J. S. Popper, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 20, 1939

17 N.L.R.B. 961 (N.L.R.B. 1939)

In the Matter of J. S . POPPER, INC. and UNITED ELECTRICAL, RADIO
AND MACHINE WORKERS OF AMERICA, LOCAL No. 421
Case No. C-1146.-Decided November 00, 1939
Telephone and Electrical Supplies Manufacturing Industry-Interference,
Restraint , and Coercion: making anti-union statements ; interference with or-
ganizational activities of employees; surveillance of union meetings ; threats to
discharge employees for union activities ; discouraging union activities by above
and by attempts of supervisory employees to become members of union and to
ascertain membership thereof-Discrimination : one discharge for union activ-
ity-Reinstatentent Ordered: of employee discriminatorily discharged-Back
Pay: awarded.
Mr. Will Maslow, for the Board.
Mr. Charles A. Cohen, of New York City, for the respondent.
Mr. Samuel Rothbard, of Newark, N. J., for the C. I. O.
Mr. Frederick W. Killian, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon a charge and amended charge duly filed.by United Electrical,
Radio and Machine Workers of America, Local No. 421, herein called
the C. I. 0., the National Labor Relations Board, herein called the
Board, by the Regional Director for the Second Region (New York
City) issued and duly served its complaint dated October 21, 1938,
against J. S. Popper, Inc., Union City, New Jersey, herein called the
respondent, alleging that the respondent had engaged in and was
engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the
meaning of Section 8 (1), (2), and (3) and Section 2 (6) arid' (7) of
the National Labor Relations Act, 49' Stat. 449, herein called the Act.
The complaint alleged, in substance, that the respondent discharged
Theodore Velkovich 1 from its plant, because he joined and assisted
the C. I. O. and because he engaged in other concerted activities for
the purpose of collective bargaining and other mutual aid and protec-
'At the opening of the hearing paragraph 4 of the complaint was amended correcting
the spelling of this name to "Veljkovich." Velikovich is referred to in the record as
"Teddy."
17 N. L. R. B., No. 87.
961
962 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
tion and refused and has continued to refuse to reinstate him ; that the
respondent formed and sponsored a labor organization or plan known
as the J. S. Popper, Inc. Employees' Association for the purposes of
dealing with its employees; that the respondent has dominated and
contributed to the support of and interfered with the administration
of said labor organization or plan; that the respondent urged, per-
suaded, and warned its members and employees at the Union City
plant to refrain from becoming or remaining members of the C. I. O.
and of its predecessor, International Association of Machinists, Local
204, A. F. of L., herein called the A. F. of L.; that the respondent had
threatened said employees with discharge and other reprisals if they
should become or remain members of the C. I. 0.; and that the re-
spondent has kept under surveillance the meetings and meeting places
of said union members.
Thereafter, the respondent filed its answer, dated October 25, 1938,
in which it admitted certain allegations of the complaint with regard
to its business,, but denied the allegations of unfair labor practices,
and claimed that Veljkovich was not discharged, but had quit The
answer also raised certain technical questions directed to the Board's
jurisdiction.
In response to a demand by the respondent's attorney dated October
-26, 1938, a bill of particulars was furnished by counsel for the Board.
Pursuant to a notice of continuance dated December 15, 1938,
which was duly served, a hearing was held at New York City, New
York, on January 3, 1939, before Mapes Davidson, the Trial Examiner
duly designated by the Board? The Board, the C. I. 0., and the
respondent were represented by counsel and all participated in the
hearing except the C. I. O.
At the opening of the hearing, counsel for the Board moved for
leave to withdraw the complaint, without prejudice, with respect
to the alleged violation of Section 8 (2) of the Act. The motion
was granted.
At the opening of, the hearing, counsel for the respondent moved
to dismiss the proceedings, claiming that the Board was without
jurisdiction in that the amended charge was not executed before a
notary public or in compliance with -Article II of the Rules and
Regulations of, the National Labor Relations Act-Series 1, as
amended, but was sworn to before a master in chancery of the State
of New Jersey and on the. further ground that the charge lacked
particularity. The motions were denied. At the close of the Board's
case, counsel for the respondent moved .to dismiss the complaint on
the ground that the Board had failed to make a case and on other
2 This order took the place of a previous order designating James C . Paradise, dated
November 19, 1938.
•J. S. POPPER, INCORPORATED 963
grounds; the motion was denied. At the termination of the hearing,
counsel for the Board moved that the complaint be conformed to
the proof, the motion being directed toward insubstantial variations
which did not change the theory of the Board's complaint. The
motion was granted.
Full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine wit-
nesses, and to introduce evidence bearing on the issues was afforded
to all parties. During the course of the hearing the Trial Examiner
made various rulings on other motions and on objections to the admis-
sion of evidence. The Board has reviewed all of the rulings,of the
Trial Examiner and finds that no prejudicial errors were committed.
The rulings are hereby affirmed.
Thereafter, - the Trial Examiner filed his Intermediate Report,
dated January 20, 1939, in which he found that Veljkovich was dis-
charged because of his activities in behalf of the C. I. 0. and recom-
mended that the respondent offer. to Veljkovich reinstatement with
back pay, and that the respondent cease and desist from its unfair
labor practices and take certain other affirmative action.
Thereafter the respondent filed exceptions to the Intermediate
Report, dated February 3, 1939. In its exceptions, the respondent
requested permission to present certain "newly discovered" evidence.
An order denying this request was entered by the Board on February
2.7, 1939. The respondent filed a written exception to this order,
dated March 4, 1939, which we hereby overrule.
In the exceptions to the Intermediate Report, the respondent re-
quested "the privilege of presenting this matter before your IIoi or-
able Board, either through the filing of a. brief or the presentation of
oral argument." The Board granted the respondent until March 6,
1939, for filing a brief. The brief was filed on March 6, 1939, and
has been duly considered by the Board. The Board has considered
the exceptions to the Intermediate Report, and in so far as they are
inconsistent with the findings, conclusions, and order set forth below,
finds them to be without merit.
Upon the entire record in. the case, the Board makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT 3
J. S. Popper, Inc., is a New Jersey corporation having its principal
office and place of business in Union City, New Jersey. It is engaged
in the manufacture, sale, and distribution of mechanical parts for
telephones and related products. The principal raw materials used in
the manufacture of its products are steel and brass; about 75 per cent
The findings in this section are based upon a stipulation of faets_
964 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
of such raw materials are procured outside the State of New Jersey.
Approximately 80 per cent of the finished products manufactured by
the respondent are sold by it and shipped to points outside the State
of New Jersey. The annual cost of the raw materials purchased by
the respondent is over $20,000 and the annual sales price of its products
is over $50,000.
The respondent employed approximately 30 employees at the time
of the hearing.
II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America, Local
No. 421, is a labor organization affiliated with the Congress of Indus-
trial Organizations and admits to its membership employees of the
respondent.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The discharge
The complaint alleges that on March 22, 1938, the respondent dis-
charged Theodore Veljkovich because of his membership in and activi-
ties on behalf of the C. I. O. The respondent contends that Veljkovich
was not discharged but quit its employ.
Veljkovich had been in the respondent's employ for about 2 years
prior to his discharge, in the capacities of helper and machinists'
helper. During his employment at the respondent's plant, Veljkovich
secured two raises in pay and performed his work in a satisfactory
manner.
Veljkovich testified that about 10 o'clock on the morning of March
22, 1938, he finished a job on a screw machine and went to his foreman,
Milosh Vasich,4 to report that fact and to punch the time card for the
job he had completed. Veljkovich testified concerning this incident
on direct examination :
Q. What did you say to him (Vasich) ?
A. I said, "I am through with this job."
Q. What did he answer?
A. He said, "That is all for you." I didn't understand him. I
thought about that job. I was standing still by him. He said,
"That is all right. I am through with this." He said, "I am very
sorry. There is no more for you." He said, "That is all for you."
I said, "Am I fired," He said at that time, "The way you want to
take it."
Q. Who said that?
A. Mitch.
Referred to as "Mitch" throughout the record.
J. S. POPPER, INCORPORATED 965
Q. What did you do then?
A. While I was going out, Mr. Popovitch, his desk is there,
and he said, "What is the matter?" The engineer is there. I
don't know his name.
Q. After you left Mr. Vasich, the foreman, what did you do?
A. I take my tool box and went to go out, you know.
Q. Did you change your clothes, too?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And as you went out what happened?
A. Mr. Popovitch asked me, he said, "What is the matter?
You quit the job?" I said, "No, Mr. Popovitch. The foreman
told me there ' is no more job for me." He just give me this.
[Indicating a shrugging of the shoulders.]
Veljkovich then testified that nothing further passed between him-
self and Popovich, who was superintendent of the plant, and that he
left the plant. Asked if he was given his pay at that time, he re-
plied, "No. I .went. I was so excited I went out, you know." He
also said, "When I went I know from Mr. Popovitch, so I came
Friday and got my pay." On cross-examination, Veljkovich told
substantially the same story.
Vasich testified as follows as to the incident :
As close as I can recall, I recall that incident pretty good.
After he completed a job he came there and told him 5 the job
is completed. Then, to make sure, I asked him how his stom-
ach is. He said it was pretty good. It was all right. So I told
him I have a job pretty long, that would take several days to
complete, because we was very slow and the job, we changed
every half hour or so and when they finished we put them on
anything else and I said after the job it would take a longer
time to keep on in the place, but it is a pretty long job being
that it is putting it on the grinding wheel.
I will go and see Mr. Popovitch if has any other jobs before
I give you this job. At the time I left and went in front of
there to ask Mr. Popovitch about the thing.
Vasich then testified that he told Popovich, the superintendent
of the plant, that Veljkovich was out of work and that Popovich
assigned certain work to be given to Veljkovich.
Vasich further testified that on the way back, after talking to
some men in the shop, he noticed some confusion, looked across the
machines, and saw Veljkovich dressed up.
His testimony then continued :
I went over there and asked Teddy exactly in those
words, "What's the matter Teddy? What happened ?"
5 Obviously an error and meant to be "me."
966 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
He answered to me, he said, "Nothing happened. I think it
is best this way." I said, "What's best that way?"
"Oh," he said, "nothing. We are still good friends and that
is all. But I think it is best that way." I said, "If you think
it is best that way, you can suit yourself. I don't know what is
best."
He seemed to refuse to say what is best or anything. So I
went back to my desk and saw him walk, talk to several boys
and that is all I know.
Vasich denied that he discharged Veljkovich or that he had au-
thority to do so. The record shows that he had occasionally recom-
mended the hiring of certain employees. Superintendent Popovich
testified that he himself possessed the sole authority to discharge
employees.
Vasich further testified that he thought that Veljkovich wanted
to quit the job.
The record discloses that neither on March 22, 1938, nor on any
day thereafter, was any effort made either by Vasich or by Popovich
to inquire into the reason for Veljkovich quitting.
Popovich, asked if Vasich had applied to him on the morning of
March 22 for work to be done by Veljkovich, testified :
A. Yes, he came to me.
Q. What did he say to you and what did you say to him?
The WITNESS. He said that card frames, they have to be grind,
you know. You need strength to stay all day down in that
basement: You know, it is damp and dusty. So he said, "You
want to give him that, or, perhaps, something else?"
I said, "You better give him the filing work.6 Give him the
filing job upstairs." That is all I told him. That is what I
had for the present.
;P.opovich testified that sometime after his conversation with Vasich,
Veljkovich passed his office and that he addressed Veljkovich, asking
"What's the matter?" His testimony continues:
Q. Was he dressed at the time?
A. Yes, I thought he was going to the hospital or something
happened. I say, "That's all right." And he walked out with-
out giving me a chance to talk to him. He just walked out.
Q. And did not have any conversation with you at all?
A. No.
Q. Did he go to seek his pay?
6 Vasich in his testimony makes no mention of this filing work.
J. S. POPPER, INCORPORATED 967-
A. No, he just walked out. That is all. Then I found out.
after.
Cross-examination of Popovich shows the following :
Q. Did you ask him why he left Tuesday (March 22) ?
A. I don't know.
The testimony of the other witnesses at the hearing throws no,
significant light on this incident.
During the hearing, the respondent's counsel made much of the
fact that on the morning of March 22, Veljkovich did not immediately
go for his pay, but returned the following Friday, the regular pay-
day. Veljkovich testified that he did not know that it was the prac-
tice, of the respondent to pay off employees immediately upon dis-
charging them and stated that he could get his money any time from.
Popovich. While it appears that it was the common practice to pay
employees immediately upon discharge, it was not generally known
to the empl'oyees.. Popovich, asked if'such,practice was, to his knowl-
edge, generally known among the people in the shop, answered, "It-,
is knowledge to our concern, but not to the men in the shop." We
accordingly attach no weight to the fact that Veljkovich failed to,
demand his pay immediately.
The history of labor activities at the respondent's plant and of'
Veljkovich's attempts to secure reinstatement in the respondent's em-
ploy throw much light on what is so far an enigma.
There is no record before 1937 of any labor organization among
the employees at the respondent's plant. During, the early part of
that year, some of the respondent's employees, dissatisfied with the
conditions of employment in the plant, organized a local of the In-
ternational Association of Machinists, affiliated with the. A. F. of L.7
Because of their inability to come to any terms with the respondent
covering wages and working conditions in the plant, these employees.
called a strike which lasted about 2 weeks, ending in June 1937. A
number of employees, including Veljkovich, were active in this organ-
ization. Before a. settlement Of the dispute which led to the strike
could be effected, certain employees, under the leadership of Foreman
Vasich, abandoned the strike and on August 18, 1937, entered into a
written agreement with the respondent establishing an Employees'
Association 8 as well as certain wages, hours, and other conditions of
employment. This contract was to run for a year, and, upon its ex-
piration, a similar contract was entered into which was in force at
the time of the hearing. The meeting which' le`d to the formation of
the Employees' Association was held in Vasich's house and he-Was
elected an officer thereof. No constitution 'or bylaws were ever
7 This organization is referred to throughout the record as the A. F. of L.
8 J. S. Popper, Inc. Employees ' Association.
247384-40-vol. 17-62
968 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
adopted and no dues were paid except that a contribution of 50 cents
was made by each employee to defray the expenses of the lawyer hired
to draw the agreement. A grievance' committee, including Vasich,
was constituted but the record shows no occasion of its effective func-
tioning'on behalf of the employees.
Veljkovich was an active organizer during the A. F. of L. episode,
distributing cards and collecting dues. Popovich and Vasich actively
opposed these organizing activities. Although Vasich became a mem-
ber of the A. F. of L., went on strike with the other employees, and
picketed, his activities were evidently only half-hearted. He ad-
mitted that he had no real interest in the A. F. of L. Asked if he
consulted Superintendent Popovich before joining, his memory failed
to serve him.
After the formation of the Employees' Association in August 1937,
the record shows no further organizing activities in the plant until the
early part of 1938. During this time the employees continued to
operate under the agreement between the respondent and the Em-
ployees' Association. In the early part of 1938, eight of the respond-
ent's employees "went by themselves" to a C. I. 0. local asking for
information concerning this union, and were referred to one Barry,
a C. I. 0. organizer. From this time, C. I. 0. organization proceeded
at a rapid pace at the plant until, by the middle of March of that
year, almost all of the 30 employees in the respondent's plant had
become members of the C. I. 0. The rapid organization of the re-
spondent's plant was largely due to the efforts of Veljkovich, he
alone securing about 20 or 21 members. After Veljkovich left the
plant on March 22, C. I. 0. activities immediately fell off.
The record discloses that Popovich and Vasich made disparaging
statements concerning both the A. F. of L. and the C. I. 0. Veljko-
vich testified that Vasich spoke to him in disparaging terms of the
A. F. of L. as follows : "So he said he knows all about and he says
it is just wasting the time and giving the money away. It is better,
he said, if we make our own organization in the shop." He also
testified that Popovich said, ".... it is no use to go into an organi-
zation. We can fix the matter between ourselves. We won't bargain
with any organization. That you bargain with us." Both Vasich
and Popovich denied the statements ascribed to them by Veljkovich
concerning the A. F. of L., but a consideration of the conflicting
testimony convinces us, and we find, that they made the statements
in question.
Veljkovich testified that in speaking to Vasich concerning the C. 1. 0.
activities, Vasich told him that the employees were foolish to go into
that organization but that,fshortly thereafter, Vasich wanted to join
the organization himself. Veljkovich further testified that Vasich
commented on the C. I. 0. as follows : "He (C. I. 0.) is no good. He
J. S. POPPER, INCORPORATED 969
(Popovich) is going to fire everybody that makes trouble in the shop."
Although Vasich had been a member of the A. F. of L., he was not
Admitted into the C. I. 0., being told by Veljkovich that this organiza-
tion did not take in foremen.
Veljkovich testified that on the day before he was discharged, Popo-
vich approached him- and said, "Why don't you take me into the organ-
ization ?" (the C. I. O.) ; that he replied to Popovich, "They don't take
foremen"; and that Popovich then asked Veljkovich the names of the
boys who were in the C. I. O. and that he (Veljkovich) refused to dis-
close their names. Herrmann testified that Vasich, speaking to him
about the C. I. 0., said that he did not see. ". . . what the hell we
want another union to come in for." Popovich and Vasich denied
having made such statements, but we find that they made them.
During the hearing, counsel for the Board read into the record the
dates appearing on C. I. O. membership cards. It appears from these
dates and from other evidence that C. I. O. activity was at its height
just prior to the time of Veljkovich's termination of employment.
Although Vasich testified that he knew nothing of C. I. O. organizing
activities on the part of Veljkovich or others, the record does not sup-
port his claim in this regard. Vasich admitted that during the time
the C. I. O. was being organized in the plant, he noticed small groups
of employees standing around but alleged that he made no attempt to
find out what was going on. He complained that the employees in the
plant did not confide in him. In light of the interest shown by Vasich
in the A. F. of L. and the C. I. 0., and in light of the history of the
Employees' Association, it is impossible to credit him with the ignor-
ance which he pleaded concerning both A. F. of L. and C. 1. 0. organiz-
ing activities in the plant.
On two occasions after March 22, 1938, Veljkovich returned to the
respondent's plant asking for reinstatement. The first occasion took
place on the Friday after March 22 when Veljkovich returned for-his
pay. Questioned about this occasion, Popovich testified that he had
nothing against Veljkovich; that he told- Veljkovich that he would see
Mr. Popper, the owner of the plant, and talk to him about taking him
back; that he saw Popper; that they talked it over and decided that
they did not want Veljkovich's services any more. When asked why,
Popovich said, "Because somebody leaves you flat like that do you
want to rehire them?" He conceded, however, that his production had
not been interfered with because of Veljkovich's departure. Popovich
also testified that on the Friday when Veljkovich returned for his pay,
he did not ask Veljkovich why he left, and when asked why not, he
replied, "I didn't feel like."
On the other occasion of Veljkovich's request for reinstatement,
which happened 2 or 3 weeks after March 22, Veljkovich applied
directly to Popper but nothing came of his application.
970 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS RO)ARDI
_ There are many statements throughout the record by Popovich and-
Vasich concerning Veljkovich's satisfactory work, their solicitude for
his health, their willingness to have him take the necessary time, to be
treated by a doctor, and their solicitude for assigning him work which
would not prove to be a burden to him. Vasich admitted that Veljko-
vich wanted to, get ahead and that he was willing to help him Vasich
knew that Veljkovich, a sick man, was going to night school and that
he bought tools. Moreover, at certain times Veljkovich, who--was paid.
45 cents an hour, was allowed to perform work that helpers paid 30)
cents an hour could do. There was always work for him and he was
never laid off as others were. The previous friendship of Vasich and'.
Popovich,for Veljkovich is clear, in spite of the veil of reserve with
which Popovich and Vasich attempted to conceal it while on the stand.
The record presents a difficult question of fact as to whether'
Veljkovich quit or was discharged. There is the further question of
whether, if he was discharged, it was because of his union activities..
We have considered all the evidence fully, and several considerations-
impel us to the conclusion that he, was discharged, and discharged
for union activities. There was no reason whatsoever for Veljko-
vich to quit. He had expressed no dissatisfaction with his work.
As indicated below, he had no better job to go to-in fact,, no other
job at all. Furthermore, the respondent's version of the, incident
as a "quitting" is most implausible in view of Popovich's complete
disinterest in learning the reason for the "quitting." It is' clear that
Veljkovich's work was not the subject of criticism, and the respond-
ent does not assert otherwise. Accordingly, if Vasich and Popovich,
actually thought he had quit, it is inconceivable that they would,
have made no effort of any kind to ascertain why; the only explana-
tion offered is Popovich's unimpressive plea that he "didn't feel like"'
inquiring. We are also doubtful of the general reliability of the,
testimony of Vasich and Popovich, in view of their attempts at eva--
sion as to various matters, including the question of whether Vasich
is aware of any union activity in the .plant. Finally,. the Trial
Examiner's judgment on conflicting testimony is entitled to consider-
able weight; he was in a position to observe closely the demeanor of'
the witnesses on the stand. He deemed the respondent's story un-
worthy of belief, and found that Veljkovich did not quit, but was,
discharged. We accept Veljkovich's testimony over that of Vasich.
and Popovich, and find that Veljkovich was discharged. , In this
connection, we note that the respondent asserts a lack of authority
in Vasich to discharge employees. Yet he was in a supervisory
position, and did in fact discharge Veljkovich. The respondent
cannot disclaim responsibility by asserting- a lack of authority in
J. S. POPPER, INCORPORATED 971
him.9 In any event, we are satisfied, and find, that Popovich ratified
the discharge by his subsequent failure to reinstate Veljkovich.
Coming to the reason for the discharge, it is plain that union
activity by Veljkovich was the motivating factor. He was the
leading-figure in the C. I. 0. organizational efforts, having signed up
most of the employees personally. Both Vasich and Popovich had
discussed the C. I. 0. with him. His discharge resulted in a sharp
-cessation of union activity in the plant. Indeed, the respondent
brings forward no reason whatever for discharging him, resting
on the claim that he was not discharged at all.
We find that Theodore Veljkovich was discharged by the respond-
ent on March 22, 1938, because he had joined the C. I. 0. and was
an active and effective organizer on its behalf. We find that the
respondent discriminated in regard to Veljkovich's tenure of employ-
ment by discharging him on March 22, 1938, and refusing thereafter
to reemploy him, thereby discouraging membership in the C. I. 0.
We also find that by such discharge, and by the other anti-union
activities described above, the respondent interfered with, restrained,-
.and coerced its employees in the exercise of their rights guaranteed
in Section 7 of the Act.
At the time of his discharge Veljkovich was earning 45 cents an
hour for a 431/2-hour week.1° From the time of his discharge to the
time of the hearing on January 3, 1939, he had been employed inter-
mittently as a substitute in restaurants and lunch wagons. He did
not earn for this whole period more than about $110. Since his
discharge, Veljkovich had been supported for the most part by his
wife. He desires reinstatement with the respondent.
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.
V. THE : REMEDY
Having found that the respondent has interfered with, restrained,
and coerced its employees in the exercise of, the rights guaranteed in
Section 7 of the Act, we shall order it to cease and desist therefrom
° See Swift & Co. v. National Labor Relations Board, 106 F. (2d) 87 (C: C. A. 10), enf'g
as mod ., Matter of Swift & Company, a Corporation and Amalgamated Meat Cutters and
Butcher Workmen of North America , Local No. 641; and United Packinghouse Workers Local
Industrial Union No. 300 , 7 N.M. R . B. 269.
10Veljkovieh took -two'afternooris a week without pay'to visit a hospital . The working
week at the plant was 48 hours.
972 DECISIONS OF. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
and to take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the
policies of the Act and to restore as nearly as possible the conditions,
which existed prior to the commission of the unfair labor practices.
We have found that the respondent discharged Theodore Veljko-
vich on March 22, 1938, because of his membership in and activities on
behalf of the C. I. O. We shall therefore order the respondent too
offer Veljkovich immediate and full reinstatement to his former or-
substantially equivalent position, without prejudice to his seniority
and other rights and privileges, and to make him whole for any loss
of pay he has suffered by reason of this discharge, by payment to him
of a sum equal to the amount which he normally would have earned
as wages from the date of his discharge to the date of the offer of
reinstatement, less his net earnings 11 during such period.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the-
entire record in the proceeding, the Board makes the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America, Local=.
No. 421 is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5).
of the Act.
2. By discriminating in regard to the tenure of employment of
Theodore Veljkovich and thereby discouraging membership in United.
Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America, Local No. 421,.
the respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor prat--
tices within the meaning of Section 8 (3) of the Act.
3. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in
the exercise of their 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 (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.
ORDER
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions:
of law, and pursuant to Section 10 (c) of the National Labor Rela-
" 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 else-
where than for the respondent , which would not have been incurred but for his unlawful
discharge and the consequent necessity of his seeking employment elsewhere . See Matter
of Crossett Lumber Company and United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of Amer-
ica, Lumber and Sawmill Workers Union , Local 2590, 8 N. L. R . B. 440. Monies received
for work performed upon Federal , State, county , municipal , or other work-relief projects
are not considered as earnings , but as provided below in the Order, shall be deducted from
the sum due the employee , and the amount thereof shall be paid over to the appropriate
fiscal agency of the Federal, State, county , municipal , or other government or governments
which supplied the funds for said work-relief projects.
J. S. POPPER , INCORPORATED 973
tions Act, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the,
respondent, J. S. Popper, Inc., and its officers, agents, successors, and.
assigns shall:
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Discouraging membership in the United Electrical, Radio and
Machine Workers of America, Local No. 421, or any other labor or-
ganization of its employees, by discharging or refusing to reinstate,
any employees or in any other manner discriminating in regard to.
their hire or tenure of employment or any terms or conditions of their-
employment;
(b) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing
its employees in the exercise of their rights to 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 or protection as guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will,
effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Offer to Theodore Veljkovich immediate and full reinstatement:
to his former or substantially equivalent position without prejudice.
to his seniority and other rights and privileges;
(b) Make whole Theodore Veljkovich for any loss of pay he may
have suffered by reason of his discriminatory discharge by the re-
spondent by paying to him a sum of money equal to that which he.
would normally have earned as wages during the period from March.
22, 1938, the date he was discharged, to the date of the offer of re-
instatement by respondent, less his net earnings during said period;
deducting, however, from the amount otherwise due Theodore.
Veljkovich, monies received by him during said period for work per-
formed on Federal,.State, county, municipal, or other work-relief pro-
jects, and pay over the amounts so deducted to the appropriate fiscal'.
agency of the Federal, State, county, municipal, or other government-
or governments which supplied the' funds for said projects;
(c) Immediately post notices in conspicuous places in each depart-
ment of the respondent's plant, stating that the respondent will cease.
and desist as provided in paragraphs 1 (a) and (b) and will take the
affirmative action set forth in paragraphs 2 (a) and (b) of this Order;:
(d) Maintain such notices for a period of at least sixty (60) con-
secutive days from date of posting;
(e) Notify the Regional Director for the Second Region, in writing,
within ten (10) days from the date of this Order what steps the re-
spondent has taken to comply therewith.