Canvas Glove Manufacturing Works, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 10, 1936

1 N.L.R.B. 519 (N.L.R.B. 1936)

In the Matter of CANVAS GLOVE MANUFACTURING WORKS, INC. and
INTERNATIONAL GLOVE MAKERS UNION, LOCAL No. 88
Case No. C-24.-Decided April 10, 1936
Glove Industry-Strike-Interference , Restraint or Coerction : persuasion of
employees to resign from union-Company-Dominated Union: abortive attempt
to form as violation of Section 8 (2) ; domination and interference with forma-
tion-Discrimination : demotion, transfer, wage reduction ; discharge ; non-
reinstatement following strike; lockout-Reinstatement Ordered, Non-Strikers-
Back Pay: awarded-Reinstatement Ordered, Strikers: strike provoked by em-
ployer's law violation ; discrimination in reinstatement ; displacement of
employees hired during strike.
Mr. David Moscovitz for the Board.
Mr. Milton M. Eisenberg, of Brooklyn, N. Y., for respondent. Mr.
Davis Kashman, of counsel.
Mr. Samuel G. Zack, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF CASE
A charge having duly been filed with the Regional Director for
the Second Region by the International Glove Makers Union, Local
No. 86, hereinafter referred to as the Union, the National Labor
Relations Board, by the said Regional Director, issued and duly
served its complaint with accompanying notice of hearing on
December 10, 1935, charging the Canvas Glove Manufacturing
Works, Inc., Brooklyn, New York, hereinafter referred to as the
respondent, with having engaged in unfair labor practices affecting
commerce, within the meaning of Section 8, subsections (1), (2), (3)
and (5) and Section 2, subdivisions ( 6) and (7) , of the National
Labor Relations Act, approved July 5, 1935, hereinafter called the
Act.
The complaint alleged that the respondent, by its officers and
agents: (1) following a strike on October 10, 1935, refused to re-
instate Louise Villanova, Lena Stallone, Antoinette Verruzzia, Millie
Cafora and Lucille Seligson and did discharge Olympia DeBirse,
Sylvia Beres, Grace Laeta, Anna Ceponis, Margaret Catapona,
Margie Andruzzia, Ray Bernstein and Jennie Pasqua for the reason
that they joined and assisted a labor organization known as Inter-
national , Glove Makers Union, Local No. 86, and engaged in con-.
certed activities for the purpose of collective bargaining and other
97571-36--vol. 1- 34 519
520 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
mutual aid and protection; (2) on or about October 18, 1935, did
institute and form a labor organization or plan for the purpose of
interfering with, restraining and coercing its employees in the
exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act; and (3)
refused to bargain collectively with the representatives of its
employees.
In its answer, the respondent denies that it is engaged in inter-
state commerce as defined in the Act, or that it has engaged in
unfair labor practices, and alleges that the Union violated the terms
of an agreement signed on October 9, 1935, in that it called a. strike
without having first offered to arbitrate the alleged dispute.
Pursuant to the notice, a hearing was held in New York, New
York on December 27, 30 and 31, 1935, before William R. Walsh,
Trial Examiner duly designated by the Board. The respondent
appeared, and participated in the hearing. Full opportunity to be
heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and produce evidence
bearing upon the issues was afforded to all parties. The respondent
moved to dismiss the complaint on constitutional grounds. The
Trial Examiner reserved ruling on the motion. The motion to dis-
miss is hereby denied. On motion of counsel for the respondent,
the complaint was amended by the Trial Examiner to correct the
respondent's name to read "Canvas Glove Manufacturing Works,
Inc.", and on motion of counsel for the Board, to correct the name
of the Union from "Local 86" to "Local 88". Counsel for the Board
also moved that the allegations in the complaint, insofar as they
allege violations of Section 8, subdivision (5) of the Act, be dis-
missed. The motion was allowed by the Trial Examiner. At the
end of the hearing, counsel for the Board moved that the pleadings
be amended to conform to the proof. There 's as no objection, and
the Trial Examiner granted the motion. The parties were afforded
reasonable time for oral argument, and no briefs were filed.
On January 9, 1936, the Board, acting pursuant to Section 35,
Article II of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regula-
tions-Series 1, directed that the proceeding be transferred to and
continued before it.
Upon the entire record in the case, including the stenographic
transcript of the hearing, the documentary and other evidence re-
ceived at the hearing, the Board makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. RESPONDENT'S BUSINESS
1. The Canvas Glove Manufacturing Works, Inc. is a corpora-
tion created and existing under the laws of the State of New,York
and has its principal office and place of business in the Borough
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 521
of Brooklyn, City of New York, County of Kings, State of New
York. The respondent is engaged in the manufacture, sale and
distribution of canvas and leather work gloves. It normally em-
ploys 125 people, although the number varies with the season. The
respondent is one of the two canvas glove manufacturers located
within a hundred mile radius of New York City; most of the glove
manufacturers are situated in the western part of the United States.
The value of the respondent's yearly output amounts to approxi-
mately one-half of one per cent of the output of the entire industry.
2. Canton flannel, leather and cotton tubing are the principal raw
materials used by the respondent in the manufacture of its product.
The greater proportion of these materials are purchased through
commission houses in New York, which in turn obtain the materials
from their principals; whether or not the mills of the principals are
located in the State of New York or elsewhere is not shown by the
record. The respondent often makes contracts with commission
houses under which, over considerable periods of time, the latter
have materials shipped to the respondent as required.
Between 5 and 10 per cent by value of its principal raw materials
are obtained by the respondent directly from the State of Tennessee.
In addition, other minor items, not specified in the evidence, are ob-
tained outside the State of New York.
During the period from June 1, 1935 to December 1, 1935, the value
of goods purchased by the respondent amounted to $77,140.83.
3. About 35 per cent of the respondent's finished product is nor-
mally shipped outside of the State of New York to destinations in all
of the states of the United States. Sales for the period from June 1,
1935 to December 1, 1935 amounted to $126,074.05. Most of the sales
are made to jobbers. The finished product is shipped out of the
plant by various trucking firms, among them the Railway Express
Agency. Shipments out of the state are made by the Pennsylvania,
New York Central, Erie and Delaware, Lackawanna & Western
Railroads, as well as by trucking firms.
4. The respondent has one salesman who covers the New England
states and the territory as far south as Washington, D. C. In those
states not covered by the salesman, the respondent solicits business
by means of advertisements placed in various periodicals with a
nation-wide distribution.
5. All of the aforesaid constitutes a continuous flow of trade, traffic
and commerce among the States.
H. THE RESPONDENT AND THE UNION
6. On September 23, 1935, 61 employees of the respondent, who
were then unorganized, went on strike in protest against a reduction
in wages. On October 3, a charter was granted to the strikers by
522 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the International Glove Makers Union , and Local No. 88, a labor
organization , was formed . Officers and a shop committee consisting
of Marie Jordan , chairlady , Minnie Torre and Lucille Seligson, were
elected.
7. On October 9, 1935, the strike was settled by an agreement be-
tween the Union and the respondent , and the strikers returned to
work on October 10 . The agreement contained the following rele-
vant clauses:
"There shall be a Committee in the shop selected or designated
by the workers , members in good standing of said ORGANIZATION.
All matters in this agreement affecting the conditions of em-
ployment of all present and future members of said ORGANIZA-
TION shall be taken up for adjustment , in the first instance, be-
tween the EMPLOYER and a Committee , chosen or designated by
the members in good standing of said ' ORGANIZATION. The
EMPLOYER hereby acknowledges that the said Committee, or its
successors, shall have the right to represent any other workers
in the shop who desire to be represented by them.
"There shall be no discrimination against any worker who at
present is , or hereafter may become, a member of the said
ORGANIZATION . No worker , a present member or who hereafter
may become a member of the said ORGANIZATION , shall be dis-
charged without good cause.
"Any and all disputes that may arise under this agreement
in the shop between members of the ORGANIZATION and the
EMPLOYER , or any other dispute which may directly or indi-
rectly affect the interests of the workers , or their relationship
as EMPLOYER or employee shall be taken up for adjustment, in
the first instance, between the EMPLOYER and the Committee of
the ORGANIZATION above referred to. Should they be unable to
adjust the matter satisfactorily , then the matter shall be re-
ferred to an Impartial Chairman or Arbitrator, and his decision
shall be final and binding upon the parties.
"The parties further agree that any and all workers who went
out on strike shall be reemployed upon the signing of this agree-
ment without any discrimination , and that the EMPLOYER shall
not be entitled to retain any new workers engaged subsequent to
the strike , before all of the said strikers are fully reemployed."
8. On Tuesday, October 15, the shop committee attempted to dis-
cuss with Isadore Gerber , president of the respondent, the respond-
ent's refusal to reemploy four girls who had gone out on strike. Mr.
Gerber refused to discuss the matter , and dismissed the members of
the shop committee by telling them : "Go upstairs and mind your own
business."
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 523
From time to time after the other strikers returned to work, sev-
eral of them protested to Marie Jordan that they, had been shifted
to tasks with which they were not familiar and to operations that
called for lower rates of pay than they had received prior to the
strike. On October 17, Miss Jordan sought to discuss these alleged
acts of discrimination with Isadore Gerber, but again she was met
with the curt reply to "mind your own business, it's not your affair."
9. On about October 17 or 18, the shop committee was called to
the office. and there met Mr. Largay, a representative of Elmer F.
Andrews, Industrial Commissioner of the State of New York, the
arbitrator named in the agreement of October 9. Apparently, Mr.
Largay had come to the plant at the request of the respondent. What
took place at the conference is not clear in the evidence, but it ap-
pears that the complaints of discrimination were discussed. After
the conference,' Mr. Largay addressed the assembled workers and
suggested that they remain at their work until such time as the sit-
uation would clear itself. The significant feature of Mr. Largay's
visit is not that it involved an attempt at arbitration, but that it is
a confirmation of the contention made by the Union, and denied by
the respondent, that there were numerous complaints of discrimina-
tion made in behalf of the Union workers, within a week after the
return to work of the Union girls.
10. There is evidence that a number of the Union "girls, after they
returned to work on October 10, were placed on operations other than
those on which they had previously been engaged; that such transfer
of operation or change of type of work, in all cases was accompanied
by a diminished weekly pay check either because the new work was
in the smaller rate bracket or because their unfamiliarity with the
new type of work necessarily diminished their efficiency and speed ;
that in no case was a non-union girl so transferred but rather,
remained at her old machine or operation.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
11. The complaint alleges and the answer denies, that the respond-
ent after October 10, 1935, engaged in unfair labor practices by its
refusal to reinstate Louise Villanova, Lena Stallone, Antoinette
Verruzzia, Millie Cafora, and Lucille Seligson, and its discharge of
Olympia DeBiase, Sylvia Beres, Grace Laeta, Anna Ceponis, Mar-
garet Catapona, Margie Andruzzia, Ray Bernstein and Jennie
Pasqua. No evidence was presented with respect to Louise Vil-
lanova, Lena Stallone, Olympia DeBiase, Grace Laeta, Anna Ceponis,
Margaret Catapona, Margie Andruzzia and Jennie Pasqua. The evi-
dence shows that another employee, Millie Cafora, was reinstated
prior to the time of the hearing. The complaint as to those persons
will be dismissed.
524 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
12. Verruzzia. Antoinette Verruzzia, 16 years old, had obtained
employment with the respondent the latter part of August, 1935.
This was during the summer school vacation period. She had worked
there about three weeks when she went out on strike with some of
her co-workers. During the period of the strike the school term had
commenced, and under the law of the State of New York, a person
under 17 years of age must obtain a certificate before being per-
mitted to engage in industrial work. Such a certificate is granted
only upon application signed by the prospective employer of the ap-
plicant. On October 10, the day after the strike settlement, Miss
Verruzzia asked Isadore Gerber to sign her application for the cer-
tificate and he replied : "You were out on strike. I don't want to
have anything to do with you." She was not reemployed.
Seligson. Lucille Seligson was a member of the shop committee
and had appeared before Isadore Gerber protesting the refusal to
reinstate certain Union members. She had also been approached by
Isadore Gerber to use her influence to get the Union girls to sign
up with the so-called company union (which is discussed below)
but had refused to do so. On October 17 her machine failed to func-
tion properly. She reported it to the machinist who, after a talk
with Isadore Gerber, told her that a new part was needed. She was
not permitted to work on any other machine while her machine was
being repaired, although on numerous previous occasions such a sub-
stitution had been made. She went home and returned in the after-
noon and also twice on each of the next two days. Although she
was refused permission to continue on other machines which were
unoccupied, the respondent was engaging new girls and placing them
to work on such machines.
Bernstein. Ray Bernstein had worked for the respondent about
two years as a packer. On October 18, more than a week after the
Union girls returned to work, she was approached by Morris Ger-
ber, and asked to join the so-called company union. She refused,
stating that she was going to join the Union. That afternoon she
became a member of the Union.
Miss Bernstein could not write very well and during her entire
employment had received the aid of the other girls doing the same
work, as well as the aid of the forelady, in making out her job tickets.
This assistance had been given to her with the knowledge of the
respondent's officers. When she came to work on Monday, October
21, Morris Gerber told her that she would have to make out her own
tickets. When she protested that she was unable to make out such
tickets and that the girls would have to continue assisting her, he
replied that they would not permit any further assistance and that
those were his orders from the office. He suggested that she go to
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 525
the office and see Isadore Gerber, which she did. Isadore Gerber
told her to "go upstairs and stick to my girls, be with them and
everything will be all right". He also suggested that she tear up
her Union book. She refused to withdraw from the Union and left
the plant.
Beres.-The same morning, October 21, Morris Gerber approached
Sylvia Beres and suggested that she sign up for membership in the
so-called company union and she refused. He came back later and
told her that Isadore Gerber wanted to see her, but she refused to
go to see him. After the girls returned from lunch, Isadore Gerber
ordered Katherine Fasulo, the forelady, not to give her any more
work. When she inquired why she was not given any more work
the forelady answered, "I am sorry, it was the orders from the boss,
you will have to go home." She lingered at her machine a short
time and Mr. Gerber said, "Sylvia Beres, get out. You be the first
one to get out."
Miss Beres then told Miss Jordan, the chairlady of the shop com-
mittee, what had happened. Miss Jordan asked the forelady why
Sylvia Beres was not being given work. The forelady referred her
to Edward Gerber, superintendent, who told her to "sit down and
mind your own business". When she protested he told her, "Get
the Hell out of here." Isadore Gerber, who was nearby, shouted,
"Marie Jordan, get your Union and get out. You are all fired."
The following 42 Union girls thereupon left the plant : CarolFne
Louella, Mildred Eremich, Mildred Faleo, Filomeno D'Amanzo,
Anna Catapona, Virginia Torre, Betty Usuka, Blanch Plockot,
Antoinette Zizas, Margaret Catapona, Rose Barone, Millie Varruzi,
Margie Andruzza, Stella Zanickouski, Josie Wastrangelo, Angie
Santora, Sadie Ciorciora, Louise Villanova, Nettie Marone, Christine
Marone, Catherine Minerva, Anna Kivyta, Connie Silano, Anna Mil-
lucci, Blanche Guerin, Margerate Torre, Minnie Torre, Margerite
Guentano, Ester Weinstein, Grace Laeta, Rose Richardi, Bridget De
Piano, Marguerite Caranonica, Antoinette Mayo, Fannie Liguordi,
Kate Ramminger, Filomeno Esposito, Elaine Sanarvage, America
Fiorino, Adele Ceponis, Anna Ceponis, and Marie Jordan.
Thereafter the employees who had been discharged or locked out
picketed the plant, and as far as the record discloses were still doing
so at the time of the hearing.
13. By the discharges and refusals to reinstate, as above set forth,
the respondent discriminated in regard to hire and tenure of em-
ployment and thereby discouraged membership in the Union.
14. By the discharges and refusals to reinstate, as above set forth,
the respondent has interfered with, restrained and coerced its em-
ployees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the
Act.
526 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
IV. DOMINATION AND INTERFERENCE WITH THE FORMATION OF LABOR
ORGANIZATION
15. The complaint alleges that the respondent initiated, formed and
dominated a labor organization. The evidence in this respect shows
that on two or three occasions between October 16 and 19, the power
in the plant was shut off and speeches were made by the respondent's
officers or agents urging the employees to sign up in what was called
a company union. Many of the Union girls were individually re-
quested to join. Prospective inducements in the nature of reduced
dues, parties, sick benefits and increased work rates were offered.
All of the non-union girls signed up. On two occasions the shop
committee was either called to the office by the respondent's officers
or agents, or otherwise approached, to use its influence to get the
Union girls to abandon their Union and come into the so-called com-
pany union. All these overtures were met with a firm refusal on the
part of the Union girls.
16. It is significant that these approaches were made the day after
the first protest was made to the respondent concerning its failure to
rehire certain Union girls and also after the shop committee had pro-
tested against discriminations and within one week from the time the
respondent signed an agreement wherein it recognized the Union.
We are led to the conclusion that after the Union workers had exer-
cised their rights under the agreement, and after their shop com-
mittee began to function in their behalf, the respondent resolved to
destroy the Union.
17. There is evidence that the respondent, through its officers and
agents, actually obtained the signatures of some of its employees to
some instrument. The evidence does not indicate what written mat-
ter the instrument contained or the nature of the instrument. Esther
Weinstein testified that Morris Gerber suggested to her that she
"sign up our contract". There is no evidence that any labor organi-
zation was in fact organized, or that the respondent actually gave
any of the support or benefits it promised to give. However, the
evidence shows that the respondent did make a determined effort to
initiate a labor organization and to dominate and interfere with its
formation.
In our opinion, Section 8, subdivision (2) of the Act forbids domi-
nation or interference not only where it is successful, and a labor
organization is actually formed, but also makes it an unfair labor
practice where the domination or interference is unsuccessful. In
this case, the respondent was unsuccessful because of the firmness
of its employees. Since the Act is remedial, it is appropriate to
require the respondent to cease and desist from unfair labor prac-
tices which may, at some future time, be more successful.
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 527
We find that the respondent dominated and interfered with the
formation of a labor organization, and that by so doing, it interfered
with, coerced and restrained its employees in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
18. It is significant that although the witnesses for the Board made
definite statements of discrimination and coercion on the part of the
president, vice president and superintendent and the foreman, none
of these men, all officers of the respondent and all apparently avail-
able, was produced to contradict or deny such pointed and damaging
testimony. As a matter of fact, Edward Gerber, superintendent, was
present at the hearings, yet he did not take the stand.
Apart from Meyer Gerber, who apparently had nothing to do with
the actual plant operation, but confined himself to the commercial
and financial portion of the respondent's enterprise, and whose testi-
mony dealt only with those matters, the respondent produced as wit-
nesses only Katherine Fasulo, the forelady, and two or three obviously
unreliable and prejudiced employees.
V. EFFECT OF UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
19. Interference with the activities of employees in joining and
assisting labor organizations leads and tends to lead to labor disputes
that burden and obstruct commerce and the free flow thereof. The
effects that a labor dispute can have on the operations of a business
are shown by the following facts in this case. During the summer
months, the respondent manufactures for stock in anticipation of
orders in the fall. Generally, however, most of the gloves are manu-
factured on order. The strike took place at the beginning of the
busy season. The respondent began hiring new help to take the place
of the Union workers who were out on strike, but it was at least three
weeks before it was able to resume normal operations. During the
strike there was a 40 per cent curtailment in production, and there
was some delay in the receipt and shipment of goods. At least on
two occasions, trucking firms refused to accept goods from the
respondent on account of the strike.
The discrimination by the respondent in regard to hire and tenure
of employment; its interference with, restraint and coercion of its
employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the
Act; and its domination and interference with the formation of a
labor organization, led and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening
and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce.
TFIE REMEDY
In addition to Antoinette Verruzzia, Lucille Seligson, Ray Bern-
stein and Sylvia Beres, 42 Union workers have suffered by reason of
the respondent's interference with the rights of its employees as guar-
528 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
anteed in Section 7 of the Act and by its discrimination in regard to
hire or tenure of employment. Those Union workers who have not
obtained employment elsewhere, are out of work as a consequence of
the respondent's wrongful acts. If they are to be put in status quo
and if the interference with the Union activities and the discrimina-
tion against its employees because of such activities is to cease, the
Union workers who went out on strike must be returned to work, even
though it may mean that workers hired subsequent to October 21
shall have to be displaced. If all of the Union workers can not be
put back to work at one time, then those not so put back to work shall
be placed on a preferred list to await jobs as they arise. All Union
workers should be put back to work in accordance with their seniority
status with the respondent, as shown by its records.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, the Board makes
the following conclusions of law :
1. The Union is a labor organization, within the meaning of
Section 2, subdivision (5) of the Act.
2. By discouraging membership in the labor organization known
as the International Glove Makers Union, Local No. 88 by dis-
criminating in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of
Antoinette Verruzzia, Lucille Seligson, Ray Bernstein and Sylvia
Beres, and each of them, the respondent has engaged and is engaging
in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8, subdivision
(3) of the Act.
3. By its domination of the formation of a labor organization, the
respondent has engaged and is engaging in unfair labor practices,
within the meaning of Section 8, subdivision (2) of the Act.
4. By interfering, restraining and coercing its employees in the
exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the respond-
ent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices, within
the meaning of Section 8, subdivision (1).
5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices
affecting commerce, within the meaning of Section 2, subdivisions
(6) and (7) of the Act.
ORDER
On the basis of the findings of fact and conclusions of law, and
pursuant to Section 10, subdivision (c) of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that
the respondent, Canvas Glove Manufacturing Works, Inc., and its
officers and agents shall:
1. Cease and desist
(a) from in any manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing
its employees in the exercise of the right to self-organization, to
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 529
form, join or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively
through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in
concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other
mutual aid or protection, as guaranteed in Section 7 of the National
Labor Relations Act.
(b) from discouraging membership in the International Glove
Makers Union, Local No. 88, or any other labor organization of its
employees, by discrimination in regard to hire or tenure of employ-
ment or any term or condition of employment.
(c) from dominating or interfering with the formation or admin-
istration of any labor organization or contributing financial or other
support to it; or from attempting to do so.
2. Take the following affirmative action, which the Board finds
will effectuate the policies of the National Labor Relations Act :
(a) Offer to Antoinette Verruzzia, Lucille Seligson, Ray Bernstein
and Sylvia Beres immediate and full reinstatement, respectively, to
their former positions, without prejudice to any rights and privileges
previously enjoyed;
(b) To the extent that work for which the following are available
is now performed by persons employed since October 21, 1935, offer
employment to the following named persons, on the basis of seniority :
Caroline Louella, Mildred Eremich, Mildred Falco, Filomeno
D'Amanzo, Anna Catapona, Virginia Torre, Betty Usuka, Blanch
Plockot, Antoinette Zizas, Margaret Catapona, Rose Barone, Millie
Varuzzi, Margie Andruzza, Stella Zanickouski, Josie Wastrangelo,
Angie Santora, Sadie Ciorciora, Louise Villanova, Nettie Marone,
Christine Marone, Catherine Minerva, Anna Kivyta, Connie Silano,
Anna Millucci, Blanche Guerin, Margerate Torre, Minnie Torre, Mar-
gerite Guentano, Esther Weinstein, Grace Laeta, Rose Richardi,
Bridget De Piano, Marguerite Caranonica, Antoinette Mayo, Fannie
Liguori, Kate Ramminger, Filomeno Esposito, Elaine Sacarvage,
America Fiorino, Adele Ceponis, Anna Ceponis, and Marie Jordan;
place those for whom employment is not available on a preferred list
to be offered employment as it arises;
(c) Make whole said Antoinette Verruzia, Lucille Seligson, Ray
Bernstein and Sylvia Beres for any loss of pay they have suffered
by reason of their discharges and refusals to reinstate them by pay-
ment to each of them, respectively, of a sum of money equal to that
which each would normally have earned as wages during the period
from the time of discharge to the date of such offer of reinstatement,
less the amount which each has earned during such period, computed
by averaging the wages earned during said period by the employees
engaged in the same operations, respectively, as were the above
employees immediately prior to the strike which began on September
23, 1935.