Mayer Handbag Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 27, 1939

18 N.L.R.B. 760 (N.L.R.B. 1939)

In the Matter of MAYER HANDBAG COMPANY and INTERNATIONAL
LADIES' HANDBAG, POCKETBOOK & NOVELTY WORKERS UNION, LOCAL
No. 22, A. F. OF L.
Case No. C 970.Decided December 27, 1939
Ladies' . Pocketbook Manufacturing Industry-Interference , Restraint, and
Coercion : anti-union statements ; surveillance of union meetings ; fostering com-
pany union ; attempting to weaken morale of employees by unusual supervision-
Discrimination : refusal to reinstate after strike ; allegation as to, dismissed as
to employee laid off in slack season and not reinstated-Reinstatement Ordered:
employees discriminated against-Back Pay: awarded to employees discriminated
against.
Mr. Charles Y. Latimer, for the Board.
Mr. Paul R. Connery, of South Norwalk, Conn., for the respondent.
Mr. Philip Schwartzman, of New York, N. Y., for the Union.
Miss Marcia Hertzmark, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon charges and amended charges duly filed by International
Ladies' Handbag, Pocketbook & Novelty Workers Union, Local No.
22, on behalf of International Ladies' Handbag, Pocketbook & Novelty
Workers Union, 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 July 5,
1938, against Mayer Handbag Company,' herein called the respond-
ent, alleging that the respondent had engaged in and was engaging
in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of
Section 8 (1) 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 notices of hearing, were duly served
upon the respondent and the International Ladies' Handbag, Pocket-
book & Novelty Workers Union, Local No. 22.
i The respondent's correct name is The Mayer Handbag Company, Inc., as shown bJ
the record.
18 N. L. R. B., No. 90.
760
MAYER HANDBAG COMPANY 761
The complaint alleged in substance that. the respondent discharged
William Puskas on September 28, 1937, and failed to reinstate him
because he joined and assisted the Union and engaged in concerted
activities for the purposes of collective bargaining and other mutual
aid and protection; that the respondent refused to reinstate Alphonse
Di Martino,2 James Puskas, Julius Kish, and Joseph Massaro after
a strike caused by the respondent's unfair labor practices, because they
joined and assisted the Union and engaged in other activities for the
purposes of collective bargaining and other mutual aid and protec-
tion; and that the respondent urged, persuaded, and warned its
employees to refrain from becoming or remaining members of the
Union, and kept under surveillance the meetings and meeting places
of said union members employed at its plant.
Thereafter,' the respondent filed its answer dated July 12, 1938,
denying that it had engaged in the alleged unfair labor practices.
It also filed a motion to make the complaint more specific.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held in South Norwalk, Con-
necticut, on August 4, 5, 8, 9, and 10, 1938, before Peter F. Ward, the
Trial Examiner duly designated by the Board. The Board and the
respondent were represented by counsel and participated in the hear-
ing. The Union was represented by a duly authorized representative.
Full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses,
and to introduce evidence bearing on the issues was afforded all par-
ties. At the commencement of the hearing the Trial Examiner over-
ruled the respondent's motion to make the complaint more specific.
During the course of the hearing the Trial Examiner, upon motion of
counsel for the Board, dismissed the complaint as to Joseph Massaro.
The respondent's motion to dismiss the complaint as to William
Puskas was taken under advisement by the Trial Examiner. At the
close of the hearing the Trial Examiner granted the motion of counsel
for the Board to conform the complaint to the proof. A motion by
the respondent to dismiss the complaint was denied. During the
course of the hearing the Trial Examiner made several other rulings
on motions and on objections to the admission of evidence. The Board
has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner and finds that no
prejudicial errors were committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed.
On October 13, 1938, the Trial Examiner issued his Intermediate
Report, copies of which were duly served on all the parties, finding
that the respondent had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor
practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8 (1) and
(3) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. He dismissed the com-
plaint in so far as it alleged that the respondent had discriminatorily
2 Sometimes designated in the proceedings as Alphonse De Martino.
762 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
discharged William Puskas, but recommended the reinstatement of
three of the individuals named in the complaint.
Exceptions to the Intermediate Report and a request for oral argu-
ment and permission to file briefs were thereafter filed by the respond-
ent. The Board has considered the exceptions to the Intermediate
Report filed by the respondent and, except in so far as they are con-
sistent with the findings, conclusions, and order set forth below, finds
them to be.without merit. On October 19, 1939,, copies of a notice of
hearing for the purpose of oral argument before the Board in Wash-
ington, D. C., were sent to the respondent and the Union. The Union
waived oral argument and the respondent did not appear.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
Mayer Handbag Company is a Connecticut corporation with its
office and plant in South Norwalk, Connecticut. It is engaged in
the manufacture and. sale of ladies' handbags. The raw materials
it uses are imitation leather, rayon, cotton goods, metal frames and
ornaments, thread, and cement. The respondent purchases outside
the State of Connecticut approximately 10 per cent of its imitation
leather, practically all of its rayon, and 70 per cent of its frames.
Approximately 50 per cent of the raw materials it purchases are
shipped into Connecticut from other States. About 99 per cent of
the products sold by the respondent are shipped to points outside
the State of Connecticut. In 1937 the respondent manufactured
2,610 gross of pocketbooks, having a wholesale value of approxi-
mately $90.00 per gross. During the normal season the respondent
employs about 90 persons.
II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
.International Ladies' Handbag,. Pocketbook & Novelty Workers
Union, is a labor organization affiliated with the American Federa-
tion of Labor, admitting to membership production workers of the
respondent. 0
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Interference, restraint, and coercion
The Union. commenced the organization of the respondent's em-
ployees during the summer of 1937. The first meeting called by the
Union in South Norwalk was scheduled to be held on September 23,
1937, at 5 o'clock in the afternoon. At that hour, . and for some
MAYER HANDBAG COMPANY 763
minutes prior to and after the appointed time for the meeting,
Harry-S. Mayer, president and general manager of the respondent,
stationed himself across the street from the hall in which the meet-
ing was to be held. Fifteen to twenty employees attended the meet-
ing, but others passed the hall without entering, after they observed
that Mayer was watching those who went in. A number of those
who did attend the meeting stated to the union organizer, Philip
Schwartzman, that they were uneasy because they had seen Mayer
across the street. On September 28 another meeting was called, to
begin at 8 p. in. On this occasion Mayer and one Kalstein, a fore-
man and secretary of the respondent, were seated in a car parked
across the street and a few feet distant from the entrance to the
hall. Again some workers walked back and forth in front of the
entrance but did not go in. Approximately the same number at-
tended this meeting as were present at the first meeting.
Mayer's explanation of his presence outside the meeting hall on
September 23 was that he had an appointment with a dentist who
did not have regular office hours on that day and whose reception
room was not open and that he stood on the street waiting for the
dentist. The dentist's appointment book showed that Mayer had
appointments on September 20, 22, and 23, and the dentist testified
that he also treated Mayer on September 27. The fact that there
was an erasure in the appointment book at the place where the Sep-
tember 20 appointment was noted, that there was another name
listed for the same hour as Mayer's appointment on Wednesday,
September 22, and that the dentist was not ordinarily in South
Norwalk on Thursday, but, nevertheless, made an appointment with
Mayer for that day, is significant in deciding whether Mayer was
spying on the union meeting on September 23, as alleged by the
Union. We find that he was.
As to Mayer's presence near the meeting hall on September 28,
he testified that there was a political rally in town that evening,
that the streets were blocked off and that the place where he parked
his car was around the corner from Railroad Square,. where the
rally was to be held. Why it was necessary for Mayer and Kaistein
to sit in the car for some 40 minutes at the time when the employees
were entering the union meeting hall is unexplained. It is a strange
coincidence, to say the least, that on the occasion of both union
meetings, Mayer found it necessary or expedient to be in the vicin-
ity. We find that he spied on the union meetings of September 23
and 28, and thereby interfered with, restrained, and coerced his
employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of
the Act.
764 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
On October 1 Beatrice La Vois and Mary Weller, employees of
the respondent, conversed with Mayer. About an hour'later, La Vois
went through the plant and called a meeting of the employees. The
power was turned off by Nat Eisenberg, a foreman, and the em-
ployees assembled in the plant. La Vois told the assemblage that
there was talk going on about an outside union, that she believed
such a union would do no good, and inquired, "Why not get a com-
pany union?" An election was held to select members of a shop
committee and, although Di Martino had spoken against the shop
union, he was elected a member of this committee, which included
a forelady named Ruth, who was in charge of the packing depart-
ment. James Puskas, who was nominated for chairman of the com-
mittee when a vote by show of hands was taken, was later defeated
for this position when a secret ballot was held at La Vois' suggestion.
The votes were counted by La Vois after the meeting had been
dispersed and no other employee was present at the tally. There-
after a paper was passed throughout the plant to be signed by those
favoring a shop union. The organization soon ceased to function
and no further meetings were held.
Although there is no direct testimony that Mayer suggested the
formation of the company union to La Vois and Weller, in the
light of the events immediately following Mayer's conference with
them, we infer that such a plan was discussed with Mayer by La
Vois and Weller prior to the time the meeting was called on Octo-
ber 1. It is clear, moreover, that the respondent approved the for-
mation of the company union and lent its support to the project,
since the foreman turned off the power in the plant and permitted
the meeting to be held during working hours. The formation of the
company union was an attempt by the respondent to stifle in its
infancy the growing union sentiment evidenced by the attendance of
employees at the union meetings. We find that the respondent, by
fostering the organization of a company union, interfered with,
restrained, and coerced its employees in violation of Section 8 (1)
of the Act.
After the union meeting on September 28, Mayer inaugurated a
new policy of personally supervising the work of the framing de-
partment by standing at the benches of the workers for hours at a
time, staring at the workers but saying nothing. Since there is no
contention that any of the framers were doing their work badly or
had failed to give proper attention thereto, the only plausible, ex-
planation of this new method of close inspection is that Mayer
intended to make the men nervous. According to their testimony,
he succeeded in doing so. An employer is, of course, privileged to
inspect and supervise the work of his employees. But it is unusual,
MAYER HANDBAG COMPANY 765
to say the least, to find the president of a corporation spending
hours of his time standing silently at the work benches of his em-
ployees. The fact that a majority of the framers, Alphonse Di
Martino, Julius Kish, James Puskas, and Joseph Massaro, were
among the most active union members in the plant, throws a reveal-
ing light upon Mayer's motives. We find that by these acts Mayer
intimidated his employees in violation of Section 8 (1) of the Act.3
Other examples of the respondent's anti-union attitude and efforts
to discourage union membership and activity may be found in state-
ments by Mayer and by two of the foremen, Irving Rosen and Teddy
Maiden. Shortly after the first union meeting, Mayer called James
Puskas aside and said to him, "Jimmie, what do you want to fool
around the Union for? In six months' time you will be making
$25.00 a week. Try to get the boys to change their minds. You are
stabbing me in the back." Mayer also told Puskas he would make
him a foreman.
Di Martino stated, and we find, that he had a conversation with
Rosen in which they discussed the Union and in which Rosen "guar-
anteed us" that if the Union got into the factory the respondent
would move to New York. Maiden, foreman in the framing depart-
ment, told Julius Kish, "the union is no good" and made it clear to
Kish that he was against the Union.
On one occasion, after the walk-out which we shall discuss here-
inafter, when Massaro, an active member of the Union, met Mayer
on the street, the latter told him, "If you had not walked out with
the others, you would now have your job and a two dollar raise."
Another time, after questioning William Puskas as to whether he
had found a job, Mayer informed him, "If you guys were not a
bunch of rats, you still would be working for me. What good is the
Union?" On still another occasion, when William Puskas applied
for reinstatement, Mayer took out of his pocket some union applica-
tion cards and told Puskas he had found them, near the place where
Puskas worked. Mayer then informed Puskas he could not reinstate
him.
The foregoing statements of Mayer, Rosen, and Maiden clearly
demonstrate the respondent's attitude toward union organization and
its efforts to impede such activities on the part of its employees. We
find that the respondent, by the anti-union statements of its presi-
dent and supervisory employees, by its surveillance of the meetings
and meeting places of its union employees, by its fostering a com-
pany union, and by the action of its president in attempting to
weaken the morale of union members through a policy of unusual
"See Matter of Atlas Powder Company and District No. 50, United Mine Workers of
America, Local No. 12083, C. I. 0., 15 N. L. R. B. 912.
766 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
supervision, has interfered with, restrained, and coerced its em-
ployees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the
Act.
B. The alleged discrimination against William Puskas
William Puskas was employed by the respondent for 2 or 3 months
prior to his lay-off on September 28, 1937. He was not a cutter;
but had spent most of his time at the cutting table. At the time of
his lay-off he was told that there was no more work for him. Within
a few' days prior thereto, 15 or 20 employees had been laid off
throughout the plant because of lack of work. Puskas himself
admitted that work was getting slack and that it was necessary
that somebody be laid off.
Puskas' lay-off occurred prior to the second meeting of the Union
and, although Mayer admitted having seen employees enter the hall
on the day of the first meeting, it would be unreasonable to suppose
that Mayer singled out Puskas for lay-off because of" his union
affiliation, since he was not. especially active. in the Union. It is
undisputed that others were laid off at about the same time and
there is no evidence that they were also union members.
Puskas testified that'he understood, at the. time of his layoff, that
it was merely for the balance of the day. He returned to the plant
the following morning but was told there was no work. He applied
for reinstatement on two occasions thereafter but was not rehired.
Puskas had no seniority in the plant, having worked only a short time
and having been the last man hired to do cutting.. No new employee
took his place at the cutting table. Mayer's action in confronting
Puskas with the union cards found at his table on one occasion when
Puskas requested reinstatement, as noted above, casts some doubt upon
his reasons for refusing such reinstatement. However, we feel that
Mayer was merely indulging in further criticism of the Union and
that the evidence is insufficient to show that Puskas would have been
rehired at that time had he not been a member of the Union.
In view of the circumstances related above, we do not think. the
evidence is sufficient to establish that Puskas was discharged or re-
fused reinstatement because of his union activities. We shall, there-
fore, dismiss the complaint in so far as it alleges that the respondent
discriminated in regard to the tenure of employment of William
Puskas by laying him off on September 28, 1937, and thereafter failing
to reinstate him.
C. The strike of the framers; discrimination in reinstatement
On October 6, 1937, the six framers in the respondent's plant, hav-
ing decided while working at their tables that they would ask Mayer
MAYER ITANDBAG COMPANY 767
for an increase in wages and better working' conditions, selected
Alphonse Di Martino as their spokesman for this purpose. At noon
of the same day Di Martino and three other framers went to see
Mayer. Di Martino informed him that he represented the framers,
and asked for higher wages and improved working conditions.. Mayer
replied, "No, just speak for yourself." He advised Di Martino to
wait awhile as business was slow and he would see what he could do
later. Di Martino reported the result of the conference to the other
framers and they immediately went on strike.
The following day Schwartzman called Mayer on the telephone and
attempted to arrange a conference to discuss the walk-out. However,
he was not successful in securing an appointment. Three or four
days later Di Martino met Rosen on the street and the latter advised
him to get a few of the boys together and approach Mayer as he was
quite sure they would be given their jobs back. A few days thereafter
James Puskas, Julius Kish, and Di Martino went to see Mayer and
asked to be reinstated. Mayer told them to come back the next day
and, when they did, he handed them application cards for employ-
ment. The men refused to sign the cards then and, after seeking and
obtaining Schwartzman's advice, never did sign them.
On October 20 Schwartzman called Mayer again and asked for an
appointment but, according to Schwartzman's testimony, Mayer
"dodged" until Schwartzman threatened to put up a picket line,
whereupon Mayer .agreed to see him that day. Mayer, Kalstein, and
Schwartzman met at the Roger-Ludlow Hotel and, upon Schwartz-
man's renewal of the threat to picket, Mayer agreed that the framers
should come to the plant at 4 o'clock that afternoon. The six framers
went to the plant at the appointed hour but were told to return on
the following morning. When they arrived the next day they were
again told to return on the following day, Friday. On Friday morn-
ing James Puskas, Julius Kish, and Di Martino went to the plant and
were told to come back on Monday. Thereupon the men informed
Schwartzman of what had occurred and he called Kalstein who ad-
vised him to have patience, that everything would be straightened
out by Monday. When the framers reported at-the plant on Monday
they were told by Mayer and Kalstein that work was slow and they
could not be taken back but would be notified when there was work
for them.
Joseph Massaro was reinstated 5 or 6 weeks prior to the hearing
and, as noted above, the complaint was dismissed as to him at the
hearing. Two other framers have obtained positions elsewhere and
are not involved in this proceeding. Alphonse Di Martino, James
Puskas, and Julius Kish seek reinstatement.
The Union charges that the respondent has discriminatorily refused
to reinstate the above-named persons, thereby discouraging member-
768 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ship in the Union, and that subsequent to their request for reinstate-
ment new non-union employees were hired to replace them. Di Mar-
tino testified that on one of the occasions when the men went to the
plant to see about getting their jobs back there were four or five per-
sons working on frames. James Puskas stated that about a month
after the walk-out he saw in the framing department three men and
one woman. Both stated that at least two of the men were now em-
ployees. Mayer admitted that three new framers had been put on
after October 26, the Monday on which the men were finally told
there was no work.
Mayer denied that he knew there was a strike, denied that Schwartz-
man threatened to picket the plant, or that he (Mayer) ever talked
to Schwartzman about the framers or about their reinstatement. He
also denied that he told Schwartzman to send the men up on October
20, but stated that he heard Schwartzman tell Kalstein he was going
to send the men up and that Schwartzman asked Kalstein to see what
he could do about it. Paradoxically, Mayer did admit that he talked
to Schwartzman at the Roger-Ludlow $otel and that he told
Schwartzman to wait until January because of the seasonal nature
of the work.
Mayer testified that business improved in February 1938 but offered
no explanation of his failure to reinstate the framers who had applied
for reinstatement. In addition to the fact that the men had applied
personally and individually at the plant on several occasions, Mayer
had met some of them on the street and knew from inquiry of them
that they were not working.
Mayer's contention that he had no knowledge of a strike is unten-
able in the face of undisputed testimony by Schwartzman that he
talked to Mayer on the telephone on October 7 and requested a con-
ference to discuss the walk-out. Even without such evidence, and the
further admitted fact that Mayer did confer with Schwartzman there-
after, it is impossible to believe that Mayer could not tell from the
general situation existing that the framers had gone on strike. It is
certainly not an every day occurrence to find that every man in a de-
partment has failed to return to work after, lunch, especially when'
such employees have just requested and been refused a wage increase.
Nor do we credit Mayer's testimony that he did not tell Schwartz-
man to send the framers to the plant on October 20. It is inconceiv-
able that such arrangements could have been made at a conference at
which Mayer was present without his knowledge and consent. His
subsequent action in having the men return to the plant on several
successive days clearly indicates that they had come at his request
on October 20.
The Trial Examiner, in his Intermediate Report, found that the
respondent, by spying upon union meetings, by persecuting the
MAYER HANDBAG COMPANY 769
framers , by encouraging the formation of a company union, and by
the statements of its president and foremen, engaged in unfair labor
practices which forced a strike and walk-out by the framers. He
further found that the respondent agreed to reinstate the framers and
that it thereafter repudiated such agreement. He concluded that
these actions amounted to a discharge of the framers on October 6,
1937, and a refusal to reemploy the striking framers thereafter.
We cannot agree with the Trial Examiner's characterization of the
strike of October 6, 1937, as a discharge of the framers. The Union
makes no charge that the respondent refused to bargain with it as the
representative of a majority of its employees within an appropriate
unit, and Mayer was privileged to refuse the wage increase requested
by Di Martino for himself and the other framers. The strike on
October 6 was clearly the result of this refusal to grant a wage in-
crease. We find that the respondent did not discharge the framers
on October 6, 1937.
However, it is likewise clear that the framers were within their
rights under the Act -in striking for the purpose of attempting to
secure higher wages and that the respondent's refusal to reinstate
them was in violation of Section 7 of the Act which expressly guar-
antees to employees the right to engage in concerted activities for the
purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection.
All of the framers requested reinstatement after the strike, as did
Schwartzman, the Union's representative, for them. They were
refused such reinstatement in spite of the fact that it was necessary
to hire new employees to fill their places. Even though it be con-
ceded that business was slow at that time, it is obvious that the plant
could not continue without any framers, and it is admitted that at
least three persons who had not previously been in the employ of the
respondent were hired after the requests for reinstatement.
The fact that three new framers were hired after October 26, 1937,
which was after the dates upon which requests for reinstatement were
made by the strikers, indicates the discriminatory character of the
refusal to reinstate. We find that the respondent refused to reinstate
the employees because of a desire to eliminate the active union
members from the plant.4
We find that the respondent refused, upon request, to reinstate
Alphonse Di Martino, James Puskas, and Julius Kish in order to
discourage membership in the Union. By its conduct the respondent
4 See Associated Press v. National Labor Relations Board, 301 U. S. 103, enf'g. 85 F.
(2) 56 (C . C. A. 2), enf 'g Matter of The Associated Press and American Newspaper
Guild, 1 N. L. R . B. 788; Matter of Stehli and Co ., Inc., and Textile Workers Union of
Lancaster, Pennsylvania and Vicinity, Local #133 , 11 N. L. R. B. 1397; Matter of The
Dow Chemical Company and United Mine Workers of America . District No, 50, 13
N. L. R. B. 993.
770 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
has discriminated in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of
said employees, within the meaning of Section 8 (3) of the Act, and
has thereby interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in
the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the respondent set forth in Section III A and C
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 engaged in certain unfair
labor practices, we shall order it to cease and desist from further
engaging in such practices. We shall also order the respondent
to take certain affirmative action which we deem necessary to effec-
tuate the policies of the Act.
We have found that the respondent discriminatorily refused rein-
statement to Alphonse Di Martino, James Puskas, and Julius Kish.
We shall order the respondent to offer them immediate reinstatement
to their former or substantially equivalent positions without preju-
dice to their seniority and other rights and privileges, dismissing, if
necessary, any employees hired after they requested reinstatement.
The record does not disclose the date upon which the first applica-
tion for reinstatement was made. However, it is shown that Di Mar-
tino, Kish, and Puskas" requested reinstatement on October 20, 1937.
Since this is the first definite date appearing from the record on
which reinstatement was requested, we shall order the respondent to
make whole Alphonse Di Martino, Julius Kish, and James Puskas
for any loss of pay they have suffered by reason of the respondent's
refusal to reinstate them by payment to each of them of a sum of
money equal to the amount which he would normally have earned
as wages from October 20, 1937, to the date of the offer of reinstate-
ment, less his net earnings s during said period.
5 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 the unlawful
refusal to reinstate and the consequent necessity of his seeking employment elsewhere.
See Matter of Crossett Lumber Company and United Brotherhood of, Carpenters and
Joiners o f America, 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. ,
XIAYEP HANDBAG COMPANY 771
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the
entire record in the case, the Board makes the following :
CONCLusIONs of LAW
1. International Ladies' Handbag, Pocketbook & Novelty Workers
Union, is a labor organization, within the meaning of Section 2 (5)
of the Act.
2. The respondent, by discriminating in regard to the hire and
tenure of employment of Alphonse Di Martino, Julius Kish, and
James Puskas, thereby discouraging membership in a labor organiza-
tion, has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices, within
the meaning of Section 8 (3) of the Act.
3. The respondent, by interfering with, restraining, and coercing
its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7
of the Act, 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.
5. The respondent, by laying off and failing to reinstate William
Puskas, has not engaged in unfair labor practices, within the meaning
of Section 8 (3) of the Act.
ORDER
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and conclusions of
law, and pursuant to Section 10 (c) of the National Labor Relations
Act, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the
respondent, The Mayer Handbag Company, Inc., South Norwalk.
Connecticut, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Discouraging membership in International Ladies' Handbag,
Pocketbook & Novelty Workers Union, or any other labor organiza-
tion of its employees, by discriminatorily refusing to reinstate any of
its employees or in any other manner discriminating in regard to
their hire or tenure of employment because of their membership in
or activity in behalf of any such labor organization ;
(b) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing
its employees in the exercise of the right to self-organization, to form,
join, or assist labor organizations, 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 or protection.
772 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds
will effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Offer to Alphonse Di Martino, Julius Kish, and James Puskas
immediate and full reinstatement to their former or substantially
equivalent positions, without prejudice to their seniority or other
rights and privileges previously enjoyed, dismissing, if necessary, any
employees hired subsequent to October 20, 1937;
(b) Make whole Alphonse Di Martino, Julius Kish, and James
Puskas for any loss of pay they have suffered by reason of the
respondent's discrimination against them, by payment to each of
them of a sum equal to the amount which he normally would have
earned as wages during the period from October 20, 1937, to the date
of the offer of reinstatement, less his net earnings 6 during said
period; deducting, however, from the amount otherwise due to each
of the said employees, monies received by him during said period
for work performed upon Federal, State, county, municipal, or other
work-relief projects, and pay over the amount so deducted 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;
(c) Immediately post notices in conspicuous places throughout its
plant stating that the respondent will cease and desist in the manner'
set forth in paragraphs 1 (a) and (b) of this Order, that it will take
the affirmative action set forth in paragraphs 2 (a) and (b) of
this Order, and that the respondent's employees are free to become or
remain members of International Ladies' Handbag, Pocketbook &
Novelty Workers Union and that the respondent will not discrimi-
nate against any employee because of membership or activity in that
organization; and maintain such notices for a period of at least
sixty (60) consecutive days from the date of posting;
(d) 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.
AND IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint be, and it hereby
is, dismissed in so far as it alleges that the respondent has engaged
in unfair labor practices with regard to William D. Puskas, within
the meaning of Section 8 (3) of the Act.
° See footnote 5 above.