Jordanoff Aviation Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 6, 1946

69 N.L.R.B. 1189 (N.L.R.B. 1946)

In the Matter Of JORDANOFF AVIATION CORPORATION and LOCAL No. 1,
UNITED OFFICE AND PROFESSIONAL WORKERS OF AMERICA, C. I. O.
Case No. 2-C-5799.Decided August 6, 19416
Mr. Daniel Baker, for the Board.
Mr. John A. Hoyt, of New York City, for the respondent.
M. Paul Luboze, of New York City, for the Union.
Messrs. Samuel Duke), and Herman Siegel, both of New York City,
for the Guild.
Mr. Victor Hirs/ileld, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
ORDER
On July 1, 1946, the Board issued its Proposed Findings of Fact,
Proposed Conclusions of Law, and Proposed Order in the above-
entitled proceeding. Thereafter, the respondent filed exceptions
thereto.
The Board has considered the Proposed Findings of Fact, Proposed
Conclusions of Law, and Proposed Order, the respondent's exceptions,
and the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts as its final Decision
and Order herein the said Proposed Findings of Fact, Proposed Con-.
clusions of Law, and Proposed Order, a copy of which is attached
hereto, with the following additions.
The respondent specifically excepts to the paragraph of the Pro-
posed Order which requires it to cease and desist from "in any other
manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees in the
exercise of the rights" guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. We find no
merit in this exception. As set forth in the Proposed Findings of
Fact, the respondent dominated and interfered with the formation
and administration of the Guild and contributed support to it. We
have previously ; stated that "there is no more effective method of im-
peding the exercise by employees of the rights guaranteed in Section 7
than the maintenance of a labor organization dominated and sup-
1 Matter of Electrical Testing Laboratories , Inc, 65 N. L. R. B. 1239.
69 N. L. R. B., No. 144.
1189
1190 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ported by their employer." In addition, the respondent discharged
three employees because of their union membership and activities.
We are satisfied and find that the respondent's unlawful course of
conduct discloses a purpose to defeat the self-organizational rights
of its employees generally and that effectuation of the policies of the
Act requires that the respondent be ordered to cease and desist from in
any other manner infringing upon the rights guaranteed in Section 7
of the Act.2
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, Jordanoff Aviation Corpor-
ation, New York City, and its officers, agents, successors, and assigns
shall :
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Dominating or interfering with the administration of, or con-
tributing support to, the Jordanoff Aviation Corporation Employees
Guild, and dominating or interfering with the formation or adminis-
tration of, or contributing support to, any other labor organization
of its employees;
(b) Recognizing the Jordanoff Aviation Corporation Employees
Guild, or any successor, as the representative of any of its employees
for the purpose of dealing with the respondent concerning grievances,
labor disptues, wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, or other con-
ditions of employment;
(c) Giving effect to any contract, agreement, extension, aniend-
nient, or renewal thereof, or to any other understanding entered into
with said organization, or any successor thereto, relating to grievances,
labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, or other
conditions of employment;
(d) Discouraging membership in Local No. 1, United Office and
Professional Workers of America, C. I. 0., or any other labor organi-
zation of its employees, by discriminatorily discharging or refusing
to reinstate any of its employees, or by discriminating in any other
manner in regard to their hire or tenure of employment or any term
or condition of their employment;
(e) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing
its employees in the exercise of the rights to self-organization, to form,
join, or assist Local No. 1, United Office and Professional Workers of
America, C. I. 0., or any other labor organization, to bargain collec-
tively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage
in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or
2 N. L. R. B. v. Express Publishing Co., 312 U. S. 426; May Department Stores Co. Y.
N. L. R. B., 326 U. S. 376.
JORDAN OFF AVIATION CORPORATION 1191
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) Withdraw all recognition from Jordanoff Aviation Corpora-
tion Employees Guild as the representative of any of its employees for
the purpose of dealing with the respondent concerning grievances,
labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, and other
conditions of employment, and completely disestablish Jordanoff
Aviation Corporation Employees Guild as such representative;
(b) Offer to Florence Gottheimer and Theodore Haupt immediate
and full reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent
positions, without prejudice to their seniority and other rights and
privileges ;
(c) Make whole Lydia Altschuler, Florence Gottheimer, and Theo-
dore Haupt for any loss of pay that they may have suffered by reason
of the respondent's discrimination against them, as set forth in the sec-
tion of the Proposed Findings of Fact entitled, "The remedy," less
their net earnings during such period.
(d) Post immediately in conspicuous places throughout its plant,
and maintain for a period of at least sixty (60) consecutive days from
the date of posting, copies of the notice attached to the Proposed Find-
ings of Fact and Proposed Order, marked Appendix A.3 Copies of
said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for the Second
Region shall, after being duly signed by the respondent, be posted by
it immediately upon receipt thereof and maintained for sixty (60) con-
secutive days thereafter in conspicuous places including all places
where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps
shall be taken by the respondent to insure that said notices are not
altered, defaced, or covered by any other material ;
(e) Notify the Regional Director for the Second Region in writing,
within ten (10) days from the date of this Order, what steps the
respondent has taken to comply herewith.
PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT , PROPOSED CONCLUSIONS OF LAW,
AND
PROPOSED ORDER
Mr. Daniel Baker , for the Board.
Mr. John A. Hoyt , of New York City, for the respondent.
.lie. Paul Jjubow , of New York City, for the Union.
Messrs. Samuel Duker and Herman Siegel, both of New York City , for the Guild.
Mr. Victor Hirsh field , of counsel to the Board.
Said notice , however, shall be, and it hereby is, amended by striking from the first para-
graph thereof the words "Proposed Findings of Fact, Proposed Conclusions of Law, and
Proposed Order," and substituting in lieu thereof the words "A Decision and Order."
1192 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon amended charges duly filed by Local No. 1, United Office and Professional
Workers of America, C. I. 0., herein called the Union, the National Labor Rela-
tions Board, herein called the Board, by the Regional Director for the Second
Region (New York City), issued its complaint, dated August 20, 1945, against
Jordanoff Aviation Corporation, New York City, 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) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein
called the Act. Copies of the complaint, accompanied by notice of hearing thereon,
were duly served upon the respondent, the Union, and Jordanoff Aviation Cor-
poration Employees Guild, herein called the Guild, alleged in the complaint to be
a company-dominated labor organization.
With respect to the unfair labor practices, the complaint alleged in substance
(1) that from January 1944 to the date of the complaint, the respondent dis-
paraged the Union and warned its employees to refrain from assisting or joining
the Union ; urged them to assist, become members of, and remain members of
the Guild; and threatened then with discharge if they joined or assisted the
Union; (2) that the respondent initiated, formed, and sponsored the Guild on
or about April 7, 1944, and has assisted and dominated it since; (3) that the
respondent discharged Lydia Altschuler, Theodore Haupt, and Florence Gott-
heimer on or about March 28, 1945, and has failed to reinstate them since because
they joined and assisted the Union ; and (4) that, by the foregoing, the respondent
interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights
guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
On August 25, 1945, the respondent filed an answer in which it denied com-
mission of the alleged unfair labor practices and moved for a bill of particulars.
A Trial Examiner designated by the Chief Trial Examiner granted the motion
in part and denied it in part. On September 10, 1945, the Guild filed an answer
in which it , in substance , denied that it was a company -dominated labor
organization.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held on October 1 through October 5, 1945,
before Joseph E. Gubbins, a Trial Examiner duly designated by the Chief Trial
Examiner. At the hearing the Board, the respondent, and the Guild were
represented by counsel, and the Union had a lay representative present. All
parties participated in the hearing and were afforded full opportunity to be
heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence bear-
ing upon the issues.
At the hearing, counsel for the respondent renewed the motion for a bill of
particulars as to that part which previously had been denied. The Trial
Examiner denied the motion. During the course of the hearing, the Trial
Examiner made rulings on other motions and on objections to the admission
of evidence. The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made
(luring the course of the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was com-
mitted. The Trial Examiner's rulings are hereby affirmed. At the conclusion
of the hearing, counsel for the respondent and for the Guild, respectively, moved
to dismiss. The Trial Examiner reserved ruling on these motions. They are
hereby denied.
On March 12, 1946, the Board, acting pursuant to Article II, Section 36 (a)
of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations , Series 3, as amended,
issued an order providing that the case be transferred and continued before the
Board ; that no Trial Examiner 's Intermediate Report be issued in the case ;
JORDANOFF AVIATION CORPORATION 1193
and that Proposed Findings of Fact, Proposed Conclusions of Law, and a Pro-
posed Order be issued. Pursuant to Article II, Section 37, of said Rules and
Regulations, any party may within 10 and 15 days, respectively, following
the date of these Proposed Findings of Fact, Proposed Conclusions of Law, and
Proposed Order, request permission to argue orally before the Board at Wash-
ington, D. C., and tile exceptions, with a supporting brief, to such proposed
Findings of Fact, Proposed Conclusions of Law, and Proposed Order.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
Jordanoff Aviation Corporation, a New York corporation having its principal
office and place of business in New York City, is engaged in the production, sale,
and distribution of technical manuals, instructional textbooks, and related
products. The respondent annually manufactures finished products in excess
of $2,000,000 in value, of which 95 percent is shipped from its place of business
in New York City to points outside the State of New York.
The respondent concedes that it is engaged in commerce within the meaning
of the National Labor Relations Act.
11. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
Local No. 1, United Office and Professional Workers of America, affiliated with
the Congress of Industrial Organizations,' and Jordanoff Aviation Corporation
Employees Guild, unaffiliated, are labor organizations admitting to membership
employees of the respondent.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The formation and administration of the Guild
1. Chronology of events
Late in 1943, the Federation of Architects, Engineers, Chemists, and Techni-
cians (C. I. 0.), hereinafter called the Federation, began a drive to organize
the respondent's employees. This drive gained impetus early in 1944. On
April 7, 1944, a C. I. O. leaflet was distributed to the respondent's employees
between 12: 30 and 1: 30 p. m., the lunch hour for the respondent's employees.
That afternoon, Thomas H. Corpe, Executive Vice-President and General Mana-
ger of the respondent, had the employees assemble at a meeting which was held
on the fifth floor of the respondent's premises 2 between 3: 00 and 5: 00 p. in.
At the meeting, among other things, Corpe said to the employees:'
Now the reason I am talking to you this afternoon is predicated on a
gesture that happened today, that is the distribution of literature at lunch
time from people who are interested in having any or all of you belong to
a union. I want to tell you as General Manager of this Company that we
have no objection in any way to any one of you, individually, or all of
you collectively joining a union. If you care to, that is your prerogative ;
that is a law of the United States that you have that prerogative. I, from
1 The Congress of Industrial Organizations is hereinafter referred to as the C. I. 0.
1 The respondent occupied several floors of an office building in New York City, including
the fifth and thirty -eighth floors.
8 His speech was transcribed at his request by Grace Porterfield , hereinafter referred to,
1194 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
my own personal standpoint , feel that you might be better represented, I say
might, if you were to represent yourselves! Maybe it might be better if
you had your own committee! and elected a representative to represent all
of you to discuss your problems, such as they may be, with the executives
of this Company . . .
I am like each of you ; I am an 'employee ; I am on the pay roll.
I reserve the right as an employee to do what I want to do with regard
to my allegiance to unions or company unions or any other type of organiza-
tion. [Italics added.]
"Immediately" after Corpe's speech, activity was begun to form an un-
affiliated union by a group, headed by Myron Jonas. in assistant art director,
which included as active participants Grace Porterfield, secretary to Joseph F.
Powers, the Assistant Director of Production, who had transcribed Corpe's
speech referred to above, and Henry N. Schroder, Jr., an assistant art director.
On or about April 8, 1944, Corpe had the respondent's assistant art directors
assemble in the office of Fred L. Meagher, the respondent's Director of Pro-
duction 4 At the meeting, Corpe, in, substance, advised the assembled group
that they 'l'ere not eligible to participate in union activities and that they
should "remain neutral." He said that "in previous labor cases where super-
visory employees were in favor of the Union, the Union was successful, and
vice versa," and that "the opinion of the group," which he was addressing,
"might be very important to the people who worked under them." At the
meeting, Jonas stated that he had been considering formation of an employees'
association for some time; that he had "never done so" because there had not
seemed to be an urgent need for it; but that, "now there did," and that similar
associations had been formed in other companies. There was no further dis-
cussion as to the eligibility of the assistant art directors to participate in
labor organizations at the meeting.
Two or 3 days later, at another meeting called by Corpe, he talked to approxi-
mately the same group of assistant art directors referred to above.' At this
time, Corpe told his audience that further investigation on his part had con-
vinced him that the assistant art directors were eligible for membership in an
employees' association and suggested that they were free to form such an organiza-
tion. Jonas then discussed plans to form such an association. At the close of
the meeting, Corpe said : "Go ahead and form your Association and send a
committee and we will be glad to meet with you." In addition, Corpe stated that
the respondent would be glad to cooperate with such an association in any way
that would not interfere with production, particularly by supplying stenographic
help or mimeograph facilities or any other facilities.'
* Those present at the meeting, in addition to Corpe, Director of Production Meagher and
Assistant Director of Production Powers , included Jonas, Schroder , referred to above, Kay
Koppenhoefer , Elizabeth Paige , Donald Benson , Harold Black , and David Davis, all assistant
art directors, and Edward Blakeman , the respondent 's assistant director of photography.
I In the interim Jonas had visited his brother-in-law, who was employed at Gibbs & Cox,
a firm having no connection with the respondent , and had procured from him a copy of the
constitution and bylaws of an employees ' association then in existence at Gibbs & Cox, in
which supervisors were active. Jonas had shown this constitution and bylaws to Corpe
before the second meeting of the assistant art directors took place.
' The foregoing, as to what occurred at the two meetings referred to above, is based
mainly on credible testimony of Harold Black, an assistant art director who was present
at both meetings . His testimony was not directly denied by Jonas, who testified simply
that he did not remember hearing Corpe make the statements set forth above, but that he
was not positive that they were not made. Schroder testified that he did not "remember"
Corpe making the statements referred to, but testified that he did remember "the outcome"
which was that "the assistant supervisors formed the employees ' association ." Meagher
JORDANOFF AVIATION CORPORATION 1195
Shortly thereafter, according to undenied testimony which we credit, Jonas
requested permission from Corpe to hold a meeting of the respondent's employees
on its property for the purpose of discussing the formation of an employees'
association? Permission for the meeting was granted by the respondent after
the request had been reduced to writing, and the meeting was held on the thirty-
eighth floor premises of the respondent immediately after working hours on
April 13, 1944,"
Preparation for the April 13 meeting included posting of notices on company
bulletin boards inviting employees to attend a meeting to discuss the formation
of an employees' association, and personal solicitation by the respondent' s assist-
ant art directors of employees, urging them to attend the meeting. The notices
remained posted from April 12 to April 13, 1944. Management made no effort
to remove them and did not object to them in any way.
At the April 13 meeting Jonas told the 79 employees present that the balloting,
referred to above, had convinced him that most of them wanted an independent
organization. Some employees expressed the view that an unaffiliated organ-
ization should not be formed until the employees had heard what the C. I. 0. had
to offer at a meeting which it had scheduled for the following evening. A vote
was taken as to whether organization should proceed at once or should be delayed
until after the C. I. 0. meeting. By a vote of 41 to 38, it was decided that no fur-
ther action on the matter of organization should be taken for the time being.' In
addition to Jonas, several other assistant art directors were present at the
meeting.
On the following evening, the C. I. 0. held its scheduled meeting which was
attended by employees of the respondent ; but there is no testimony as to any
decision, relevant to this case , arrived at there.
On the following afternoon, April 15, five of the respondent' s employees met at
the office of Jonas' brother-in-law, referred to above, and drafted plans for pro-
motion of an employees' association. Three of the five, Jonas , Schroder, and
Koppenhoefer, were assistant art directors, and the other two were rank and
file employees. As its first step, the committee of five drafted a leaflet for dis-
tribution to the employees, calling for a meeting at Steinway Hall, in New York
City, on April 18, 1944. The leaflet read in part as follows :
YOUR INTERESTS ARE AT STAKE
A vote was taken in which all Jordanoffers participated, and a majority
• (2 to 1) wanted to form a company association.
The first meeting will be held tomorrow night to elect a committee and to
form a Charter and By-Laws of the Jordanoff Association.
testified that he did not hear Corpe make these statements at a meeting and he did not
recall whether there was one meeting or two meetings. Corpe did not testify. At the time
of the hearing , he was an officer of the respondent , but temporarily in California. How-
ever, the respondent did not take his deposition.
'A "ballot" had been distributed to the employees shortly after Corps 's speech on April
7. The ballot , prepared by a group headed by Jonas , was produced on a company ditto
machine with the use of company paper. The "ballot," distributed on company time, pro-
vided the following choices : "I am interested in a Company association " ; "I am interested
in an outside union" ; and "I am interested in no union at all ." The ballots were counted
by Jonas after having been distributed by Jonas and Schroder , assistant art directors, and
Hartwick, the latter being an ordinary employee of the respondent.
I In its brief , the respondent contends that it was not made aware of the organizational
purpose of the meeting. However, as stated above, Jonas' testimony, which we have cred-
ited , is to the contrary . Accordingly , we find no merit in the respondent 's contention.
The respondent at the time employed about 370 workers.
1196 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The Jordanoff Association CAN and WILL be able to negotiate with the
management in all matters of controversy, problems and gripes more bene-
ficial to you as an employee then an Outside Union.
J. A. C. management will give us their wholehearted support and cooper-
ation. We want no outside influence in governing our own affairs ! [Italics
added.]
The leaflet was distributed to the employees at the entrance to the building
quartering the respondent on April 17, 1944. On the following evening, at a
meeting presided over by Jonas and attended by approximately 120 of the re-
spondent's employees, the group, "by an overwhelming majority" of those present,
decided to form an association and to call itself the Jordanoff Employees Asso-
ciation, hereinafter called the Association."
Another meeting of the Association was held on May 2, 1944. Thereafter,
Jonas withdrew from Association activity and Schroder was elected as its pres-
ident. Schroder held that office until August 1, 1944, when he resigned after
having been promoted by the respondent to a position as art director. There-
after, William Gibbons became president of the Association. Although he was
a rank and file employee, his colleague as vice-president was Elizabeth Paige,
an assistant art director. On August 10, 1944, at another meeting, the As-
sociation changed its name to Jordanoff Aviation Corporation Employees Guild
and adopted a constitution and bylaws which were essentially the same as those
which Jonas had obtained from his brother-in-law who worked at Gibbs & Cox-
A short time thereafter, Herman Siegel was elected president of the Guild.
Siegel was then acting as manager of the respondent's caption department, a
supervisory position which he continued to hold, at the time of the hearing M.-
fore the Trial Examiner. He was still president of the Guild at the time of
such hearing. During its life, the Guild collected Guild dues and solicited
Guild membership among the respondent's employees on company time and
property. Although, so far as appears, the Guild was not recognized by the
respondent as the exclusive bargaining representative of the employees. Siegel,
alone for the most part, negotiated with management on behalf of the Guild
with respect to certain terms and conditions of employment. However, no
written contract was ever signed.
2. Conclusions with respect to the Guild
It is clear that the renewed activity in 1944 on the part of the C. I. O. was
the signal for a counteroffensive against the Union by the respondent. On The
afternoon of April 7, after the C. I. O. had distributed a leaflet on the same
day, the respondent called the employees to a meeting and told them that
they might be better represented if they formed an association of their own.
It then, shortly afterwards, called meetings of its assistant art directors. At
the first meeting the respondent recognized that the assistant art directors
were ineligible to participate in such a labor organization and instructed them
to remain neutral. However, after Jonas brought Corpe the copy of the Gibbs
& Cox association constitution and bylaws, Corpe called a second meeting of
the assistant art directors, at Jonas' suggestion, at which Corpe stated that the
supervisors should "go ahead and form [their] association" and that the re-
spondent would be glad to cooperate with it. The respondent then permitted
Jonas to call a meeting of its employees on company property for the express
purpose of "discussing the formation of an association." Notices of this meet-
ing were posted on company bulletin boards and were not disturbed by the
io The Association and the Jordanoff Aviation Corporation Employees Guild are one and
the same organization, as hereinafter appears.
JORDANOFF AVIATION CORPORATION 1197
respondent. Thereafter, when the employees by vote rejected the immediate
formation of an association, a committee of five,.of whom the majority were
supervisors, drafted a leaflet calling the attention of the employees to the
fact that the respondent was ready to give "wholehearted support and co-
operation " to the new organization . The respondent took no step to disavow
this statement . Indeed , the respondent had given assurance of such support
at the second meeting of the assistant art directors. Thereafter, the Guild
continued active on company time and property in soliciting dues and member-
ships with the knowledge and acquiescence of the respondent, and the Guild
participated in negotiations with the respondent as to the manner in which
discharges were to be regulated, negotiations which were conducted on behalf
of the Guild by Herman Siegel, president of the Guild, without a committee
of employees present, although he was at that time acting as a supervisor with
power to recommend discharge of ordinary employees.
The respondent contends that the assistant art directors who participated in
forming the association were not supervisors within the meaning of the Act
and that accordingly, they were free to organize or belong to an association if
they so wished. The evidence is clearly to the contrary. A memorandum, signed
by the respondent 's officers , refers to the assistant art directors as "supervisory
employees." Their duties as described by Jonas and Black, themselves assistant
art directors, clearly place them in a supervisory status. They supervised groups
of 10 to 30 employees; they received higher wages than such other employees;
they made regular reports to the Art Director as to the quality and the quantity
of the supervised work ; they discussed individual merits of their subordinates
with top management ; they kept "time records" ; they did little if any produc-
tion work ; if the work was not satisfactorily (lone they sent it back for further
treatment ; they selected employees for overtime work ; they made recommenda-
tions as to discharge of employees; and the respondent granted raises to such
employees mainly on recommendations of the assistant art directors. Further-
more, the respondent admits that in isolated instances the assistant art diree-
ors screened applicants for employment. The respondent itself further recog-
nized the supervisory character of the assistant art directors when, at the
first meeting with them referred to above, Corpe pointed out that experience
had shown that where "supervisors were in favor of the union, the union was
successful, and vice versa," and directed the assistant art directors to remain
"neutral" in the union organizing drive then current.
Upon the basis of the foregoing, we find that the respondent dominated and
interfered with the formation and administration of the Jordanoff Aviation Cor-
poration Employees Guild, and contributed support to the Guild, and thereby
interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
B. The Discharges
The Board alleges, and the respondent denies, that employees Lydia Altschuler,
Theodore Haupt, and Florence Gottheimer were discharged because they joined
or assisted the Union.
In January 1945, the Union, Local No, 1, United Office and Professional
Workers of America, C. I. 0., began organizing the respondent's employees in a
campaign initiated pursuant to an agreement with the Federation, hereinabove
referred to, that the Union would continue the organizational work previously un-
dertaken by the Federation. Joining in the union drive as members and ac-
tively participating as solicitors therein were Altschuler, Gottheimer. Haupt,
and employee Gladys Crane. The first organizational work was kept secret.
1198 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
However, on March 20, 1945, Altschuler, Gottheimer, Haupt, and Crane, on
instructions from the Union, met Supervisor Siegel, president of the Guild,
and, after having identified themselves as representing the C. I. 0., they proposed
to Siegel that a committee consisting of C. I. O. representatives and Guild repre-
sentatives be formed for the single purpose of presenting an application to the
National War Labor Board in respect to an increase in wages for the respondent's
employees, the committee to act as a non-partisan group. Siegel refused to par-
ticipate in the proposed activity and the meeting ended acrimoniously when
the four C. I. O. employees accused Siegel of heading a company-dominated union.
On March 28, 1945, the respondent laid off 29 employees, allegedly for economic
reasons." Among the 29 employees, were the 4 employees who had met with
Siegel at the meeting of March 20 described above."
1. Lydia 2ltsaleuler
Lydia Altschuler began work for the respondent on December 8, 1944, at $50 a
week. She worked in the Editorial Department under Leo Black, who credibly
testified that her work was "very satisfactory." Early in March 1945, Black
recommended Altschuler for a $10 weekly increase. Thereafter she received a
$5 increase." Black credibly testified, and his testimony was not denied, that
on or about March 21, the day after the committee had met with Siegel, Powers,
then in charge of the work of Black and other supervisors, called Black to Powers'
office and told Black to place Altschuler "on work that is not important." Black
"protested", saying that Altschuler was a good worker and that he had found
her work "very satisfactory," and that since he had eliminated those employees
in his department who were unsatisfactory about a month previously, he did not
find it possible to go along with Powers' suggestion. So far as appears,
Atlschuler continued to do the same work.
On March 28, 1944, the respondent sent Black to Philadelphia on a 1-day mis-
sion. During his absence, Altschuler was discharged. Prior to this time, there
had been no discharges in Black's department while he had acted as supervisor
without prior consultation with him. Altschuler was the only employee actually
at work in Black's department at the time of her discharge, another employee,
Barnett, having been absent from work for about 10 days at that time.
When Black returned from Philadelphia and found that Altschuler had been
discharged, according to his testimony which we credit," he was "very surprised
because the work" that his department "was in such a rush" and her discharge
had "left all the work to him," especially as he had "depended a great deal upon
"Counsel for the Board does not deny that a reduction in force was necessary for eco-
nomic reasons but contends that Altschuler , Haupt, and Gottheimer were selected for sepa-
ration for anti-union reasons. As of March 28, 1945, the respondent employed approxi-
mately 385 employees. There is no evidence upon which to base a finding as to the actual
relative number of union and non-union employees at this time ; however, as hereinafter
indicated , it is clear that the respondent believed that it was discharging all active C. I. O.
adherents in its employ when it separated the 4 committee members who had met with
Siegel on March 20.
12 There is no allegation in the complaint as to Crane . Counsel for the Board stated on
the record that her name was omitted from the complaint because she had low seniority
in her department.
1g According to Altschuler, whose testimony was undenied, and whom we credit, Powers
told her after she received this raise, that he had heard "excellent reports of [her] work"
and that he "was going to do everything possible to get her a further raise later on."
14 At the time of the hearing Black was still employed by the respondent . The respondent
endeavored to attack Black ' s credibility , among other things, by showing that Black had
changed his name . There was no showing that Black changed his name for any illegal
purpose. We reject the respondent 's contention.
JORDANOFF AVIATION CORPORATION 1199
her in that job." As a result of Altschuler's discharge, Black had to work over-
time for the next few days. He threatened to resign unless Powers supplied
additional help. Shortly thereafter, two new persons were hired to assist Black
but Altschuler was not recalled, even though Barnett had died in the interim.
The respondent contends that Altschuler had less seniority than anyone else
in the department and that, inferentially, was the reason that she was chosen
for discharge. The respondent does not contend that her ability was not equal
to that of Barnett, the only other employee in the department. Barnett was
hired about 4 days before Altschuler. However, the respondent had not followed
a strict seniority system. On the contrary, the record establishes that ability
rather than seniority was the prime consideration in matters of lay-off. We are
of the opinion that the difference in seniority between Barnett and Altschuldr
was not taken into account by the respondent when it discharged Altschuler.
Barnett had been away from work for about 10 days immediately before the
lay-off, and Altschuler's discharge left no one to assist Black. Very shortly
afterward, when word reached the respondent that Barnett had died in the
interim, it made no effort to recall Altschuler; and, finally, instead, two new
employees, having no seniority, were hired shortly after the lay-off to do the
same work that Altschuler had been doing.
The respondent further contends that a C. I. O. leaflet drafted by a group
which included Altschuler, which was distributed to the respondent's employees
shortly after the lay-off, made no specific 1H reference to discrimination, and
thereby implies that this indicates that Altschuler did not consider herself to be
the victim of an unfair labor practice. A charge was filed shortly after the
discharge. Moreover, the language of the leaflet negatives the interpretation
placed therein by the respondent. In any event, the employee's state of mind
is not controlling under these circumstances. We find no merit in this con-
tention.
The respondent also contends that the fact that it knew of Alschuler's union,
membership at the time that it hired her, indicates that she was not laid off'
because of her union activity. The respondent argues that if it then had been
motivated by anti-union considerations, it would not have hired her in the first
instance. We are not impressed with this argument and reject the respondent's
contention. Altschuler was hired at a time when union activity was at a low
ebb, and when the respondent was badly in need of help for an emergency pro-.
gram in connection with radar manuals then urgently needed in the European.
Theatre of Operations. Such was not the situation at the time of her discharge.-
Her discharge occurred at a time when the Union had actively begun a campaign
to organize the respondent's workers, a campaign in which she took a leading-
part, and in connection with a general reduction in force necessitated by lack of
available work. Altschuler was a member of the C. I. O. committee which met
with Siegel on March 20. The following day, Powers, who shortly before had
told her that he had had excellent reports of her work, asked Black, her im
mediate supervisor, to put Altschuler on unimportant work. Her discharge on
March 28 left Black without assistance and in need of help. Subsequently, the
respondent hired two new employees but did not recall Altschuler. Under the
circumstances and particularly in view of Siegel's statement to Gottheimer and
employee Adele Checknoff disclosing an unlawful motive in the selection of em-
ployees for discharge, hereinafter set forth in Section III, B, 2, we are convinced
that her discharge on March 28 was not because of economic or other lawful
sa The leaflet contained the statement that the discharges were made "for the whim and
convenience of management."
1200 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
reasons but rather because of the respondent's plan to destroy the Union. We
find that, by discharging Lydia Altschuler, the respondent discriminated in
regard to her hire and tenure of employment, thereby discouraging membership
in the Union and interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the
exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
2. Florence Gottheiner
Florence Gottheimer was employed by the respondent on October 31, 1944. She
was hired by Herman Siegel and worked in his department as a caption artist.
Her starting salary was $35 a week, and this was increased to $37.50 on March 5,
1946. Her work was considered satisfactory by Siegel, who so testified and whose
testimony is credited in this respect. She was selected for overtime work, an
opportunity afforded at this time only to those employees maintaining satisfactory
work records as to quantity and quality of production. On March 5, 1945,
Siegel submitted to top management a list of four employees in his department
to be discharged in the March 28 reduction in force referred to above, which
was then being planned. Gottheimer's name was not on this list. On'March 20,
Gottheimer, accompanied by three other members of the C. I. O. com-
mittee, met with Siegel in an unsuccessful effort to persuade him to enter an
agreement to form the single-purpose commitment, referred to above. On March
27, 1945, the day before the reduction in force was scheduled to occur, Siegel
added Gottheiler's name to the list of those to be laid off. On the day of
her severance, she was told by Siegel that he had orders to lay her off. Not satis-
fied with this answer, Gottheimer went to Harrington, the respondent's treasurer,
who told her that her lay-off had originated with Siegel. Gottheimer testified
without contradiction, and we credit her testimony, that Siegel told her immedi-
ately after her discharge: "There is a certain C.I.O. communistic element in
Jordanoff that had to be gotten rid of and we got rid of it." 16
The respondent contends that Gottheimer was discharged because she was dis-
satisfied with the amount of the pay raise which she had received on March 6.
This contention is based on the testimony of Siegel who testified to that effect.
Siegel, however, also testified that all workers in his department who received
increases were dissatisfied because the increases were small. In addition, Siegel
testified that Gloria Jenner, who received no raise at all because her work was
so unsatisfactory, and who was engaged in work similar to that of Gottheimer, was
not laid off, although she was dissatisfied with her pay status.
The respondent also contends that the raise given to Gottheimer on March 5
was part of a plant-wide increase and should not, therefore, be considered in any
evaluation of Gottheimer's ability. The testimony indicates, contrary to the
respondent's contention, that the raises were not plant-wide, but were based on
individual merit and that only 60 percent of the respondent's employees received
such pay raises in March 1945.
The respondent's further contention that Gottheimer was laid off because she
lacked seniority has no merit. The respondent's own records do not support such
a contention. These records show that there were seven employees with less
seniority than Gottheimer in the captioning department at the time of her sever-
ance. Only two of the seven, Lashin and Mallardi, were laid off; Mallard! was
rehired on May 2, 5 days after his lay-off. The other five employees, who had less
seniority than Gottheimer, were not laid off.
16 Similarly, Adele Checknoff testified without contradiction, and we credit her testimony,
that shortly after the reduction in force, Siegel told Checknoff in substance (a) that he did
not want the C. I. 0. to come in ; (b) that he was in a position where he could get rid of
the opposition; and (c) that this was his way of doing it.
JORDANOFF AVIATION CORPORATION 1201
Gottheimer admitted that she had collected dues for the Guild, and discussed
Guild business with Siegel on working time, and that she had charged such time,
at Siegel's direction, to customer "contracts" on which she was then engaged.
The respondent now contends that such conduct was "immoral" and intimates
that it discharged her for that reason. We find that Gottheimer made such
charges of her time with full knowledge of her superior, Siegel, and at his sug-
gestion. Moreover , as found above , the Guild was and is a company-dominated
labor organization. We therefore find no merit in the respondent's contention.
Under all the circumstances, we find that the respondent discharged Gott-
heimer because of her union activities. We further find that by discharging her
the respondent discriminated in regard to her hire and tenure of employment,
thereby discouraging membership in the Union and interfering with, restraining,
and coercing employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of
the Act.
3. Theodore G. Haupt
Theodore G. Haupt was employed by the respondent in December 1943, in its
air-brush department as a retoucher and air-brush renewer at a salary of $70
a week. He worked under the supervision of Schroder, the first president of the
Guild, who was in charge of this department. At the meeting of the Guild in
Steinway Hall in April 1944, Haupt spoke in opposition to the Guild and urged
the employees to join the C. I. 0.
In September 1944, the respondent's then production manager, Jordan, con-
ferred with Haupt and Schroder with the view of adjusting certain differences
existing between Haupt and Schroder. At the conference, Schroder charged that
Haupt had lost interest in his work ; this Haupt denied ; Schroder then urged
Haupt to resign, which Haupt refused to do because, as he testified, he "realized"
that "Schroder wanted to get rid of him." When Jordan requested information
as to what was wrong in Schroder's department, Haupt told Jordan that "the
department was run by favoritism." At the conclusion of the conference, Jordan
announced that Haupt was to have a trial period of 2 weeks, during which time,
he, Jordan, would personally inspect all of Haupt's work, and that if his work
proved satisfactory, Haupt was to receive a raise ; if not, he was to resign. Jordan
i hereafter inspected Haupt's work for a period of about a month, after which
Haupt received a $5 weekly raise. Haupt continued to work under Schroder until
March 28, 1945. According to Haupt's undenied testimony, which we credit, no
adverse criticism of his work was made to Haupt either by Schroder or by any
other management representative, except as stated above. As stated above,
Haupt was one of the C. I. 0. committeemen who conferred with Siegel on March
20. Like them, Haupt was discharged on March 28.
On April 18, 1945, after the reduction in force, Paul Lubow, a union representa-
tive, met with Siegel for the purpose of persuading Siegel to present the proposal
as to the single-purpose committee to the Guild for action. Siegel promised that
he would present the matter to the Guild. According to Lubow's testimony, at
the end of the meeting, Siegel stated: "You know, I don't understand one thing.
You say that your group will meet with our group. Do you mean to say there are
still C. I. 0. people left in the shop?" Seigel did not deny such testimony, except
to say that he did not remember making such a statement. We credit Lubow's
testimony.
The respondent contends that Haupt was discharged because he was inefficient.
This contention is based on Schroder's assertion at the hearing that Haupt was
"dead wood," and on Meagher's testimony that Haupt had not been a satisfactory
701592-47-vol. 69-77
1202 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
employee because (1) he was a Grade C. airbrusher;" (2) he was never at his
drawing board; and (3) that lie, Meagher, had received complaints about Haupt's
work from the art director.
According to a list prepared by the respondent, there were two employees in
the air-brush department discharged on March 28, Haupt and Ronald Can-
navaro ; and another employee, John MaeNamee, resigned on the same day,
Cannavaro is listed thereon as having been discharged for "Lack of work."
While Schroder testified that he believed that Haupt was drawing the top
of the B salary classification, Meagher insisted in his testimony that Haupt
was a Class C employee although other testimony and documentary evidence
indicated that the respondent regarded him as a Class B employee. In addi-
tion, Meagher testified that he had been production manager for the respondent
only up to September 1944, thus indicating a limitation of his knowledge as to
Haupt's work. Meagher stated that some time before that date "one of the
full-fledged supervisors," either "Mr. Wheelock or Mr. Benson, I cannot remem-
ber who was in charge at that time," had brought Haupt's workmanship and
ability to his attention." He further testified that at about the same time in
September 1944, both Wheelock and Benson resigned, and Schroder took over
their jobs. It will be noted that this is approximately the same time at which
Haupt was tested by Jordan who found Haupt's work such that Jordan recom-
mended an increase for Haupt which lie later received. We find Meagher's
testimony to be unreliable and we do not credit it.
There was no criticism of Haupt's work after September 1944, and no affirma-
tive testimony by any of the respondent's witnesses that Haupt was laid off
because he was no longer needed.
Although the respondent differentiated in its reason for the lay-off on March
28 as between Cannavaro and Haupt, by ascribing Cannavaro's lay-off to in-
efficiency, and Haupt's lay-off to lack of work, the respondent did not produce
any affirmative testimony at the hearing to show that this differentiation was
made in good faith but relied rather on an attempt to prove that Haupt was
inefficient. We have found Meagher's testimony on the subject to be unworthy
of belief, being at variance with the fact that at the same time at which
Meagher stated that he received reports of Haupt's inefficiency, another of the
respondent's top supervisory personnel, Jordan, who personally checked Haupt's
work, found him deserving of an increase in pay because of his good work.
Under all the circumstances, we find that the respondent discharged Haupt not
because it regarded him as an inefficient worker but because of his union activ-
ities, particularly his participation as a member of the C. I. O. committee in
its meeting with Siegel on March 20, 1945. We further find that by discharg-
ing Haupt, the respondent discriminated in regard to his hire and tenure of
employment, thereby discouraging membership in the Union and interfering
with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise of the rights guar-
anteed in Section 7 of the Act.
C. Interference, restraint, and coercion
It is clear from the foregoing that the respondent embarked on a campaign
of interference with its employees' rights to engage in union activity, from the
17 The respondent graded its employees A, B, and C, for the purpose of salary classifica-
tion. Although there is testimony which indicates that the comparative ability of employees
was used as a factor in arriving at these classifications, the record does not establish that
C employees were discharged before B employees, or B employees before A employees.
11 Neither Wheelock nor Benson testified at the hearing.
JORDANOFF AVIATION CORPORATION 1203
very first day on which it learned of the Federation's attempt to organize its em-
ployees. Corpe's speech followed the distribution of the C. I. O. leaflet on April
7, 1944, by only a few hours. That speech, read in the light of the respondent's
subsequent conduct, was an unlawful attempt to influence its employees to form
an unaffiliated union. Corpe told the employees that they "night be better repre-
sented" if they were to represent themselves. The speech made clear to the re-
spondent's employees that the respondent preferred that they select for their
bargaining agent a creature of its own devising which shortly thereafter re-
ceived from it aid and assistance of a substantial nature. The speech standing
alone might, as the respondent contends, fall within the guarantee of free speech,
but as has been well established, when a speech of such character is preceded or
followed by unfair labor practices, such practices tend to impart into the speech a
coercive quality in the eyes of the employees. The respondent did not stop
with the speech. It encouraged its supervisors to start the Association. The
activities of the supervisors in the formation and administration of the Associa-
tion, or Guild, as it was later called, are clear and undenied. The Association,
once started, was favored by the respondent. It permitted the Association to
hold a meeting on company property, to solicit Association membership among
the employees on working time; it did not disavow the statement in the Asso-
ciation leaflet that "J. A. C. management will give its their wholehearted sup-
port and cooperation" ; it permitted the collection of Guild dues on company
time and property; and finally, it discharged employees who supported the C. I. O.
The pattern of events clearly indicates that the respondent's conduct was cal-
culated to prevent its employees from organizing a union of their own choice.
The speech must therefore be considered an integral part of the respondent's un-
lawful efforts to forestall the organization of the Union.
It is likewise clear that Siegel's conduct in later stages of the history of the
Guild constituted unlawful interference with the employees. His statement to
Checknoff that he did not want the C. I. 0 to come in; that he was in a position
where he could get rid of the opposition ; and that the discharge of the C. I. O.
committee members was his way of doing it, are all clearly coercive. Siegel's
statement to Gottheimer that there was a certain "C. I. O. communistic element
in Jordanoff that had to be gotten rid of and we got rid of it," is also clearly
coercive.
We find that the respondent's entire course of conduct, as outlined above, was
calculated to, and did, interfere with, restrain, and. coerce its employees in the
exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES ON COMMERCE
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 States and tend to lead to labor disputes bur-
dening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that the respondent engaged in and is engaging in certain unfair
labor practices, we shall order that it cease and desist therefrom and take cer-
tain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
We have found that the respondent has dominated and interfered with the
administration of the Guild and has contributed support to it. We have also
found that the respondent has dominated and interfered with the formation
1204 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
and administration of the Association and has contributed support thereto.
The effect and consequences of the respondent 's domination of, interference
with, and support of the Association and the Guild , as well as the continued
recognition of the Guild as a bargaining representative of its employees, con-
stitute a continuing obstacle to the free exercise by its employees of the rights
guaranteed to them in the Act. Accordingly , we shall order that the respondent
disestablish and withdraw all recognition from the Guild as the representative
of any of the respondent 's employees for the purpose of dealing with it concern-
ing grievances , labor disputes , wages, rates of pay, hours of employment , and all
other conditions of employment , and cease and desist from performing or giving
effect to any contract, agreement, or understanding with the Guild relating to
grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, or other
conditions of employment . Nothing herein , however, shall be deemed to re-
quire the respondent to vary or abandon those wage, hour , and other substantial
features of its relations with its employees which the respondent may have estab-
lished in performance of any contract, agreement, or understanding as amended,
extended , renewed, supplemented , or superseded.
It has been found that the respondent discharged and thereafter failed to re-
instate Lydia Altschuler, Theodore Haupt, and Florence Gottheimer for the
reason that they assisted a labor organization and engaged in concerted activities
for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid and protection. It
will therefore be ordered that the respondent immediately offer Haupt and Gott-
heimer full reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent positions
without prejudice to their seniority or other rights and privileges," and make
them whole for any loss of pay that they may have suffered by reason of their
discriminatory discharge by payment to each of them of sums of money equal to
the amount which each normally would have earned as wages from the date of
their discharge to the date of the respondent 's offer of reinstatement , except as
noted below ," less their net earnings 21 during such period.
Having found that the respondent has engaged in conduct violative of Section
(1), (2), and ( 3) of the Act, we will order that the respondent cease and desist
not only from engaging in such conduct but also from in any other manner inter-
fering with, restraining , or coercing its employees in the exercise of the rights
guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act , for the following reasons. As has been found
above, the respondent 's whole course of conduct discloses a definite purpose to
defeat self-organization and its objects among its employees . Within several
hours of the time when a union leaflet was distributed, the respondent called its
employees together and advised them to form a company union. It interfered
with the formation of the Association by advising its supervisors to begin the
formation of the Association, promising them its help. In addition, it aided,
assisted , and abetted the organization of the Association , giving its premises and
its bulletin boards to the organizers of the Association for this purpose. The
respondent 's supervisors formed the Association. In addition , the respondent
discharged three employees, because they had participated in outside union activ-
19 Altschuler testified at the hearing on October 4, 1945 , that she did not desire reinstate-
ment. We , therefore, do not direct that she be reinstated.
20 As to Altschuler , it will be ordered that she be made whole from the date of the discrim-
ination to October 4, 1945.
21 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 seeking employment elsewhere. See Matter of
Crossett Lumber Company , 8 N. L. R. B . 440. Monies received for work performed upon
Federal , state, county , municipal or other work relief projects shall be considered as
earnings . See Republic Steel Corporation v. N. L. R . B., 311 U. S. 7.
JORDANOFF AVIATION CORPORATION 1205
ities, to discourage membership in the Union and to defeat further efforts of its
employees to organize freely for their mutual aid and protection. Such conduct
strikes at the very "heart of the Act." ' As the Circuit Court of Appeals for the
Seventh Circuit has said, "No more effective form of intimidation nor one more
violative of the National Labor Relations Act can be conceived than discharge of
an employee because he joined a Union." ' Because of the respondent's unlawful
conduct and its underlying purpose, we are of the opinion that the unfair labor
practices found herein are related to other unfair labor practices proscribed by
the Act and that, based upon the past conduct of the respondent as described
above, danger exists that these or other proscribed practices may be committed
in the future by the respondent. The preventive purpose of the Act may be frus-
trated unless our cease and desist order is co-extensive with the threat. We find
that such an order is necessary in order to effectuate the policies of the Act.
On the basis of the above findings of fact and upon the entire record in the
case, we make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Local No. 1, United Office and Professional Workers of America, C. I. 0.,
and Jordanoff Aviation Corporation Employees Guild are labor organizations
within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
2. By dominating and interfering with the formation and administration of
the Jordanoff Aviation Corporation Employees Guild, and contributing support
thereto, the respondent engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within
the meaning of Section 8 (2) of the Act.
3. By discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of Lydia
Altschuler, Florence Gottheimer, and Theodore Haupt, thereby discouraging
membership in Local No. 1, United Office and Professional Workers of America,
C. I. 0., the respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices
within the meaning of Section 8 (3) of the Act.
4. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise
of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the respondent has engaged in
and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (1)
of the Act.
5. The aforesaid 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 above findings of fact and conclusions of law, and pur-
suant to Section 10 (c) of the -National Labor Relations Act, the National Labor
Relations Board hereby orders that the respondent . Jordanoff Aviation Corpora-
tion, New York City, and its officers , agents, successors , and assigns shall:
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Dominating or interfering with the administration of, or contributing
support to , the Jordanoff Aviation Corporation Employees Guild, and dominating
or interfering with the formation or administration of, or contributing support
to, any other labor organization of its employees ;
(b) Recognizing the Jordanotf Aviation Corporation Employees Guild, or any
successor , as the representative of any of its employees for the purpose of dealing
22 N. L. R. B. V. Entwistle Manufacturing Company, 120 F. (2d) 532, 536 (C. C. A. 4).
23 See N. L. R. B. v. Automotive Maintenance Machinery Company, 315 U. S. 282, reversing
(except as to work relief modification) 116 F. (2d) 350 (C. C. A. 7), setting aside 13
N. L. R. B. 338, rehearing denied March 18, 1941.
1206 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
with the respondent concerning grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay,
hours of employment, or other conditions of employment;
(c) Giving effect to any contract, agreement, extension amendment, or re-
newal thereof, or to any other understanding entered into with said organization,
or any successor thereto, relating to grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of
pay, hours of employment, or other conditions of employment ;
(d) Discouraging membership in Local No. 1, United Office and Professional
Workers of America, C. I. 0., or any other labor organization of its employees, by
discriminatorily discharging or refusing to reinstate any of its employees, or by
discriminating in any other manner in regard to their hire or tenure of employ-
ment or any term or condition of their employment ;
(e) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its em-
ployees in the exercise of the rights of self-organization, to form, join, or assist
Local No. 1, United Office and Professional Workers of America, C. I. 0., or any
other labor organization, to bargain collectively through representatives of their
own choosing, and to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective
bargaining or other mutual aid and protection, as guaranteed in Section 7 of the
Act.
Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will effectuate
the policies of the Act :
(a) Withdraw all recognition from Jordanoff Aviation Corporation Employees
Guild as the representative of any of its employees for the purpose of dealing
with the respondent concerning grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay,
hours of employment, and other conditions of employment, and completely dis-
establish Jordanoff Aviation Corporation Employees Guild as such representa-
tive ;
(b) Offer Florence Gottheimer and Theodore Haupt immediate and full rein-
statement to their former or substantially equivalent positions without prejudice
to their seniority and other rights and privileges;
(c) Make whole Lydia Altschuler, Florence Gottheimer, and Theodore Haupt
for an,y loss of pay that they may have suffered by reason of the respondent's
discrimination against them as set forth in the section entitled "The remedy,"
above, less their net earnings during such period;
(d) Post immediately, in conspicuous places throughout its plant, and maintain
for a period of at least sixty (60) consecutive days from the date of posting,
copies of the notice attached hereto, marked Appendix A. Copies of said notice,
to be furnished by the Regional Director for the Second Region, shall, after being
duly signed by the respondent, be posted by it immediately upon receipt thereof
and maintained for sixty (60) consecutive days thereafter in, conspicuous places
including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reason-
able steps shall be taken by the respondent to insure that said notices are vet
altered, defaced, or covered by any other material ;
(e) Notify the Regional Director for the Second Region, in writing, within
ten (10) days from the date of this Order, what steps the respondent has taken
to comply herewith.
APPENDIX A
NOTICE TO AIa: EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to Proposed Findings of Fact, Proposed Conclusions of Law and
Proposed 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 HEREBY DISESTABLISH the Jordanoff Aviation Corporation Employees
Guild as the representative of any of our employees for the purpose of deal-
JORDANOFF AVIATION CORPORATION 1207
ing with us concerning grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours
of employment, or other conditions of employment, and we will not recog-
nize Jordanoff Aviation Corporation Employees Guild or any successor there-
to for any of the above purposes.
WE WILL NOT dominate or interfere with the formation or administration
of any labor organization or contribute financial or other support to it.
WE WILL NOT give effect to any agreement, contract, amendment, extension,
or renewal thereof, or to any other understanding entered into with said
organization or any successor thereto relating to grievances, labor disputes,
wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, or other conditions of employ-
ment.
WE WILL NOT in any manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our em-
ployees in the exercise of the right to self-organization, to form labor or-
ganizations, to join or assist Local No. 1, United Office and Professional
Workers of America, C. I. 0., or any other labor organization, to bargain col-
lectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in
concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual
aid or protection. All our employees are free to become or remain mem-
bers of this Union or any other labor organization.
WE WILL OFFER to the employees named below immediate and full re-
instatement 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 dis-
crimination.
Florence Gottheimer Theodore Haupt
WE WILL MAKE WHOLE Lydia Altschuler for any loss of pay that she
suffered between March 29, 1945, and October 4, 1945, as a result of the
discrimination.
JORDANOFF AvIATION CORPORATLON,
By --------------- ----------------
(Representative ) ( Title)
Dated ------------------ ------