Fuchs Baking Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 13, 1953

102 N.L.R.B. 1350 (N.L.R.B. 1953)

1350 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
thereto. Immediately upon the filing of such exceptions , the party filing same
shall serve a copy thereof upon each of the other parties, and shall file a copy
with the Regional Director . If no exceptions are filed hereto, the Board will
adopt the recommendation of the hearing officer.
FUCHS BAKING CO. and BAKERY & CONFECTIONERY WORKERS INTER-
NATIONAL UNION OF AMERICA , L. U. #249. Case No. 10-CA-1470.
February 13, 1953
Decision and Order
On December 5, 1952, Trial Examiner Ralph Winkler issued his
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that
the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair
labor practices 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 and a supporting brief.'
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with
this case to a three-member panel [Members Houston, Styles, and
Peterson].
The Board has reviewed the Trial Examiner's rulings made at the
hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rul-
ings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Intermediate
Report, the brief and exceptions, and the entire record in the case
and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of
the Trial Examiner with the following additions, corrections,2 and
modifications.
1. The Trial Examiner found that the Respondent violated Section
8 (a) (1) of the Act by interrogating employees concerning their own
and other employees' union membership and activities. We agree
with these conclusions 3
1 The Respondent 's request for oral argument is hereby denied , as the record, the
exceptions , and Its brief adequately present the facts, issues , and positions of the parties.
2 We note and correct the following inadvertent errors in the Intermediate Report :
(1) Donald Galvin solicited employees at the bakery on March 5 , 1952, not on March 4,
1952, ( 2) Bingham quizzed Leroy Thompson concerning union activity on March 9 or 10,
not on March 10 or 11 , ( 3) the meeting of the entire production staff was on March 29,
1952, not on March 25, 1952, ( 4) Donald Galvin's last absence was on March 10, 1952, not
on March 11. These errors do not affect the Trial Examiner 's ultimate conclusions or our
concurrence therein.
8 We find no merit in the Respondent 's contention, in effect, that it did not violate the
Act by its Inquiry concerning union activity addressed to employees . Apart from other
considerations , it is clear that the Interrogation when viewed In a background of 8 (a) (3)
violations , as here, exceeded the protection accorded to the Respondent under Section
8 (c) of the Act , and violated Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act. Cf. Pathfinder Coach Division
of Superior Coach Corporation, 102 NLRB 87.
102 NLRB No. 138.
FUCHS BAKING CO. 1351
2. The Trial Examiner found , and we agree , that the Respondent
discharged Donald and Gilda Galvin because of Donald's activities on
behalf of the Union.
Like the Trial Examiner we reject the Respondent 's contentions
that Donald Galvin was discharged because of excessive absenteeism
and unsatisfactory work. We are satisfied that he had never been
warned previously of the allegedly excessive absences nor had he
ever been warned that he risked discharge because of sloppy work
habits or shortcomings as an employee. Indeed, the record shows that
contention that this absence was the precipitating cause of his dis-
charge.
While it is true that Donald was discharged on the day he returned
to work, after an absence of 1 day, we do not credit the Respondent's
contention that this absence was the precipitating cause of his dis-
charge. The record clearly shows that on the day Donald was absent,
Superintendent Bingham 4 interrogated employees in an effort to find
out who had given out union cards to the employees; that Bingham
learned that Donald had given out cards; that, upon learning from
Donald's wife, Gilda, that Donald was absent due to illness, he took
the unusual step of paying a visit to Donald at his home; and that,
although he failed to confirm his suspicion as to the validity of the
reason for the absence,5 he nevertheless discharged Donald upon
Donald's return to work the following day.
In these circumstances, we are persuaded that the discharge of
Donald Galvin in the middle of the pay period at a time which coin-
cided with the Respondent's learning about Donald's activity in be-
half of the Union was motivated by the Respondent's union animus
and was therefore violative of the Act.
As to Gilda, we are satisfied, as was the Trial Examiner, that she was
discharged because the Respondent had already determined to dis-
charge Donald, and not, as alleged by the Respondent, because of the
discontinuance of her experimental job and her excessive absenteeism.
Although Bingham testified somewhat equivocally that there was no
connection between the two discharges, he did admit that, in discuss-
ing the discharges with Board counsel before the hearing, he had
stated that "[he] did not think it would be a good condition to dis-
charge one, that is the husband, and keep the wife on." We note also
that Gilda was discharged in the middle of a pay period, about a day
and a half after she had started to compile figures for a new weekly
chart, and after Bingham had made a visit to Donald's home to check
' It is clear that Bingham is a representative of management and his conduct is
attributable to the Respondent.
5 As the Trial Examiner found, Bingham testified that he did not know whether Donald
was ill, but that Donald "looked sleepy."
1352 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
on his absence.° Moreover, although the Respondent attempted to
reinforce its defense of Gilda's discharge by alleging excessive ab-
sences, the record does not show that she had ever been warned by the
Respondent concerning such absence, nor was absenteeism ever given
to her as a reason for her discharge.
On the basis of the foregoing, and upon the entire record in the case,
we are satisfied, as was the Trial Examiner, that the record prepon-
derates in favor of a finding that Donald and Gilda Galvin were dis-
charged because of Donald's union activity, and that the discharges
were violative of Section 8 (a) (3) and 8 (a) (1) of the Act.
Order
Upon the entire record in the case, and pursuant to Section 10 (c)
of the National Labor Relations Act, the National Labor Relations
Board hereby orders that the Respondent, Fuchs Baking Co., Miami,
Florida, its officers , agents, successors , and assigns, shall :
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Interrogating employees concerning their union membership
and activities.
(b) Discouraging membership in Bakery & Confectionery Workers
International Union of America, L. U. #249, or any other labor or-
ganization of its employees, by discharging or refusing to reinstate
any of its employees or by discriminating in regard to their hire or
tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment.
(c) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing
its employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to
form, join, or assist the above Union, 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 bar-
gaining or other mutual aid 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 organiza-
tion 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 to Donald Galvin and Gilda Galvin immediate and full
reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent positions
without prejudice to their seniority or other rights or privileges, and
make them whole in the manner set forth in the section of the Inter-
mediate Report entitled "The Remedy," for any loss of pay they may
Bingham had talked to Gilda and had reviewed the charts compiled during his absence
from the bakery before he went to visit at the Galvin home . At that time he did not tell
her such work was to be discontinued.
FUCHS BAKING CO. 1353
have suffered by reason of the Respondent's discrimination against
them.
(b) Upon request, make available to the Board or its agents for
examination and copying, all payroll records, social-security payment
records, timecards, personnel records and reports, and all other records
necessary or convenient for the analysis of the amount of back pay
due under the terms of this Order.
(c) Post at its plant in Miami, Florida, copies of the notice attached
hereto marked "Appendix A." 7 Copies of such notice, to be furnished
by the Regional Director for the Tenth Region, shall, after being duly
signed by the Respondent's authorized representative, be posted by
the Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof and be maintained
by it for a period of sixty (60) consecutive days thereafter in conspicu-
ous places, including all places where notices to employees are cus-
tomarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent
to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any
other material.
(d) Notify the Regional Director for the Tenth Region, in writing,
within ten (10) days from the date of this Order, what steps the Re-
spondent has taken to comply herewith.
7 In the event that this Order is enforced by a decree of a United States Court of Appeals,
there shall be substituted for the words "Pursuant to a Decision and Order " the words
"Pursuant to a Decree of the United States Court of Appeals , Enforcing an Order."
Appendix A
NOTICE To ALL EMPLoYEEs
Pursuant to a Decision and Order of the National Labor Relations
Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, we hereby notify our employees that :
WE WILL NOT interrogate our employees concerning their union
membership and activities.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or
coerce our employees in the exercise of their right to self-organ-
ization, to form labor organizations, to form or assist BAKERY &
CONFECTIONERY WORKERS INTERNATIONAL UNION OF AMERICA,
L. U. #249, or any other labor organization, to bargain collec-
tively through representatives of their own choosing, and to en-
gage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective
bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from
any or all such activities except to the extent that such right may
be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor or-
ganization as a condition of employment, as authorized in Section
8 (a) (3) of the Act, as guaranteed in Section 7 thereof.
1354 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
WE WILL offer to Donald Galvin and Gilda Galvin immediate
and full reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent
positions without prejudice to any seniority or other rights and
privileges previously enjoyed, and make them whole for any loss
of pay suffered as a result of the discrimination against them.
All of our employees are free to become or remain or to refrain
from becoming or remaining members of BAKERY & CONFECTIONERY
WORKERS INTERNATIONAL UNION OF AMERICA, L. U. #249, or any other
labor organization. We will not discriminate in regard to hire or
tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment against
any employee because of membership in or activity on behalf of any
such labor organization.
FUCHS BAKING CO.,
Employer.
By ------------------------
(Representative) (Title)
Dated ----------------------------
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof,
and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
Intermediate Report and Recommended Order
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon charges filed by Bakery & Confectionery Workers International Union
of America, L. U. #249, AFL, a labor organization herein called the Union, the
General Counsel for the National Labor Relations Board issued a complaint on
June 18, 1952, against Fuchs Baking Co., herein called the Respondent, alleging
that the Respondent had engaged in specified conduct violating Section 8 (a) (1)
and (3) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Labor Management Relations Act,
1947, 61 Stat. 136, herein called the Act. Copies of the complaint and charges
were served upon the Respondent, and the Respondent in turn filed an answer
denying the commission of the unfair labor practices alleged.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held in Miami, Florida, on October 20 and
21, 1952, before the undersigned Trial Examiner. The General Counsel, the
Respondent, and the Union were represented at the hearing and all parties were
afforded full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses,
and to introduce evidence bearing on the issues. The parties were given oppor•
tunity to present oral argument before the Trial Examiner and also to file briefs
and proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law.
Upon the entire record in the case, and upon observation of the demeanor of
witnesses, I make the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
The Respondent, a Florida corporation, operates a bakery in Miami, Florida.
The Respondent's sales, all made within the State of Florida, exceed $4,000,000
annually ; its out-of-State purchases of materials exceed $900,000 annually.
FUCHS BAKING Co. 1355
I find that the Respondent is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the
Act.
IT. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Organizational activities
The principal issue in this case is whether the Respondent discriminatorily
discharged Gilda Galvin and her husband Donald Galvin on March 10 and 11,
1952, respectively. Both employees were employed in the sweet goods depart-
ment of which R. C. Bingham is superintendent.
Donald Galvin testified that his first knowledge of union activities among the
Respondent's employees was in the latter part of February or in early March
1952, when he and employee Edward Taddia met with Union Organizer John
Ware at Taddia's suggestion. On Tuesday, March 4, Galvin and Taddia conferred
with another union representative, George Stanley, and that same night the Gal-
vins and Stanley went to employee George Pillifant's home to solicit Pillifant's
signature to a union-designation card. Donald then obtained some blank union
cards, and during the workday of March 4 he solicited several employees at the
bakery to join the Union. That same evening, and again on March 8, Donald
solicited other employees at their homes, with Gilda accompanying him on some
of these visits.
Meanwhile, Bingham left the city on a business trip during the week of March 3
and returned to the bakery on or about March 9. Bingham testified that em-
ployees in other departments had discussed union matters for several months
before his trip (although the record does not show that the Union or any other
labor organization was attempting to organize the plant during that several
months period), but that he did not learn of actual organizational activity until
on or about Sunday, March 9. Bingham approached employee Ed Ross on
Monday, March 10, and inquired whether Ross had heard of the Union, whether
he and other employees had signed union cards, and who had given Ross his
union card. Ross told Bingham that he received his card from Donald Galvin.
Bingham also interrogated employee R. C. Davis along the same lines that same
morning and Davis informed him, according to Bingham, that Ross had advised
Davis that Taddia had given Ross his card. Bingham testified that he then
interrogated Ross a second time to straighten out the discrepancy between Ross'
and Davis' reply to him as to whether Taddla or Galvin had given the card to
Ross 1 and that Ross this time replied that Taddia had given the card to him.
Bingham testified that he advised Davis and Ross at the time of these conversa-
tions that it was immaterial to him whether they joined or did not join the
Union. Bingham also approached employee Leroy Thompson on March 10 or 11.
Bingham told Thompson he had "learned a little" since his return and, showing
Thompson a union card, he asked Thompson either whether Thompson was
involved or had signed such a card.
Bingham 's aforementioned encounters with Ross and Davis occurred on Mon-
day morning (March 10) before Bingham discharged Gilda that same day.
Donald was absent from work that day and was discharged the following day.
The charges in the present case were served on the Respondent on March 19, 1952.
The Respondent notified its entire production staff that a meeting would be
held on March 25, 1952, which was not a workday for production employees.
The employees were paid for attending the meeting at which they were addressed
1 Upon being asked at the hearing to explain his interest in who had given the employees
their union cards, Bingham stated: " Because I am interested in everything that goes on
in the sweet goods department . . . little, big, intermediate. I am a curious sort of
person."
1356 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
by Superintendent Bingham and President J. P. Cash. In his speech, Bingham
traced the history of the sweet goods department and he mentioned that the
Respondent had not made any money during this department's existence but
that it was now in a position to do so. Without mentioning them by name,
Bingham also discussed the Galvin discharges to the effect that "it was neces-
sary to discharge two employees who were undependable, failing to come to
work on several occasions without good reason or calling in to let us know.
These people continued to produce less satisfactory work instead of improving.
The girl in this case was doing some experimental work on a method of keeping
track of ingredients. . . . These figures never did become accurate enough to be
of any use, so upon the recommendation of our accountant, the entire system
was discarded as being impractical. The man, in this case, became more careless
in his work every day and produced less. When this man failed to show up for
work, as he had many times before, without any reason and did not bother to
call in, I saw no reason to let this condition continue with an employee who was
getting worse all the time instead of better."
Bingham's speech continued to the effect that no one has the right to tell
employees either that they can or cannot join a union and that they need
have no fear of being discharged whichever way they decide as long as they
perform their work satisfactorily.
President Cash told the employees in his speech that they could have a union
if they wanted one and that the Company's policy was one of neutrality on the
subject. Cash testified that it is the Respondent's policy not to interfere with
its employees in the matter of organizational activities and that he had fre-
quently instructed the supervisory staff to that effect.
About a week before the March 29 meeting, Supervisor Neil Jeffrey told em-
ployee Richard Pillifant that "anyone that wanted a union, let him go over to
[another bakery concern in Miami] . . . , and join up with the Union." And
about an hour before this meeting Jeffrey told Pillif ant that he hoped the meeting
"would straighten out the dissension between management and the employees."
B. The discharges
The Galvins were hired on or about December 1, 1951, by Superintendent
Bingham of the sweet goods department. Donald thereupon assisted Leroy
Thompson in mixing operations, and he remained in this job until his discharge.
Bingham informed Gilda at the time that he intended placing her in an experi-
mental position which was not quite set up at the time. This experimental job
involved keeping a weekly check of all ingredients going into the Respondent's
production. The tallying was based on the incoming orders and the records
were to be checked against the Respondent's inventory of raw materials to
determine whether more materials were withdrawn from the storeroom than
the amount of ingredients which the production should have required.
During the first few weeks of her employment, and before the so-called experi-
mental position was established, Gilda spent approximately two-thirds of her
time in miscellaneous clerical work in Bingham's office, and the remaining time
she worked on the production floor. Also during this period, Gilda was taught
by Inez Wightman, who was regularly employed in Bingham 's office, how to
get out the so-called 12 o'clock order. This involved adding up customer orders
and then determining the amount of baking preparations necessary to fill the
orders.
Once the experimental job was set up in about mid-December, Gilda worked
full time in the office and she performed the aforementioned duties entailed in
its performance. Her regular hours were 7:30 a. m. until 4.30 p. m., except
FUCHS BAKING CO. 1357
that 1 day a week she worked from about 12 noon until 9 p . m. The reason for
this variance was that Bingham had instructed her to learn how to get out
the evening order (part of Wightman's duties and involving the same type of
computations as the 12 o'clock order ). Bingham informed Gilda at the time that
he wanted someone who could get out the orders during Wightman's vacations.
About 3 weeks before her discharge, Bingham advised Gilda that he had
decided to discontinue the experimental job because it did not suit his needs.
Gilda thereupon dropped that particular work and devoted about 6 hours daily
to miscellaneous clerical work, including getting out the 12 o'clock order, and
she spent about 2 hours daily in production work, performing the same duties as
the girls who were regularly engaged in production operations. On Bingham's
instructions, Gilda resumed the ingredients check a week later, and she then
spent most of her time in the office, with about an hour almost each day devoted
to production work. And this was Gilda's schedule at the time of her discharge.
As stated above, Bingham returned from his trip on or about March 9 and he
discharged Gilda and Donald on March 10 and 11, respectively. On March 9
(Sunday) Gilda showed Bingham the weekly charts and told him there was a
discrepancy between her record of the ingredients which production should
have required and the amount of materials actually taken from the stockroom.
(Gilda had no responsibility for the stockroom, so far as the record shows, or
to account for supplies removed from the stockroom except to determine whether,
at the end of each week, the amount of materials withdrawn tallied with the
amount of ingredients necessary to fill incoming orders of baked goods.)
The next morning (Monday) Bingham interrogated Ross and Davis con-
cerning the Union, as indicated above, and later that morning he asked Gilda
where Donald was, Donald being absent that day. Gilda replied that Donald
was ill at home. That same morning Bingham went to the Galvin home to
find Donald in bed, and Donald also stated he was not feeling well. Later that
day Bingham advised Gilda that the ingredients check was not working out
and that he wouldn't need her services any longer. Gilda then referred to the
orders which she had been getting out and also inquired how Bingham would get
out the orders during Wightman's vacation periods; Bingham replied he would
manage. The next day Bingham refused Gilda's request for a job on the pro-
duction floor , Bingham stating that production work was too strenuous and that
he had made it a practice not to place office personnel in such work. Gilda then
pointed out to Bingham that she had been doing production work on occasion
and that she thought she could handle such work ; but to no avail.
Bingham told Donald, in discharging the latter on Tuesday, that he had been
out several times and his work could be taken over by other employees and also
that he was a sloppy worker. Bingham testified that shortly before his trip in
March , he had discussed with Foreman Galloway the termination of about
seven employees because of declining business = and that they had mentioned
certain employees, including Donald Galvin, in this connection. Bingham fur-
ther testified that Donald had been an unsatisfactory employee and had not
2 The record shows that the sweet goods personnel was gradually decreased from a peak
of 109 during the week of March 15, 1952, to 77 during the week of May 31, 1952, with
further deductions to 64 on October 20, 1952. The record also shows, however, that there
is a high rate of turnover among these employees and that, of the contemplated 7 dis-
charges, the Respondent terminated only 1 (Donald) definitely and Bingham "thinks"
another may also have been terminated ; further terminations were unnecessary at that
time because other employees who were not destined for discharge voluntarily left the
Respondent 's employ. The Respondent adduced testimony that it has not replaced either
of the Galvins.
1358 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
developed in his work, that he had been absent frequently' without first obtain-
ing permission or otherwise notifying the Respondent, that Bingham did not
believe Donald appeared ill at Galvin's home on Monday morning, and that the
Monday absence brought matters to a head.
Donald testified, on the other hand, that he sent word to the Respondent
through Gilda when he was absent except when he and Gilda were married and
later when they both had influenza, and the record shows, as bearing on his
work performance, that the Respondent had given him a merit wage increase on
January 26, 1952. Bingham admitted that he really didn't know whether
Donald was ill on Monday, but that "he looked sleepy." This was Bingham's
first visit to the Galvin residence and Bingham was asked why he made this
visit. Bingham replied in effect that he had "suspected" that Donald just didn't
want to work that day and he explained as the reason for this suspicion that
Donald had told a supervisor on the occasion of an earlier absence that he, Don-
ald, had merely decided to take the day off. However, in further testifying
concerning the basis for the "suspicion" which prompted his visit to Donald,
Bingham stated he was not certain that it was before discharging Donald that
he had learned of this earlier incident.
Bingham testified at one point in the hearing that he had not decided to dis-
charge Gilda until returning from his trip and then because his inspection of
the ingredients records on his return to the bakery showed them to be unsatis-
factory. Bingham later added another alleged factor when he claimed that
Gilda's record of allegedly frequent absences bore on her discharge.4 Bingham
testified also that Donald's discharge affected the timing of Gilda's termination
and that he could not know what the situation might have been had Donald
not been discharged.
The record establishes that Gilda has never been reprimanded or otherwise
disciplined respecting her work in the office, including the ingredients check,
or her work in production. It appears also that the discontinuance of the in-
gredients check was unrelated to Gilda's performance of those functions and
that the Respondent had decided to abandon that particular project before Bing-
ham's return to the bakery on March 9. It does not appear that Bingham had
ever mentioned the matter of Gilda's absences to her during the period of her
employment or at the time he discharged her and refused her production work.
In the latter connection, the Respondent adduced no substantial evidence rec-
onciling its alleged practice of not employing office personnel on production work
with the fact that Gilda had actually been performing such work while she was
in the Respondent's employ.
The record does not establish an open-and-shut case one way or another. I am
of the opinion, however, upon consideration of all the circumstances, that a causal
relationship, rather than mere coincidence, existed between the discharges and
the organizational activities which so interested Superintendent Bingham on his
return to the bakery. And I find, therefore, that the Respondent would not have
discharged the Galvins had it not been for Donald's prominent role in such activi-
ties. Accordingly, I conclude that the Respondent discriminatorily discharged
Donald and Gilda Galvin in violation of Section 8 (a) (1) and (3) of the Act
and I also find that the Respondent also has violated 8 (a) (1) of the Act by
interrogating employees concerning their own and the other employees' union
'Donald 's absences were : December 14, 16, 17, and 31 , 1951 ; in 1952-January 29,
February 20-21, March 11; Donald and Gilds, were married the weekend of December
14-16.
' Gilda's absences in 1951 were December 14, 16, 24 ; her 1952 absences were February
19-21.
LINCOLN STEEL WORKS 1359
membership and activities. N. L. R. B. v. International Furniture Company,
199 F. 2d 648 (C. A. 5).
III. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent set forth in section II, 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.
IV. THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor prac-
tices, I shall recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and that it take
certain affirmative acfion designed, to effectuate the policies of the Act.
I shall recommend that the Respondent offer immediate and full reinstatement
to Donald and Gilda Galvin to their former or substantially equivalent positions 6
without prejudice to their seniority or other rights and privileges and make them
whole for any loss of pay resulting from the discrimination against them, by pay-
ing them a sum of money equal to the amount they would have earned from the
dates of their discharge to the date of offer of reinstatement less their net earn-
ings 6 to be computed on a quarterly basis in the manner established by the Board
in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289, 291-294. Earnings in one quarter
shall have no effect upon the back-pay liability for any other such period. It will
also be recommended that the Respondent make available to the Board, upon
request, payroll and other records to facilitate checking the back pay due. F. W.
Woolworth Company, supra.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record in
the case, I make the following :
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices
within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) and (3) of the Act.
2. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting
commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
[Recommendations omitted from publication in this volume.]
6 The Chase National Bank of the City of New York, San Juan, Puerto Rico, Branch,
65 NLRB 827.
9 Crossett Lumber Company, 8 NLRB 444, 497-98.
LINCOLN STEEL WORKS and INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF BOILER-
MAKERS, IRON SHIPBUILDERS AND HELPERS OF AMERICA, LOCAL No.
83, AFL. Case No. 17-CA--539. February 13, 1953
Decision and Order
On November 14, 1952, Trial Examiner J. J. Fitzpatrick issued his
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceedings, finding that
the Respondent had engaged in certain unfair labor practices alleged
102 NLRB No. 144.