Brighton Bakery

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 29, 1966

158 N.L.R.B. 512 (N.L.R.B. 1966)

512 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Felix Mackevicius and Judvigo Mackevicius Co-partners, doing
business as Brighton Bakery and Local Union 49, American
Bakery & Confectionery Workers International Union, AFL-
CIO. Case No. 13-CA-6781. April 29, 1966
DECISION AND ORDER
On October 22, 1965, Trial Examiner James F. Foley issued his
Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respond-
ents had engaged in certain unfair labor practices and recommending
that they cease and' desist therefrom and take certain affirmative
action, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Decision. There-
after, the Respondents filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Deci-
sion and a supporting brief. The General Counsel filed cross-
exceptions and a brief in answer to Respondents' brief and in support
of the cross-exceptions.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section'3 (b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board has
delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member
panel [Members Fanning, Brown, and Jenkins].
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made
at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The
rulings are hereby affirmed. 'The' Board has considered the Trial
Examiner's Decision, the exceptions and briefs, and the entire record
in this case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recom-
mendations of the Trial Examiner.'
[The Board adopted the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order.]
'We find no merit to exceptions filed by both the General Counsel and Respondents
to various credibility resolutions of the Trial Examiner . It Is the Board 's well -established
policy not to overrule a Trial Examiner ' s resolutions as to credibility of witnesses unless
the clear preponderance of all the relevant evidence convinces us that they aie incorrect.
Such a conclusion is not warranted here . Standard Dry Wall Products , Inc., 91 NLRB
544, 545, enfd . 188 F. 2d 362 ( C.A. 3) Nor does the fact that , as alleged by Respond-
ents, the Trial Examiner may have generally discredited Pecak, a witness for the Gen-
eral Counsel , while accepting part of his testimony warrant a reversal of the Trial
Examiner's findings based on such credited testimony . It is sufficient answer to this con-
tention that the Trial Examiner could credit certain testimony of the witness while
rejecting other portions of it. N.L.R.B . v. United Brotherhood of Cat penters , Local 517
( Gil Wyner Construction Co.), 230 F. 2d 256, 259 (C A. 1).
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This case , No. 13-CA-6781 , was brought under Section 10 (b) of the National
Labor Relations Act, as amended (61 Stat . 136, 73 Stat . 519), herein called the Act,
against Respondents Felix Mackevicius •and Judvigo Mackevicius , co-partners, doing
business as Brighton Bakery (herein called Respondent ), on a charge filed Novem-
ber 6 , 1964, by Local Union 49, American Bakery & Confectionery Workers Inter-
158 NLRB No. 50.
BRIGHTON BAKERY 513
national Union, AFL-CIO (herein called Union). On December 30, 1964, General
Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board, by Regional Director Ross M.
Madden , issued a complaint against Respondent . Respondent filed an answer Janu-
ary 15, 1965.
It is alleged in the complaint that in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the
Act, Respondent, in the latter part of August 1964, and early part of September 1964,
threatened employees with reprisals if they engaged in union or concerted activities;
on or about September 25, 1964, discharged employee Julian Kreiser, because he
engaged in union or concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or
other mutual aid or protection; and since on or about October 29, 1964, has refused
to reinstate employees Julian Pecak and Frank Dziedzic, who, from on or about
September 25 to on or about October 29, 1964, engaged in an unfair labor practice
stiike in protest of the discharge of Kreiser. Respondent, in his answer, denies that
it has engaged in any illegal conduct. As affirmative defenses, he answered that
Kreiser was discharged for cause, that the strike was an economic strike and not an
unfair labor practice strike, and that Pecak and Dziedzic were not reinstated because
Respondent has not had sufficient work for them, and "to,, reinstate said employees
would create an unusual and an unnecessary economic hardship upon Respondent."
A hearing on the complaint and answer was held before Trial Examiner James F.
Foley on March 22 and 23, 1965, in Chicago, Illinois. General Counsel, Respond-
ent, and Charging Party were represented at the hearing. All parties were afforded
an opportunity to offer evidence, make oral argument, and file briefs. General
Counsel and Respondent filed briefs after the close of the hearing.'
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
I. THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT
Respondent, with its principal office and place of business located in Chicago,
Illinois, is engaged in the manufacture and sale of breads and other bakery products.
During the calendar year 1964, Respondent purchased and received raw materials
for the manufacture of its products from enterprises located in the State of Illinois,
and these raw materials, in part, consisted of raw materials with a value in excess
of $50,000 which the enterprises had received directly across State lines from sources
located in States other than the State of Illinois. I find that Respondent is engaged
in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act, and assertion
of jurisdiction will effectuate the purposes of the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
M. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES 2
A. Background evidence
In July 1963, Walter Palka, business representative and financial secretary of the
Union visited Walter Pecak, Albin Guros, and Stanley Borowski, employees of
Respondent, at their homes in an attempt to persuade them and other employees of
Respondent to authorize the Union to represent them as collective-bargaining repre-
sentative. Each of them declined to do so. Pecak had joined the Union in October
i On April 23, 1965, General Counsel filed a motion to correct the transcript in certain
respects. This motion was not opposed by Respondent or Charging Party.
9 The majority of the witnesses testified through interpreters. Some of the testimony
of these witnesses consists of conflicting versions of the same incident . In evaluating it,
I have credited the testimony of a witness for a . part of the Incident and the testimony of
another witness for another part of the same incident where such action, in my judgment.
gives effect to events as they occurred N L.R B. v. Universal Camera Corporation, 179
F. 2d 749, 754, reversed on other grounds 340 U S. 474. In resolving Issues of credibility,
as well as In evaluating all evidence , both oral and written, I have given due regard to
demeanor testimony and the extent to which the particular evidence is reconcilable with
the remainder of the context . In attributing weight to evidence, I have considered
significant the absence of proper foundation and of evidence of surrounding circumstances.
I have given evidence little or no weight where this absence reduces it to a self-serving
conclusionary statement.
221-731-67-vol. 1518-34
514 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
1962. Neither Guros nor Borowski were members at the time. Guros signed the
Union's joint application for membership and representation authorization card
(herein called union card) on August 24, 1964, and received a union book in the
first part of November 1964. Borowski never became a union member.
On or about August 13, 1964, Julian Kreiser, who was minus one hand and the
index finger on the other hand, answered Respondent's ad for bakers and bakers'
helpers in a Polish language newspaper. On Kreiser's representation that he had
long experience as a baker, Felix Mackevicius, herein called Mackevicius, a partner
in Respondent, hired him as a management trainee. Mackevicius' wife, Judvigo,
the other partner, had had an operation and was in Detroit, Michigan. She normally
ran the bakery shop and Mackevicius ran the bakery in the rear. They lived on the
second floor. On account of her illness, Mackevicius had to spend most of his time
in the shop, and leave the employees in the bakery unsupervised, except to the extent
of giving them orders or instructions, and occasionally visiting the bakery to check
what they were doing. He told Kreiser to learn the business so he could supervise
the employees as a foreman , and to make himself useful while he was learning.3
During the week of August 16 Mackevicius asked Kreiser if he could obtain
another bakery employee. Kreiser said he only knew of other bakery employees
through the Union. Kreiser had been a member of the Union for 15 years. Macke-
vicius said that he did not object to a member of the Union, that he was willing to
pay union wages. On August 21 Kreiser visited Palka at the union hall, and said
he worked for Brighton Bakery, and asked Palka to send a baker to Brighton.
Palka said to Kreiser that Brighton was not a union shop, but he would send a man
if there was a possibility of organizing or obtaining a contract as he could not send
a man to a company that did not pay union benefits. The Union had approximately
500 members. Palka had known Kreiser for 10 years. Palka telephoned Frank
Dziedzic the afternoon of August 21 or 22, and asked him to apply for a job with
Respondent. Dziedzic was a friend, but not a member, of the Union. Dziedzic
began work for Respondent as a baker's helper on August 23. On August 24, Palka
met with Kreiser, Dziedzic, Guros, and Pecak in a restaurant, where each signed
a union card.
During the week of August 23, Mackevicius asked Kreiser if he could obtain an
ovenman for him as Dudek, the ovenman, was going on vacation. Kreiser replied
that he should ask Business Representative Palka to send him an ovenman. He also
said to Mackevicius that he should operate two shifts, that there was too much work
for one shift, and that he should ask Palka to send men for two shifts. The record
does not show what Mackevicius said, if anything, in reply. Kreiser again visited
Palka at the union hall, and asked him to assign an ovenman to Respondent. He
also said to Palka that there was the possibility of a contract. The record does not
disclose what Kreiser said to Palka with respect to the assignment of other employees.
Kreiser testified he asked Palka to talk with Mackevicius. In any event, Palka
assigned Joe Los to Respondent as an ovenman on or about August 27 or 28. He
also assigned Joseph Marciniak on this date or the next day. Los and Marciniak
worked only 1 day for Brighton.
Prior to the employment of Kreiser, Respondent employed as bakers or bakers'
helpers, Borowski, Dudek, Guros, Pecak, Kromelis, Gaigalas, and Janociak. With
the addition of Kreiser and Dziedzic Respondent had nine employees. Los and
Marciniak are not counted as they worked only 1 day. The record does not show
whether Los and Marciniak were union members or whether they had signed a union
card .4
On Friday, August 28, Mackevicius left his Chicago business for a vacation in
New York City and returned on Saturday, September 5. On or about September 6
Mackevicius inquired of all his employees the whereabouts of Los and Marciniak
so he could pay them the 1 day's wages due each of them. Both Kreiser and Guros
said to Mackevicius that he would be visited by a person who knew them and who
would accept the wages on their behalf. On September 7 Palka arranged for a meet-
'The rest of the details relating to Kreiser's employment is discussed infra, in con-
nection with his discharge.
Palka testified that Respondent had eight employees . He had signed cards for Kreiser,
Pecak, Guros , and Dziedzic . Whether Respondent had nine rank-and-file employees with
the inclusion of Kreiser , and the Union had cards for four of them or Respondent had
eight rank-and-file employees , excluding Kreiser, and the Union had cards for three of
them , excluding Kreiser 's, it is clear that the Union at no time represented a majority of
employees in an appropriate unit.
BRIGHTON BAKERY 515
ing with Mackevicius on Thursday, September 10. On September 10, sometime
around noon , they met in the bakery shop. He identified himself and said that he
had come to collect the wages of Los and Marciniak . Mackevicius declined to give
Palka the wages. He told him that he did not know for sure if he was acting in
their behalf, although Palka showed him their social security cards.5 Palka said he
would send Los and Marciniak to him. At this time Palka asked Mackevicius to
sign a contract and produced a document which looked like a contract for him to
sign.
Palka testified that he asked Mackevicius if he would sign a contract . As a reason
for the request , he said to him that he had bakers working for Respondent who had
asked him to come and see him and negotiate . According to Palka, Mackevicius at
first said that the bakers did not want a union, that he paid them good wages, and
he gave them all the benefits , and asked him to contact him again the following
week. Palka also testified he said to Mackevicius that Kreiser had come by the
union hall and had asked him for bakers . He admitted he did not show the union
cards to Mackevicius or tell him the number of employees who signed them . Macke-
vicius testified that he told Palka that he had nothing against the Union , that he
would gladly sign the contract but had heard from his employees that they "wouldn't
like the idea of a union," and "nobody approached me as to the matter of a union,"
and also told Palka to see him again in 2, 3, or 4 weeks when employees on vacation
would be back, and his wife would be back, and they could have some time for dis-
cussion and possibly reach a decision on the matter.
Palka testified that accompanied by William Giedroc , his assistant business agent,
he met with Mackevicius again on Tuesday , September 15, around 10 or 11 a.m. in
the shop, when a lady was present who was either a salesgirl or Mackevicius' wife.
Palka testified that he asked Mackevicius to sign a contract , but that "Mr. Macke-
vicius again pointed out that if the bakers would want it, he would sign; but he
doesn't believe that all the bakers want the Union; and so,-he also told me why
don't I go and organize all the Lithuanian shops , then , he will sign contract too."
According to Palka, he said to Mackevicius he represented the small shops but that
in regard to the Lithuanian bakeries 6 he would have to start some place , and would
like his bakery to be the first one. He also testified that Mackevicius said to get in
touch with him again in a week or two. Mackevicius testified that he did not recall
meeting with Palka after September 10 until September 29. On September 16 or 17
Palka met with Kreiser, Pecak, Guros, and Dziedzic , and reported to them what had
transpired between him and Mackevicius.
Palka testified that he attempted to get in touch with Mackevicius by telephone on
January 21, but was able to talk only with his son Tony, who said his father was not
there, and to telephone him the next day or the next week . Mackevicius discharged
Kreiser Friday evening, September 25, and the same evening , employees Pecak,
Guros, and Dziedzic stated to Respondent they would refuse to work in protest of
the discharge. They refused to work on Sunday , September 27. Palka attempted
to contact Mackevicius by telephone on Monday, September 28, and talked to Tony,
his son , who told him his father was not there , and to call him the next day or later
that evening . He telephoned the next morning , Tuesday, September 29, and again
talked to Tony. Tony arranged to have his father meet with Palka at 6 p.m. that
evening. Pecak, Guros, and Dziedzic did not work on September 29. Palka and
Mackevicius met at 6 p .m. in the living quarters of the Mackevicius on the second
floor.
At this meeting Palka and Mackevicius discussed the discharge of Kreiser and the
refusal of Pecak, Guros, and Dziedzic to work in protest of the discharge .? Macke-
vicius asked Palka to return Guros and Dziedzic to work . Palka testified Mackevicius
said he would not take back Kreiser because he had only one hand and was a trouble-
maker, or Pecak because he was a troublemaker and a bad baker . Mackevicius
testified he said that he would not take Kreiser because he fired him or Pecak because
6 Mackevicius testified that Los and 1arcintak were not referred to Respondent by the
Union, but answered the ad for employees he ran in the Polish language newspaper.
Apparently , neither one disclosed he was sent by the Union when applying for employ-
ment. As stated infra, Kreiser did not tell Mackevicius that he had talked to Palka, and
asked him to refer an ovenman and another worker to Respondent.
6 Mackevicius Is a Lithuanian , and testified in the Lithuanian language. He came to
the United States from Europe in 1950.
7 These matters are discussed in detail, infra, in connection with allegations of Krelser's
discriminatory discharge and the refusal to reinstate Pecak and Dziedzic.
516 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
he left voluntarily. I credit Palka. Palka testified that he said to Mackevicius that
the employees "don't want to stop working," that he had brought with him an agree-
ment for him to sign , and the employees would return to work when he signed it.s
Palka's direct examination is silent with respect to Mackevicius ' response to his
request that he sign a contract . Mackevicius testified that he said he could not sign
the contract since his bakers were on vacation and he did not understand English
and would like to have his lawyer read the agreement ; that Palka testified that he
did not have to sign the complete contract , but only a small piece of paper on which
something had been written in English ; and that he then told Palka he could not
sign it because he did not know what it was. He also testified he told Palka to let
Guros and Dziedzic go back to work, to wait for 3 or 4 weeks so that he could con-
tact his lawyer and the bakers could get back from vacation ,9 and that during the
3 or 4 week Palka could enter the bakery and talk to the employees , and "if the
workers will sign , I don 't object to it ." Palka testified on cross-examination that
he did not want an immediate election, but only temporary recognition of the Union
as bargaining representative of eight employees on the basis of signed union cards
from four employees. On September 30 the Union established a picket line in front
of Respondent's place of business . The picketing continued from that date until
October 30.
B. The alleged threats
1. Pecak
Pecak testified that he joined the Union in October 1962, started full-time employ-
ment at Respondent 's business in January 1963, ` and that he discussed the Union with
Janociak, Gaigalas, Borowski , and Dudek, that the first three did not want a union,
and Dudek was not certain it would be a good idea to join a union . He did not
discuss the Union with Kromelis . He testified on recross examination that in Octo-
ber 1963, Mackevicius told him that if he wanted to organize a union he would be
working no longer in the bakery, that for the 7 years the bakery was in existence
no one bothered them, and it was "not correct" for him to start any commotion at
that time; that the conversation in which Mackevicius made these statements lasted
over a period of 2 hours as Mackevicius left the bakery a number of times, and then
returned , and that Mackevicius yelled at him . He did not refer to this conversation
on direct examination or on redirect examination.
Pecak testified that on a Tuesday in the middle of August 1964, after a visit by
Palka, Mackevicius said to him, Guros, Kreiser, Gaigalas, Dziedzic, and Janociak
that an agent had come from the Union , and asked them who would want to orga-
nize for the Union because the union representatives would bring a contract. Pecak
replied that the bakers demanded that he sign a contract. Mackevicius then said
that if he wished to organize a union he should go to a union shop to work.
Employee Pecak testified that on a Tuesday which his best recollection placed in
the middle of September 1964, he stated to Mackevicius that it would be advisable
if they ,could work shorter hours as their hours of work were quite lengthy, and that
Mackevicius replied that when an order was received it had to be completed no
matter how many hours it took to finish it.10 Pecak testified that he then told
Mackevicius that they would like "to organize the bakery ," and would like him to
sign a contract , and Mackevicius replied that "if all of the bakers agreed then a con-
tract will be signed ." Counsel for General Counsel then asked Pecak if he recalled
anything else that was said in that conversation, and Pecak testified that Mackevicius
said that "if I wish to organize a union here I should know that my services would
no longer be needed here."
After consideration of all relevant substantive and demeanor testimony in context,
I credit Pecak 's testimony of a conversation he had with Mackevicius in September
1964, and do not credit his testimony of conversations he had with Mackevicius in
October 1963 , and August 1964. The threats in the alleged October conversation
is identical with the one in the September conversation . This conversation was dis-
8 Palka had a telephone call from Pecak on Saturday , September 26, who told him that
he, Guros, and Dziedzic did not w ish to return to work until Kreiser was reinstated.
6 He identified the bakers as Dudek and Borowski.
10 Gaigalas , a witness for Respondent, testified that Pecak had numerous conversations
with Mackevicius . The record discloses that the employees complained about the num-
ber of hours they worked , and Respondent's policy of not paying overtime rates for hours
exceeding regular hours . As Pecak testified , Mackevicius told them they , had to work
until the orders were filled
BRIGHTON BAKERY 517
closed for the first time on recross-examination when Pecak was unable to recall the
September conversation concerning which he gave testimony on direct examination.
The August conversation is not credited because Pecak recalled that it took place
after Palka talked with Mackevicius about a contract. Palka first talked to Macke-
vicius in September 1964, about a contract. In crediting Pecak's testimony of his
September conversation, I have considered the supporting testimony of Palka that
Mackevicius refused to offer Pecak reinstatement when he offered it to Guros and
Dziedzic on September 29, 1964, after the three of them had struck in protest against
Kreiser's discharge and at that time labeled Pecak a troublemaker . I have also
considered , Mackevicius ' denial that he ever spoke to Palka about a union , Gaigalas'
testimony that he did not recall being present when Pecak and Mackevicius had a
conversation about a union ,11 although Pecak said he was , Palka's testimony that
neither Kreiser nor Pecak held any position in the Union, the evidence that General
Counsel did not offer any testimony of witnesses to corroborate Pecak's testimony,
and the testimony of Palka, Kreiser , Dziedzic, and Gaigalas that Mackevicius said
he would not object to a contract if all the employees wanted it . This representation
of Mackevicius when considered in context is to be taken with a grain of salt. The
evidence considered as a whole shows that the conversation of September 1964, took
place, and as testified to by Pecak.
2. Kreiser
Mackevicius asked Kreiser in the third week of August •1964, to obtain for him
a baker or baker's helper , and in the fourth week of August 1964 , an ovenman, and
Kreiser asked Palka to refer men of these classifications to Respondent . Dziedzic
and Joe Los applied to Respondent for these jobs and were hired . Dziedzic, who
reported for work on August 23, 1964, was working when Kreiser was discharged,
and Joe Los who reported for work about Sunday, August 30, worked only 1 day.
Kreiser asked Palka to send additional men to Respondent , and Joseph Marciniak
was hired and reported for work about the time Los was hired and reported. Mar-
ciniak,' like Los, worked only 1 day. Palka, in a conversation with Mackevicius at
Respondent 's plant on September 10, 1964, said that employees of Respondent asked
him to negotiate a contract, and that Kreiser had asked him to assign men to Respond-
ent for a baker's job and an ovenman's job. Kreiser testified that he asked Palka
at the same time to talk with Mackevicius. Palka asked Mackevicius on Septem-
ber 10, 1964, to sign a contract, as union members were working for Respondent
and they had asked him to negotiate a contract with him, and Mackevicius replied
at first that the employees did not want a contract, and then if they wanted a contract
he would sign one, asked Palka to put off the decision until his bakers, Borowski and
Dudek, and his wife returned, and until he had a chance to go over the contract with
his attorney.
Kreiser did not discuss the hiring of new employees with Mackevicius after the
conversation in which the latter asked him to obtain an ovenman. This was in the
week beginning August 23.12 Nor did he disclose to Mackevicius that he had talked
to Palka. He waited for Palka to appear at Respondent 's plant . Kreiser testified
that after Palka had talked to Mackevicius on September 11, 1964, and had asked
him to sign a contract, Mackevicius came into the bakery and said to him, "I am
sorry you are the one that sent union man to me, I am no union , I am sorry," and
that he replied, "I am sorry too, you told me before you wanted union men, now
you don't need it, why you change it, right away you change your mind, how come
you change your mind?" and that, Mackevicius then said, "You Communist, and
I say, I no Communist."
Mackevicius denied he told Kreiser that he was a Communist. He did not, how-
ever, deny having the conversation: On evaluation of the substantive and demeanor
testimony of Kreiser and Mackevicius in context, I credit Kreiser, I find that Macke-
vicius, on September 10, 1964, reprimanded Kreiser for Palka's visit to Respondent's
plant, and his seeking a collective -bargaining contract , and called him a Communist
for his efforts to have Palka engage in this conduct.
Kreiser testified that in the evening a few days after Palka talked to Mackevicius
on September 10, an "elegant gentleman" came into the bakery, looked at the employ-
ees from head to toe for 10 to 15 minutes, and' left, and that Mackevicius, later in
n Gaigalas testified that Pecak had many conversations with Mackevicius.
r' Kreiser testified that at this time when he told Mackevicius that he should talk to
Palka, he also told him that he would be visited by Palka in about 2 weeks. I do not
credit this testimony as no foundation was laid to explain why the visit would be delayed
2 weeks.
518 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the evening, told all the employees, "this man is from the FBI and he will fix every-
body." Mackevicius testified that such a person visited the bakery, and looked at
the employees working, and that later in the day he said to Kreiser that "this man's
job is to arrest everybody in America who would do something wrong." Macke-
vicius testified that he made this statement to Kreiser in'jest because the latter would
ask him what the identity and occupation were of every person who would come
into the bakery.
On evaluation of the relevant, substantive, and demeanor testimony in context,
I credit Kreiser, and find that a few days after September 10, 1964, following the
visit of the "elegant gentleman" to Respondent's plant, Mackevicius said to all the
employees who were in the bakery that "this man is from the FBI and he will fix
everybody." In regard to this testimony, I have considered testimony of Macke-
vicius, Gaigalas, and Kreiser that the bakery employees in Mackevicius' absence
threw dough on the floor and on the walls and at Gaigalas, and that garbage was
permitted to collect in front of the oven; Mackevicius' testimony that he made the
statement in jest to Kreiser because of the latter's inveterate curiosity about the
identity and occupation of every visitor to the bakery, including the "elegant gentle-
man," and Kreiser's testimony that Mackevicius made the statement not only to him
but to all the employees. Of the employees present, Kromelis, Janociak, and Gai-
galas (Dudek and Borowski were on vacation) had not indicated any interest in the
union organizational activity. So it can be argued that since he addressed all the
employees, the threat was not limited to those engaged in the union activity. It
appears, therefore, that Mackevicius could have made the reference to the FBI in
connection with one of three sets of circumstances; i.e., the irresponsible conduct
of the employees, the inveterate curiosity of Kreiser, or the union activity of Pecak,
Kreiser, Guros, and Dziedzic.
C. Kreiser's discharge
Kreiser was hired by Mackevicius on Thursday, August 13, 1964,13 and began
work on Sunday, August 16. He applied for a job in response to an ad of Respond-
ent for employees in a Polish language newspaper. He represented to Mackevicius
that he had experience as a baker, and on this representation Mackevicius hired him
to be a foreman or supervisor after learning the business, and to. make himself useful
while learning. Kreiser was minus one hand and the index finger on the other hand.
-Mackevicius' wife, a copartner, had been ill, and he had taken her place in the shop,
and appeared only at intervals in the bakery. When Kreiser learned the business,
he would supervise the employees in the bakery. Kreiser conceded he could not do
the quantity of work of a rank-and-file employee in a bakery with a number of
manual operations, like Respondent's. He received a beginning wage of $60 per
week after taxes. Dziedzic, who was hired a week later as a baker's helper, received
$90 per week after taxes. Gaigalas, who had been employed for some time as a
baker's helper, received $140 per week after taxes.
Learning the business meant learning to prepare the dough for bread and other
products, and to see that these products had the proper rising and baking. Preparing
the dough included souring it in accordance with the special recipe of Respondent.
Mackevicius testified that Borowski was the only expert baker, and the only one
who knew how to bake the bread and other products without training. The others
had to learn the Respondent's methods. He said it could take up to 6 months to
learn how to prepare and bake the bread and other bakery products.
During his employment, Kreiser did rank-and-file work of bringing sacks of flour
(some weighing 100 pounds) from the storeroom to the tables, brushing the bread
with starch, weighing the dough for the units to be baked, and forming the dough for
baegels. Mackevicius testified he spent considerable time in the bakery on Septem-
ber 22, 23, and 24 to watch what Kreiser was doing, and to observe how he was
learning the business, after starting to observe his work the beginning of the week
of September 13. He said that during the week of September 13 he entered the
bakery through the back door, and found Kreiser, Pecak, and Guros "sitting high
on sacks," and that Dziedzic was sitting alone. In Mackevicius' opinion, Kreiser
had not learned anything about preparing and baking the dough in relation to the
time he had spent in the bakery since August 16.
la Kreiser testified be was hired on July 25, 1964, a Saturday and a nonworking day.
The evidence of record as a whole including the testimony of the amount of his earnings,
his weekly wage, and the chronology of other events disclosed by the testimony of Palka
and Kiei.^er, and the testimony of Mlackevicius. establish that he was hired on August 13,
1964, and reported for work on Sunday, August 16, 1964.
BRIGHTON BAKERY 519
Kreiser was asked on cross-examination how the bread in Respondent 's bakery
should be prepared , and he answered that he had his own secret process to which
other employees could testify . He was referring to Pecak , Guros, _ and Dziedzic.
He also testified on cross-examination that while Mackevicius told him he must
watch everybody and everything , and explain the work the bakers could do, when
he first came to the shop the bakers were working "bard and good," and there was
no need to push them . He also testified that when he asked them to do something
they would pay no attention to him , and at times when he told them the way to do
something , Mackevicius would tell them to do it differently . He admitted he had
an old employee do work for him. Kreiser testified on cross-examination that during
the second week he was employed , which was the week of August 23, 1964 , he over-
heard Mackevicius and Dudek speaking about the garbage at the oven . They spoke
in German . Mackevicius referred to Kreiser as a "stupid Polock ," and said "I watch
this guy, he knows nothing, you are the oven man , you are responsible for everything."
Mackevicius testified that before he left for New York City on August 28, 1964,
bakers complained that Kreiser was interfering with their work . Those complaining
were Dudek, Borowski , and Gaigalas . 14 Borowski complained to him that Kreiser
would not let him decorate the wedding cakes on Friday . Mackevicius said that he
told Kreiser not to interfere with Borowski 's work . According to Mackevicius, he
asked Guros and Gaigalas to supervise the work during the time he was in New York
City. Kreiser testified that he told him to watch everything that was done . At that
time Kreiser asked him 'for a raise of $5 a week . Mackevicius said he would give
it to him when he returned if he deserved it . He told him when he returned that
he would receive it . ' He received it for the weeks of September 13 and 20.
On Friday, September 25, 1964 , about 9 p .m., Tony Mackevicius , son of Macke-
vicius, asked Kreiser to come to the garage , and there gave him his weekly wages
and told him he would not be needed any longer . Tony paid the employees their
weekly wages that evening instead of Mackevicius . Mackevicius was not in the
shop of the bakery.
D. The refusal of Pecak, Guros, and Dziedzic to work because
of Kreiser's discharge
About 9 p.m. on September 25, 1964, shortly after Kreiser was discharged, Pecak
told Tony Mackevicius, when he paid him his weekly wages ($110), that he would
not report to work on Sunday because Kreiser was fired. Dziedzic, Kreiser, Guros,
Gaigalas, and Janociak were present. Pecak testified that Tony said nothing at the
time, and said later that he could do nothing about it. He also told Mrs. Macke-
vicius, who came into the bakery at the time he talked to Tony, that he would not
report to work on Sunday because Kreiser had been fired. The other employees
were there. Guros and Dziedzic then said they would not report for work on Sunday.
About 9:30 p.m. Pecak made'the same statement to Mackevicius who had come into
the bakery. Mackevicius said that Kreiser was fired because he was not doing a
good job. He also said he had another worker for them.15 Pecak then left. After
his departure, Mackevicius told Guros and Dziedzic that if Pecak did not want to
work, to let him go, and for them to stay. Dziedzic replied that since Kreiser was
fired and Pecak was not going to work, he was not going to work. Guros said
approximately the same thing.
The Union picketed Respondent's bakery and shop from the next day, Septem-
ber 30, until Saturday, October 30, 1964. Kreiser, Pecak, Guros, and Dziedzic were
on the picket line. Pecak, Guros, and Dziedzic did not work on Sunday Septem-
ber 27, Tuesday, September 29, or during the picketing from September 30 to
October 28, 1964. Respondent's other employees continued to work. Pecak and
Dziedzic picketed until October 30.
On Saturday, September 26, Pecak informed Business Representative Palka that
Kreiser had been fired, and that he and Guros and Dziedzic would not work for
Respondent in protest of the firing of Kreiser. Palka met with Mackevicius on
1' Mackevicius testified that Gaigalas complained to him about dough being thrown on
the floor and on the walls, and of being hit by dough on the back of the neck, that
Gaigalas said it was being thrown by the Polish workers The Polish workers were
Kreiser, Guros, Pecak and Dziedzic. Gaigalas testified that dough was being thrown by
employees, and that there was garbage on the floor in front of the oven.
w Mackevicius neither affirmed nor denied that he mentioned another worker, or testi-
fied whether he replaced or did not replace Kreiser
520 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
September 29, as previously stated . Mackevicius said that Kreiser was fired because
he had not learned anything about the job of foreman and could not do the job of
a rank-and -file worker because he was missing a hand and a finger . Mackevicius
asked Palka to return Guros and Dziedzic to work (supra ). Mackevicius had told
Palka he would not reinstate Pecak because he was a troublemaker and a bad baker.
Palka offered to return Dziedzic and Guros to work if Mackevicius signed a contract.
Mackevicius refused on the grounds (supra), that Dudek and Borowski had not
returned from vacation and he did not know if all the bakers wanted a contract,
that his wife was away, and that he wanted his lawyer to read the contract. As
stated , the picketing began on the next day.
The Union filed a representation petition in October 1964 , and a hearing on the
petition was held on October 28 . During a recess Palka offered unconditionally the
return to work of Pecak , Guros, and Dziedzic . Palka testified there was no need
to hold out any longer for a contract because of the representation proceeding, that
the right to a contract depended on the outcome of the representation proceeding.
Mackevicius replied to the offer that he would take back Guros, but not Pecak or
Dziedzic , because business had slowed down due to the strike . He said he would
reinstate the latter two as soon as the business picked up . Guros returned to work.
Neither Dziedzic nor Pecak , personally or by Palka, applied for reinstatement after
October 28.
Dziedzic testified "No, never." on cross-examination in response to the questions
by counsel for Respondent whether he had ever made an offer to Respondent to
return to work, and whether he had requested Palka to act as his agent and make
an unconditional offer to return to work. Pecak was asked on cross-examination
by Respondent 's counsel, if at any time after the strike he offered to return to work,
and he answered he had not . Pecak had been working at Imperial Bakery on Satur-
,days during his employment by Respondent . Saturday and Monday were nonwork
days at Respondent 's plant . When he went on strike at Respondent 's, he asked
Imperial for more work . Imperial gave him an additional day, then 3 days in the
middle of November , 4 days the following week , and full-time employment of 5 days
in December 1964.
Analysis and Concluding Findings
Mackevicius ' statement to Pecak in the conversation he had with him in the middle
of September 1964 , that if he wanted to organize a union his services would no longer
be required (supra), is a threat of discharge and violative of Section 8(a) (1) of
the Act. Pecak had told Mackevicius that the employees would like to organize and
have him sign a contract . Gaigalas testified that Pecak had numerous conversations
with Mackevicius . Pecak's testimony disclosed that he talked to Mackevicius about
payment for overtime and less hours of work, and that he had discussed the orga-
nizing of the Union with other employees.
There were threats violative of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act in the statements
Mackevicius made to Kreiser on September 10, 1964 , after Business Representative
Palka had had a conversation with him and asked him to sign a contract . Macke-
vicius told him he was sorry that Kreiser sent Business Representative Palka to him,
he did not need the "Union," and his shop was not union. After Kreiser replied he
was sorry too that Mackevicius needed the Union when he had to have bakers to
increase production , and then did not need the union representative, [when he asked
him to sign a contract ], Mackevicius told him that he was a Communist . Kreiser
denied he was a Communist . These statements of Mackevicius on their faces are
clear threats constituting interference with , threats, and coercion within the meaning
of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. I am not persuaded that Mackevicius made the
statements to Kreiser because he had induced Palka to seek a contract when the
Union was only a minority representative . Palka did not show the union cards to
Mackevicius or tell him the number of employees who had signed them . Dudek,
who was on vacation and had the swing vote , had not quite made up his mind.
Mackevicius could well have thought that the Union represented a majority of his
employees.
I have found supra, that Mackevicius' statement to the employees about 3 days
after Palka 's visit on September 13, 1964 , that a visitor who had come into the bakery
shortly before , and looked at the employees at length , was "from the FBI and he
will fix everybody ," could have been made in connection with three sets of circum-
stances, disjunctively , two of which had no relation to union activity. The record
does not warrant the inference that it was a threat related to union or other concerted
activity within the meaning of Section 7 of the Act. For this reason , I do not find
the statement violative of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.
BRIGHTON BAKERY 521
I conclude and find that on September 25, 1964, Respondent discharged Kreiser
discriminatorily in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act. It is apparent
that Respondent did not employ Kreiser for rank-and-file work. He employed him
to learn to be a foreman , and to make himself useful while learning by doing rank-
and-file work. Kreiser admitted that he was not a productive worker because of his
missing hand and index finger . I credit Mackevicius ' testimony that even in weigh-
ing the dough to comprise units to be baked Kreiser could not keep up with the
employees , engaged in the attendant operations . While doing rank-and-file work,
Kreiser was paid considerably less than the other employees. He was hired at $60
per week while Dziedzic was hired as a baker's helper at $90 per week. Mackevicius
had information before he left for New York City on September 28, 1964, that could
have led him to the conclusion that Kreiser would never qualify as a foreman or
supervisor.
Many employees complained to Mackevicius , prior to his departure , about Kreiser.
Kreiser overheard Mackevicius say to Dudek he was going to watch him, that he
did not know anything . But even with this information , he told Kreiser , before
leaving, to watch everything. He was still anxious for him to learn the bakery
operations . He admitted that it could take up to 6 months to learn the souring
process and other bakery work . And he promised to consider Kreiser 's request for
a raise of $5 in his weekly wage , and to give it to him on his return , if he felt he
deserved it. When he returned, he informed Kreiser he would get the raise. More-
over, he did not watch or check Kreiser's work during the first week of his return,
which was the week of September 6.
Mackevicius began checking Kreiser's work in the week of September 13. Palka
had demanded recognition on September 10, and on that date Mackevicius had
berated Kreiser for sending Palka to him for a contract . Palka again requested
recognition from Mackevicius on September 15, and attempted to meet with Macke-
vicius on September 21 for the same purpose. On September 22 Mackevicius began
spending considerable time in the bakery checking Kreiser's work. He continued
to check Kreiser closely on September 23 and 24. Mackevicius claims this checking
disclosed that Kreiser learned very little about the bakery operations during the
period of time (6 weeks) he had been employed, and for this reason he discharged
him. He had never considered him as a rank-and-file employee as he could not do
the work of such a worker.
The evidence of record discloses that there was justification for discharging Kreiser
for cause, but it also discloses that up to September 10, 1965, Mackevicius was will-
ing to condone Kreiser's faults and limitations revealed in the initial period of
employment, and give him plenty of time to prove himself, but on learning that
Kreiser was playing a leading role in the Union's efforts to obtain a collective-
bargaining contract, he suddenly became very concerned about the slowness of
Kreiser's mastering of the bakery operations , decided not to condone any of his
limitations or failings, and discharge him because he did not accomplish what he
should have accomplished during the 6 weeks of employment. Very likely, Macke-
vicius would have eventually decided that Kreiser was not foreman material and
have discharged him for that reason, but Kreiser's union activity accelerated this
decision and caused his discharge on September 25, 1965.
Pecak refused to work on September 27, 1964, and thereafter because of Kreiser's
discharge. He was an unfair labor practice striker, and entitled to reinstatement on
making an unconditional offer to return to work.'6 However, on September 29
Mackevicius announced to Palka that he would not reinstate Pecak because he was
a troublemaker. The record clearly discloses that his union activity was what
Mackevicius considered to be troublemaking. The record contains no evidence that
places Pecak's ability or conduct in issue. Mackevicius obviously discharged Pecak
for his union activity.
Pecak was entitled to reinstatement when, on October 28, 1964, the Union, by
Business Representative Palka, made the unconditional offer to return to work to
Respondent in his behalf, even though he never made the offer to Respondent per-
sonally. When he signed a union card, and thereby authorized the Union to deal
with Respondent in his behalf in matters dealing with wages, hours, and other terms
and conditions of employment, he clothed the Union with the authority to make the
16 Sea-Way Distributing , Inc., 143 NLRB 460; Baldwin County Electric Membership
Corporation , 145 NLRB 1316.
522 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
offer on his behalf.17 There is no evidence that Pecak revoked this authority. Macke-
vicius replied to the offer of Pecak, by the Union, that he could not take him back
as he did not have a job for him because of the loss of business due to the strike.
Respondent alleged in its answer as an affirmative defense that there was not the
same or substantially equivalent job available for Pecak on October 28, 1964, or
thereafter. There is no merit to this defense. Respondent failed to offer any evi-
dence to support it although it was his burden to do so.18
Dziedzic was also an unfair labor practice striker, striking in protest of the dis-
criminatory discharge of Kreiser. I find that through the Union, his agent, he made
an unconditional offer to return to work on October 28, 1964, and was entitled to
reinstatement. Respondent contends that Dziedzic did not authorize Palka to make
the unconditional offer of October 28. Dziedzic testified cryptically that he never
made an offer to Respondent, and never made Palka his agent to make the offer for
him. By this testimony, Dziedzic said that he did not personally make the offer to
Respondent , and believed he never made the Union his agent to make it on his behalf.
Dziedzic signed the union card which was a combination of an application for mem-
bership and an authorization to the Union to act as collective -bargaining represent-
ative. He disclosed by his testimony that he believed when he signed the card he
was joining the Union. This act of Dziedzic clothed the Union with apparent author-
ity to act in his behalf in relations with Respondent regarding wages, hours, and
other working conditions. This included the authority to make an unconditional
offer to return to work on his behalf.19 Mackevicius believed Palka had the author-
ity on October 28, and reinstated Guros when Palka made the unconditional offer to
return to work on behalf of Pecak, Dziedzic, and Guros. He refused to reinstate
Dziedzic on October 28, for the alleged reason he had no work for him, and not for
the reason that Palka did not have the authority to make the offer. He made the
same affirmative defense in his answer. Respondent presented no evidence that
work was unavailable for Dziedzic. I have found that this latter defense has no
merit.20
Dziedzic's refusal to return to work during the strike in the middle of October 1964,
when Mackevicius approached him while he was picketing and asked him to return
to work, does not rebut the presumption that the Union, through Palka, had the
authority to make the offer. Until the representation proceeding, Pecak, Dziedzic,
and Guros, through the Union, offered conditionally to return to work. This con-
ditional offer was still in effect in the middle of October 1964, when Dziedzic refused
to return to work. The refusal by Dziedzic in the middle of October merely shows
that circumstances were not present which would warrant, in his judgment, his
making an unconditional offer to return to work at that time, either personally or
through the Union. It does not show lack of authority in the Union to make the
unconditional offer if circumstances were present to warrant the making of it on
Dziedzic's behalf. The circumstances were present on October 28. As Palka testi-
fied, there was no point in demanding a contract at that time as a representation
proceeding was being held, and the right to a contract depended on its outcome.
Mackevicius' offer to Dziedzic in the middle of October, during the strike, to rein-
state him did not relieve Respondent of the duty to reinstate Dziedzic after the
unconditional offer to return to work on October 28, 1964. Big Town Super Mart,
Inc., 148 NLRB 595.
I find and conclude that Respondent discriminatorily discharged Pecak on Septem-
ber 29, 1964, and Dziedzic on October 28, 1964, in violation of Section 8(a)(1)
and (3) of the Act.21
17 See e.g, Aztec Ceramics Company, a division of The Teestar Corporation, 138 NLRB
1178, 1192, enfd. 320 F. 2d 757 (C A D C) ; Hawaii Meat Company, Limited, 139 NLRB
966, 970-971, enforcement denied on other grounds 321 F. 2d 397 (C.A. 9); Robert S
A bbott Publishing Company, 139 NLRB 1328, 1341, enforcement denied on other grounds
331 F. 2d 209 (C.A. 7) ; Louis Rosenberg, Inc, 122 NLRB 1450, 1453-1463: Rapid Roller
Co v. N.L.R.B., 126 F. 2d 452 (C.A 7). cert denied 317 U.S 650: N.L.R B. v Poultry-
men's Service Corporation , 138 F 2d 204 (CA. 3) ; N L.R B. v. I. Posner, Inc., et at.,
304 F 2d 773, 774 (C.A. 2)
11 New Orleans Roosevelt Corporation, 132 NLRB 248, 250 ; M. Eakin A Son, 135 NLRB
666, 668, as mod. by 312 F 2d 108 (C A 2)
w See cases cited supra, footnote 17.
20 See footnotes 16 through 18.
71 Sea-Way Distributing, Inc., 143 NLRB 460; Baldwin County Electric Member ship
Corporation, 145 NLRB 1316.
BRIGHTON BAKERY 523
General Counsel argued that I erred when I granted Respondent's motion for
leave to amend the paragraph in his answer in which he admitted that Pecak, Guros,
and Dziedzic made an unconditional offer to return to work on October 28, 1964,
so that it stated Respondent admitted only that the Union made the offer, but pleaded
lack of knowledge or belief that he had the authority to make the offer on their
behalf. The motion for leave to amend was made after the cryptic testimony of
Pecak and Dziedzic that they did not make an offer to Respondent to return to
work. When this testimony, which was new to Respondent, was given, there arose
the question as to what the testimony meant, and whether it indicated the Union
did not have the apparent authority to make he offer. I was of the opinion when
I granted the motion, and still retain this opinion, that the Respondent had the right,
in his defense, to offer evidence and legal argument bearing on these questions, and
should not be precluded from doing so by his answer. It is usually the General
Counsel who moves for leave to amend his complaint at the hearing, and not just
for minor matters, and the Trial Examiner grants the motion to the extent permitted
by the Respondent's right to procedural due process. This is one of the few instances
where a Respondent has made a similar motion for leave to amend. I have accorded
only the relief to Respondent that I have accorded in the past to General Counsel.
Even if it be assumed that Kreiser was discharged for cause , Pecak and Dziedzic
are still entitled to reinstatement . With this assumption , when they engaged in a
strike from September 25 to October 28, 1964, they were engaged in concerted
activity, were economic strikers, and were entitled to reinstatement unless perma-
nently replaced on the same or substantially equivalent jobs were no longer avail-
able.22 Pecak and Dziedzic continued to picket on October 29 and 30, but this
picketing was in protest of Respondent' s refusal on October 28 to reinstate them.
Respondent claimed on October 28, and in his answer, he could not reinstate them,
but offered no testimony at the hearing to support this affirmative defense. I have
found it to be without merit. Respondent has not represented or claimed at any
time or in any manner, that he has permanently replaced them. The burden of
proof was on the Respondent which he failed to sustain . Respondent, therefore, has
violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act by refusing to reinstate Pecak and
Dziedzic even if they were economic strikers. The only explanation for his failure
to do so in view of the evidence of record is that they engaged in union activity.23
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of Respondent set forth in section III, above, occurring in connec-
tion with the operations of 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 Respondent engaged in certain unfair labor practices, I will
recommend that it cease and desist therefrom, and take certain affirmative action
designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. The affirmative action will include
the immediate offer of reinstatement to Kreiser, Pecak, and Dziedzic to their former
or substantially equivalent employment, without prejudice to their seniority and
other rights and privileges, and make them whole for any loss of pay suffered by
reason of the discrimination against them, as provided in F. W. Woolworth Company,
90 NLRB 289, with interest 6 percent per annum as provided in Isis Plumbing &
Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716. Any backpay and interest due Kreiser will run from
September 25, 1965, the day he was discharged. The backpay and interest of Pecak
and Dziedzic, unfair labor practice strikers, will run from October 28, 1964, when
they made the unconditional offer to return to work. The beginning date for them
would be the same if they were economic strikers.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and on the entire record in this
case, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Respondent is engaged, in commerce within the meaning of Setcion 2(6) and
(7) of the Act.
22 Ampruf Paint Company, Inc, 132 NLRB 87, 88
13 Now Orleans Roosevelt Corporation, 132 NLRB 248, 250; M. Eskin & Son, 135 NLRB
666, 668, as mod. by 312 F. 2d 108 (C.A. 2).
524 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
2. The Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the
Act.
3. Respondent interfered with, coerced, and restrained its employees with respect
to their rights to engage in union activity in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act
by threatening employees Pecak and Kreiser because they engaged in union activity.
4. Respondent discriminatorily discharged Kreiser on September 25, Pecak on
September 29, and Dziedzic on October 28, 1964, and,has refused to reinstate them,
because they engaged in union activity, and has thereby discouraged membership in
the Union in violation of Section 8 (a) (1) and (3) of the Act.
5. Pecak and Dziedzic, unfair labor practice strikers, by the Union, through Busi-
ness Representative Palka, made unconditional offers to return to work on Octo-
ber 28, 1964.
6. The aforementioned unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting
commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
RECOMMENDED ORDER '
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law and on
the entire record in the case, I recommend that Felix Mackevicius and Judvigo
Mackevicius, co-partners, doing business as Brighton Bakery, their officers, agents,
successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Interfering with, coercing, or restraining employees in the exercise of their
rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended, by threatening them with discharge if they engage in union activity.
• (b) Discouraging membership in Local Union 49, American Bakery & Confec-
tionery Workers International Union, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization,
by discharging employees and refusing to reinstate them because they engaged in
union activity, or refusing to reinstate unfair labor practices upon their unconditional
offers to return to work, or otherwise discriminating against them in regard to the
hire and tenure of their employment or any term or condition of employment,
because they engaged in union activity.
(c) By like or related conduct interfering with, coercing, or restraining employees
in the exercise of their rights to self-organization, to join or assist the Union, or any
other labor organization, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own
choosing, and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective
bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, as guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which I find will effectuate the purposes
of the Act:
(a) Offer immediate reinstatement to Julian Kreiser, Julian Pecak, and Frank
Dziedzic to their former or substantially equivalent employment, without prejudice
to their seniority and other rights and privileges, and make them whole for any loss
of earnings they may have suffered by reason of the discrimination against them,
with interest at 6 percent per annum, in the manner set forth in the above-entitled
section entitled "The Remedy."
(b) Notify any of the above-named employees if presently serving in the Armed
Forces of the United States of their rights to full reinstatement upon application in
accordance with the Selective Service Act and the Universal Military and Service
Act, as amended, after discharge from the Armed Forces.
(c) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the Board or its agents, for
examination and copying, all payroll records, social security payment records, time-
cards, personnel records and reports, and all other records necessary to analyze the
amount of backpay due under provisions of this Order.
(d) Post at its plant in Chicago, Illinois, copies of the attached notice marked
"Appendix A." 24 Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director
for Region 13 of the National Labor Relations Board, shall, after being duly signed
by an authorized representative of the Respondent, be posted by it immediately upon
receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspic-
u In the event that this Recommended Order be adopted by the Board, the words "a
Decision and Order" shall be substituted for the words "the Recommended Order of a
Trial Examiner" in the notice. In the further event that the Board's Order be enforced
by a decree of a United States Court of Appeals, the words ."a Decree of the United
States Court of Appeals, Enforcing an Order" shall be substituted for the words "a
Decision and Order"
BRIGHTON BAKERY 525
uous places, including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted.
Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to insure that said notices are not
altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
(e) Notify the Regional Director for Region 13, in writing, within 20 days from
the receipt by the Respondent of this Decision and Recommended Order, what steps
the Respondent has taken to comply therewith.25
It is further recommended that unless on or before 20 days from the receipt of
this Decision and Recommended Order the Respondent notifies the Regional Direc-
tor, 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. '
s;In the event that this Recommended Order be adopted by the Board, this provision
shall be modified to read: "Notify said Regional Director, in writing, within 10 days
from the date of this Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply therewith "
APPENDIX A
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor
Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, as amended, we hereby notify our employees that:
WE WILL NOT interfere with, coerce, or restrain employees in their exercise
of their rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the National Labor Relations
Act, as amended, by threatening them with discharge if they engage in union
activity.
WE WILL NOT discourage membership in Local Union 49, American Bakery
& Confectionery Workers International Union, AFL-CIO, or any other labor
organization, by discharging employees and refusing to reinstate them because
they engage in union activity, or by refusing to reinstate unfair labor practice
strikers upon their unconditional offers to return to work, or otherwise dis-
criminating against employees, in regard to the hire and tenure of their employ-
ment or any term or condition of employment, because they engage in union
activity.
WE WILL NOT engage in like or related conduct that interferes with, coerces,
or restrains employees in the exercise of their rights to self-organization, to
join or assist the Union, or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively
through representatives of their own choosing, or to engage in other concerted
activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or
protection.
WE WILL offer immediate reinstatement to Julian Kreiser , Julian Pecak, and
Frank Dziedzic to their former or substantially equivalent employment, with-
out prejudice to their seniority and other rights and privileges, and make them
whole for any loss of earnings they may have suffered by reason of the dis-
crimination against them , with interest at 6 percent per annum.
All our employees are free to become, or refrain from becoming members of
Local Union 49, American Bakery and Confectionery Workers International Union,
AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization.
FELIX MACKEVICIUS AND JUDVIGO MACKEVICIUS, CO-PARTNERS,
DOING BUSINESS AS BRIGHTON BAKERY,
Employer.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------
(Representative ) ( Title)
NOTE.-We will notify Julian Kreiser, Julian Pecak, and Frank Dziedzic, if pres-
ently serving in the Armed Forces of the United States of their rights to full rein-
statement upon application in accordance with the Selective Service Act and Uni-
versal Military Training and Service Act, as amended, after discharge from the
Armed Forces.
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting,
and must not be altered , defaced, or covered by any other material.
If employees have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its pro-
visions, they may communicate directly with the Board 's Regional Office , 881 U.S.
Courthouse and Federal Office Building, 219 South Dearborn Street, Chicago, Illi-
nois, Telephone No. 828-7597.