Bogue Electric Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 28, 1945

60 N.L.R.B. 935 (N.L.R.B. 1945)

In the Matter of BOGUE ELECTRIC COMPANY and UNITED ELECTRICAL,
RADIO & MACHINE WORKERS OF AMERICA, AFFILIATED WITH THE CON-
GRESS OF INDUSTRIAL ORGANIZATIONS
Case No. 2-C-5059.-Decided February 28,1945
DECISION
AND
ORDER
On October 17, 1944, the Trial Examiner issued his Intermediate
Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the respondent
had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices af-
fecting commerce and recommending that it cease and desist there-
from and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the
Intermediate Report annexed hereto. Thereafter, the respondent filed
exceptions to the Intermediate Report and a brief. None of the parties
requested oral argument before the Board at Washington, D. C., and
none was held. The Board has considered the rulings made by the
Trial Examiner at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was
committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has consid-
ered the Intermediate Report, the respondent's exceptions and brief,
and the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the findings, con-
clusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner.
ORDER
Upon the entire record in the case, and pursuant to Section 10 (c)
of the National Labor Relations Act, the National Labor Relations
Board hereby orders that the respondent, Bogue Electric Company,
Paterson, New Jersey, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns shall :
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Discouraging membership in United Electrical, Radio & Ma-
chine Workers of America, affiliated with the Congress of Industrial
Organizations, or any other labor organization, by discharging or re-
fusing to reinstate any of its employees, or in any other manner dis-
criminating in regard to their hire or tenure of employment, or any
term or condition of employment;
(b) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing
its employees in the exercise of the right to self-organization, to form
60 N. L. R. B., No. 161.
935
936 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
labor organizations, to join or assist United Electrical, Radio &
Machine Workers of America, affiliated with the Congress of Indus-
trial Organizations, or any other labor organization, to bargain col-
lectively through representatives 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.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Offer to Joseph V. Monico immediate and full reinstatement
to his former or substantially equivalent position without prejudice
to his seniority and other rights and privileges;
(b) Make whole Joseph V. Monico for any loss _6f pay he may have
suffered by reason of the respondent's discrimination against him by
payment to him of a sum of money equal to that which he normally
would have earned as wages from the date of his discharge to the date
of the respondent's offer of reinstatement, less his net earnings during
said period;
(c) Post at its plant at Paterson, New Jersey, copies of the notice
attached hereto, marked "Appendix A." Copies of said notice, to be
furnished by the Regional Director of 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 sixty (60) consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, in-
cluding 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;
(d) Notify the Regional Director for the Second Region, within ten
(10) days from the date of this Order, what steps the respondent has
taken to comply- herewith.
NLRB 577
(9-1-44)
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 United Electrical,
Radio & Machine Workers of America, affiliated with the Con-
gress of Industrial Organizations or any other labor organization,
to bargain collectively through representatives of their own
choosing, and tb engage in concerted activities for the purpose
of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection.
BOGUE ELECTRIC COMPANY 937
We will offer to the employees named below immediate and full
reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent posi-
tions without prejudice to any seniority or other rights and priv-
ileges previously enjoyed, and make them whole for any loss of
pay suffered as a result of the discrimination.
Joseph V. Monico ,
All our employees are free to become or remain members of the
above-named union or any other labor organization. We will not
discriminate in regard to hire or tenure of employment or any term
or condition of employment against any employee because of member-
ship in or activity on behalf of any such labor organization.
BoGUE ELECTRIC COMPANY
---------------------------
(Employer)
Dated-------------------- By--------------------------------
(Representative ) ( Title)
NoTE.-Any of the above-named employees presently serving in the armed
forces of the United States will be offered full reinstatement upon application
in accordance with the Selective Service Act after discharge from the armed
forces.
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof,
and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
INTERMEDIATE REPORT
Mr. Richard J. Hickey, for the Board.
Messrs Abrahain J. Halprin and Sidney R. Rossiter, of New York, for the
respondent. -
Rothbard, G-reenstone, Harris ,& Talisman, by Mr. Emil Owfold, of Newark, New
Jersey, and Mr. Herbert Ilerschberg, of Newark, New Jersey, for the Union.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon a third amended charge filed by United Electrical, Radio & Machine
Workers of America, affiliated with the Congress of .Industrial Organizations,
herein called the Union, the National Labor Relations Board, by its Regional
Director for the Second Region, (New York, New York), issued its complaint
dated July 5, 1944, against Bogue Electric Company, herein called the respondent,
alleging that the respondent had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor
practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8 (1) and (3) of
the National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein called the Act. Copies of
the complaint and notice of hearing were duly served upon the respondent and
the Union.
With respect to the unfair labor practices, the_complaint alleged in substance
that the respondent: (1) expressed disapproval of the Union, interrogated its
employees concerning their union affiliations, and urged, persuaded, and warned
its employees to refrain from assisting and becoming or remaining members
of the Union ; and (2) on or about January 30, 1943, discharged Joseph V. Monico,
its employee, because of his union or concerted activities; and (3) by the fore-
938 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
going conduct engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section
8 (1) and (3) of the Act
The respondent in its duly filed answer to the complaint denied that it had
engaged in the alleged unfair labor practices.
Pursuant to notice a hearing was held on August 3 and 17, 1944, at New York,
New York, before the undersigned, the Trial Examiner duly designated by the
Chief Trial Examiner. All parties were represented by counsel. Full opportu-
nity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce
evidence bearing on the issues was afforded all parties. At the conclusion of
the Board's case, the respondent, although requested to do so, declined to proceed
with its case, and made oral application, resisted by counsel for the Board and
the Union, for an adjournment of the hearing for at least 5 days. After con-
sideration and due deliberation, the undersigned denied the adjournment applica-
tion and thereupon counsel for the respondent withdrew from the hearing.'
i The hearing had theretofore been twice adjourned Originally noticed for July 18,
1944, it was adjourned to August 3, following the respondent ' s application for a 90-day
adjournment , made on the ground that an earlier hearing would interfere with its war
production . On August 2, the Chief Trial Examiner received and denied the respondent's
application for a further postponement , made on the ground that the respondent' s attorney
-of record , Mr Halprin , after the instant case had been set for hearing on August 3,
had undertaken another engagement for that morning and had arranged to leave imme-
diately thereafter on a 10 -day vacation . The Chief Trial Examiner stated however that,
if requested , he would postpone the hearing until after the conclusion of Mr. Halprin's
morning engagement 'Although no such request was made, Mr. Halprin failed to appear
when the hearing opening on the morning of August 3, as did also Edward P. Schinman,
the respondent ' s president , who had been served with a subpena and a subpena duces
tecum. Application was however made by counsel associated with Mr. Halprin for a
60-day adjournment upon all the grounds previously urged and upon the additional ground
that the respondent had been unable to locate a necessary witness, Thomas Trumbour
(who, as it appeared , was present at the hearing under Board subpena ) In view of
Mr. Halprin ' s morning engagement , the undersigned recessed the hearing until 2 p. in ,
but Mr.- Halprin , although notified to do so, failed to appear at that time. In the light
of a representation made by Mr . Halprin ' s associate that Mr Halprin ' s vacation was
necessitated by reasons of health but that the respondent would definitely go to trial if
given a 10 day adjournment , and upon the express understanding that both sides would
be,ready to proceed with the examination of their witnesses on the adjourned date, the
undersigned adjourned the hearing , save for the examination of Trumbour whom all
parties agreed to examine on August 3 , for a period of 14 days, to August 17. - To obviate
any interference with the respondent 's claimed essential war work, the undersigned
directed that, if requested by the respondent , the adjourned hearing be held at or near
the respondent 's plant in Paterson , Ne_w Jersey , so that witnesses might be called from
work singly and without undue loss of time
On August 17 at 10 a. in. , the hearing was resumed in New York City, no transfer to
Paterson having been requested by the respondent . Mr Halprin made an appearance
at this time and conducted cross-examination of the Board ' s witnesses. It was not, how-
ever, until the Board rested its case at 11 : 55 a. in. that the respondent for the first time
indicated its intention not to proceed with its case that day. When asked to proceed,
Mr. Halprin stated at one point, "I have no case ready." When it was suggested that
the respondent call Schinnian , then present in the hearing room , Mr. Halprin stated,
"There is very little he can do " The respondent ' s asserted reasons for not proceeding
were twofold : ( 1) the respondent had 15 witnesses whom it could not conveniently call
away from the plant , and (2 ) because of a chronic physical condition with which he
had been afflicted for some time , Mr. Halprin could not , without violating his doctor's
ciders , continue with the case on that day . To meet the respondent 's first reason, the
undersigned offered to adjourn the hearing to The respondent 's plant, and, to meet its
second reason, offered to postpone the case to the following day, but Mr Halprin re-
jected both proposals . Significantly , Mr. Halprin, while indicating that his health
permitted him to work only on alternate days, himself suggested that the hearing be
adjourned to Wednesday , August 23; although as he stated , he expected to be engaged
in other bearings scheduled for August 21 and 22. And when it was suggested that the
bearing might be adjourned to Saturday , August 19 , which would permit him an inter-
iening full day's rest , Mr Halprin stated that lie did not intend to work that day. The
BOGUE ELECTRIC COMPANY 939
At the close of the Board's case, the undersigned reserved ruling on the respond-
ent's -motion to dismiss the complaint, for lack of proof. The motion is hereby
denied. All parties were afforded an opportunity to argue orally before and file
briefs with the undersigned No oral arguments were made and no briefs were
filed After the close of the hearing, the respondent moved to reopen the hearing
for the purpose of adducing additional evidence The said motion was referred
to the Chief Trial Examiner for ruling. After considering said motion, the reply
thereto filed by the attorney for the Board, and the reply memorandum submitted
by the attorney for the respondent, the Chief Trial Examiner, on September 12,
1944, entered an order denying said motion.
Upon the record thus made and from his observation of the witnesses, the
undersigned makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
Bogue Electric Company is a corporation duly organized and existing under
and by virtue of the laws of the State of New Jersey. Its principal place of
business is in Paterson, New Jersey, where it is engaged in the manufacture, sale,
and distribution of electrical rotating equipment, special motors, and electric
motor generator sets. The principal raw materials purchased by the respond-
ent are steel, wire, and copper. During the period from August 1, 1943, to July
s1, 1944, the respondent purchased raw materials valued in excess of $100,000,
of which approximately 50 percent was shipped to its Paterson, New Jersey,
plant from places outside the State of New Jersey. During the same period
the respondent's sales of finished products were in excess of $500,000, of which
approximately 50 percent was shipped from its Paterson, New Jersey, plant
to places outside the State of New Jersey.
During the period from August 1, 1942, to July 31, 1943, the amount of the
respondent's purchases of raw materials and percentage of such raw materials
shipped from points outside the State of New Jersey to its Paterson plant, and
the amount of its finished products, together with the percentage of such finished
products shipped from its Paterson plant to points outside the State of New
Jersey, were equivalent to the amounts aforesaid stated for the period from
August 1, 1943, to July 31, 1944.
The iespondent admits that it is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the
Act.2
IT. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
United Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers of America, alfiiliated with the
Congress of Industrial Organizations, is a labor organization admitting to mem-
bership employees of the respondent.
undersigned requested Dir Halprin to reconsider his position and for that purpose recessed
the hearing until the same afternoon At that time neither Mr. Halprin nor any repre-
sentative of the respondent appeared.
In view of the respondent' s prior requests for extended adjournments , the multifarious
and contradictory reasons assigned as a basis for postponements , the understanding upon
which the case had last been adjourned, the fact that the respondent 's entire case , accord-
ing to Dfr Halprin ' s own statement could have been presented in one hour , the respondent's
antecedent knowledge of Dir. Halprin's physical condition, its failure to make known
its intention to request a further adjournment until the close of the Board' s case, its
reluctance to proceed with the examination of Schinman , its rejection of the proposals
made for its accommodation, and the disregard otherwise shown by the respondent for
the administrative processes and procedures of the Board , as reflected by the entire
record, the undersigned finds that the respondent ' s request for an adjournment made at
the close of the Board's case was unreasonable and without justification.
This finding is based on a stipulation of the parties.
940 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
Interference, restraint, and coercion ; the discriminatory discharge 3
Joseph V. Monico was employed by the respondent in its assembly department
from about September 24, 1942, until January 30, 1943, when he was discharged.
His starting hourly rate was 50 cents ; it was advanced on or about November
12, 1942, to 60 cents ; on or about December 3, 1942, to 65 cents ; and on or about
January 14, 1943, to 85 cents. Monico's immediate supervisor was Frederick
Solimine, and above him in the respondent's supervisory hierarchy was Plant
Superintendent Thomas H. Trumbour, who was in charge of all hourly paid
production employees. Edward P. Schinman was and is the respondent's pres-
ident. During the period herein involved, the respondent employed at its plant
approximately 100 employees.
In November 1942, general dissatisfaction was prevalent among the respond-
ent's employees concerning their wages and working conditions. In the latter part
of that month, Monico drafted, circulated among the employees, and submitted
to the respondent a petition, signed by approximately 72 employees, demanding
wage increases, vacations with pay, and double time for holidays As a result,
all employees who had been in the respondent's employ for a stipulated length
of time received a 5-cent hourly increase.
In January 1943, the discontent of the employees with their wages and working
conditions again openly manifested itself During that month the employees
held a series of six meetings for the purpose of discussing means of improving
their wages and working conditions, as well as action to be taken by them toward
that end. The first five of these meetings was held at a public meeting hall in
Paterson, New Jersey ; the last at the CIO hall in that city. Monico presided
as chairman at all but the first of these meetings.'
At the second meeting, held about January 10, 1943, the employees elected a
committee, which included Monico, to contact Plant Superintendent Trumbour
for the purpose of discussing with him the question of an increased wage scale.
Following a conference with the committee, Trumbour agreed to draw up and
present to the employees an increased wage scale. At the third meeting of
employees, held about January 16, 1943, a wage schedule, prepared by Trumbour
with the approval of Schinman, was submitted to the employees. Trumbour,
who attended this meeting and addressed the employees at the invitation of the
committee, told the employees to rate or grade themselves in accordance with
the schedule and to submit to him their suggested gradings, and that, after
considering their suggested gradings, he would grade each employee himself
in accordance with his best judgment, and then receive any complaints that
might be made. In carrying out the suggested procedure, Monico acted as a
representative of the employees. Trumbour's gradings were submitted to the
employees through Monico. Later, Monico received from employees written com-
plaints which he, on their behalf, presented to and discussed with Trumbour.
In a few instances adjustments were effected.'
The respondent's wage action, noted above, did not appease the employees, and,
at a fourth meeting, held on January 20, 1943, considerable dissatisfaction was
3 The following findings are based upon testimony of Joseph V. Monico and Thomas H
Trumbour , which stands unimpeached and undenied and is credited by the undersigned.
As noted above , the respondent , although afforded full opportunity to do so , presented no
witnesses and, except through cross -examination of Board witnesses , adduced no evidence
in support of its case
4 The meetings were attended by approximately 50 employees.
Monico himself was regraded to a classification carrying an hourly rate of 85 cents
as contrasted to his earlier rate of 65 cents.
BOGUE ELECTRIC COMPANY 941
voiced with respect to the wage policies of the respondent. Up to this point, no
attempt appears to have been made by the employees to organize themselves
formally Into a labor union. At the fourth meeting, however, a decision was
reached to secure representation through an outside labor organization, and, after
discussion, in which Monico urged such action, the employees voted to ally
themselves with the CIO. Monico was made chairman of a committee which
was selected to contact representatives of the CIO. On January 26, 1943, a fifth
meeting was held at which Monico, as chairman, introduced representatives of
the Union who then addressed the assembled employees. At this meeting, Monico
signed a Union card, and thereafter participated in the distribution of similar
cards to other employees. On January 28, 1943, two days before Monico's dis-
charge, a sixth* meeting was held, this time at the CIO hall, at which' a shop
organizing committee was elected. Monico became shop chairman.
On January 29 and 30,' 1943, Monico, according to his testimony, worked as
usual. His first intimation that he was being discharged came at the close of
the working day on January 30, 1943, when he sought to punch his time card and
found it missing. Instead, he found his release and a war bond statement on the
watchman's table. Monico inquired of Trumbour as to the reason for his release,
but the latter disclaimed knowledge. When Monico made similar inquiry of
Schinman, the latter cryptically remarked that he "could not have that kind of
stuff going on " Pressed for an explanation of his remark, Schinman told Monico
that he had been threatening female employees. Monico disputed Schinman's
statement and called upon him for substantiation, but to no avail. The release
tendered to Monico did not state the reason for his discharge, and Monico refused
to accept it in that form.
Following his afore-mentioned conversation with Schinman, Monico, according
to his undenied testimony, was detained for a time by a plant guard, and, while
sitting at the watchman's table located immediately in front of the office door,
overheard Schinman remark to someone in the office that he had "got rid of the
ringleader."'
Trumbour, to whom, by virtue of his position as plant superintendent, com-
plaints emanating from the production floor would normally come, testified that
he had never received any complaints that Monico was threatening employees.
The only suggestion to that effect made to him prior to Monico's discharge had
come from Schinman himself on the morning of the discharge. At that time,
Schininan had told Trumbour that there was talk about the plant that Monico
had been threatening employees, but Schinman had not named the employees
who had made such complaints. At the same time, Schinman had also complained
to Trumbour that "Monico was going around the shop talking union activities on
company time,"' and had criticized Trumbour for "not doing too much about
union activities in the shop." Monico, while testifying on cross-examination, was
questioned at length as to whether on January 28, 1943, he had not threatened
certain named female employees with loss of employment if they did not sign
union application cards. Monico denied that he had done so or that he had
otherwise threatened employees in any manner, and, while admitting that he had
spoken to them with respect to union hatters, denied that he had done so during
I In view of Monico 's leadership in the Union , the fact that he had just been discharged,
and other facts herein found , and in the absence of any other explanation for Schinman's
remark, it is reasonable to infer, as the undersigned finds , that Schinman 's remark had
reference to Monico as the "ringleader" of the union movement
7 The record contains no evidence that the respondent had any rule prohibiting talking
or solicitation on company time . The nature of Monico 's job was such as to require him
to go throughout the plant at times.
942 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
working hours. The named employees were not produced as witnesses by the
respondent, and Monico's testimony, standing uncontradicted, is credited. .
The respondent in its answer does not indicate the reason, if any, upon which it
relies to justify its discharge of Monico. When asked on the opening day of the
hearing to define the respondent's claim in that connection, counsel for the re-
spondent stated that, while he was not prepared to stipulate the respondent's con-
tention, it was his understanding that the discharge was effected solely because
Monico had been taking "time off from his job." No proof was adduced by the
respondent in support of this contention, and the evidence in the record is to the
contrary. As already noted, Monico testified that on the days immediately pre-
ceding his discharge, he had worked as usual. His time record, which is in evi-
dence, shows that during the last 3 days preceding his discharge he had worked
243/1 hours 8 and during the preceding week, 56 hours According to Trumbour's
undenied testimony, Monico was a willing and able worker. It was Trumbour's
further undisputed testimony that he, as plant superintendent, had never re-
ceived any complaints from subordinate supervisors or others concerning Monico's
efficiency, attendance record, or absences from his job, and that he, in turii, had
never had occasion to complain to Schinnian about any derelictions on Monico's
part concerning such matters. It is noteworthy that although it was the almost
invariable plant practice for Trumbour to determine matters affecting the hire
and discharge of hourly paid production employees, in this instance the decision
to discharge Monico was made by Schinnian, without any recommendation from
Trumbour
To recapitulate: Monico, an employee of unquestioned competency, was dis-
charged peremptorily and without warning within two days after the com-
mencement of the Union's organizational drive which he, as chairman of the
shop organizing committee, had been elected' to head. Monico's position of leader-
ship in the concerted activities of its employees had long been known to the re-
spondent. Whatever the respondent's reaction to Monico's earlier activities may
have been, it is clear from Schinman's remarks to Trumbour, made on the morn-
ing of the discharge, that the respondent was disturbed by the advent of an outside
union in the plant and by Monico's organizational activities on its behalf As
found above, the record does not support Schinman's assertion that Monico had
been threatening female employees. Nor does it support the claim, suggested
by the respondent at the hearing but significantly not mentioned at the time of
the discharge, that Monico's discharge was attributable to inordinate absences on
his part from work. In the absence of any adequate explanation for the discharge
and in the light of the foregoing circumstances, Monico's discharge is scarcely
susceptible of explanation of any basis other than that it was prompted by his
outstanding role in the recently initiated movement to organize-the respondent's
employees into an outside union and was designed, as expressed by Schinnian
himself, to get "rid of-the ringleader" of that movement. -
On the basis of the record as a whole, the undersigned finds that Monico was
discharged on January 30, 1943, and was thereafter denied reinstatement because
of his membership in and activities on behalf of the Union as well as his other
concerted activities for the purposes of collective bargaining or other mutual aid
and protection, and to discourage membership in the Union. It is further found
that by its discharge and refusal to reinstate Joseph V. Monico, the respondent
discriminated in regard to his hire and tenure of employment, thereby dis-
couraging membership in the Union, interfering with, restraining, and coercing
its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
I llomico was discharged in the middle of a pay-roll period.
BOGUE ELECTRIC COMPANY 943
The complaint alleges that, independently of the discriminatory discharge of
Monico, the respondent engaged in unfair labor practices by (a) expressing dis-
approval of the Union; (b) interrogating its employees concerning their union
affiliations ; and (c) urging, persuading, and warning its employees to refrain
from assisting, becoming members of or remaining members of the Union. The
undersigned finds no substantial evidence to support these allegations of the com-
plaint, and will recommend that they be dismissed. -
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 relationship to trade, traffic, and com-
merce among the several States, and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and
obstructing commerce and the free flow thereof.
V. THE REMEDY
Since it has been found that the respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor
practices, it will be recommended that it cease and desist from such practices, and
to effectuate the policies of the Act, it will be recommended that the respondent
post notices throughout its Paterson, New Jersey, plant, stating that it will not
engage in-the conduct from which,it is recommended that it cease and desist.
The undersigned has found that on January 30, 1943, the respondent discharged
Joseph V. Monico because of his union affiliation and activities. The under-
signed will recommend that the respondent offer Joseph V. Monico immediate and
full reinstatement to his former or substantially equivalent position without
prejudice to his seniority and other rights and privileges, and that the respond-
ent make Joseph V. Monico whole for any loss of pay he may have suffered by
reason of the discrimination against him, by payment to him of a sum of money
equal to that which he normally would have earned as wages from January 30,
1943, the date of his discriminatory discharge, to the date of the offer of reinstate-
ment, less his net earnings9 during said period.
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. United Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers of America, affiliated with the
Congress of Industrial Organizations, is a labor organization within the mean-
ing of Section 2 (5) of the Act. -
2. By discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of Joseph
V Monico and thereby discouraging membership in a labor organization, the
respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 8 (3) of the Act.
3. By interfering with, restraining; and coercing its employees in the exercise of
the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the respondent has engaged in and
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
America, Lumber and Sawmill Workers Union, Local 2590, 8 N. L R. B 440. Rlonies re-
ceived 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.
944 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (1) of
the Act
4. The aforesaid labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce
within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
5. The respondent has not, as alleged in the complaint, engaged in unfair labor
practices, independently of the discharge of Joseph V. Monico, by expressing
disapproval of the Union ; interrogating its employees concerning their union
activities; and urging, persuading, and warning its employees to refrain from
assisting, becoming members of or remaining members of the -Union
RECOMMENDATIONS
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and conclusions of law, the under-
signed recommends that the respondent, Bogue Electric Company, Paterson, New
Jersey, and its officers, agents, successors, and assigns shall: -
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Discouraging membership in United Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers
of America, affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations, or any other
labor organization, 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) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its em-
ployees in the exercise of the right to self-organization, to form labor organiza-
tions, to join or assist United Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers of America,
affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations, or any other labor
organization, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choos-
ing, 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.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the undersigned finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
la) Offer to Joseph V. Monico immediate and full reinstatement to his former
or substantially equivalent position without prejudice to his seniority and other
rights and privileges ;
(b) Make whole Joseph V. Monico for any loss of pay he may have suffered
by reason of the respondent's discrimination against him by payment to him of
a sum of money equal to that which he normally would have earned as wages
from the date of his discharge to the date of the respondent's offer of reinstate-
ment, less his net earnings 10 during said period;
(c) Post immediately in conspicuous places throughout the respondent's plant
at Paterson, New Jersey, and maintain for a period of at least sixty (60) con-
secutive 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 recommended it
cease and desist in paragraph 1 (a) and (b) of these recommendations; (2) that
the respondent will take the affirmative action set forth in paragraph 2 (a) -and
(b) of these recommendations; and (3) that the respondent's employees are free -
to become and remain members of United Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers
of America, affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations, and that
it will not discriminate against any employee because of membership in, or
activity in that or any other labor organization.
(d) Notify the Regional Director for the Second Region within ten (10)
days from the date of the receipt of this Intermediate Report what steps the
respondent has taken to comply herewith. - -
10 See footnote 9. supra
BOGUE ELECTRIC COMPANY 945
It is further recommended that unless on or before ten (10) days from the date
of the receipt of this Intermediate Report, the respondent notifies said Regional
-"Director. in writing that it will comply with the foregoing recommendations, the
National Labor Relations Board issue an order requiring the respondent to take
the action aforesaid.
It is further recommended that the complaint insofar as it alleges that the
respondent engaged in unfair labor practices, independently of the discriminatory
discharge of Joseph V. Momco, by expressing disapproval of the Union; interro-
gating its employees concerning their union affiliations; and urging, persuading,
and warning its employees to refrain from assisting, becoming members of, or
remaining members of the Union, be dismissed.
As provided in Section 33 of Article II of the Rules and Regulations of the
National Labor Relations Board, Series 3, as amended, effective November 26,
1943, any party or counsel for the Board may within fifteen (15) days from the
date of the entry of the order transferring the case to the Board, pursuant to
Section 32 of Article II of said Rules and Regulations, file with the Board,
Rochambeau Building, Washington, D C, an original and four copies of a state-
ment 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 Immediately upon. the filing of such statement of
exceptions and/or brief, 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. As further provided in said Section 33, should any party
desire permission to argue orally before the Board, request therefor must be
made in writing within ten (10) clays from the date of the order transferring
the case to the Board.
Dated October 17, 19'44.
ARTHUR LEFF,
Trial Examiner.
C!SPi(, i 45 vnl 00 lid