n ages, hours and working conditions.
We, and each of us, do further agree that in the event disputes
and differences arise between the officers or committee of Banner
Slipper Union and the Banner Slipper Co. Inc., that then and
in that event said disputes or differences shall be presented to and
decided upon by the Honesdale Industrial Council, and we and
each of us do agree to be bound finally by the decisions and find-
ings of the said Honesdale Industrial Council, said Honesdale
Industrial Council to consist,of a committee appointed by the
Chamber of Commerce; a committee appointedby the Business
Alen's Association, a representative from Banner Slipper Co.
Inc., and a,representative from Banner Slipper Union.
'The evidence indicates that the employees frequently referred to the Banner Slipper
Union and the Wayne Shoe Union as the local.
441843-42-vol 31--41
628 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
This agreement is executed by us and each of us for the sole
purpose of continuing the harmonious relationship that has thus
far existed between employer and employees.
The same morning , Bishop, Allen, and George Seitz , an employee
in the shipping room, occupied the office of 1sador Levy, president of
the respondent , who was at that time absent from the plant. They
had with them in the office the above cards and the petition. During
the morning they called from their work the employees of each de-
partment who were in the factory , asking them to come to Levy's
office. These employees were there asked by Bishop , Allen, and Seitz
to sign one of the cards and the petition 'mentioned above. Most of
the morning was spent obtaining these signatures . Julius Lenschen
was present in the factory as the employees left each department to
go to Levy's office , but he raised no objection to what was taking place.
Isador Levy who, as mentioned above, was absent from Honesdale
when his office was thus used on this occasion , contended at the hear-
ing that he had never given any employee permission to make such use
of his office . However, Harold Levy, brother of the respondent 's presi-
dent, and at that time in- charge of -the shipping room and of the
respondent's offices, was in the factory on the morning of June 24.
Harold Levy came into his brother 's office while some of the em-
ployees were there on the occasion described above. Levy at that time
inquired of Bishop , Allen, and Seitz why they were in the office and
they replied that they "had private business to attend to." They
asked Levy to leave and Seitz "playfully" led him out of the office.
Levy contended at the hearing that he did not know • on Saturday,
June 24, what was taking place in Isador Levy's office . The evidence
shows, however , that the copies of the petition and the cards were
on a table when Levy entered the office. The table was being used
at the time as a place where the employees were signing the petition
and the cards. Bishop and Seitz were seated at the table and Allen
was near it when Harold Levy inquired as to why Bishop, Allen, and
Seitz were in the office . Levy left the office without protest when
requested to do so by Seitz, notwithstanding he fact that he was
Seitz' supervisor in the shipping room and Seitz was absent from,his
work that morning for about 2 hours . Levy never questioned Seitz
regarding the absence of the latter from his work . Under all the
circumstances we do not credit Harold Levy's denial of knowledge of
the events of the morning of June 24 . We find, as. dia the Trial Ex-
aminer, that Harold Levy knew at the time that Bishop, Seitz, and
Allen were using the office as a place for employees to sign the cards
and petition mentioned above.
On Monday , June 26, several -employees, including Bishop, asked
Arthur to be present at the plant that afternoon to assist wih the
BANNER SLIPPER COMPANY, INC. 629
'formation of an unaffiliated union. Between 4 and 4 :30 p. m. that day
he appeared' at the plant and presided over a,meeting of employees
held on -the second floor. Arthur advised the employees to elect tem-
-porary officers as the first step in the formation of a labor organization.
Testimony by several Board witnesses indicated that Arthur also
said in substance at this meeting that the Honesdale businessmen had
been preparing for about 3 years for the possibility of a union com-
ing into Honesdale and that they were ready for it; that in order to
keep the respondent's factory in Honesdale it would be best to have a
local union. Arthur denied that he made any such statements. How-,
ever, other witnesses besides Arthur who testified for the respondent
about this meeting, although failing to include in their summaries of
Arthur's remarks any statements of the above nature, did not specifically
deny that he made these remarks. We find, as did the Trial Examiner,
that Arthur made in substance the statements related by the witnesses
for the Board as stated" above. Before, this meeting adjourned tem-
porary officers were nominated and elected." Although the record
does not disclose whether the employees formally adopted at this
meeting a name for the unaffiliated union, several witnesses for-the
Board testified, and we find, that the intended name of the organization
was Banner Slipper Unions
Arthur and witnesses for the respondent denied that anybody con-
nected with the respondent's management gave him permission to
hold this meeting. However, Superintendent Julius Lenschen was
present on the second floor when the approximately 200 employees
assembled for the meeting and he was present during part of the meet-
ing. At no time did he object to this proceeding on company time
and property. The power in the plant had been shut off just before the
group assembled for the meeting, notwithstanding the fact that the
employees generally worked until 5 p. m. The respondent's witnesses
denied any knowledge regarding who shut off the power on this oc-
casion. Edgar Bishop, mentioned above, testified as follows regarding
the power being shut off :
Q. (By Dir. Cunniff.) Isn't it a fact that Arthur come [sic]
to the plant while many of the employees were working?
A. There were probably some working, yes.
Q. And don't you know, as a matter of fact,, that the power was
shut off ?
A. Sure, it was off for awhile.
Q. Who shut it off ?
The temporary officers elected were Charles Burket-chairman ; Edgai Bishop-vice
chairman ; Ralph Irwin-treasurer , and George Seitz-secretary
ti Tins was the name of,the union as set forth in the petition prepared by Arthur and
referred to above
630 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
A. I don't know.
Q. Who had the right, if you know, to shut off the power?
A. That was when we were down there working.
Q. Well, who has the right during working hours, if you know,
to shut off the power?
A. No one, I should think, unless it was the boss.
Q. That is, to your best knowledge, isn't it?
A., That is my knowledge, yes.
The respondent did not introduce evidence to contradict this testi-
mony by Bishop. On the basis of Bishop's testimony and the entire
record we find, as did the Trial Examiner, that the power in the
plant on the occasion of the above meeting was shut off with the
consent of the management.1° Thus the employees had reason to
believe that Arthur's statements, made on company time and prop-
erty, reflected the desires of the respondent. We find that the
respondent is- responsible for Arthur's statements made at this meet-
ing, as described above.
Isador Levy testified that after -the above meeting he instructed
the foremen that he "didn't want anything like this to happen in
our factory." He admitted, however, that he never communicated
with Arthur about the matter. In view of all the evidence it appears
extremely doubtful that Levy instructed the foremen as he testified.
In any event,it is clear that such instruction was never communicated
to the employees, and we so find, as -did the Trial Examiner.
The temporary officers who had been elected called a meeting for
the evening of June 29 to be held at the Alert Fire Hall in Honesdale.
The day before the meeting, Seitz, mentioned above, placed on the
factory front door a sign announcing the meeting and that it would
include refreshments.'1 This sign was on the door 2 full days before
the meeting. About 100 employees attended the meeting and perma-
nent officers 12 and an executive board were elected. During the elec-
tion of officers Joe Van Driesen, a hand ]aster for the respondent,
objected to the election of Edgar Bishop as permanent vice chair-
man, telling the group "that Bishop would go back and tell the
bosses what went on at the meetings and that he should not be there
or be on the board." Those present did not elect Bishop a permanent
officer or a member of the executive board and voted to terminate
10 The respondent excepted to the Trial Examiner 's finding in the Intermediate Report
that the employees worked until 5 p. in. on June 26 In its brief and at the oral argument
the respondent contended that the employees had already ceased work when Arthur arrived
at the plant. We are of the opinion, however , that the above testimony amply supports
the finding that on that date the employees would have worked until 5 p in
11 Seitz testified that he wrote the sign and that Bishop or Burket might have helped him
place it on the door.
12 The permanent officers elected were : Charles Burket-chairman ; Joe Van Driesen-
vice chairman ; George Seitz-secretary ; and Ralph Irwin-treasui er.
BANNER SLIPPER COMPANY, INC. 631
his membership. He appears 'to have taken no further 'part in the
Banner Slipper Union or Wayne Shoe Union.
It is obvious that Van Driesen's argument against Bishop's holding
an office in the local union was in effect that he would be representing
the management at the meetings. In view of the prominent part
played' by Bishop in this labor organization prior to June 29, it, is
important , to determine whether he in fact acted for or represented
the management as argued by Van Driesen. The respondent contends
that Bishop had no such authority. Bishop described his work as
that of assembling uppers, insoles, and counters, which he then
placed on a rack for other employees. He testified that in June 1939
he had two helpers, Kelch and Firnstone. He denied in his testimony'
that he had any authority over them, but contended that they instructed
him what to do as often as he instructed them. On cross-examination,
however, George ,Seith,"' mentioned above, who was called by the
respondent as a witness and whose demeanor, according to the Trial
Examiner, was hostile to the Board, admitted that Bishops work took
him in and out of the office. He also admitted that when the machine'
broke down or when supplies , were needed for the operation it was,
Bishop who `.`took care of it" and that neither Kelch nor Firnstone
had any such duties. It is significant that although the employees
voted their disapproval of Bishop's having any connection with this
labor organization after the suggestion that he "would go back and tell
the bosses," no such question was ever raised as to Kelch and Fire-
stone. This incident indicates, and we find, as did the Trial Examiner,
that the employees identified Bishop with the management. Under
the circumstances, the employees did not have the complete and
unhampered, freedom of choice which the Act contemplates 14 '
At ' the June 29 meeting several members criticized the plan for
arbitration set forth in the petition signed on or, about June 24, and it
was informally decided to abandon the arbitration features of the
plan. At the following meeting of the executive board held in July
1939, the name Banner Slipper Union was changed to Wayne Shoe
and Slipper Workers Union.
On August 2 and 3, 1939, Van Driesen; chairman of the executive
board of-the Wayne Shoe Union, spent about a day and a half during
working hours circulating among the employees in the plant a petition
which recited that the signing employees desired "to form an Inde-
pendent Union" and disapproved "of any Union affiliated either with
18 Seitz played an important part in the formation of the Banner Slipper Union and its
successor , the Wayne Shoe Union , as the discussion discloses . He resigned , however, from
his office and membership in the Wayne Shoe Union after several members objected to his
membership and office because he was classified as an office worker.
14 See International Association of Machinists v. N. L. R. B., decided by the Supreme
Court of the United States November 12, 1940.
632 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the American Federation of Labor or the, C. I. 0." Thereafter on
August 7 and 8, 1939, Ida Ludwig and Helen 'Gay, employees and
members of the executive board of the Wayne Shoe Union, and Van
Driesen circulated during working hours another petition which des-
ignated as collective bargaining representatives of the employees 13
members of the executive board of the Wayne Shoe Union.l5
Van Driesen testified that prior to the circulation of the petition
on August 2 and 3 Isadore Levy told him that "he (Levy), wanted to
get a vote of confidence of how many we could muster up in the local
union." Van Driesen further testified that he then had the above
petition prepared, "showed the heading to Levy and told him that
I should go through "the factory and have it signed up so to give
him what he asked for, the vote of confidence, which I did." Levy
denied Van Driesen's testimony as follows :
Q. (By Mr Gerhardt.) Did he (Van Driesen) ever come to
you for permission to circulate any petition?
A. Never did.
This categorical denial by Levy clearly does not extend to all the
testimony of Van Driesen on the subject as stated above. More-
over, undisputed testimony by Van Driesen that he circulated this
petition without interruption during working hours, going into all
the departments of the plant with it over a period of a day and
a half, is compatible with. his other testimony regarding it as related
above, rather than with the denial by Levy. Under all the circum-
stances, we agree with the Trial Examiner who credited Van Driesen's
testimony regarding the petition circulated on August 2 and 3 as
stated above. We find that Van Driesen circulated the petition
upon the instigation and with the permission of the respondent.
The circumstances under which the other petition was circulated
on August 7 and 8 are detailed in the uncontroverted testimony of
Helen Gay, who, after stating that she helped during working hours
present this petition for signature to all the employees in the plant,
testified as follows : -
Q. (By Mr. Cunniff.) Where was Hyzen (the department
superintendent or foreman) 16 at the time you took this paper
around?
A. He was working. _
Q. Did he say anything to you?
A. No, he didn't.
11 Since as noted above the employees had decided to abandon the arbitration plan set
forth in the petition of June 24 , the petition of August 7 and 8 was circulated so that the
respondent might have tangible evidence that the employees desired a local union. As
hereinafter noted we have found that this petition was circulated on company time and
property with the consent of the management.
10 The words inclosed in parentheses have been supplied.
BANNER SLIPPER COMPANY, INC.' 633
Q. Did he ask you where you were? -
A. No.
Q. Did he say anything to you at all when you came back?
A. No.' -
We find that the above-mentioned petition was circulated on company
time and property with the acquiescence of the management. .
In or about September 1939 an attorney representing the respond-
ent and another representing the members of the executive board
of the Wayne Shoe Union drafted a contract between the respondent
and the executive board members as' to wages, hours, and working
conditions of the employees. On September 20, 1939,' according to
the testimony of Helen Jarusik, Isador Levy went into the packing
department, and stated to the girls employed in that department
"that he has got an inside union there and he is going to sign with
it; that he wants us girls to sign up one hundred per cent or else
he is going to padlock the doors." Although Levy denied making
this statement, the Trial Examiner found as a fact the foregoing
testimony of Helen Jarusik. We find that Isador Levy made the
statement attributed to him above.
The next day the respondent signed a closed-shop contract with
the 13 members of the executive board 17 as representatives of the
employees of the respondent.
Van-Driesen testified that during the period of organization of the
Wayne Shoe Union, -the respondent's president, Isador Levy, was
lending financial assistance to aid in carrying on these activities.
The 'substance of his testimony regarding such financial assistance
was as follows : that Ralph J. • Irwin, an employee in the finishing
department, paid for the refreshments served at the above-meeting
on June 29, 1939, from a loan of $50.00 made by Isador Levy; that
Irwin'reported to the executive board of the Wayne Shoe Union,
soon after June 29, the amount spent for such refreshments and that
he had obtained a $50.00 loan; that thereafter in December 1939 Van
Driesen asked Irwin if Irwin could not obtain another $50.00 to en-
able the Wayne Shoe Union to pay for a charter of incorporation;'
that Irwin then informed Van Driesen that the source of the pre-
vious $50.00 was Levy; that Van Driesen then borrowed from Levy
$50.00 which Van Driesen used to obtain said charter; that Levy said,
at the time, "I can't let it be known that I am giving you this for the
charter, but I can give it to you as a personal loan" ; that .Van Driesen
erranged to repay part of said loan by obtaining petmission from
Harold Levy to set up a table in the plant on pay day, December 29,
1939, at which time the employees were'to pass the table and pay Van
11, These . 13 executive board members are the same as those named in the petition circu-
lated on August 7 and 8, 1939.• 1
- 634 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Drie'sen 25 cents each; 18 that Van Driesen explained this plan to
Foremen Sam La Point, Harold Myers, and Edward Hyzen; 19 that
he "made arrangements with Myers to take a table back in the corner
so that when he paid the employees they could pass me sitting at the
table there"; that the plan was, carried out, and a payment was made
on the loan from the, funds collected; that early in August 1939 Isa-,
dore Levy advanced Van Driesen $10.00 to cover time Van Driesen
lost from his work iri circulating the petitions mentioned above; that
a few days later Van Driesen offered to arrange to repay it, but Levy
said, "Well, we will forget about it"; that up to, December 1939 Levy
gave Van Driesen on different occasions, to repay Van Driesen for
time, spent on behalf of the Wayne Shoe Union, sums which totaled
another $35.00; that neither Van Driesen nor Levy had ever men-
tioned repayment of said sums and said sums have not been repaid.
Levy admitted that he made a loan of $50.00 to Irwin early in July
and another loan in the same amount to Van Driesen in December,
but denied that he knew for what purpose either loan was to be used.
He denied advancing the other sums of money to Van Driesen as men-
tioned above. Irwin also denied that he told Levy why he (Irwin)
wanted the loan obtained from Levy in July. He testified during
direct examination in response to a question by the Trial Examiner
regarding his conversation with Van Driesen in December, "Well,
he came up and wanted $50. for the charter. I said I could not give
him $50, that I did not have it. So that is all that was said at that
time." In addition, Irwin in response to •a question by the respond-
ent's counsel on direct examination as to whether he ever told Van
Driesen that Levy loaned Irwin the money for the refreshments, an-
swered, "No, not directly." On cross-examination by counsel for the
Board, Irwin admitted that by the words "not directly" he meant
that he did not tell Van Driesen until December that the above loan
was from Levy.20
La Point, Hyzen, and Myers were all called by_the respondent to
testify. La Point and Hyzen did not deny the-collection of 25 cents
from the employees on December 29, 1939, under the circumstances
detailed by Van Driesen in his testimony as stated above. Myers,
on cross-examination, testified regarding the incident as follows :
Q. (By Mr. Cunniff.) , Well, now, on December 29th, can you
remember if that was the time Van Driesen was collecting money
from the local; didn't you pay the men and tell them to go over
to the table and get their money; just that once?
18 It appears that assessing the members of the Wayne Shoe Union and collecting the sum
assessed from them while they were at the factory was a rather common practice.
19 Erroneously referred to at one point in'the record as J. Heisen.
20 Irwin indicated that he paid $32.90 of his own money for refreshments at the time, but
repaid himself through the loan from Levy which Irwin repaid. It appears that the Wayne
Shoe Union reimbursed Irwin some time after the loan.
BANNER SLIPPER COMPANY, INC. 635
A. I don't remember that, I am sure.
Q. You wouldn't say, Mr.;Myers, that you didn't tell them to
go over there and get their money?
A. I wouldn't say I did or did not, because I don't remember.
The Trial Examiner was impressed with Van Drieseil as a witness
and noted that he appeared honest and determined to relate the truth.
Under all the circumstances, we agree with the Trial Examiner who
credited truthfulness to Van Driesen's testimony and we find that the
respondent gave financial assistance to the Wayne Shoe Union 21
The aid and assistance rendered by the respondent to the Wayne Shoe
Union is further demonstrated by the treatment the respondent
accorded those employees who opposed this labor organization. Van
Driesen testified that at various times between July 1939 and February
1940, in response to inquiries by Isador Levy, he submitted to Levy the
names of employees whom he "considered agitators." 22 Van Driesen
also testified that Levy stated to him on one of these occasions that these
employees could not be discharged for union activities and Van Driesen
replied that Levy. would "have to ... get some other defect in their
work, or something like that to make grounds" for discharging them.
Levy denied this testimony of Van.Driesen. Because of the favorable
impression made by Van Driesen as a witness, the Trial Examiner
credited truthfulness to his testimony regarding the submission of a
list of "agitators" to Levy as recited above. We agree with the Trial
Examiner, and we find that the list of "agitators" was drawn up at the
insistence of the respondent and, as hereinafter noted, used as a means
for getting rid of those employees' who favored the United and were
hostile to the Wayne Shoe Union.
B. Conclusions
We have found above that soon after the United had attempted to
organize its employees, the respondent, through its agent, Bishop,
took steps to forestall such organization. Bishop did not hesitate to
use the office of the president of the respondent to sign up members
for an inside organization, nor was this discouraged by Harold Levy,
who after entering his brother's office and inquiring as to what was
21 In arriving at the above conclusion we have not overlooked the respondent 's contention
at the oral argument that it was not unusual for the respondent to make loans to em-
ployees As noted earlier we have reversed the Trial Examiner 's ruling with respect to
certain receipts evidencing loans made by the respondent to its employees . We have re-
ceived the receipts in evidence and have considered them along with the offer of proof that
the respondent had made loans to employees other than Irwin and Van Driesen, which we
accept as true. While an employer may make loans to employees under other circum-
stances , it is a violation of the Act for an employer to make loans for the purpose of
rendering financial aid to a labor organization.
0 Van Driesen was chairman of the executive board of the Wayne Shoe Union from July
5, 1939 , until on or about February 1, 1940. It appears to have been in this capacity that
he conferred with Levy.
636 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
going on, permitted himself to be led "playfully" out of the office.
When the employees apparently rebelled at the plan being foisted
upon them by the respondent and expelled Bishop from their member-
ship, the respondent took further steps to regain their "confidence,"
and further 'petitions were, circulated among the employees at its
behest. To insure the success.of'the inside union, the respondent's
president and supervisory employees cautioned recalcitrant employees
that they would either join the inside union or the plant would shut
down. Financial assistance was rendered by the respondent to the
Wayne Shoe Union in the form of loans which were repaid! by collect-
ing small sums from the employees pursuant to a plan acquiesced in
and consented to by supervisory employees. In contrast the treatment
accorded the, United deserves consideration. When the admonitions
-to those opposing the Wayne Shoe Union did not produce the desired
results, the respondent had a list of "agitators" drawn up, and
those favoring the United were subsequently discharged on various
pretexts.23
A labor organization formed and operating under such circum-
stances could not operate independently of the respondent, and is
incapable of functioning as a bona fide bargaining agency for the
employees.24 We find that the respondent dominated and interfered
with the formation and administration of the Wayne Shoe Union
and contributed financial and other support thereto, and thereby
interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise
of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. We further find
that the agreement entered into between the respondent and the
executive board members of the Wayne Shoe Union and the con-
tractual relationship existing thereunder have been and are a means
of utilizing an employer-dominated organization to frustrate the
exercise by the respondent's employees of the rights guaranteed in
Section 7 of the Act.' We also find that by the statements and other
acts of Arthur, Lenschen, and Isador Levy, on the occasions and under
the circumstances heretofore discussed, the respondent has interfered
,with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
C. The discrimination as to hire and tenure of employment
1. The discrimination against Karl Niekrewicz, Ruth Daniels, and
Helen Jarusik
The complaint alleges that on or about October 4, 1939, the re-
spondent terminated the employment of and refused to reinstate Karl
23 See Section C below.
24 See N. L. R. B. v. Link-Belt Co., decided January 6, 1941 (U. S. Sup Ct.) Titan Metal
Mfg. Co. v. N. L. R. B, 106 F. (2d) (C. C. A. 3), cert. denied 308 U. S. 615.
-BANNER SLIPPER COMPANY, INC. 637
Niekrewicz, Ruth Daniels; and Helen Jarusik,'5 "because of said
employees membership in and activity on behalf of the Union."
Karl Niekrewicz, an employee in the heeling department, joined
the United in June 1939 and was active in signing up members for
that labor organization during its organizational drive at that time.
He was one of those listed among the "agitators" early in August
1939 when Van Driesen reported to Isador Levy the names of those
employees who refused to sign the petition circulated about that date
as discussed above., - -
On September 29,1939, Harold Levy called Niekrewicz during work-
ing hours into the leather room of the factory away from the other
employees. Levy told Niekrewicz that "the CIO would never get
into the factory because they have spent enough money to form a local
union" and that if Niekrewicz was wise he would mind his own business
and forget about the CIO while he still had a job. Although Levy
denied making this statement, the Trial Examiner found as a fact
the foregoing as testified by Niekrewicz. We find that Levy made the
'statement attributed to him above.
The morning of October 4, 1939, Pete Reifler, an employee in another
department, went into the packing room where Ruth Daniels was
working and pinched Daniels' arm. As Reifler walked away, Niek-
rewicz,_ who was Daniels' "boy friend," and Reifler exchanged words
over the incident. Reifler said to Niekrewicz, "Do you want to make
something out of it?" Niekrewicz replied, "Sure," and Reifler "swung?'
at Niekrewicz. The latter pushed Reifler between some racks. After
this incident, which took place shortly after 11 o'clock in the morn-
ing, these employees continued to work until the lunch period at noon.
A few minutes before 1 o'clock, at which time the employees normally
resumed work after their lunch period, Niekrewicz was about to enter
the factory. Reifler started toward Niekrewicz in the presence of
about 150 other employees who had congregated. Ruth Daniels, who
was present, said to Reifler, "You are not going to fight here, if you
want to fight you will have to fight alone, not with your gang around."
Helen Jarusik, 'a sister of Niekrewicz, also was present and "tried to
separate them." This incident ended without any blows being struck
and the employees entered the factory to resume work. After Niek-
rewicz had entered the- factory he met Superintendent Geiskopf, who
told Niekrewicz that since the latter "started the CIO" he was "just
trouble in the factory" 26 The employees apparently worked until
about 1: 30 p.m. The power was shut off and Van Driesen, who was
2" This paragraph of the complaint also named Doris Bishop , Doris Barnes, Stell Barnes,
and Helen Daniels. The allegations as to Doris Barnes have been dismissed supra. Those
as to Mildred Hunter, Doris Bishop, Stella Barnes, and Helen Daniels are dismissed infra.
2 Our findings above are based on the uncontroverted testimony of Niekrewicz . Geiskopf
did not testify at the hearing.
638 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
then chairman of the executive board of the Wayne Shoe Union,
gave instructions to do no more work until the participants in the
'fight were discharged.27
Meanwhile a member of the executive board of the Wayne Shoe
Union had suggested to Van Driesen that it was a good time to get
rid of some of the "agitators:" Isador Levy was absent from the
factory when these events took place. Van Driesen telephoned him as
to what had happened and suggested that "he had better come down
here and see what he could do."
A few minutes later the executive board met in Isador Levy's office
with him and Harold Levy present. , They discussed the fact "that it
was the best time of getting rid of these agitators." 23 Harold Levy
summoned Niekrewicz, Reifler, Ruth Daniels, and Helen Jarusik to the
office. Isador Levy asked these employees to state what had taken place.
After they had done'so members of the executive board indicated that
the employees who had participated in the fight should "be fired."
Levy then said, "I guess that is the only way, I will have to fire you,"
and the employment of the e bove four individuals was terminated 29
After the above events, according to Niekrewicz's testimony, Harold
Levy said to Reifler in Niekrewicz's presence, "You don't have any-
thing to worry ,about." 30 Levy denied having made this statement.
The undisputed evidence shows, however, that Reifler early in 1940
resumed work for the respondent at the same position held by him
up to October 4, 1939.31 There was no evidence that the respondent
had ever offered to reinstate Niekrewicz, however, and the respondent
made no contention at the hearing that it had ever been willing to
rehire him. Under the circumstances we find, as did the Trial Ex-
aminer, that Harold Levy made the foregoing statement attributed
to him by Niekrewicz.
Helen Jarusik, whose employment was terminated on October 4,
1939, as indicated above, joined the United in June 1939 and was active
at that time in soliciting members for the United.
27 In its brief and at the oral argument , the respondent contended that the power was not
turned on and off after the lunch recess , but that it ii as not turned on "until those involved
in the fight episode had been discharged which was about 2 p m ." The testimony on this
point is conflicting We agree with the Trial Examiner who found as a fact that the
employees were working for a while after the noon recess , and we find as stated above.
18 See the discussion above regarding the conversation between Van Driesen and Isador
Levy as to finding grounds for discharging the "agitators."
29 Although Levy testified that the above discharges resulted from his "own decision," we
agree with the Trial Examiner who found as a fact that the employees were discharged at
the request of the executive board of the respondent-dominated Wayne Shoe Union In any
event whether the discharges were the result of Levy's own decision or compliance with the
request of a respondent -dominated union, we find , as hereinafter noted, the true basis for
the discharges to be the activities of such employees on behalf of the United
10 Niekrewicz and Reifler apologized to one another after their altercation . Levy appears
to have made this statement shortly after the exchange of apologies.
11 There is no evidence that Reifler ever joined the United or in any other way assisted it.
BANNER SLIPPER COMPANY, INC. 639
On the afternoon of June 23; 1939, Frances La Truiar, forelady of
the packing department, said to the girls employed in that depart-
ment, "It is'up to you if you want to work you can, and if you want
to sign with the CIO you can because the company is going to padlock
the door, Mr. Levy said so." La Truiar then accused Jarusik of
being responsible for the organizational drive of the United and asked
Jarusik to go with her to the office of Geiskopf, plant superintendent.
In Geiskopf's office Geiskopf told Jarusik that she was to blame for
the CIO coming into Honesdale and that "Mr. Levy, would sooner
move the plant to New York instead of breaking in us damn farm-
ers."'32 Jarusik's name was among those discussed in August 1936
as "agitators" by Van Driesen and Isador Levy. Thereafter, on or
about October 2, 1939, according to the testimony of Helen Jarusik;
Isador Levy spoke to Jarusik in the factory at the table where she
worked, telling her,,"You have no more respect for.me than a God-
damn louse bringing the CIO into the factory." Although Levy
denied making this statement, the Trial Examiner found as a fact
the foregoing testimony of Helen Jarusik. We find that Levy made
the statement attributed to him above. The discharge of Jarusik
took place 2 days later as described above.
Ruth Daniels, whose employment also was terminated on'October 4,
1939, as indicated above, ,joined the United in June 1939. She was
one of those mentioned as "agitators" in the discussion between Van
Driesen and Isador Levy early in August 1939. After her discharge
on October 4,1939, she was sitting in an automobile with Helen Daniels
and Mildred Hunter. According to the testimony of Ruth Daniels,
Harold Levy approached the automobile and entered into conversa-
tion with her. She asked Levy why she was discharged and he re-
plied, "You know why you were fired. Helen Jarusik and Stanley
Jarusik are working with the CIO, Karl is Helen's brother, and you
are going with Karl." Mildred Hunter corroborated this testimony.
David Potter, Sr.,'3called as a witness by' the Board, testified that
about 5 o'clock in the afternoon of October 4, 1939, as Potter was
leaving the factory to go home he saw Harold Levy standing at an
automobile in which Ruth Daniels and others he did not recognize
were seated. Harold Levy denied having had this conversation.
32
The above statement of La Trular and Geiskopf are based on the uncontroverted testi-
mony of Helen Jarusik La Trular and Geiskopf were no longer in respondent's employ,
and neither of them ,testified at the hearing. Although in its brief and at the oral argu-
ment, respondent contended that the whereabouts of La Truiar and Geiskopf were unknown,
there was-no showing that the respondent made any effort to locate either La Truiar Or
Geiskopf , nor was any request made of the Board for the issuance of a subpoena requiring
their presence at the hearing. It is to be noted that Honesdale is a small town with a
population of apl,i oximately 5,000 persons Since the contrary has not been shown, we
nnist assume that the respondents failure to make any 'efforts to locate either La Truiar or
Geiskopf was due to its belief that their testimony would be adverse to it.
11 This witness is the father of David Potter who is named' in the complaint.
640 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The Trial Examiner was impressed, however, with the above testimony
of Daniels , Hunter, and Potter, and we agree with the Trial Examiner
and find that Harold Levy on this occasion made the statement to
Ruth Daniels as detailed above.
The respondent took exception to the finding of the Trial Examiner
that Niekrewicz, Ruth Daniels, and Helen Jarusik were discrimina-
torily discharged, and contended at the oral argument that they were
discharged because they disrupted production. In the light of all the
circumstances surrounding the discharges, we do not find the re-
spondent 's reason `convincing. We have found above that work was
resumed after the lunch period and ceased only when the power was
subsequently, tturned. off, and Van Driesen, chairman of the executive
board of the respondent-dominated Wayne Shoe Union, instructed
the other employees to do no more work until the employees in ques-
tion were,discharged. We have also considered that Niekrewicz, Ruth
Daniels, and Helen Jarusik were on the list of "agitators," their ac
tivities on behalf of the United, and the hostile attitude of the re-
,,spondent towards the United as evidenced by the above anti-union
statements of supervisory employees, including the president of the
respondent.
We find - that the respondent discharged Karl Niekrewicz, Ruth
Daniels, and Helen Jariisik because of their activities on behalf of
and membership in the United and not because of their participation
in the "fight incident" which we find the respondent used as a pretext
for the discharges. We further find that the respondent by dis-
charging -Karl Niekrewicz, Ruth Daniels, and Helen Jarusik, on
October 4, 1939, discriminated in regard to their hire and tenure of
employment, thereby discouraging membership in the United, encour-
aging membership in the Wayne Shoe Union, and interfering with,
restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise of the rights
guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
2. The cases of discrimination on or about December 4, 1939
The complaint alleges that on or about December 4, 1939, the re-
spondent terminated the employment of and refused to reinstate
Roland Kline, Ellery Potter, Robert Polt, David Potter, Jr.,,Winifred
Potter,34 and Loren Mills because of said employees' membership and
activity on behalf of the United. The respondent contends that these
employees were discharged because, in violation of instructions by
their foremen, they absented themselves from work and went deer
hunting on December 1, 1939, the first, day of the Pennsylvania deer
season.
34 This employee was originally named in the complaint as Peter Potter, but the evidence
disclosed that his real name is Winifred Potter. During the hearing the, complaint was
amended accordingly.
BANNER SLIPPER COMPANY, INC. 641,
David Potter, Jr.,35 Ellery Potter, and Mills worked in the finishing
department under Foreman Louis La Point. Mills had worked for
the respondent over 4 years, David Potter, Jr., over 3 years, and
Ellery Potter over 1 year. All three joined the United in June 1939
and David Potter, Jr., was active at that time in obtaining members
for the United. All three were mentioned as "agitators" in the dis-
cussion held between Isador Levy and Van Driesen early in August
1939 as discussed above. These three employees absented themselves
from work and went deer hunting on December 1, 1939, without ob-
taining the permission of the respondent. 'They testified that they
received no instructions from their foreman, La Point, warning them
not to go hunting. La Point denied this and testified that he gave
such instructions to all three on November 30. He testified that they
were the only employees of approximately 60 in his department to
whom he imparted such instructions inasmuch as they were the only
three employees who had announced that they were going hunting.
Isador Levy testified that before December 1 he had called to his
office Gieskopf and Foremen Hyzen and Myers, and had told them to
inform the employees in their departments that the respondent-could
"not let them take off Friday." The Trial Examiner was impressed
by the fact that Levy in this testimony did not mention La Point as
one of those foremen called to his office.36 Under all the circumstances;
we agree with the Trial Examiner, and we find that La Point did not
tell David Potter, Jr., Ellery Potter, and Mills that they should
refrain from going hunting.
Wini f 'red Potter had worked about 7 months for the respondent as
a sole layer and was under the direct supervision of Geiskopf, the
plant superintendent. He joined the United in June 1939 and early
in August was mentioned in the conversation between Levy and Van
Driesen as one of the "agitators." Potter testified that he told another
employee in Geiskopf's presence prior to December 1 that he' was
going hunting and that Geiskopf did not instruct him to the contrary.
We find, as did the Trial Examiner, that Winifred Potter's testimony
is true. ,
Boland Kline and Robert Polt worked in the lasting department
under Foreman Harold Myers. Kline had worked for the respondent
about 3 years mid Polt about 21/2 years prior to the termination of
their employment in December 1939. Kline joined the United in
September and Polt in June 1939. These two employees were among
those mentioned as "agitators" in the discussion between Levy and
45 The testimony shows that the David Potter mentioned in the complaint is David
Potter, Ji.
36 Levy testified that he spoke to La Point about the matter at a later time , but the time
he mentioned vas Friday . That would have been December 1 . The employees had gone
hunting, honnever , and had not reported for wwoik on that morning.
642 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Van Driesen early in August 1939 as described above.37 Kline ad-
mitted that on November 30 Myers warned him about going hunting,
but Polt denied that Myers ever mentioned the matter to him. We
are of the opinion and find, as did the Trial Examiner, that Myers
told both of these employees prior to December 1 not to go hunting.
On December 4, 1939, after the above events, Harold Levy called
to one of the company offices the members of the executive board 38
of theWayne Shoe Union. Levy asked the members of the executive
board" "what we thought about the way the boys did, tie the shop up
after they were forbidden to go hunting, the shop was working full
time and some departments were working overtime." Following some
discussion by the members of the board,3° but without any vote being
taken, Levy and Geiskopf informed the above six employees that
they were discharged. -
There was testimony that Paul Marshal, an employee in the lasting
department went hunting on December 1, 1939, without permission
and that he was not discharged. As the respondent offered no evidence
to refute this testimony we find it to be true. The evidence also
showed that from 12 to 18 employes in the sole cutting room went
hunting on the above date and that the respondent did not discharge
any of them. Isador Levy testified that on November 30 he discovered
"that that particular department . . . had enough surplus and it was
not necessary for them to come in" and that he told Geiskopf he
could "give them-permission to take off." On Friday morning, De-
cember 1, Harold Levy spoke to Van Driesen regarding the absence
of so many employees from the plant.40 Van Driesen then made a
tour of the plant and found that from 12 to 18 employees were absent
from the sole cutting room. Van Driesen called this fact to Harold,
Levy's attention, the latter having been unaware until then of these
absences from that department. Although Levy a little while later
told Van Driesen that he had learned from Geiskopf that the em-
ployees of the sole cutting room had received permission to go hunt-
ing, it appears probable that in view of Harold Levy's position in
the plant he would have already known about such permission had it
in fact previously been given to so large a number of employees. In
support of such conclusion it is significant that the respondent called
neither Geiskopf 41 nor the employees of the sole cutting 42 room to
37 Although Kline did not join the United until September 1939 he was one of those men
who did not sign the petition'signed by most of the employees on or about June 24, 1939.
11 It appears that all members of the executive board did not attend this meeting
R° Some members of the executive board expressed the view that the employees should be
d,scharged, but others disagreed.
40 The management discussed various matters with Van Driesen from time to time as
chairman of the executive board of the Wayne Shoe Union.
41 See footnote 32, supra
42 Only one employee from that department testified that he had been given permission to
gc hunting. nail the respondent given such permission to all the absent employees it
appears likely that the respondent would have offered their testimony to that effect.
BANNER SLIPPER COMPANY, INC. 643
testify that permission to go hunting had in fact been given. Even
if the respondent, however, gave permission to the above employees
to go hunting on December 1, as it contended, such action would indi-
cate that the respondent itself had not regarded absence from work
on that date as so serious a matter as it contended at the hearing.
The respondent also contended that its main concern as to produc-
tion on December 1 was on the so-called "McKay side" as distinguished
from the "Compos side" of the factory. It contended that produc-
tion was lagging on the McKay side. The contention of the respond-
ent's witnesses was that the six employees were discharged because
their absence to go hunting had interfered with production on the
McKay side. It is clear, however, from Harold Levy's testimony
on cross-examination by counsel for the Board, that such a consid-
eration could not have been the basis for discharging all six of these
employees. Levy testified as follows :
Q. (By Mr. Cunniff.) Now, did I understand you to testify
that Sukiennick'43 Michael or Mitch Sukiennick, or whatever his
name happens to be was caught up in his work?
A. I would say yes.
Q. Well, you said he was, didn't you?
A. Yes. _
Q. Well, then, if Sukiennick was caught up in his work, so was
Robert Polt, wasn't he? -
A. Not necessarily.
Q. Well now
A. I can explain that. _
Q. Well, go ahead and explain it.
A. Well, putting in shanks is the same operation on both
Compos and McKay, so that if the McKay side was overburdened
with too much work some of that work would be pushed over to
the Compos side.
Q.` Which side did Polt work on?'
A. Compos.
Q Which side did Sukiennick work on?
A. Compos.
This attempted explanation for the difference in the attitude of the
respondent toward Polt and Sukiennick is weakened by the fact that'
on direct examination Levy had testified, ". . . there was no worry
about the Compos side." It is also significant that Winifred Potter,
another of the six employees discharged on December 4, worked on,
the "Compos side."
4' Sukienmck, an employee in the lasting department and a member of the executive board
of the Wayne Shoe Union, was told on November 30 not to go hunting, but was later, on
December 1, given permission to go.
44184 f3-42-v of 31--42
644 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
We view as significant in determining the motive of the respondent
the fact that during the previous deer hunting seasons 14 during
which five of the above six employees were employed by the, respond-
ent, four of them had gone hunting without permission and the re-
spondent had never taken any disciplinary action against them for
such absences from their work.
Upon the entire record we do not find the reasons given by the re-
spondent for singling out the above six employees for discharge to
be convincing. In the light of the entire record, we find, as did the
Trial Examiner, that the respondent discharged Kline, Polt, Mills,
Ellery Potter, David Potter, Jr., and Winifred Potter, on or about
December 4, 1939, because of their membership in and activity on
behalf of the United, thereby discouraging membership in the United,
encouraging membership in the Wayne Shoe Union, and interfering
with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise of rights
guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
3. The discrimination against Stanley Jarusik, Frank Krol, and
Wyman Smith
The complaint alleges that in or about January 1940 the respondent
terminated the employment of and refused to reinstate Stanley Jarusik,
Frank Krol, and Wyman Smith because of said employees' member-
ship in and activity on behalf of the United. The respondent con-
tends that it did not call Jarusik back to work after a lay-off in
December 1939 because of a belief that he had other employment, that
Frank Krol's employment was terminated because he was not in good
standing with the Wayne Shoe Union and that Wyman Smith was
not reemployed in January 1940 after a lay-off because he never re-
turned "to get his job back."
Stanley Jarusik worked for the respondent at various times since
1934, his last such employment being from August 1938 until January
1940. He had joined the United in 1936, but discontinued member-
ship in 1937. He again joined the United in June 1939. Jarusik
was instrumental in bringing a United organizer to Clark's Corners
to address certain of the employees,of the respondent in June 1939
at the meeting described above. ' He also announced that meeting to
.those employees who attended it and was a leader in soliciting mem-
berships for the United among the respondent's employees" about that
time.
On June 22, 1939, Leuschen came to the trimming machine in the
plant where Jarusik was at work and stated to him, "I heard that
you are one of the fellows that are starting a union in the shop."
,c The deer hunting season in Pennsylvania is by law limited to a few days during each
year
BANNER SLIPPER COMPANY, INC. 645
Jarusik refused to sign the petition described above which was signed
by most of the respondent's employees on June 24, 1939. About 2
days later Leuschen told Jarusik that he deserved credit for what he
had done in organizing the shop, but that Jarusik "had better sign
up with the local union." Early in July 1939 Lenschen removed
Jarusik from his work as a trimmer and put him to work "pulling
up sides." Leuschen at the time of changing Jarusik's work said,
" .. . the boys over there don't want you to work with them and if
you work there they would have trouble." Lenschen also then told
Jarusik that if the C. I. O. organizers should come into the factory
"they would get beaten off.7 45
Jarusik was one of those employees who did not sign the petitions
mentioned above which were circulated early in August 1939 and
was mentioned in the conversation between Van Driesen and Isador
Levy about that time as one of the "agitators." About the middle of
August 1939, during a conversation with Harold Levy at the factory,
Levy said to Jarusik, according to the latter, "Here is fifty dollars,
you take this and get out of town, with you out of the way we'll
have no trouble with unions in this plant." Although Levy denied
making this. statement, we agree with the Trial Examiner who was
impressed with the testimony of Jarusik, and we find that Levy made
the statement attributed to him. On October 4, 1939, Harold Levy,
as found above, mentioned to Ruth Daniels that Helen Jarusik and
Stanley Jarusik were working for the C. I. O.
Jarusik testified that he helped "clean up the shop" after January
1, 1940, as was customary. Because of rumors that the machines were
to be moved, Jarusik testified, he then asked Myers, `•`\Vhen do we
come back?" and Myers replied, "I don't know anything about it,
but I will let you know when you come Friday for your pay." Ac-
cording to Jarusik he returned on the following Friday and found
his machine had been operating and thereupon Myers told him that
he (Myers) "put one of the other boys on" as Myers did not think
that it would pay Jarusik to come to the plant. Jarusik further testi-
fied that he then asked when he should return and that Myers replied
that there would be no work for a month or more and that Myers
would let him know "when we want you." 1
On direct examination Myers testified that Jarusik never did any
work in the plant after January 1, 1940, and he denied having had
the above conversation with Jarusik. On cross-examination by coun-
sel for the Board regarding the conversation in question he testified
that he did not "remember" conversing with Jarusik in January 1940.
46 The above is I ased on the uncontroverted testimony of Jarusik. Lenschen did not.tes-
tify at the bearing See also footnote 6, supra
646 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
On the basis of the entire record in the case, We find, as did the
Trial Examiner, that the conversation took place substantially as
testified to by Jarusik.46 `
Myers admitted that he had never called Jarusik back to work, but
testified that it was because another employee, a neighbor of Jarusik,
had told him that Jarusik had other work in Binghamton. The record
discloses that Jarusik was not working at the time Myers made the
bove inquiry. In view of Myers' promise to recall Jarusik "when
we want you," his reason for the failure to recall Jarusik is not con-
vincing. Jarusik, according to Myers, was a "good worker" and a
"nice boy." • We do not believe that the respondent would have taken
the casual word of a neighbor and have neglected to recall a competent
worker of many years' service. As we have observed, Jarusik was
the outstanding proponent of the United in the plant. We are of the
opinion that the respondent seized upon the first excuse to rid itself
of this active union member.
Under all the circumstances we find, as did the Trial Examiner,
that the respondent, in failing to recall Jarusik to work in January
1940, discriminated in regard to his hire, and tenure of employment,
thereby discouraging membership in the United, encouraging mem-
bership in the Wayne Shoe Union, and interfering with, restraining,
and coercing its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed
in Section 7 of the Act.
Frank Kroll was employed by the respondent in 1934, working until
some time in 1935. He resumed his employment in 1936 and con-
tinued it until his discharge in January 1940. He last worked as a
pull-over machine operator.
Krol joined the United in June 1939; and attended the meeting at
Clark's Corners during that month as described above. He was men-
tioned as one of the "agitators" in the conversation between Van
Driesen and Isador Levy early in August 1939. After the closed-shop
contract was executed between the respondent and the Wayne Shoe
Union on September 21, 1939, Krol never paid any dues to that labor
organization, although one of his fellow employees made some dues
payments for him.
During the first week of January 1940 Krol finished some work that
had not been completed before the New Year and was then laid off,
supposedly "until they moved the machines around." About the
middle of January Krol returned to the plant and asked Myers about
'0 Although Myers denied seeing Jarusik at the plant after January 1, 1940, he did admit
speaking to him in December 1939 "when we got -through finishing up for the holidays
[Christmas ]." Myers testified , "I told Stanley when he come in and got his pay, I noticed
something about-well , I said, 'when we want you iie will get in touch with you.' "
BANNER SLIPPER COMPANY, INC. 647
returning to work. Myers told Krol that the latter would have to
"make up with the local union," before he could resume work. Krol
then spoke to Van Driesen regarding-membership in the Wayne Shoe
Union, but was informed-about 3 days later that he "had been voted
out." Krol was not thereafter recalled- by the respondent.
On the basis of the above facts it is clear that the respondent failed
to allow Krol to resume work in January 1940 because Krol was not
a member in good standing with the Wayne Shoe Union pursuant
to the closed-shop contract it had with that labor organization. At
the time this closed-shop contract was executed, the Wayne Shoe
Union was a labor organization which had been established and as-
sisted by the respondent's unfair labor, practices. For that reason
such contract does not fall within the proviso of Section 8 (3) of
the Act and cannot operate as a defense to the discriminatory refusal
to allow Krol to resume work 47
We find that by refusing to allow Krol to resume his employment
in January 1940, the respondent discriminated in regard to his hire
and tenure of employment, thereby encouraging membership in the
Wayne Shoe Union, and discouraging membership in the United.48
We further find that, by such conduct, the respondent_has inter-
fered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of
the rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act.
Wyman Smith worked for the respondent from September 1938
until the termination of his employment in January 1940. He was
an "uppers layer" at the time of his last employment.
Smith joined the United in June 1939. After the respondent
signed the closed-shop contract mentioned above, Smith did not
make the required dues payments to the Wayne Shoe Union.40 On
December 23, 1939, Smith's foreman, Myers, told him that there would
be no more work until after the holidays.
Smith testified that when he sought to return to work in the .latter
part of January, Myers took him to the superintendent's office and
told him that if his "name wasn't on there" he "would have to see
Joe Van Driesen and get fixed up with the local union." Smith fur-
ther testified that Myers had reference to "a list of the union, the
local union." 50 Smith also testified that he talked to Van Driesen
44 The proviso states : "that nothing in the Act . . . shall preclude an employer from
making an agreement with a labor organization ( not established , maintained or assisted by
any action defined in this Act as an unfair labor practice ) to require as a condition of em-
ployment membership therein if such labor organization is the representatibes of the
employees as provided in Section 9 (a) in the appropriate bargaining unit covered by such
agreement when made."
"See N. L R B v J Greenbaum Tanning Co ., 110 F. ( 2d) 984 , cert denied 311
U S 662.
41 Smith testified that he paid dues only once
w The evidence shows that Wayne Shoe Union was keeping posted on the door of the
superintendent 's office about that time a list of members in good standing with that labor
organization .
648 DECISIONS OF. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
who promised to take the matter up with the Wayne Shoe Union,
and that soon thereafter Van Driesen told him that he "was voted out
at that meeting." Myers denied that Smith ever returned to the
plant in January 1940 and also denied that he ever told Smith that
the latter would be required to have his name on the above list before
being allowed to work. Myers also testified that he did not remem-
ber whether Smith's name was on the list. Van Driesen corroborated
Smith's testimony that the Wayne Shoe Union voted Smith "out"
about this time. It is unlikely that the Wayne Shoe Union would
have found occasion to take such action had Smith'not returned to"
seek work in January. Moreover, since Myers admittedly told Krol
during January 1940 that Krol would have to be in good standing
with the Wayne Shoe Union in order to work, it is likely that he
would have made the same requirement of Smith. The Trial
Examiner credited Smith's testimony and we find it to be true.
It is clear that Myers did not allow Smith to resume work in January
1940 because he was 'not a member -in-good standing with'the'Wayne
Shoe Union. The closed-shop contract of September 21, 1939, is no
defense to this conduct of the respondent for the same reasons as have
already been stated above in discussing the discrimination against
Krol.
We find that by refusing to allow Smith to resume his employment
in January 1940, the respondent discriminated in regard to his hire
and tenure of employment, thereby encouraging membership in the
Wayne Shoe Union and discouraging membership in the United. We
further 'find that by such conduct, the respondent has interfered with,
restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights
guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act.
4. The alleged discrimination against Mildred Hunter, Doris Bishop,,
Stella Barnes; Helen Daniels, and Vincent Polt
The complaint alleged that on or about October 4, 1939, the re-
spondent discriminatorily terlninted the employment of and refused to
reinstate Mildred Hunter, Doris Bishop, Stella Barnes, and Helen
Daniels The respondent's defense was that these employees volun-
tarily left. their employment and that it did not have any work avail-
able for them, when they applied for reinstatement. The Trial
Examiner found that they had not been discriminatorily discharged
or refused reinstatement, and recommended that the complaint be
dismissed as to them. The complaint also alleged that in or about
January 1940, the respondent discriminatorily terminated the em-
ployment of and refused to reinstate Vincent Polt. Since there was no
evidence to show the circumstances of Polt's termination of employ..
ment, the Trial Examiner recommended that the complaint be dis-
missed as to -him. No exceptions were filed to the, above findings and
BANNER SLIPPER COMPANY, INC. 649
recommendations. We have reviewed the record with respect to the
foregoing employees and agree with the findings and recommeiidation=
of the Trial Examiner. We find that the evidence does not support
the allegations of the complaint that these employees were discrimi-
nated against, and, accordingly, such allegations will be dismissed.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
We- find that 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 unfair labor
practices, we shall order it to cease and desist therefrom and take
certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the
Act.
We have found that the respondent dominated and interfered with
the formation and administration of the Wayne Shoe Union and con-
tributed financial and other support thereto. In order' to effectuate
the policies of the Act and to free the employees of the respondent
from such domination and' interference, and the effects thereof, which
constitute a continuing obstacle to the exercise by the employees of
the rights guaranteed in the Act, we will order the respondent to with-
draw all recognition from the Wayne Shoe Union, as representative
of any of its employees for the purposes of collective bargaining with
respect to grievances, labor disputes, rates of pay, wages, hours of
employment, and other conditions of employment, and to disestablish
the Wayne Shoe Union as such representative.
Since the agreement of September 21, 1939, between the respondent
and the executive board members of the Wayne Shoe Union embodies
recognition of said executive board members as representatives of the
respondent's employees, and since this contract represents the fruits of
the respondent's unfair labor practices, we will order the respondent
to cease giving effect to this or any other agreements it may have entered
into with such executive board members or with the Waype Shoe Union,
or to any modification or extension thereof. Nothing in our order, how-
ever, shall be taken to require the respondent to vary those wage, hour,
and other such substantive features of its relations with the employees
themselves, which the respondent may have established in performance
of these contracts, as extended, renewed, modified, supplemented, or
superseded.
650 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
. Since we have found that the respondent terminated the employment
of Karl Niekrewicz, Ruth Daniels, Helen Jarusik, Roland Kline,
Ellery Potter, Robert Polt, David Potter, Jr., Winifred Potter, Loren
Mills, Stanley Jarusik, Frank Krol, and Wyman Smith because of
their membership in and activity on behalf of 'the United, we shall
order the respondent to cease and desist from such discrimination.
Moreover, to effectuate the'purposes of the Act, we shall order the
respondent to offer these employees immediate and full reinstatement
to their former or substantially equivalent positions with the re-
spondent, without prejudice to their seniority and other rights and
privileges, and make them whole for any loss of pay they have suf-
fered by reason of the respondent's discrimination against them by
payment to each of them of a sum of money equal to the amount he or
she would normally have earned as wages from the date of discrimina-
tion against him or her to the date of the offer of reinstatement, less
his or her net earnings 51 during such period.
Upon the-basis of the above findings of fact and upon the entire
record in the case, the Board makes the following :
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW'
1. United Shoe Workers of America, affiliated with the Congress of
Industrial Organizations, and Wayne Shoe and Slipper Workers
Union, Inc., are labor organizations, -within the meaning of Section
2 (5) of the Act. ,
2. By dominating and interfering with the formation and adminis-
tration of Wayne Shoe and Slipper Workers Union Inc., and con-
tributing financial and other support to"it, the respondent has engaged
in and is engaging in unfair labor practices, within the meaning of
Section 8 (2) of the Act.
3. By discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of employment
of Karl Niekrewicz, Ruth Daniels, Helen Jarusik, Roland Kline, Ellery
Potter, Robert Polt, David Potter, Jr., Winifred Potter, Loren Mills,
Stanley Jarusik, Frank Krol, and Wyman Smith, thereby encouraging
membership in Wayne Shoe and Slipper Workers Union Inc., and
discouraging membership in United Shoe Workers of America, the
respondent has engaged, in and is engaging in unfair labor practices,
within the meaning of Section 8 (3) of the Act.
"By "net earnings " is meant earnings less expenses , such as for transportation, room,
and board , incurred by an employee in connection with obtaining work and working else-
where than for the respondent , which would not have been incurred but 'for his unlawful
discharge and the consequent necessity of his seeking employment elsewhere. See matter
of Crossett Lumber Company and-United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of Amer-
ica, Lumber and Saitmtll Workers Union, Local 2590, 8 N. L. R. B. 440. Monies received
for work performed upon Federal , State, county , municipal , or other work -relief projects
shall be considered as earnings . See Republic Steel Corporation v. National Labor Bela-
fsons Board, decided by United States Supreme Court, November 12, 1940
BANNER SLIPPER -COMPANY, INC. 651
4. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in
their exercise of the .rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the
respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices,
within the meaning of Section 8 (1) of the Act.
5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices
affecting commerce, within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of
the Act.
6. The respondent has not engaged in unfair labor practices within
the meaning of Section 8 (3) of the Act with respect to Doris Barnes,
Mildred Hunter, Doris Bishop, Stella Barnes, Helen Daniels, and
Vincent Polt.
ORDER
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and conclusions of law,
and pursuant to Section 10 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act,
the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders.that the respondent,
Banner Slipper -Co.,, Inc., Honesdale, Pennsylvania, and its officers,
agents, successors, and assigns, shall: •
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Dominating or interfering with the administration of Wayne
Shoe and Slipper Workers Union Inc., or with the formation or
administration of any other labor organization of its employees and
from contributing financial or other support to Wayne Shoe and
Slipper Workers Union Inc., or any other labor organizations of
its employees;
(b) Recognizing Wayne Shoe and Slipper Workers Union Inc.,
is the representative of any of its employees for the purpose of deal-
ing with the respondent concerning grievances, labor disputes, wages,
rates of pay, hours of employment or other conditions of work :
(c) Giving effect to its contract of September 21, 1939, or any
modification or extension thereof, or any other contract it may have
entered into with the executive board members of Wayne Shoe and
Slipper Workers Union Inc., or with that labor organization;
(d) Encouraging membership in Wayne Shoe and Slipper Work-
ers Union Inc., or any other labor organization of its employees, or
discouraging membership in United Shoe Workers of America or any
other labor organization of its employees by discriminating in regard
to hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of employ-
ment; and
(e) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing
its employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to
form, join, or assist labor organizations, 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 and protection as guaranteed in Section 7 of the National'Labor
Relations Act. I • . I
652 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds
will effectuate the policies of the Act :
. (a) Withdraw all recognition from Wayne Shoe and Slipper
Workers Union Inc., and the Executive Board of that labor organi-
zation, as a representative or representatives of its employees _for
the purposes of dealing, with the respondent concerning grievances,
labor disputes, rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, or other
conditions of employment and completely disestablish Wayne Shoe
and Slipper Workers Union, Inc., and the Executive Board of that
labor organization as such representative or representatives; _
(b) Offer to Karl Niekrewicz, Ruth Daniels, Helen Jarusik,
Roland Kline, Ellery Potter, Robert Polt, David Potter, Jr., Wini-
fred Potter, Loren Mills, Stanley Jarusik, Frank Krol, and Wyman
Smith immediate and full reinstatement to'their former or substan-
tially equivalent positions without prejudice to their seniority or
other rights and privileges;
(c) Make whole Karl Niekrewicz, Ruth Daniels, Helen Jarusik,
Roland Kline; Ellery Potter, Robert Polt, David Potter, Jr., Wini-
fred Potter, Loren Mills, Stanley Jarusik, Frank Krol, and Wyman
Smith for any loss of pay they may have suffered by reason of the
respondent's discrimination in regard to the hire and tenure of their
employment and the terms and conditions of their employment, by
payment to each of them respectively, of _a sum of money equal to
that which he or she normally would have earned as wages during
the period from the date of such discrimination to the date 'of the
offer of reinstatement less his or her net earnings 52 during said period;
(d) Post immediately in conspicuous places at its plant and
maintain for a period of at least sixty (60) consecutive' days from
the date of posting, notices to its employees stating:, (1) that the
respondent will not engage in the conduct from which it is ordered
to cease and desist in paragraphs 1 (a), (b), (c), (d), and (e) of
this Order; (2) that it will take the affirmative action set forth in
paragraphs 2 (a), (b), and (c) of this Order; and (3) that the
respondent's employees are free to become or remain members of
United Shoe Workers of America, and the respondent will not
discriminate against any employee because of membership or activity
in that organization;
(e) Notify the Regional Director for the Fourth Region in writing
within ten (10) days from the date of this Order what steps the
respondent has taken to comply herewith.
AND IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the allegations of the complaint
with respect to Doris Barnes, Mildred Hunter, Doris Bishop, Stella
Barnes, Helen Daniels; and Vincent Polt be, and the same hereby are,
dismissed.
0 See footnote 51, supra.