Chautauqua Hardware Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 24, 1951

92 N.L.R.B. 1518 (N.L.R.B. 1951)

In the Matter of CHAUTAUQUA HARDWARE CORPORATION and VNITED
STEELWORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO
Case No. 3-CA-271.Decided January 24, 1951
DECISION AND ORDER
On November 10, 1950, Trial Examiner George Bokat issued his
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that
the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair
labor practices in violation of Section 8 (a) (1) and (3) of the Act,
as amended, and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom
and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the
Intermediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the Respondent
filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and a supporting brief. .
The Board 1 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 In-
termediate Report, the Respondent's brief and exceptions, and the
entire record in the case ,2 and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions,
and recommendations of the Trial Examiner, with the following
additions and qualifications :
The Trial Examiner found that, although De Meyer was responsible
for the quality and quantity of the work performed by the other em-
ployees in the tumbling and coloring room, he was not a supervisor
within the meaning of the Act. We do not agree. The fact that
De Meyer had responsibility for the work performed by such other
employees is persuasive evidence that he also had the power re-
sponsibly to direct their work. And, as it appears that this work was
not purely routine in nature, we conclude that its direction required
the use of independent judgment., Under these circumstances, and
upon the entire record, we find that Do Meyer was a supervisor within
the meaning of Section 2 (11) of the Act.
'Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the National Labor Relations Act, the
Board has delegated its powers in connection with this proceeding to a three-member
panel [ Members Houston , Reynolds , and Styles].
2 The Respondent's request for oral argument before the Board is hereby denied , because,
in our opinion , the record and the brief adequately present the issues and the positions
of the parties.
92 NLRB No. 232.
1518
CHAUTAUQUA HARDWARE CORPORATION 1519
Having found De Meyer to be a supervisor, we do not adopt the Trial
Examiner's determination that-President Jones violated Section 8 (a)
(1) by his statement to De Meyer on March 1, 1950,3 after discussing
union activity in the plant, that he could close the plant. Section 8
(a) (1) of the Act protects "employees" alone against interference,
restraint, and coercion. As a supervisor, De Meyer was not an "em-
ployee" within the meaning of the Act, and therefore any threats of
reprisal for union activity which the Respondent communicated to
him alone would not have violated Section 8 (a) (1).
However, there is undisputed evidence in the record 4 that De Meyer
repeated the substance of Jones' statement to employee Chiazzese.
We find, on the basis of this evidence, that Jones threatened De Meyer
with the closing down of the plant because of the union activity of
the employees and that this threat was conveyed to one of the em-
ployees, Chiazzese, by De Meyer. Upon these facts, we find, while
Jones' statement to De Meyer did not in itself involve a violation of
Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act by the Respondent, that section was
violated by the Respondent when De Meyer repeated the substance
of Jones' statement to Chiazzese.
ORDER
Upon the entire record in the case, and pursuant to Section 10 (1)
of the National Labor Relations Act, as. amended, the National Labor
Relations Board hereby orders that the Respondent, Chautauqua
Hardware Corporation of Jamestown, New York, and its officers,
agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Discouraging membership in United Steelworkers of America,
CIO, by discriminatorily discharging any of its employees, or by
discriminating in any other manner in regard to their hire or tenure
of employment, or any term or condition of employment;
(b) By means of interrogation or threats of economic reprisal or
in any other manner, interfering with, restraining, or coercing its
employees in the exercise of the right to self-organization, to form
labor organizations, to join or assist United Steelworkers of America,
CIO, or any other labor organization, 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
8 The Trial Examiner at one point in his Report inadvertently referred to this conversa-
tion as having occurred on "October 1."
4 This evidence consists in testimony by Chiazzese that De Meyer told him Jones had
said he couldn 't support a union and would liquidate the plant if he had to . In view
of the fact that our finding is based on the repetition of the threat by Supervisor De Meyer,
it is immaterial that the Trial Examiner regarded this testimony as hearsay if used to
establish the fact that Jones had made the threat.
1520 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL. LABOR RELATIONS BQARD
or protection, or to refrain from any or all of such activities except to
the extent that such right may be affected by an agreement requiring
membership in a labor organization as a condition of employment, as
authorized in Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action, which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Offer Mario Martino and Joseph Chiazzese immediate and full
reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent positions
without prejudice to their seniority or any other rights and privileges;
(b) Make whole said Mario Martino and Joseph Chiazzese in the
manner set forth in the section of the Intermediate Report entitled
"The remedy" for any loss of pay they may have suffered by reason of
the Respondent's discrimination against them;
(c) 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 rec-
ords necessary to analyze the amounts of back pay and the right of
reinstatement under the terms of this Order;
(d) Post at its plant at Jamestown, New York, copies of the notice
attached to the Intermediate Report as Appendix A thereof .5 Copies
of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director of the Third
Region, shall, after being duly signed by the Respondent or his repre-
sentative, be posted by the Respondent immediately upon receipt
thereof and maintained by it for sixty (60) consecutive days there-
after in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to eIII-
ployees 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; and
(e) Notify the Regional Director for the Third Region in writing,
within ten (10) days from the date of this Order, what steps the
Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
INTERMEDIATE REPORT
Dlr. Ralph E. Kennedy, for the General Counsel.
Edson & Edson, by Mr. Samuel E. Edson, Jamestown, N. Y., for the Respondent.
Mr. Joseph M. Manzella, Dunkirk, N. Y., for the Union.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon charges duly filed by United Steelworkers of America, CIO, herein called
-the Union , the Generale Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board, called
herein respectively the General Counsel and the Board , by the Regional Director
, That notice shall, however , be amended by substituting for the words "The recommenda-
tions of a Trial Examiner" in the caption thereof, the words, "A Decision alid Order." In
the event that this Order is enforced by a decree of a United States Court of Appeals,
there shall be inserted before the words , "A Decision and Order ," the words, "A-Decree
of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing." .
CHAUTAUQUA HARDWARE CORPORATION 1521
of the Third Region (Buffalo, New York), issued a complaint dated June 5, 1950,
against Chautauqua Hardware Corporation, herein called the Respondent, alleg-
ing that the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices
affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) and (3) and Section
2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, 61 Stat. 136,
herein called the Act. Copies of the complaint and charges, together with notice
of hearing thereon, were duly served on all the parties.
With respect to the unfair labor practices, the complaint alleged in substance
that the Respondent Violated Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act by discharging Mario
Martino and Joseph Chiazzese, and Section 8 (a) (1) by various threats and by
Interrogations' concerning the union affiliation of its employees.
The Respondent thereafter filed an answer denying-the commission of the
alleged unfair labor practices.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held on July 5 and 6, 1950, at Jamestown,
New York, before George Bokat, the undersigned Trial Examiner duly designated
by the Chief Trial Examiner. All the parties except the Union were represented
by counsel and participated in the hearing. Full opportunity to be heard, to
examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing on the
issues was afforded all parties. At' the conclusion of the General Counsel's
case-in-chief the Respondent moved to dismiss the complaint. The motion was
denied. Decision was reserved on a renewal of the same motion at the end of the
entire case. It is hereby denied. The parties waived their right to present oral
argument but did file briefs with the undersigned. Submitted with the Respond-
ent's brief were proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law.
Upon the entire record in the case and from observation of the witnesses, I
make the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
Respondent, a New York corporation, is engaged in the manufacture, sale, and
distribution of metal furniture trim and related products at. its plant and
principal office in Jamestown, New York. During the year 1949 the Respondent
purchased raw materials valued in excess of $450,000, of which approximately 50
percent was received from points outside the State of New York. During the
same period the Respondent's annual sales exceeded $850,000, of which approxi-
mately 95 percent was sold and shipped to points outside the State of New York.
The Respondent admits, and I find, that it is engaged in commerce within
the meaning of the Act.
It. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
United Steelworkers of America, 010, is a labor organization within the mean-
ing of the Act admitting to membership employees of the Respondent.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Summary of events
The principal issue herein arises out of the discharge on March 2, 1950, of
Mario Martino and Joseph Chiazzese, allegedly because of their union affiliation
and activities.
The Respondent was formed late in 1945 and shipped its first order on March
30, 1946. During most of 1949 it operated at a loss and the problem of how to
1522 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
increase production and get on the profit side of the ledger became one of
increasing concern to the officials of the Company. The Respondent succeeded
in showing a profit in December which increased somewhat during January and
February. During this period the Respondent employed about 225 individuals.
It was during the latter part of February 1950 that some of the Respondent's
employees first became interested in joining a union. Chiazzese arranged to have
an official of the Union meet with seven or eight of the employees on the night
of February 28. Both Chiazzese and Martino joined the Union that evening
together with the others that attended, and all of them obtained blank application
cards to distribute among their fellow employees.
The following day, on the plant premises during the lunch hour, Martino and
Chiazzese as well as the-others that had attended the union meeting the preceding
night, openly solicited their fellow employees to join the Union. Chiazzese
succeeded in obtaining 14 signatures.
Martino and Chiazzese worked in the coloring and tumbling room along with
Jerry Carlson and Albert De Meyer. All four had joined the Union on February
28. De Meyer acted as a sort of straw-boss in relaying orders from Salvatore
Nania, whose duties as foreman of the finishing department included supervi-
sion over De Meyer's section. De Meyer was held responsible for the quality and
quantity of the work performed in the tumbling and coloring room. However, on
the basis of the entire record, I am satisfied and find that De Meyer, at all times
material herein, was not a supervisor within the meaning of the Act.
Just before the close of the workday on March 1, 1950, Foreman Nania in-
structed De Meyer to go to the office of Allan Jones, president of the Respondent.
Jones disputes De Meyer's version of what occurred there. I am persuaded by a
careful analysis of the entire record and the demeanor of these witnesses that
De Meyer is the much more reliable and trustworthy witness and I credit his
testimony. Jones was a vague and rambling witness given to speaking in gen-
eralities, and an analysis of his testimony reveals discrepancies and contradic-
tions. In general therefore, I have not credited Jones where his testimony is
irreconcilable with that of other witnesses. Of the remaining principal wit-
nesses I found both Martino and Chiazzese to be trustworthy. Nania, although
essentially honest, appeared reluctant to give any testimony that might seem
damaging to the Respondent but when sufficiently prodded, testified on the whole,
truthfully. In view of this discussion, it would serve no useful purpose to detail
the conflicting testimony, and the findings hereinafter made are my own con-
struction of the essential facts based on my evaluation of the witnesses.
To return now to De Meyer's meeting with Jones. The latter asked De Meyer
what was "wrong with the boys ... in the coloring room" ; said that he knew
and "had the proof that they were passing out union literature."' Jones then
remarked that he "could close the plant down."' During the course of the con-
versation De Meyer volunteered that he was a member of the Union 3
'Jones testified that a day or two following the discharge of Martino and Chiazzese
several of the older employees told him they resented being solicited by Martino and
Chiazzese to join the Union. I believe and find that Jones had this information at the
time of his conversation with De Meyer on October 1.
2 Jones testified that he told De Meyer "the plant was not running on a profitable basis
and unless we did get this plant on a profitable basis it would be necessary to close the
plant down , .... Since the plant had been running on a profitable basis for the 3
months preceding this statement it points up one of the reasons compelling me not to find
Jones a creditable witness. I do not credit his version.
8 Jones admitted that De Meyer told him that he was a union member but after first
testifying that this occurred on March 2 (the day that Martino and Chiazzese were
discharged ) Jones later placed it as occurring on March 3.
CHAUTAUQUA HARDWARE CORPORATION 1523
About noon on March 2, Foreman Nania told both Martino and Chiazzese that
President Jones wanted to see them in his office. There, Jones summarily dis-
charged them saying, to quote Martino's undenied testimony, "I understand you
men are dissatisfied, you are constantly bitching, ... Here is your pay. Get
out."
When the two men returned to their department and Chiazzese Informed Nania
of their discharge, saying, "I'll be back," Nania replied, "No, you.won't. You can
go ... to the N. L. R. B. Board and it won't do you any good ." Nania does not
"remember" making any reference to the Board. Chiazzese' s memory of the
reference is credited.
Sometime just before or after the discharge of the two employees, Nania ques-
tioned three employees as to whether they had signed union cards. On about
March 2, 1950, Foreman John Carlson asked Violet Eckner if she "had heard
about the Union."
B. The Respondent's defenses
The Respondent contends that it discharged Martino and Chiazzese because of
their misconduct and inefficiency, furthermore, that it had no knowledge of
their union membership or activity at the time of their discharge. In view
of the findings made above, I find the latter defense clearly to be without
merit.
As to misconduct, the Respondent contends that this manifested itself in the
"two employees fighting between themselves, fighting with other employees and
annoying other employees." The record reveals no evidence of Martino and
Chiazzese fighting between themselves, although at times they did argue, primar-
ily about baseball. But there is no evidence that it interfered with their work
or that of other employees. Foreman Nania never considered it serious enough
to warrant discipline except that on a "couple of occasions" he "just told them
to cut it out." And that "is all there was to it" testified Nania. There is tes-
timony by former Superintendent Lewis Lane that from "time to time" during the
period from the summer of 1949 until about March 1950, both Martino and
Chiazzese lost "considerable extra time visiting other people," but this is not
borne out by other witnesses I have found to be credible and I cannot therefore
credit Lane's testimony. Or as Nania succinctly put it, "they were usually
right down where they were working." I find the Respondent's contention sum-
marized in the word "misconduct" to be without merit and as not being one of
the causes for the discharge of Martino and Chiazzese.
We now come to the defense of inefficiency, arising out of the alleged wastage of
materials by Martino and Chiazzese and in their allegedly causing damaged
castings by improper loading of the tumblers. In order to evaluate the follow-
ing findings in their proper perspective it is necessary to comment first on
Nania's very close relationship with Jones. Nania started to work for Jones
as a young boy at a time when Jones was "running" a plant in Boston. When,
after the last war, Jones returned to his home town, Jamestown, and "started
this plant" he sent for Nania. As foreman, Nania has the right to hire and fire
and.could do so without consulting Jones. Nania did not discharge Martino or
Chiazzese or recommend that they be discharged, nor was he consulted by Jones
prior to their discharge. In fact, no employee from Nania's department had
ever previously been fired by Jones without Jones first consulting with Nania.
"Mr. Jones probably knew something that I didn't know," testified Nania.
Both Martino and Chiazzese denied that they had ever wasted materials or
that anyone had spoken to them about it. De Meyer believed both of them to
be competent workmen and had never seen them waste materials. He did
1524 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
admit that on several occasions Nania had mentioned that too much material
was being used. Nania had received complaints from Jones about the excessive
use of materials in the coloring and tumbling room and passed them on to
De Meyer. The latter told •Nania there was no wastage. Since Nania held
De Meyer responsible for the running of the coloring. and tumbling room and
could only be there occasionally; Nania was not in a position to say whether
Martino and Chiazzese wasted materials or not. "I still state there is no way
of proving that they were wasteful or I could prove it," Nania testified.
De Meyer was held in high repute by both Jones and Nania as a very capable
employee. In fact, when De Meyer quit in the spring of 1949 it was Jones who
induced De Meyer to return about the middle of August. During De Meyer's
absence Martino became straw-boss in the coloring room. Jones was not satisfied
with the way Martino took over and blames him for loss of production, poor
coloring of the hardware and damaged castings, all happening while Martino
was in charge. Most of Jones' testimony, which I have characterized as vague
and rambling, appears to be directed towards Martino and centers on his "in-
competence" during the summer of 1949 while Martino was in charge of the
coloring room. Despite Jones' complaints to Nania the situation did not im-
prove. "That is the reason that. I went over Nania's head and got De Meyer
in there because De Meyer was more experienced and more intelligent and so
forth and carried out my orders," testified Jones.
Asked why he did not discharge Martino when De Meyer returned to the
plant replacing Martino as straw-boss, if Martino was so incompetent, Jones
testified, "I demoted him and put him back to the other [job]-its never been my
policy to fire anybody. . . . I have been willing there to change men around where
they didn't fit in one job, try them some place else, . . . to see just where they
might fit because I don't believe in labor turnover." Both Martino and Chiazzese
received wage increases on October 31, 1949, and is explained by Jones as being
caused by an increase in their "volume of work."
In September 1949, Jones was removed as president because the firm was
losing money but was put back again on October 15. The following February,
Jones removed Lane as superintendent and took over his duties. It is the con-
tention of the Respondent that since Jones "had been for a long time dissatisfied
with the work in the coloring and tumbling department in general and with
Martino and Chiazzese in particular" that the discharge of these two employees
was part of a general shake-up in the plant. Jones testified that "several times"
he instructed Nania to discharge Martino and Chiazzese but Nania refused, and
Jones testified, "I let it go at that and said I want to see results. . . . It wasn't
until the results were not forthcoming that I took matters into my own hands
at that time."
However it is difficult to determine from Jones' rambling and generalized
testimony specifically just what Martino and Chiazzese failed to do after
securing their wage increases on October 31, that caused their discharge. Jones
seems to point partly to the alleged wastage of an expensive compound used
in a new tumbling process instituted in the fall of 1949, a process, according
to Jones, that "would cure the bending" of the castings ; a tacit admission by
him that the men in the tumbling room were not entirely at fault when damaged
castings came out of the tumblers. He refers also to lack. of production and
to the "griping" of Martino and Chiazzese about their rate of pay. Accordingly,
says Jones, "I told Nania that I couldn't stand for any conditions such as
has been existing in there any longer, cost in that department and so forth, and
to send these two men over to me and I let them go."
CHAU'TAUQUA HARDWARE CORPORATION 1525
It is' difficult to determine, assuming that materials were wasted, how Jones
determined that the waste was caused by Martino and Chiazzese. There were
two other men in the tumbling and coloring room, De Meyer and Carlson. All
four from time to time worked on all operations. Or as Jones admitted, all
four were responsible for the work coming" from that department. In fact,
De Meyer, in whom Jones had so much confidence, was really responsible, subject
to Nania's general supervision, for the operation of the tumbling and coloring
room. There is no proof in the record that Martino and Chiazzese wasted any
more material, if any in fact was wasted, than did De Meyer or Carlson. The
same reasoning applies to the alleged damaging of castings. I find this contention
to be without merit." Nania testified that the lack of production complained
of by Jones occurred "more or less" during the summer of 1949 while De Meyer
was away and Martino was in charge. I find this contention to be without
merit.
This brings us to the remaining contention about the griping of Martino and
Chiazzese. Nania testified that Martino did complain about his rate of pay and
working conditions, but when he received his last wage increase, apparently
the one given on October 31, 1949, Martino ceased to complain about his rate
of pay. But according to Jones, he received reports that both Martino and
Chiazzese were still dissatisfied with their pay, and that since the four employees
in the coloring and tumbling room were receiving a higher rate of pay than
the plating department employees it caused considerable dissatisfaction among
.the latter group. "
Concluding Findings
I am satisfied and find that Jones was concerned about the complaints of some
of his employees about their rate of pay, that when this dissatisfaction reached
the point where these employees decided to join the Union, Jones made up his
mind to discharge the two employees he thought were primarily responsible
for this activity, thus nipping in the bud the organizational efforts of the Union
during its formative period. I am persuaded in view of the Respondent's knowl-
edge of Martino and Chiazzese's union activities, the threat to De Meyer to
close the plant, which I find was related to the organizational efforts, the timing
of the discharges which occurred the day following the open solicitation
for the Union in the plant, the unconvincing nature of the reasons for the
discharges, that the real motivation therefor was the Respondent's desire to rid
itself of the two individuals it considered to be the Union's chief protagonists,
in violation of the rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act and Section 8 (a)
(1) and (3).
I also find the instances of interrogation of union activities by Foremen
Nania and Carlson and the threat to close the plant by President Jones to be
independent violations of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.'
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent set forth in Section III, above, occurring in
connection with the operations of the Respondent described in' Section I, above,
have a close, intimate and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce
among the several States and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and
obstructing commerce, and the free flow of commerce.
I I therefore find it unnecessary to determine whether in fact, as contended by the
Respondent, there was much less use of material in the coloring and tumbling room
following the discharge of.Martino and Chiazzese.
5 See Standard -Coosa-Thatcher Company, 85 NLRB 1358.
1526 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in the unfair labor practices
set forth above, I shall recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and that
it take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
Thus it will be recommended that Respondent remedy its discrimination
against Mario Martino and Joseph Chiazzese, by offering to each of them imme-
diate and full reinstatement to his former or substantially equivalent position'
without prejudice to his seniority or other rights and privileges. It will be rec-
ommended further that the Respondent make them whole for any loss of pay
that they may have suffered by reason of the Respondent's discrimination against
them. In accordance with the Board's policy,? I shall recommend that the loss
of pay be computed on the basis of each separate calendar quarter or portion
thereof during the period from the Respondent's discrimination on March 2,'
1950, to the date of. a proper offer of reinstatement. The quarterly periods,
hereinafter called "quarters," shall begin with the first day of January, April,
July, and October. Loss of pay shall be determined by deducting from a sum
equal to that which each of the employees discriminated against would nor-
mally have earned for each quarter, or portion thereof, his net earnings,8 if any,
in other employment during that period. Earnings in one particular quarter
shall have no effect upon the back-pay liability for any other quarter.
I shall also recommend that the Respondent make available to the Board,
upon request, payroll and other records to facilitate the checking of the amount
of back pay due?
The violations of the Act which the Respondent committed are persuasively.
related to other unfair labor practices proscribed by the Act, and the danger
of their commission in the future is to be anticipated from the Respondent's
conduct in the past. The preventive purposes -of the Act will be thwarted unless
the order is coextensive with the threat. In order, therefore, to make more
effective the interdependent guarantees of Section 7, 'to prevent a recurrence of
unfair labor practices, and thereby minimize industrial strife which burdens and
obstructs commerce, and thus effectuate the policies of the Act, it will be recom-
mended that the Respondent cease and_ desist from infringing in any manner
upon the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and upon the entire record of the
case, I make the following:
aIn accordance with the Board 's consistent interpretation of the term , the expression
"former or substantially equivalent position" is intended to mean "former position wher-
ever possible and if such position is no longer in existence then to a substantially equivalent .
position." See The Chase National Bank of the City of New York, San Juan, Puerto Rico,
Branch, 65 NLRB 827.
7 F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289.
8 By "net earnings" Is meant earnings less expenses , such as for transportation , room, and
board incurred by an employee in connection with obtaining work and working elsewhere,
which would not have been incurred but for this unlawful discrimination, and the conse-
quent necessity of his seeking employment elsewhere. Crossett Lumber Company, 8 NLRB
440. Monies received for work performed upon Federal, State, county, municipal, or other
work-relief projects shall be considered earnings . Republic Steel Corporation v. N. L. R. B.,
311 U. S. 7.
OP. W. Woolworth Company, supra.
CHAUTAUQUA HARDWARE CORPORATION 1527
-CONCLUSIONS OFLAW"
1. The United Steelworkers of America, CIO, is a labor organization within
the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
2. By discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of Mario
Martino and Joseph Chiazzese, the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging
in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
3. By such -discrimination and by interfering with, restraining, and coercing
its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act,
the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within
the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting
commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
[Recommended Order omitted from publication in this volume.]
10 The Respondent submitted separately numbered proposed findings of fact and con-
clusions of law. I accept the proposed findings of fact numbered 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10,
18, 19, 20, 29, and 30. I reject 13, 15, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 32, 33, and 34. I also reject
11, 12 , 14, 16, 17, 21 , 22, and 31, because , as worded , I cannot accept them entirely. I
accept the proposed conclusions of law numbered 1 and 2. 1 reject 3, 4, 5, and 6.