Elbe File and Binder Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 2, 1937

2 N.L.R.B. 906 (N.L.R.B. 1937)

In the Matter of ELBE FILE AND BINDER COMPANY, INC. and BooK-
BINDERS, MANIFOLD AND PAMPHLET DIVISION, LOCAL UNION No. 119,
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF BOOKBINDERS
Case No. C-158.-Decided June 2, 1937
Office and Business Equipment Manufacturing Industry-Unit Appropriate
for Collective Bargaining: eligibility for membership in only organization among
employees-Representatives: proof of choice : application for membership in
union-Collective Bargaining: refusal to recognize and negotiate with repre-
sentatives ; employer's duty as affected by strike ; refusal to meet with repre-
sentatives-Strike: provoked by employer's refusal to bargain collectively-
Employee Status: during strike-Interference, Restraint or Coercion: during
'strike : discrediting union ; employment of strike-breakers and strike-breaking
agency ; refusal to meet representatives for purpose of negotiation ; negotiation
with unauthorized representatives ; soliciting and inducing individual strikers
to return to work-Discrimination: discharge; strikers-requiring individual
applications for reinstatement ; non-reinstatement- Reinstatement Ordered,
Strikers, Non-Strikers-Back Pay: awarded.
Mr. Lester Levin for the Board.
Mr. Irving E. Epstein, of New York City, for respondent.
Mr. Hyman A. Schulson, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF CASE
Upon charges duly filed by Bookbinders, Manifold and Pamphlet
Division, Local Union No. 119, International Brotherhood of Book-
binders, hereinafter referred to as the Union, the National Labor
Relations Board, hereinafter called the Board, by Elinore Morehouse
Herrick, Regional Director for the Second Region (New York, New
York), issued its complaint dated December 19, 1936, against Elbe
File and Binder Co. Inc., New York City, hereinafter called the
respondent. The complaint and notice of hearing thereon were duly
served upon the respondent and the Union.
The complaint alleged that the respondent had refused to bargain
collectively with the Union and had discriminated in regard to hire
and tenure of employment in violation of Section 8, subdivisions
(1). (3), and (5), and Section 2, subdivisions (6) and (7), of the
National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, hereinafter called the
Act.'
'At the hearing the complaint was amended alleging that the respondent, by its
discharge of Alex Chiperuk , and by its refusal to reinstate him, had engaged in unfair
labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 , subdivisions ( 1) and ( 3) of the Act.
906
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 907
The respondent filed an answer to the complaint admitting the
general nature of its business and denying the allegations of the
complaint. The answer alleged that the Act as attempted to be ap-
plied to the respondent is unconstitutional and void in that it violates
the Fifth, Seventh, and Tenth Amendments of the Constitution of the
United States; and that the Board is without authority to issue a
complaint, notice of hearing, or any order or direction to the
respondent.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held in New York City com-
mencing on February 4, 1937, before Emmett P. Delaney, the Trial
Examiner duly designated by the Board. The Board and the re-
spondent were represented by counsel. At the hearing the respond-
ent, appearing specially, moved to dismiss the complaint on the
ground that the Board had no jurisdiction and on the constitutional
grounds previously stated. The Trial Examiner took the motion
under advisement. The respondent moved for an adjournment of
the hearing, alleging insufficient time in which to prepare its case,
and made a motion that the hearing should be postponed until the
constitutionality of the Act had been determined by the Supreme
Court. The Trial Examiner denied these motions.
Full opportunity to be heard, to cross-examine witnesses, and to
produce evidence bearing upon the issues was afforded to all parties.
The parties were offered an opportunity for argument at the close
of the hearing, which was declined. The respondent filed a brief
to which we have given due consideration.
Subsequently the Trial Examiner filed an Intermediate Report
finding that the respondent had committed the unfair labor practices
alleged in the complaint and recommending the reinstatement of 17
employees alleged to have been discharged and refused reinstatement.2
In the Intermediate Report the Trial Examiner denied the motion
of the respondent to dismiss the complaint. Exceptions to the In-
termediate Report were thereafter filed by the respondent.
The Board has reviewed all the rulings made by the Trial Exam-
iner on motions and objections and other matters and finds that no
prejudicial errors were committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed.
We have fully considered the exceptions to the Intermediate Report
and find no merit in them. They are hereby overruled.
2In addition to Chiperuk , the complaint alleged that 17 employees had been dis-
criminatorily discharged . During the hearing, the Trial Examiner granted the motion
made by counsel for the Board to strike the name of Philip Metz from the complaint.
908 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE RESPONDENT AND ITS BUSINESS
The respondent, Elbe File and Binder Co. Inc., is a New York
corporation having its principal office and place of business in the
Borough of Manhattan, City, County, and State of New York.
Abraham Rabinof is its president and general manager.
The respondent is engaged in the manufacture of loose-leaf devices
and in the processing of metal parts for loose-leaf books and binders.
'The plant consists of the metal, bookbinding, printing, examining,
receiving, shipping, and clerical departments. The principal raw
materials used by the respondent in the manufacture of its finished
products are paper, cardboard, real and imitation leather, canvas,
book cloth, raw metal, steel, brass, cotton goods, glue, wire, dies,
tubing, and screw machine parts. About 37 per cent of the raw
material purchased by the respondent comes from States other than
the State of New York. They are shipped to New York City by rail,
express, motor truck, and water. About 50 per cent of its finished
products are sold and shipped outside of New York State to retailers,
stationery dealers, United States Government agencies, and State
agencies. Orders are solicited by commission salesmen and by mail.
The products of the corporation are sold under the trade mark of
"Elbe", which is registered by the respondent in the United States
Patent Office, for use in interstate and foreign commerce.3 Respond-
ent advertises in newspapers, trade magazines, and by direct mail.
II. THE UNION
Bookbinders, Manifold and Pamphlet Division, Local Union No.
119, International Brotherhood of Bookbinders, affiliated with the
American Federation of Labor, is a labor organization which admits
to membership persons working at the bookbinding trade.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Events leading to the labor dispute
On August 28, 1935, after the invalidation of the National Indus-
trial Recovery Act, the respondent announced that at the option of
the employees it -would put into effect either a 48 hour weekly sched-
ule of work instead of 40 hours, or would declare a pay cut at 40
hours per week. All of the employees of the plant, including the
foremen, were dissatisfied with this proposal and decided to go on
8 Board's Exhibit No. 2.
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 909
strike on August 30, 1935. A committee was appointed by the em-
ployees to negotiate with Abraham Rabinof, the president of the
respondent. Being unsuccessful in their first conference, the em-
ployees requested Morris Michael, business representative of the
Union, to assist them. He met with the employees, discussed the
advantages of joining a union, and distributed about 70 registration
cards. Subsequently the committee for the employees held a second
conference with Rabinof. The respondent finally agreed to leave
hours and wages undisturbed and to reinstate all employees without
discrimination. The Union representative took no part in this settle-
ment and his first attempt to unionize the plant failed. Two weeks
after the employees returned to work a few workers were discharged
and a 48 hour schedule of work was established.
Early in April, 1936, the respondent was three weeks behind in its
pay to the machinists. A short stoppage of work took place and the
machinists received one week's back pay. Following the stoppage
one of the machinists was discharged, but no ground for dismissal
was given. Three employees subsequently called at Michael's office
and reported to him the respondent's breach of its agreement. He
gave them registration cards and advised them to conduct a secret
campaign for membership. Frequent meetings were held between
the employees and Michael at which daily reports of working con-
-ditions were received and discussed.
During the ensuing period, the employees worked many hours
-overtime including Saturday nights and holidays. The result of
such a labor policy was that excitement and dissatisfaction obtained
among the employees. A committee of five employees met with
Michael on October 17, 1936, and decided to call a strike on October
20, 1936. Authority to act in the name of the Union was given
them by Michael.
B. The respondent's refusal to bargain collectively with its employees
1. The appropriate unit
During the week of October 15, 1936, the respondent employed 130
employees in the following departments : metal, bookbinding, print-
ing, examining, receiving, shipping, sales, supervisory, and clerical.
The workers in the metal department are machine operators engaged
in stamping out and spraying metal parts, and in making tools and
dies. The activities of the bookbinding department consist of cut-
ting, gluing, stamping, and eyeleting loose leaf devices.
The complaint alleges that the employees of the respondent, with
the exception of salesmen, supervisory, and clerical staffs, constitute
a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining. The
910 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
record contains no denial of this allegation, nor does the respondent
assert that any other unit is the proper one. Employees in the metal,
bookbinding, printing, examining, receiving, and shipping depart-
ments are eligible to membership in the Union. A unit composed
of the employees in these departments, excepting salesmen and those
engaged in a supervisory and clerical capacity, would insure to the
employees the full benefit of their right to self-organization and to^
collective bargaining, and otherwise effectuate the policies of the Act,
and constitutes a unit which is appropriate for the purposes of col-
lective bargaining with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of
employment, and other conditions of employment.
2. Representation by the Union of the majority in the appropriate unit.
According to a list submitted by Rabinof to the Board, there were,
114 regular or permanent employees, excepting salesmen and those
engaged in a supervisory and clerical capacity, working for the re-
spondent during the week of October 15, 1936. On or about October
19, 1936, 37 of these employees had signed Union registration cards.
At a Union mass meeting of the employees held on the morning of
October 20 at the Manhattan Lyceum Hall, 23 additional registration
cards were signed, which brought the number of employees who had
designated the Union as their representative up to 60.' On or about
October 23, the number of signed registration cards had increased
to 77.5 These signed registration cards are sufficient designation of
the Union as the representative of the majority of the employees.
We therefore find that on October 20 and at all times thereafter
the Union was the duly designated representative of the majority of
the employees in the appropriate unit, and, pursuant to Section 9 (a)
of the Act, was the exclusive representative of all the employees in such
unit for purposes of collective bargaining in respect to rates of pay,
wages, hours of employment, or other conditions of employment.
3. The refusal to bargain
As stated above, on October 17 the committee and Michael decided
to call a strike on October 20. On that morning, as the employees
came to work, the Union distributed circulars to the employees calling
a mass meeting for 8 a. m. on that day at the Manhattan Lyceum Hall
to discuss the strike.' That afternoon the respondent distributed
circulars to the strikers urging them not to be misled by outside
' As will appear later, the respondent 's refusal to bargain took place on the afternoon
of October 20 and thereafter . At the time of the refusal to bargain , 60 of the 114
employees in the appropriate unit had designated the Union as their representative for
purposes of collective bargaining
5 Board ' s Exhibit No. 5.
O Board's Exhibit No. 4.
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 911
"agitators" and to report back to work by October 22 or lose their
. 7
At the mass meeting a majority of the employees in the appropriate
unit designated the Union as their representative. On the afternoon
of October 20 a committee consisting of Michael and Dennis, the
business representatives of the Union, and William Gramacy, Dave
Greengart, and Emanuel Blandino, employees of the respondent, met
with Abraham Rabinof, the president of the respondent, to demand a
40 hour week, a two dollar a week increase, a $15 minimum wage,
union recognition, and better sanitary and working conditions. The
employees complained that they had to work overtime, nights, Satur-
days, and very often holidays. There was neither a drinking fountain
nor a glass to drink from in the machinists' department consisting of
40 men. The lavatories were very filthy and inadequate to meet the
needs of the employees. Rabinof asserted that the above conditions
did not need rectification and refused to discuss working conditions
with the Union. When the committee informed him that it repre-
sented a majority of the workers, he not only expressed doubt on the
question but said that he did not have to recognize any union repre-
sentatives at all. Because of Rabinof's attitude the employees began
to picket the respondent's plant immediately that same afternoon.
Later in the afternoon Gramacy, Greengart, and Blandino, three
of the members of the committee who were employees of the respond-
ent, called on John D. Moore, Acting Director of the Regional Office
of the Board in New York City, and complained that the respondent
had violated the Act. Moore thereupon wrote a letter to the
respondent requesting that the respondent call at his office on October
21 to discuss the matter.8 Rabinof called at the Board's New York
office on October 21 and Moore urged him to confer with the repre-
sentatives of his employees. Rabinof promised to telephone his
decision to Moore in a few days.
On October 22 Michael telegraphed Rabinof, requesting "that a
joint request be made to the National Labor Relations Board in
accordance with the provisions of the Wagner Act to hold an election
by secret ballot of all Elbe factory employees to determine if the
union had a right to represent the employees".9 The respondent
made no reply to this wire.
On October 30 Moore had not yet heard from Rabinof, and conse-
quently sent him another letter requesting him to confer with a com-
mittee of employees and a representative of the Board at its New
York office on November 1. Rabinof telephoned Moore that he was
"too busy" to call at his office.
'Board's Exhibit No. 3
8 Respondent's Exhibit No. 4.
Board's Exhibit No 5.
912 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Rather than bargain collectively with the Union, the respondent
resorted to various strategems to defeat the strike. Between October
23 and November 4, Trinkoff, the plant manager, with Rabinof's
sanction, frequently met with George Sucharde, one of the strikers,
to discuss methods of settling the strike. Sucharde was in no manner
authorized to represent any of the employees and did not, of course,
talk- for the Union. He apparently volunteered his services to
Trinkoff because he felt that by doing so he would get into the -good
graces of the respondent. They arranged for a meeting on Novem-
ber 2 in a room at the Broadway Central Hotel, which was hired
and paid for by the respondent. Present at this meeting were,
Trinkoff, Freifeld, assistant factory manager, and eight employees,
seven of whom were not sympathetic with the Union, and who were
apparently selected by Sucharde for that very reason. These em-
ployees were in no manner authorized to represent any other of the
respondent's employees. At this meeting Trinkoff promised to give
the employees two days' vacation during the year and an increase
in pay. Gerald Brown, the only loyal unionist in the group, who
had been invited by Sucharde to attend this meeting, recalled the
respondent's similar promises during the 1935 strike and demanded
some assurance that these promises would be kept. Thereupon
Trinkoff and Freifeld stated that there would be no discrimination
or breach of promises. Trinkoff added that if the respondent "broke
its word", the employees could always call another strike. The eight
employees agreed to carry the respondent's proposal to the strikers.
However, Gerald Brown was the only one of them who did present
the respondent's proposal to his fellow strikers. The offer was
rejected.
Apparently the Trinkoff-Sucharde and the Broadway Central
meetings were designed to avoid meeting with the Union for the
purpose of collective bargaining. The respondent sought, thus, to
ignore completely the chosen representatives of its employees and
by negotiating in this way to isolate and break down the Union
leadership.
On October 21 Rabinof employed the Sherwood Agency to furnish
him with four guards for six days at a cost of $900. He also hired
Speyser, a person with a criminal record, to transport strikebreakers
to and from the plant. Shortly after the strike was called, and
while the plant was being picketed, the guards tried to induce pickets
to return to work. Many were invited into the plant and requested
to return to work.
It is interesting to note the following incident which illustrates
the divided loyalties of the guards. Michael testified that on Octo-
ber 29 Shapiro, one of the guards, for a good consideration, offered
to serve the Union at the same time as he was serving Elbe by
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 91&
informing the strikers where strikebreakers were dispatched by his,
armed guards. Michael declined this offer. Guards tried to induce.
strikers to engage in violence and to commit acts of disorder, but
were unsuccessful.
Sidney Weinstein was secretary of the strike committee and was,
active in organizing the employees. He had studied law, and was
planning to take his New York Bar examination. During the
strike Rabinof threatened to inform the Character Committee of
the New York Bar Association that Weinstein was a "communist"
and had engaged in disorderly conduct.
In order to weaken the morale of the strikers, Trinkoff, Freifeld,
and guards visited the homes of strikers and their relatives to.
urge them to return to work and to persuade them that unionization
was disadvantageous. These roving commissioners met with a fair
degree of success in their propaganda campaign and in bringing
the strikers back to work.
It is clear that the respondent, through Rabinoff, its president,
persistently refused to recognize any Union representative who came
to discuss working conditions. By its refusal to answer the Union's.
suggestion that the National Labor Relations Board be asked to
conduct an election and by its refusal to cooperate with Moore,
the respondent showed bad faith and an unwavering refusal to
bargain with the Union. To draw attention from its determined
refusals to bargain collectively, the respondent, through its agents,
arranged the Trinkoff-Sucharde and Broadway Central meetings,
which were designed to break the Union, and engaged in other
activities designed to settle the issue by other means. We find,
therefore, that on October 20 and thereafter the respondent refused
to bargain collectively with the Union as the representative of its
employees.
C. Refusal to reinstate 16 employees
Between November 4 and 6 all the striking employees applied for
reinstatement and returned to work with the ' exception of 17 who
applied during this period but were refused reinstatement. As a
condition precedent to reinstatement each employee was requested
to make a new personal application. It is to be noted that, included
in the number refused reinstatement, were those who had previously
been requested by the guards and other agents of the respondent to,
return to work and had refused. They were told either that their
places were filled by others who had been hired during the strike
and had been promised steady employment or that there was no work
in their department. Among the 17 were 10 machinists who asked
for reinstatement as a group, but Rabinof refused to see them except,
individually. This they declined to do.
914 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
It is alleged that 16 of the 17 were refused reinstatement because
of their Union membership and activity. It is significant to note
that among the employees refused reinstatement were William
Gramacy, strike chairman, Albert Lord, vice-chairman, and Sidney
Weinstein, secretary to the strike committee, all of whom were very
active in the picket line, in the strike, and in the organization of the,
Union, and Gerald Brown, who had asserted himself at the Broadway
Central meeting. These refusals of reinstatement were more than an
operation of mere chance. Gramacy testified that Lazerof, one of the
foremen, told him that Rabinof did not want to reinstate him because
he was strike chairman and that Trinkoff refused to reinstate Sidney
Weinstein because "there would be too much hard feeling if he were
to remain in the plant".
It must be-remembered that by striking the 16 employees did not
sever their status as such with the respondent. Here the strike was
caused by the respondent's refusal to bargain collectively and hence
the employees ceased work as a consequence of an unfair labor practice
on the part of the respondent. Since they have not obtained any other
regular and substantially equivalent employment, and since their
work had ceased as a consequence of, and in connection with a current
labor dispute, and because of an unfair labor practice, the 16 men
have been since October 20, and still are, "employees" of the respol.d-
ent within the meaning of Section 2, subdivision (3) of the Act. The
respondent discriminated against its employees when it refused to
reinstate them because of their Union membership and activity.
We find, therefore, that by its refusal to reinstate the 16 employees,
the respondent has discriminated in regard to hire and tenure of
employment, and has thereby discouraged membership in a labor
organization.
D. The discharge of Alex Chiperuk
Alex Chiperuk had been employed, by the respondent since August,
1936, as a buffer at a salary of $12 per week. He became a member of
the Union in September, 1936, and went on strike with the other
employees on October 20, 1936. In the second week of the strike,
while on picket duty in front of the plant, he was approached by one
of the guards who told him that the Union would not last and that
"Joey",10 the shipping clerk, wanted to see him inside the plant.
"Joey" spoke against the Union and urged him to return to work. On
the next day, November 5, Chiperuk returned to work at $14 per week.
He worked for five weeks and upon leaving the plant at noon on
January 8, 1937, he met Gramacy, the strike chairman, and stopped to
chat with him. He told him that one of the power press operators
10 The full name does not appear in the record.
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 915
had his tongue smashed by one of the presses that morning. One of
the guards and one of the shipping clerks saw Chiperuk talking to
Gramacy. Shortly thereafter Benjamin Freifeld, the assistant super-
intendent, walked past him. At 3 p. m. his foreman told him that
Freifeld wanted to see him at 5: 30. Freifeld told him that he had no
work for him and that he would have to go. Chiperuk testified that
at that time there was plenty of work in his department,; they had
just put on a night force. He still desires reinstatement.
The allegation that Chiperuk was discharged for Union activity
and membership is supported by the evidence. Freifeld's testimony
that Chiperuk was discharged on the grounds of incompetency and
negligence is not convincing. Fre feld was unable to point out any
specific instance of incompetency and negligence. That Chiperuk
was discharged for Union activity and association with Gramacy, the
strike chairman, seems plain.
We find that Alex Chiperuk was discharged for Union affiliation,
activities, and associations, and that by such discharge the respond-
ent has discriminated in regard to hire and tenure of employment
and has thereby discouraged membership in a labor organization.
At the time of the hearing, he had not obtained any other regular
and substantially equivalent employment. His work ceased because
of an unfair labor practice.
We find that the respondent, by the acts above set forth, has inter-
fered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of
the right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist labor organi-
zations, to bargain collectively through representatives of their
own choosing, and to engage in concerted activities for the purposes
of collective bargaining and other mutual aid and protection as
guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES ON COMMERCE
On October 14, 1936, about 114 employees were employed by the
respondent. On about October 20 more than 60 of them went out on
strike. Pickets were immediately placed outside the respondent's
place of business. Soon after the declaration of the strike Rabinof
testified that there was a "curtailment of production to the extent
of the people that were not working". Production decreased and
shipping of orders was delayed. There is also evidence of cancella-
tions of orders by some of the respondent's customers as soon as the
fact of the strike in the respondent's plant became known.
We find that the activities of the respondent set forth in Section
III above, occurring in connection with the operations of the
respondent described in Section I above, have a close, intimate, and
substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several
5727-37-vol a-59
916 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
States, and have led and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening
and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce.
THE REMEDY
Since we found that Alex Chiperuk was dischared for his Union
affiliations, activities, and associations, we will order that lie be
reinstated to his former position and be given back pay from the
date of his discharge, January 8, 1937, to the date he is offered rein-
statement, less any amount that he may, have earned during that
period.
Apart from Chiperuk, there are 16 employees who are not at
work because bf the respondent's unfair labor practices. Since they
were "employees" within the meaning of Section 2, subdivision (3)
of the Act, they were entitled to reinstatement when they applied
for their jobs.' The respondent's refusal to reinstate them consti-
tuted a discriminatory discharge in violation of Section 8, sub-
division (3).
Our previous decisions point the general remedy for these illegal
acts. We have required in cases of this kind reinstatement and back
pay from the time of the employer's refusal .to ,reinstate the, em-
ployees.ll The 16 employees are therefore entitled to be reinstated
with back pay from the time of the employer's refusal to reinstate
them.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the
entire record in the proceeding, the Board finds and concludes as a
matter of law:
1. Bookbinders, Manifold and Pamphlet Division, Local Union No.
119, International Brotherhood of Bookbinders, is a labor organiza-
tion, within the meaning of Section 2, subdivision (5) of the Act.
2. The strike. of the employees was a labor dispute, within the
meaning of Section 2, subdivision (9) of the Act.
3. Alex Chiperuk, Gerald Brown, William Gramacy, Sidney Wein-
stein, Albert Lord, Edith Kupperman, Emma Mills, Edward B.
Seeley, Jr., Ann Kuritsky, Miriam Herbst, Al Greenberg, Grace Mac-
gillwary, Tilly Tanzer, Joseph Borra, Erasto Tulier, Nathan Yiso-
witch, and Vinicio Rodriguez were employees of the respondent at
the time of their discharge, and are still employees of the respondent,
within the meaning of Section 2, subdivision (3) of -the Act.
uMatter of Sunshine Hosiery Mills and Branch No 55, American Federation of
Hosiery Workers, I N. L. R B. 664.
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 917'
4. The respondent, by discriminating in regard to hire and tenure
of employment, and thereby discouraging membership in a labor or-
ganization, has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices,
within the meaning of Section 8, subdivision (3) of the Act.
5. All the employees of the respondent, excepting salesmen and
those engaged in a supervisory and clerical capacity, constitute a unit
apropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining, within the
meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
6. By virtue of Section 9 (a) of the Act the Bookbinders, Manifold'
and Pamphlet Division, Local Union No. 119, International Brother-
hood of Bookbinders, having been selected as their representative by
a majority of the employees in an appropriate unit, was on October
20 and at all times thereafter has been, the exclusive representative of
all the employees in such unit for the purposes of collective bar-
gaining.
7. The respondent by refusing to bargain collectively with the
representatives of its employees on October 20, 1936, and thereafter,
has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices, within the
meaning of Section 8, subdivision (5) of the Act.
8. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in
the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the re-
spondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices,
within the meaning of Section 8, subdivision (1) of the Act.
9. 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
Upon 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, Elbe File and Binder, Inc., and its officers, agents, suc-
cessors, and assigns shall:
1. Cease and desist from interfering with, restraining, or coercing
its employees in the exercise of their rights of self-organization, to
form, join or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively
through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in con-
certed activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other
mutual aid and protection, as guaranteed in Section 7 of the National
Labor Relations Act;
2. Cease and desist from refusing to bargain collectively with
Local Union No. 119 as the exclusive representative of its employees,
excepting salesmen and those engaged in a supervisory and clerical
capacity ;
918 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
3. Cease and desist from discouraging membership in Local Union
No. 119 or any other labor organization of its employees by dis-
charging and refusing to reinstate employees , or otherwise discrim-
inating in regard to hire and tenure of - employment or any term or
condition of employment , or by threats of such discrimination.
4. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds
will effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Offer to Alex Chiperuk, Gerald Brown, William Gramacy,
Sidney Weinstein , Albert Lord, Edith Kupperman , Emma Mills,
Edward B. Seeley, Jr., Ann Kuritsky , Miriam Herbst, Al Green-
berg, Grace Macgillwary , Tilly Tanzer , Joseph Borra, Erasto Tulier,
Nathan Yisowitch , and Vinicio Rodriguez immediate and full rein-
statement in their former positions , without prejudice to their senior-
ity and other rights and privileges previously enjoyed;
(b) Make whole Alex Chiperuk for any losses of pay he has suf-
fered by reason of his discharge by payment to him of a sum of
money equal to that which he normally would have earned as wages
from the date of his discharge , January 8 , 1937, to the date of the
offer of his reinstatement , less any amount that he may have earned
during that period;
(c) Make whole the 16 employees who applied for and were re-
fused reinstatement for any losses of pay they have suffered by reason
of the refusal of the respondent to reinstate them by payment to
each of them , respectively , of a sum of money equal to that which
each of them, respectively , would normally have earned as wages
from the date of their respective applications for reinstatement to
the date of the offer of reinstatement pursuant to this order , less any
amount earned by each of them, respectively, during such period;
(d) Upon request , bargain collectively with Local Union No. 119,
International Brotherhood of Bookbinders , as the exclusive repre-
sentative of all its employees, excdpting salesmen and those engaged
in a supervisory and clerical capacity , for the purpose of collective
bargaining in respect to rates of pay, wages , hours of employment,
and other conditions of employment;
(e) Post notices at a conspicuous place on each floor of the re-
spondent 's plant stating : (1) that the respondent will cease and de-
sist in the manner aforesaid ; and (2 ) that said notices will remain
posted for at least thirty ( 30) consecutive days from the date of
posting;
(f) Notify the Regional Director for the Second Region in writ-
ing within ten (10) days from the date of this order what steps the
respondent has taken to comply herewith.