Metropolitan Engineering Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 16, 1937

4 N.L.R.B. 542 (N.L.R.B. 1937)

In the Matter Of METROPOLITAN ENGINEERING COMPANY AND METRO-
POLITAN DEVICE CORPORATION and UNITED ELECTRICAL AND RADIO
WORKERS OF AMERICA, LOCAL No. 1203
Case No. C402.-Decided December 16, 1937
Steel Products Manufacturrmg; Electrical Products Mannfaclurinp Industry-
Interference, Restraint, or Coercion: anti-union statements; initiating and
fostering anti-unionism; discrediting union leaders; propaganda against union
and its officers, leaders, and organizers ; initiating and fostering "back-to-
work" movement among employees ; sponsorship of internal organization ;
initiating and fostering employer-dominated organization of employees ; espio-
nage ; surveillance of meetings ; interference with organizational activity ; effort
to secure disclosure of union members ; questioning employees regarding union
activity and affiliation ; persuasion of employees to refrain from joining a par-
ticular labor organization ; expressed opposition to labor organization ; en-
gendering fear of loss of employment for union membership and activity ;
sbut-down of plant-Company-Don»natcd Union: sponsorship, domination, and
interference with formation and administration ; support of ; organization and
domination by supervisory employees; soliciting and encouragement of mem-
bership in during working hours; disestablished as agency for collective bar-
gaining-Discramrnateon: lockout : to discourage organization of employees ;
discharge; charges of, as to one employee, not sustained-Rein.staternent Or-
dered: employee discharged-Back Pay: awarded to one discharged employee
and to male employees locked out.
Mr. Will Maslow, for the Board.
Mr. Joseph A. McNamara, of New York City, for the respondents.
Mr. Francis D. Saitta, of New York City, for the M. E. A.
Mr. Sidney Elliott Cohn and Mr. Hyman H. Glickstein, of New
York City, for the U. E. R. W.
Mr. Hyman A. Schulson, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon charges and amended charges duly filed upon behalf of the
United' Electrical and Radio Workers of America, Local No. 1203,
herein called the U. E. R. W., by its president, Max Schroeder, the
National Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board, by Elinore
Morehouse Herrick, Regional Director for the Second Region (New
542 -
DECISIONS AND OCDEI{S 543
York City), issued its complaint dated June 3, 1937, against Met-
ropolitan Engineering Company and Metropolitan Device Corpora-
tion, Brooklyn, New York, herein called the respondents," alleging
that the respondents had engaged in and were engaging in unfair
labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section
8 (1), (2), (3 ), and (5 ) and Section 2 (6) and ( 7) of the National
Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein called the Act.
The complaint and an accompanying notice of a hearing to be
held in New York City on June 10, 1937, were duly served on the
parties on June 4, 1937. On June 10, 1937, the respondents filed an
answer, in which, in substance, they denied most of the allegat ions
of the complaint, admitting, however, those concerning their incor-
poration and business. A hearing was held on June 10, 11, 15, 16,
and 17, 1937, in New York City, before Alvin J. Rockwell, the Trial
Examiner duly designated by the Board. The Board, the respond-
ents, and the U. E. R. W . were represented by counsel . Full oppor-
tunity to be heard, to examine and cross -examine witnesses, and to
produce evidence bearing upon the issues was afforded to all of the
parties.
At the commencement of the hearing, the Metropolitan Employees'
Association, herein called the M. E. A., by its counsel, orally moved
to be allowed to intervene . The Trial Examiner denied this motion
on the ground that Article II, Section 19 of National Labor Relations
Board Rules and Regulations-Series 1, as amended, provides that
motions to intervene shall be in writing. This motion was not
renewed. During the hearing, counsel for the Board orally moved
to strike from the complaint the allegation that the respondents had
violated Section 8 (5) of the Act. The Trial Examiner allowed the
motion. At the close of the Board's case and at the end of the hearing,
counsel for the respondents moved to dismiss the complaint. The
Trial Examiner denied these motions.
During the course of the hearing, the Trial Examiner made several
rulings on motions and 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 July 17, 1937, the Trial Examiner filed an Intermediate Report
finding that the respondents had committed unfair labor practices
affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8 (1), (2), and (3)
and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. The respondents, on July 29,
1937, and the U. E. R. W., on August 2, 1937, filed exceptions to the
Intermediate Report and requested an opportunity to argue the excep-
tions before the Board . Pursuant to notice , a hearing was held before
' Counsel for the parties stipulated that the word "respondents" as used throughout
the proceedings refers to either or both of the companies.
544 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the Board on August 17, 1937, in Washington, District of Columbia,
for the purpose of such oral argument . The respondents and the
U. E. B. W., participated.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENTS
The respondents are New York corporations with their principal
offices and places of business at 1250 Atlantic Avenue, Brooklyn, New
York. They form a unified and integrated enterprise for the manu-
facture and sale of electrical devices. The officers and directors of
the respondents are identical; the capital stock of both corporations
is held by substantially the same individuals, all being members of the
same family ; and all their policies, including their labor policies; are
jointly determined and administered. The respondents own and
operate a plant and machinery valued at between $1,000,000 and
$1,500,000, and between them do a gross business of approximately
$1,700,000 per year. They employ approximately 375 employees,
including production and office employees. Each of the respondents
has a pay roll of its own, but in the event that one respondent has
more work than the other, employees are interchanged.,
Metropolitan Engineering Company is engaged in the manufacture
and sale of pressed steel and welded products, 70 per cent of which is
sold to purchasers in states other than the State of New York,
Packard Motor Car Company, Detroit, Michigan, being its largest
single customer. The principal raw material used by the Metropoli-
tan Engineering Company is steel, approximately all of which is
purchased and transported from states other than the State of New
York through channels of interstate commerce.
Metropolitan Device Corporation is engaged in the manufacture
and sale of electrical devices, meter, service, and entrance switches,
reactance coils, and seals. About 60 per cent of its sales are made
to purchasers in states other than the State of New York. Some
of its products are sold to manufacturers who use them as parts, and
to jobbers who resell them to electrical contractors and the retail
trade. About 15 per cent of its products are sold to the Public
Service Company of New Jersey, and about 25 per cent are sold to
utilities who use them as part of their equipment. The principal
raw materials used by the Metropolitan Device Corporation are steel,
porcelain, copper, and paper cartons. About 80 per cent of these
materials are purchased in states other than the State of New York
and are transported to the plant through channels of interstate
commerce.
The respondents admit that they are engaged in interstate com-
merce.
DECISIONS AND ORDERS
II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
545
The United Electrical and Radio Workers of America, Local No.
1203, is a labor organization admitting to membership all production
and maintenance employees of the respondents, exclusive of super-
visory, clerical, and office employees. It is a local of an international
union affiliated with the Committee for Industrial Organization,
herein called the C. I. O.
The Metropolitan Employees' Association is a labor organization
limiting its membership to all employees of the respondents, exclusive
of the superintendent, manager, and other officials.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Interference, restraint, and coercion
1. Background of organization of the U. E. R. W. and the respond-
ents' reaction to it
In 1934 the management of the respondents initiated, sponsored,
and established an Employee Representation Plan. This was later
abandoned. Prior to March 1, 1937, no other agency for collective
bargaining existed among the respondents' employees. At about
that time, however, a drive was started in the plant to form an organ-
ization to be affiliated with the U. E. R. W. Application blanks
were distributed among the production and maintenance employees,
then numbering between 250 and 300, and some signatures were
procured. Leaflets were, also distributed and meetings were held
frequently.
At the first meeting, on March 6, 1937, a committee of 20 was
elected to prepare a draft of a contract to be submitted to the man-
agement. A second meeting was held on March 10, at which a draft
of the proposed contract was presented and officers were elected.
The same day the organization received its charter as Local No. 1203
of the United Electrical and Radio Workers of America.
On March 11, 1937, a committee of the U. E. R. W. submitted the
proposed contract 2 to William S. Catherwood, Jr., the respondents'
general manager, who agreed to give the committee a reply on or
before March 15, 1937. In substance, the proposed contract provided
for a closed shop ; a working week of five days, 40 hours per week,
eight hours per day, except in specified cases; minimum hourly
rates; "ten cents per hour increase on all base rates"; time and one-
half for overtime ; seniority rights ; and methods for the settlement
of grievances.
In the meantime the management had been actively discouraging
membership in the U. E. R. W. On March 5 Martin Schmitt, the
s Board's Exhibit No. 5.
546 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
superintendent , and several foremen, reported to Catherwood the
existence of "some labor agitation throughout the factory ". In order
to learn from each employee his individual opinion about working
conditions , Catherwood , on that day and the succeeding days, inter-
viewed singly or in groups about 200 employees . At these confer-
ences, Catherwood questioned each employee about his union activi-
ties and affiliations , discussed the grievances of each employee, and
in several cases adjusted wages.
At the same time the respondents resorted to espionage . On March
6 Francis Fitzgerald , the respondents ' secretary , sent Thomas Varley,
an office employee , to the Hotel Touraine , where the first U. E. R. W.
meeting was held, to find out the number and names of the employees
attending the meeting. Varley, stealthily stationing himself in the
hotel lobby , observed the employees who came to attend the meeting.
Shortly thereafter he reported back to Fitzgerald and gave him a list
of about 20 employees who had been present. Fitzgerald communi-
cated this information to Catherwood . At the hearing Fitzgerald
agreed to make a thorough search for this list, but it was never pro-
duced. Fitzgerald testified that, although he was not absolutely cer-'
twin, Varley might have received some supper money or other com-
pensation for his part in this episode.
Dissatisfied with the results of their investigation at the confer-
ences of March 5 and 6, the management , on Sunday , March 7, dis-
patched several foremen and certain "loyal" employees to visit fellow
employees individually at their homes , with instructions to observe
the reaction to Catherwood 's interviews and the feeling toward the
U. E. R. W ., to ascertain grievances and the causes thereof, and then
to report back to Catherwood.
On March 8 , at a lengthy conference with Leonard Dowling, later
elected vice -president of the U. E. R. W., Catherwood forewarned
him that the respondents were well prepared for any disturbance in
that they had a large stock of goods on hand and could have their
switches made by competitors if necessary . Furthermore , according
to Catherwood , the respondents carried strike insurance guarantee-
ing them 75 per cent of their losses in case of trouble. In addition
Catherwood asserted that the Act would be declared unconstitutional
and that it was foolish for an employee to pay dues to any outside
organization . On the same day in a conversation with Victor Orne-
sios, an employee who had been summoned to the office during work-
ing hours , Catherwood asserted that the respondents' recognition of
a C. I. O . union in the plant would impair the sale of their products
to the building trades, controlled by the American Federation of La-
bor, that such curtailment of sales would only reduce production and
thereby decrease employment, and that, therefore , the employees
would gain more by individual bargaining than by collective bar-
gaining through a C. I. O . union . Ralph Almodovar and Charles
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 547
Dock, employees of the respondents, testified that in conferences with
them during working hours on or about March 8, Catherwood made
substantially the same remarks regarding the effect of a C. I. O.
union in the plant.
On cross-examination of Catherwood it appeared that the alleged
fear that recognition of a C. I. O. union would interfere with the
respondents' business was without substantial basis. Catherwood
testified :
Q. Would it have affected the business to any substantial ex-
tent of the Metropolitan Engineering Company?
A. Most of the business of the Metropolitan Engineering Com-
pany is on royalties.
Q. Why don't you answer my question? I asked you whether
it would have affected your business to any substantial extent.
Why don't you answer it?
A. Metropolitan Engineering Company?
Q. Yes.
A. I don't think it would have.
On March 13 the management presented a letter,3 signed by J. B.
Murray, vice-president of the respondents, to the committee of the
U. E. R. W. in reply to its proposed contract and mailed by special
delivery copies to all employees. The letter, addressed to "Metro-
politan Employees", announced the respondents' opposition to a
closed shop and contained the following paragraph with respect to
hours and wages :
The Management is willing, provided there is no cause for in-
terruption in its operations, to reduce the working week from
forty-eight to forty-four hours, and to increase the rate schedule
as follows:
(1) All hourly employees to receive an increase of ten
cents per hour'over their March 1st base rates.
(2) Minimum rates to be forty-five cents for men and
forty cents for women.
We took into consideration, in arriving at the above conclu-
sions the fact that there is, as you are well aware, at the present
time, serious agitation going on between various labor organiza-
tions. The Building Trades Union Group, as far as we now
can ascertain, control the building operations in, most of the
large cities and, consequently, the erection of our switches come
under their supervision. Our factory can only be kept open
provided we can sell our products, and we are convinced that
sole recognition of any Union, at this time, would-result in the
closing of our doors. [Italics supplied.]
8 Board 's Exhibit No. 6.
548 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
2. The lockout
On Saturday and Sunday, March 13 and 14, the management again
sent several foremen and certain "loyal" employees to visit fellow em-
ployees individually at their homes with instructions to answer any
questions relating to Murray's letter of March 13, to explain the ob-
stacles confronting the respondents if they should recognize a
C. I. O. union, and to tell the employees that the plant would be
open on the following Monday, March 15, but that anyone who
feared for his physical safety need not report to work and would be
paid for the- time lost. The respondents' emissaries discussed the
letter of March 13 and the respondents' objections to the C. I. O.
union. There is substantial testimony that they also told fellow
workers that if the latter were loyal to the respondents, they should
not come to work on Monday but they would be paid their wages
just the same. However, if they were "for the U. E. R. W.", they
were told to report to work.
The plant was partially shut down from March 15 through 25.
From March 15 through 18 an average of only 52 hourly employees,
consisting chiefly of those who had not been contacted by the re-
spondents' emissaries on March 13 and 14, worked. On March 15
the respondents employed six guards for day duty and four for night
duty.
At a conference on March 16 James V. Carey, national president
of the U. E. R. W., and the bargaining committee presented to Cather-
wood and other representatives of the management a counter-offer 4
embodying in substance the provisions contained in Murray's letter
of March 13. When the committee requested the management to
incorporate the provisions of this letter into a written contract with
the U. E. R. W., Catherwood refused, replying that the demands
were fully answered in the letter and that the respondents would enter
into no written agreement with the U. E. R. W.
The respondents soon realized the ineffectiveness of their efforts,
described above, to discover who were "loyal" to them and who were
active U. E. R. W. members. Several employees affiliated with the
U. E. R. W. availed themselves of this vacation with pay and
zealously continued their union activities.
On March 18 the respondents deliberately locked out a large por-
tion of their employees in an effort to check further organization.
That day they again sent foremen and "loyal" employees to visit
fellow employees individually at their homes, but this time to inform
them that pay would cease on March 18 and that the plant would be
closed until further notice. However, the women were told that they
would be paid for the period of the shut-down of the plant. Accord-
k Board 's Exhibit No. 36.
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 549
ing to the testimony of some of the employees who were visited, the
emissaries told them that if they wanted the plant reopened they
should write the management letters accepting the terms of Murray's
letter of March 13. Some emissaries warned employees that they
would lose their jobs if they joined the U. E. R. W. Others tried.
to impress upon them that the leaders of the C. I. O. and the
U. E. R. W. were "racketeers" or "reds," and that outside unions
were "no good." Only about 30 hourly employees worked from
March 19 through 25.
3. The back-to-work movement
Following the lockout there was considerable restlessness and ap-
prehension among the employees. The ensuing days saw an inten-
sive back-to-work movement organized by "loyal" employees.
George Hewitt, a salesman and one of the respondents' emissaries on
March 13, 14, and 18, on his own initiative contacted about 15 old
employees who were intimate friends of his and who were opposed
to a C. I. O. union in the plant. He urged them to come with their
fellow employees to a meeting to be held at Tammany Hall on Satur-
day, Marcli ' 20. At this meeting, attended by about 50 employees,
Hewitt made a speech in which he besought the employees to cease
their C. I. O. activities so that they could return to work. Raymond
Perretta, head of the shipping department, was present and delivered
a tirade against the C. I. O. Hewitt paid five dollars for the rental
of the hall, but was reimbursed from money contributed by employees
attending the meeting.
Catherwood, having first learned of the meeting shortly after its
adjournment, telephoned Hewitt and inquired about it. Hewitt in-
formed Catherwood that he proposed to hold further meetings.
Catherwood offered no objections.
Shortly after the meeting of Mardi 20, Hewitt procured a list of
all employees from the management and at his own expense mailed
cards to them announcing a second meeting on March 23. At this
time Hewitt apparently entertained the mistaken belief that the plant
was closed because of a strike, for the cards 5 were headed "Striking
Employees of the Metropolitan Engineering & Device Corp."
About 250 of the respondents' production and maintenance em-
ployees attended the meeting of March 23 at Sonia Hall. In his
opening remarks Hewitt warned the employees that they were his.
guests, that he had policemen in the hall, and anyone who started any
"funny business" would be evicted. He proceeded to state that he
knew J. B. Murray rather well, and-that he was convinced that Miir-
ray would neither deal with an "outside" union nor recognize the
5 Board's Exhibit No 7
550 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
C. I. O. He further declared that Murray's financial condition was
so strong that he could well afford to close the plant. Hewitt then
suggested that some form of "internal" union could get more for the
employees. Schroeder, president of the U. E. R. W., who took notes
of the meeting, testified that when Hewitt called for a show of hands
on his motion to organize an "internal" union, the majority of the em-
ployees voted in favor of an outside union and shouted "no" to an
"internal union".
Raymond Perretta, the head of the shipping department who had
spoken at the first meeting, and Jack DeAngelo, a straw boss in the
paint shop, also addressed the meeting. They urged the employees
to petition for a return to work on Murray's terms, interpolating their
remarks with disparaging and denunciatory statements against the
C. I. O. in particular and outside unions in general.
After the speeches the employees voted to return to work under the
provisions of the proposals made in Murray's letter of March 13.
The meeting was adjourned formally and a great number of em-
ployees left. Suddenly Hewitt reconvened those' remaining to choose
a committee to accompany him to the management to voice formally
the employees' desire to return to work. -A committee consisting of
Hewitt, Schroeder, and Almodovar was selected.
The committee conferred with Catherwood on March 24 and in-
formed him of the desire to return to work under the provisions of
the letter of March 13. Catherwood suggested that a written petition
to that effect be signed by the employees and be submitted to the
management for its approval.
At the third meeting on March 25 approximately all the ennhloyees
present signed a letter ° prepared by Schroeder in his capacity as a
member of the committee. This letter expressed the "sincere desire of
the employees to return to work in good faith under the conditions
and provisions agreed to in the management's letter of March 13
signed by Mr. J. B. Murray". The meeting then recessed while
Hewitt and another committee conferred with the management.
Hewitt returned shortly and announced the management's decision to
reopen the plant the next day. Hewitt then proceeded to suggest that
some effort should be made to work out the differences and grievances
through an "internal union". Thereupon Schroeder. protested ve=
hemently, stating that such remarks were out of order because the
men had already determined which union was to represent them.
On March 25 and 26, the respondents telegraphed all employees to
return to work. The plant was reopened on March 26, though most
of the employees did not return until Monday, March 29.
Shortly after the reopening of the plant, Catherwood remarked to
Hewitt :
9 Board's Exhibit No. 8.
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 55L
I think you have done rather a good job for us and I am glad
to see that you have got these boys looking at the thing in the
right way.
Catherwood asked him to continue his good work in feeling out the
sore spots and causes of unrest and discontent.
All employees were paid for the period from March 15 to 18, in-
clusive, at the increased hourly rate described in the letter of March
13, and all women who had not worked were paid for the entire pe-
riod from March 18 to March 26. However, men paid on an hourly
basis, who had not worked, were not pawl from March 19 to 26.
The respondents contend in their answer to the complaint that the
shut-down of the plant was motivated solely by their fear of a sit-
down strike and by their concern for the physical protection of the
employees and plant. In support of this contention they introduced
testimony that some employees complained to the management that
they were being coerced and intimidated by other employees to join
the U. E. R. W. and that they feared physical danger if they con-
tinued to work. The respondents also rely upon an article in the
March 13 issue of the People's Press,7 distributed in front of the
plant, wherein it was stated that "their continuation of efforts to,
block union organization may lead to serious reprisals". The re-
spondents contend that the warning in this article led them to fear
a sit-down strike in the plant.
No persuasive evidence was introduced, however, that the U. E.
R. IV. contemplated a sit-down strike, or that the respondents had-
reasonable grounds for expecting it. In fact Catherwood admitted
on cross-examination that any thoughts lie had about a sit-down
strike did not arise because of the conduct of the U. E. R. W. leaders;
that he was not afraid of what his own employees would do in the
plant, but had some vague fear that "outsiders" might come in and
take possession.
The respondents' explanations for the closing of the plant, viewed
in the setting of this case and the totality of its circumstances, arc
not convincing. We conclude rather that the respondents deliber-
ately shut down the plant and locked out their employees in an effort
to check the rising tide of union organization among them' As
shown above, the respondents' first reaction upon learning of the-
organization of their employees was one of frank antagonism. They
made no effort whatever to deal with the U. E. R. W. upon a reason--
able basis or to iron out differences through collective bargaining.
On the contrary they immediately set about to thwart organization-
by attempts at individual bargaining, by anti-union statements,
uttered to employees during individual conferences, by anti-union
' Recp- nrren ' s' Exhibit No 11
67573-38-vol iv-36
.552 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
statements made by supervisory employees both in the plant during
working hours and in the course of their missionary visits, and by
-the use of spies and emissaries. When the respondents realized that
-these measures were not succeeding, they resorted to a lockout.
We find that the respondents by substantially locking out a large
-portion of their employees for the period from March 15 to March 26
-and by other acts above set forth, have interfered with, restrained,
and coerced their 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 purposes of collective bargain-
ing and other mutual aid and protection as guaranteed in Section 7
-of the Act.
We further find that the respondents, by locking out a large por-
-tion of their employees for the period from March 15 to March 26,
discriminated in regard to hire and tenure of employment, thereby
-discouraging membership in the U. E. R. W.
-B. Domination of and interference with the Metropolitan Employees'
Association
After work had resumed at the plant, Catherwood suggested to
- Hewitt that some kind of shop representation plan might be worked
-out. This idea soon reached the workers. About April 20 four of
-the respondents' employees, namely, Jack DeAngelo,6 a supervisory
employee in the paint shop, Morris Friedman, a rigger, Edward
-Kash, a pressman, and Raymond Perretta, head of the shipping de-
partment,0 started a movement to form an independent organization.
:Friedman, Kash, and DeAngelo persuaded Perretta to act as spokes-
-man at the first meeting to be held on April 23, and to make all
preparations. Perretta, who had been studying to be a traffic man-
ager at the night school of the Academy of Advanced Traffic in New
York City at the respondents' expense, there heard of L. L. Balleisen,
industrial secretary of the Brooklyn Chamber of Commerce.1° Per-
-retta contacted Balleisen, who furnished him with a set of by-laws 11
-and a letter 12 to send the respondents. Balleisen then advised him
of the manner in which he thought Section 8 (2) of the Act could be
circumvented, warning him not to accept any financial support from
the respondents.
"Jack DeAngelo testified that he was "a sort of straw boss", who lines up, prepares,
astii •rns, and inspects work in the paint shop
" Raymond Perretta acts as head of the shipping department and has about eight men
-undrr his supervision . He signs the raises on pay rolls and checks the time employees'
woi k with their time cards He does not punch the time clock , has no foreman over him,
.and is directly responsible to Catherwood and Schmitt , the superintendent
10 P'rtzgeiald testified that the respondents were members of the Brooklyn Chamber of
,Commerce and that Murray had been a member for about 20 years.
11 Board's Exhibit No 37
12 Board's Exhibit No 18
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 553
Perretta rented Sonia Hall and had "admit bearer" tickets 13 and
application blanks for membership 14 printed . Employees who were
considered friendly toward "internal unions" were invited to attend
the first meeting . Those considered hostile were excluded. John
Powell, a truck driver, called the meeting to order and immediately
turned the chair over to Perretta . The following officers were
elected : Edward Kash, president , Francis J. Ruddy, first vice presi-
dent , Nettie Zappola, second vice president and Lucy Bamonte, sec-
retary. Thomas McEachern , who joined the M . E. A. after persuasion
by Jack DeAngelo and Franz Newma i , supervisory employees, was
elected treasurer at the second meeting on .,April 30 . At this meeting
Kash appointed Perretta chairman of the publicity committee.
Perretta 's draft of the by-laws, identical tom that given him by
Balleisen , Was adopted without substantial change: The officers and
about 110 employees signed a letter similar to Balleisen 's' hicli was
presented to the management the next day . The concluding sentence
of the letter reads as follows :
We, the employees , wish to have your approval and recogni-
tion of the Metropolitan Employees' Association and their duly
elected collective bargaining committee.
An examination of the M. E. A. membership list discloses that a
number of its members are supervisory employees . In addition to
foremen Perretta and DeAngelo there are Joseph Hoffman, a straw
boss, Theodore Michaels, supervisor of electricians , George Frish-
man, foreman of the . tool and dye department , Franz Newman, a
straw boss, Dominick Farello , an acting straw boss, Adam Babey,
and Frank Kuttner. Hewitt did not join because it was pointed out
to him by Morris Friedman , a rigger, that he was an office man and
that it would not look well.
All the officer of the M. E. A. testified at the hearing . None of
them appeared to be familiar with the by -laws or to have exercised
any substantial control over the policies and activities of the M. E. A.
Perretta was plainly the controlling spirit. He prepared leaflets
about the M. E. A., which were distributed to employees . He arranged
conferences between the management and the bargaining committee
of the M. E. A. He always attended such conferences although never
formally authorized to do so.
Supervisory employees solicited new members for the Al. E. A.
during working hours and on respondents ' time. At the same time
they discouraged membership in the U. E. R. W. with remarks such
as, "Why pay dues to outside organizers , M. E. A. dues are lower."
23 Board s Exhibit No 14
' Board's Exhibit No 19
"Board's Exhibit No 18.
554 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Thus Babey, a straw boss who lays out the work in the switch box
department, approached Almodovar during working hours, charac-
terizing the C. I. O. leaders as a bunch of communists and
racketeers, and urging him to join the M. E. A. Babey had similar
conversations during working hours with Charles Deck, a switch
assembler, telling him to "forget about the outside union and get
started in the employees' inside union". On May 4, 1937, just before
an election scheduled by the Board's Regional Director,16 Babey;
in an effort to line up employees to vote for the M. E. A., contacted
Leo Parisi, a switch assembler, during working hours. He told him
that if the C. I. O. won the election, Murray would shut clown the
plant and that employees would derive more benefits if they joined
the M. E. A. since thejinanagement would recognize it sooner. Babey
likewise spoi c to"Walter Kingren, a switch box assembler, and
Samuel 'Balloti, a milling machine employee. Kuttner, DeAngelo,
and Babey all admitted that they had solicited membership for the
M. E. A. during working hours.
Jean Barkowsky, an employee in the assembly department, testi-
fied that on May 3, 1937, Jack Soehner, a foreman, and Joseph Hoff-
man, a supervisory employee, allowed, George Thorgeson, a packer,
to take two hours off during working hours to persuade five female
employees to join the M. E. A. and to discourage their C. I. O.
activities. Subsequently, Jack Soeliner warned the girls not to
breathe a word about it if they wanted to retain their positions.
Meanwhile, Schroeder and U. E. R. W. representatives conferred
with Catherwood and Fitzgerald demanding the respondents'
recognition of the U. E. R. W. At a conference on April 23 the
U. E. R. W. asked Catherwood to prohibit supervisors from solicit-
ing M. E. A. membership during working hours and requested the
reinstatement of Dorothy Starr, an employee discharged under cir-
cumstances described hereafter. Catherwood refused to comply with
these requests. Consequently at 11 o'clock that morning, as a pro-
test against the respondents' attitude toward the U. E. R. W.,
Schroeder and a few other employees in the machinists department
ceased work and paced up and down the floor for about an hour.
On April 24, the M. E. A. committee requested Catherwood to
present a petition to the Regional Office of the Board for a refer-
endum of employees to determine which- organization should repre-
sent them. Subsequently the respondents made such a request.
After tentative plans for a consent election had been made by the
Regional Director, the management posted notices 17 in the plant
16 The U. E. R . W. subsequently withdrew its petition for election and the election was
not held See infra
.7 Board's Exhibit No. 30.
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 555
which recited that "the majority of ballots of the employees voting
will determine how all shall be represented".
It is significant to point out the respondents ' apparent willingness
to recognize the choice of the majority of their employees as the sole
bargaining agent once the M. E. A. was in the field. The respond-
ents' position at this stage stands in sharp contrast to their attitude
expressed in the letter of March 13 , when the sole organization avail-
able for collective bargaining was the U. E. R. W. In that letter,
it will be recalled , the respondents had declared : "We are convinced
that sole recognition of any Union, at this time, would result in the
closing of our doors."
On April 24 the U. E. R. W., and on April 29 the M. E. A., filed
petitions with the Board requesting an investigation and certification
of representatives pursuant to Section 9 (c) of the Act. The
M. E. A.'s petition was prepared by.Perretta , but signed by Kash.
However , Perretta placed his name and address under Kash's signa-
ture at the bottom of the petition . His purpose in doing this, as
Perretta admitted, was to receive all official correspondence from the
Board. Perretta attended two conferences at the Board's Regional
Office in New York and spoke for the M. E. A. on both occasions.
A leaflet,18 in the form of questions and answers , prepared by
Perretta and distributed to the employees on April 28, throws addi-
tional light on the nature of the M. E. A. The first few answers
and questions are as follows :
Question.-Does the Wagner Act require anyone to join a labor
union?
Answver.-No. It does not place any obligation of any kind
upon any employee . It leaves every employee a free agent to
do as he pleases.
Question.-Does the Wagner Act permit an employee to deal
as an individual directly with his employer?
Answer.-Yes. The Wagner Act leaves each employee a free
agent to do as he pleases.
Question.-Does the Wagner Act require any employer to make
an agreement with any labor union under any circumstances?
Answer.-No. The Supreme Court of the United States has
held : "The Act does not compel agreements between employers
and employes . It does not compel any agreement whatever."
While the foregoing answers may or may not be acceptable state-
ments of law , it is indeed a curious kind of labor organization which
"Board 's Exhibit No. 31.
556 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
will utilize its propaganda to focus attention upon these features of
the Act. These leaflets add support to our finding that.the M. E. A.
was organized and is conducted, not to provide employees with a gen-
uinely effective collective bargaining agency, but simply to oppose
outside bona fide labor organizations and to discourage C. I. O.
membership.
On May 11 committees representing the respondents, the M. E. A.
and the U. E. R. W. met at the Board's Regional Office in New York
City. At this meeting, the consent election which was to take place on
May 14 was indefinitely postponed. Subsequently, the U. E. R. W.
filed the charges in this case, alleging, inter alia, violation of Section
8 (2) of the Act.
On May 28, at a conference between an M. E. A. committee and
Catherwood, a request was presented for time and one-half for over-
time and a five-day week. It appeared that the M. E. A. committee
had not formally been authorized by the members of the M. E. A. to
make this request. The plan of action was formulated in a short pre-
liminary discussion 15 or 20 minutes before conferring with Cather-
wood. Catherwood replied that the respondents could probably grant
the committee's request for a five-day week, but could not give them
time and one-half for overtime. A few minutes later, after a little
deliberation, the committee reduced its request to time and one-quarter
for overtime. There is conflicting testimony as to whether or not
Catherwood gave any definite answers to the revised offer. In any
event, at a meeting of the M. E. A. that evening, nothing whatsoever
was reported to the members of the M. E. A. about the important
conference with Catherwood in the afternoon.
On June 2 employees received, with their pay checks, slips to the
following effect :
9 '
Effective June 14, 1937 time and one-quarter will be paid for all
hours over forty-four hours in any one week. From June 18, 1937
to September 6, 1937, this plant will operate on a five-day week
basis.19
It will be recalled that when the U. E. R. W. made demands similar
to that of the M. E. A., Catherwood rejected them. Catherwood tes-
tified that employees were informed of the improvements in working
conditions by the method utilized so that "nobody could honestly say
that we gave it to either side." He testified that he knew that both
sides sought to take credit for everything that happened. Yet, the
very next day, June 3, the M. E. A. issued a leaflet 20 taking credit for
the improvements and quoting verbatim the language of the pay-check
10 Board's Exhibit No. 29..
20 Board's Exhibit No. 28.
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 557-
slips. The respondents knew of this leaflet, but took no steps to correct
any erroneous impression it conveyed.
A final incident attests to the domination of the M. E. A. by the
respondents' supervisory key employees. On Friday, June 4, Thomas-
McEachern, treasurer of the M. E. A., received a telegram from Will
Maslow, attorney for the Board, requesting him to call at the Board's.
Regional Office. When asked by his foreman to work overtime on
Saturday, June 5, McEachern replied that he could not do so because
Maslow desired to see him. The foreman reported this to Cather-
wood, who called McEachern into his office. Catherwood asked :
"Does Ray (Perretta) know about this?" Upon receiving a negative-
reply, Catherwood called Perretta into his office and discussed the-
telegram with him. Catherwood immediately telephoned Joseph A.
McNamara, the respondents' attorney. McNamara advised Cather-
wood to be sure that Francis A. Saitta, the M. E. A.'s attorney, accom-
panied McEachein to Maslow's office. Subsequently McEachern did_
appear at Maslow's office accompanied by Saitta.
From all the foregoiiig it is evident that the respondents utilized
Hewitt, the salesman, Perretta, and other supervisory employees as
their agents in fostering the growth of the M. E. A.; that the re-
spondents' attitude toward the M. E. A. has been in no sense that
of pure disinterestedness, but, on the contrary, one of active support
and encouragement; that the growth of the M. E. A. has been due-
to encouragement received from the respondents' officials and super-
visory employees, and their accompanying attacks upon the-
U.E.R.W.
We find that the respondents have dominated and interfered with
the formation and administration of the M. E. A., and have con-
tributed support to it.
C. The discharges
1. George Kramer, a carpenter, was hired temporarily by the
Metropolitan Device Corporation on March 9, 1937. During the
partial shut-down on March 15 Kramer reported to work, but found
the doors of the plant locked. Martin Schmitt, the superintendent,
ordered the guards to admit him and invited him to his office.
Schmitt told him to go home, assuring him that he would be paid
for the time he did not work. When Kramer was about to leave,
Schmitt called him back and asked, "You did not join up in that
union, by the way, did you ?" Upon receiving the reply that he had'
joined, Schmitt stated, "That might make a difference in your pay.""
The next dav, Kramer removed his tools from the plant in order-
to complete a job for some other employer, which he undertook at
the request of Frank Breslin, a fellow employee. When Kramer
reported to Schmitt on April 1, he was put back to work.
•558 NATIONAL LABOR 1ILLATIOS S BOARD
It appears that the respondents have two regular carpenters,
Breslin and Cook. Cook, who had been working on Murray's estate,
returned to the plant about April 26. On April 28 Schmitt told
Kramer that since Cook had returned, his services would no longer
be,needed. When Kramer left, Schmitt told him that his work had
been entirely satisfactory and that the respondents would be glad
-to rehire him when needed.
No carpenter has been hired to take Kramer's place. Although
Kramer was a member of the U. E. R. W., he was not very active.
We find that the evidence regarding the. discharge of George
Kramer is insufficient to warrant a finding that he was discharged
because of union activities. The allegations of the complaint with
respect to George Kramer will therefore be dismissed.
2. Sarah Weisser was employed by the Metropolitan Device Cor-
poration as a power press operator at $17.60 per week from December
9, 1936 to April 9, 1937. At the time she was hired she gave her
name as Dorothy Starr and signed this name and her correct address
upon the pay roll card. Schmitt, the superintendent, furnished her
with an application card and instructed her to fill it out and return
it to him. This card contained spaces for the names and addresses
'of her last three employers. Since it was late in the afternoon when
Weisser applied for the job, she was permitted to take the card home
in order to fill it out there and return it the next day. However,
the card was never returned, and from December 9. 1936 to March
29. 1937, she was never asked for the card or questioned concerning it.
Weisser was first employed at an hourly rate. Her efficiency was
soon recognized and she was shifted to a piece-rate. Thus she was
able to increase her weekly compensation. Along with other em-
plovees, she was given the ten cents per hour increase announced
in Murray's letter of March 13. The respondents admit that she
was an efficient and a capable worker. At the time of her suspension
on April 9, 1937, she was working 44 hours per week at the rate of
50 cents per hour.
Weisser actively solicited employees for membership in the
U. E. R. W. during its drive in the spring of 1937. She was the
sole female employee to attend the first meeting of the U. E. R. W.
on March 6. She was also a member of the committee which drafted
the proposed, agreement and submitted it to Catherwood on March 11.
After the first meeting of the U. E. R. W., Weisser contacted several
employees in the plant, particularly the female employees, and urged
them to join the U. E. R. W. Her activities apparently attracted the
attention of her foreman, Charles Muller, who called her to his desk
on March 7 and inquired why she was "dissatisfied" and why she
'had not complained to the management. She replied that she had
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 559
complained about working conditions many times before but that,
her complaints were of no avail.
Weisser failed to receive the respondents' special delivery letter
of March 13, and her pay check for the week of March 15 because
they were addressed to her under the name of Dorothy Starr. They
were returned many days later to the respondent by the Post Office
marked "Not Known, Undelivered". When she reported for work:
on March 15, Muller asked her whether she had been notified not to
come to work. She replied that she had not been notified by the
respondents, but heard about it indirectly from other employees. She
worked through Thursday, March 18. During this period Cather-
wood discussed union affairs with her and stated that he was a "fight--
ing muck and would not recognize the C. I. 0."
On March 18 Muller informed Weisser that the plant would close
indefinitely and would be reopened only if enough employees wrote
letters to the management accepting the terms of Murray's letter of
March 13. Thereupon, she notified the management of her willing-
ness to accept the terms of Murray's letter.21
On March 25, Weisser received a telegram from the respondents
requesting her to return to work. She received her mail regularly
after March 18 because she had instructed the messenger in her
apartment to deliver to her all mail addressed to Dorothy Starr.
Upon her return to work on March 29, Schmitt, having just noticed
that the special delivery letter and pay check addressed to Dorothy
Starr had been returned "Not Known, Undelivered", started to check
her address in the application file and discovered that no card had
been filed for her. He called her to the office, told her that her-
application card had been misplaced, and asked her to fill out
another.22
Between March 29 and April 9 the respondents mailed information
forms to the three former employers whom Weisser named on the-
card. The, cards addressed to the Gem Razor Corporation and Co-
lumbia Stamping Products Company were returned with notations 28:
that they had no records of a former employee named Dorothy Starr.
No reply was received from the Quigan Company, the third employer-
named on the card, and Hewitt, after investigation, reported that the
Quigan Company was not doing business* during the period Weisser-
stated she was employed there.
On April 9 Schmitt informed Weisser that her references had-
failed to check, and later during the day, after consulting Cather-
wood, notified her that she would be suspended until she had straight-
ened out her references. Weisser replied that she did not know why
21 Respondents' Exhibit No 9.
22 Respondents' Exhibit No 6
21 Respondents' Exhibits Nos 13 and 14.
-560 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
her references failed to check since she had worked at the places named
-on the card.
Shortly after her suspension, Weisser and Leonard Dowling, vice-
president of the U. E. R. W., called on Catherwood. Catherwood
:reaffirined that she had been suspended until she could secure letters
of reference from the three former employers named on her appli-
cation card. Thereupon she wrote the respondents a letter dated
-April 12, 1937, stating :
In compliance to your request I am making all attempts to se-
cure references with which I expect to regain my employment.
I will see you in a few days.
Yours truly,
DOROTHY STARR.
About April 14, in Dowling's presence, Weisser presented two let-
ters of reference to Catherwood. One letter 24 was on stationery
bearing the letterhead of Columbia Stamping Products Company
.and read as follows :
4/12/37.
To whom it may concern:
This is to advise that bearer was in our employ for about 4
months.
Very truly yours,
COLUMBIA STAMPING PRODUCTS CO.
"The other letter was written by the Springfield Electrical Company
-whose name did not appear on her card. The respondents failed
to produce this letter at the hearing. Catherwood accepted these
references, but said that he could make no statement about her
-reinstatement.
On April 20,1937, another conference was held, attended by Cather-
wood, Fitzgerald, Weisser, Dowling, and Schroeder. At this con-
ference Dowling disclosed to the respondents that Dorothy, Starr was
not.Weisser's real name. Weisser then explained why she had changed
her name to Dorothy Starr. It appeared that she had had some difli-
•culty with several of her former employers because of her union
activities. She feared that if she had given her correct name, she
would not secure any employment with the respondents. She ex-
plained, "It was a question of livelihood to me. I did not think it
was any crime to change my name as I did." Catherwood questioned
'her no further, but both he and Fitzgerald asked her to "put all of
this in writing" and promised her that they would again send out for
references.
A few days later the respondents received the following letter 25
from Weisser :
u Respondents ' Exhibit No. S.
2s Board's Exhibit No. 23.
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 561
Mr. FITZGERALD,
Metro. Dev. Corp. 1250 Atlantic Ave., B'klyn., N. Y.
DEAR SIR : In applying for a position in your factory six months
ago, I gave three factories as former places of employment. I
did work at these places but under different names. The reason I
.changed my name was because at one of these factories, I belonged
to a union and I felt this was the cause of my being let out of this
factory. As you know the Wagner Act had not at that time been
declared constitutional and some employers felt that to believe in
unionism was an undesirable trait in a prospective employee.
Knowing that, I was afraid that in trying to secure employ-
ment I would be discriminated against.
Believing that now everyone realizes that unions, such as the
U. E. & R. W. of A., will prove as good for the management as
for the employee I have now no hesitation in giving the true
facts,
Here then are the true facts and the three places I gave you.
1. Gem Razor Corp. . . . I worked there for about two
years 1932-1934 under my real name Sarah Weisser. There was
to be a wage cut and I with others felt that it was not justified.
I was picked out by the management as one who felt the cut was
unnecessary and was laid off. At this factory I belonged to the
L.A.W.ofA.
2. Quigan Mfg. Corp.... I worked here for about one
year 1934-1935. It was here I first changed my name, to Sarah
Bernson. I was laid off because business was slow. The branch
of this firm in which I worked, the United Can Fastener Corp.
(Att. Frame Division) has since moved to Cambridge, Mass.
'The home office is at 15 West 26th St., N. Y. C.
3. Columbia Metal Frame Co. . . . I worked here for
-four months 1935-1936. At this plant, I used my real name
;because this concern was a union shop and I knew I would not be
denied employment because I had a union card.
When filling out application on March 29th, I did not pay
much attention to dates involved as I had already worked to your
satisfaction six months and felt I should be judged on such
service.
After giving these facts I see no reason why I should not be
reinstated and be reimbursed for time lost as Mr. Catherwood
promised the committee.
Truthfully Yours,
(S) SARAH WEISSER.
562 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Upon the receipt of this letter the respondents made no further
attempt to investigate Weisser's references, as they had promised
her, but immediately mimeographed her letter in full on leaflets 21,
and-circulated them on April 26, 1937, among the employees. After
quoting her letter in full, the leaflets read :
In view of the facts contained in this letter, the suspension
given Dorothy Starr pending investigation, has been changed to
dismissal. Any other action, in our judgment, would result in
the Management forfeiting its rights to properly supervise the
employment of its workers.
The respondents gave Weisser no direct reply to her letter, but
utilized the above method to notify her of her discharge.
At the time of the hearing Weisser had not been employed for any
period since April 9, 1937.
Considering her discharge in the light of the above facts, it is
apparent that the motivating cause was her union activities. Up to
the time of Weisser's last letter the respondents treated the issue
as one of checking her references. The respondents, by promising to
recheck her references provided she put in writing the oral explana-
tion of her change of name and former employment, thereby agreed
to reconsider her case. Upon the receipt of her letter, the respond-
ents, however, failed to carry out their promise to recheck her refer-
ences. Furthermore, they did not notify her of their failure to do
so. It is evident from the respondents' behavior that they never in-
tended to inquire further into her references. Their promise was
apparently designed to extract a letter from her which they would
use as propaganda to discourage union activities among their em-
ployees. Of great significance is the publication and circulation of
the respondents' circular 26 containing Weisser's letter among the
employees on April 26, two days after the U. E. R. W. filed its peti-
tion for an election and two days after the M. E. A. requested Cather-
wood to petition the Regional Director for a consent election.
Furthermore, during the four months of her employment, the re-
spondents had ample opportunity, at first hand, to judge for them-
selves Weisser's work, and apparently found it satisfactory. In such
a case references are not normally deemed important. Of great sig-
nificance, too, is the fact that the respondents retained her throughout
the period of her employment without once questioning her about
her references and her failure to submit her application card. This
fact alone shows the minor importance the respondents placed upon
references.
Under the circumstances of this case we do not believe that, in
absence of her union activities both in the respondents' plant and
20 Board's Exhibit No. 24,
DECISIONS AND OItDLES 563
in other plants , the respondents would have acted as they did or
would have discharged her.
We find that Sarah Weisser was discharged for union affiliation,
activities , and associations , and that by such discharge the Metro-
politan Device Corporation has discriminated in regard to hire and
tenure of employment and has thereby discouraged membership in a
labor organization.
We find that the respondents, by the acts above set forth, have
interfered with, restrained , and coerced their employees in the exer-
cise 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 purposes
of collective bargaining and other mutual aid and protection as
guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
IV. EFFECT OF UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
We find that the activities of the respondents set forth in Section
III above, occurring in connection with the operations of the re-
spondents described in Section I above, have a close, intimate, and
substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several
States, and have led and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and
obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce.
TFIE REMEDY
The Board has found that the respondents dominated and inter-
fered with the formation and administration' of the Metropolitan
Employees ' Association and contributed support thereto , and that
its growth has been due to encouragement received from the re-
spondents' officials and supervisory employees and their attacks upon
the U. E. R. W. The M. E. A. was set up to forestall outside unioni-
zation. It is an organization controlled by the respondents through
supervisory employees.
In order to remedy the unlawful conduct in this case, the respond-
ents must withdraw all recognition from the M. E. A. as an
organization representative of their employees for the purposes of
dealing with the respondents concerning grievances, labor disputes,
wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, and conditions of employ-
ment. We will therefore order the immediate disestablishment of
the M. E. A. as such representative.
As regards Sarah Weisser, we will order reinstatement to her
former position with back pay from the date of her discharge on
April 26 until the Metropolitan Device Corporation offers to rein-
state her , less any amounts earned by her in the meantime.
We have found that female employees who were locked out from
564 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
March 15 to March 26, 1937, were paid by the respondents for this;
period. However, the male employees, who were locked out for the
same period were paid by the respondents from March 15 through 18,,
but were not paid for the period from March 19 to March 26. Since
the respondents on March 26 reinstated all employees locked out from
March 15 to 26, we need not order reinstatement. The Board will,.
however, order the respondents to give back pay to the male employees,
who were locked out for the period from March 19 to March 26, 1937.
CONcLusIoNS OF LAW
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire
record in the proceeding, the Board makes the following conclusions
of law :
1. United Electrical and Radio Workers of America, Local No.
1203, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of
the Act.
2. The Metropolitan Employees' Association is a labor organization
within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
3. Metropolitan Device Corporation, by discriminating in regard to
the hire and tenure of 'employment of Sarah' Weisser, and thereby
discouraging membership in a labor organization, has engaged and
is engaging in unfair labor practices, within the meaning of Section
8 (3) of the Act.
4. The respondents, by discriminating in regard to the hire and
tenure of employment of a large portion of their employees who
were locked out for the period from March 15 to March 26, and
thereby - discouraging membership in a labor organization, have
engaged in unfair labor practices, within the meaning of Section
8 (3) of the Act.
5. The respondents, by dominating and interfering with the forma-
tion and administration of the Metropolitan Employees' Association,
contributing support thereto, and encouraging membership therein,
have engaged in and are engaging in unfair labor practices within
the meaning of Section 8 (2) of the Act.
6. The respondents, by interfering with, restraining, and coercing
their employees in the exercise of their rights guaranteed in Section
7 of the Act, have engaged in and are engaging in unfair labor prac-
tices within the meaning of Section 8 (1) of the Act.
7. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices
affecting commerce, within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of
the Act.
8. Metropolitan Device Corporation, by discharging George Kra-
mer, has not thereby discriminated in regard to hire and tenure of
employment such as to discourage membership in a labor organization
within the meaning of Section 8 (3) of the Act.
DECISIONS AND ORDERS
ORDER
565.
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 respond.
ents, Metropolitan Engineering Company and Metropolitan Device
Corporation , their officers , agents, successors and assigns shall :
1. Cease and desist from :
a. In any manner interfering with, restraining , or coercing their-
employees in the exercise of their rights to self-organization, to
form, join, or assist labor organizations to bargain collectively
through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in con-
certed activities for the purpose of collective bargaining and other
mutual aid and protection, as guaranteed in Section 7 of the National,
Labor Relations Act;
b. In any manner discouraging membership in the United Elec-
trical and Radio Workers of America, Local No. 1203, or in any
other labor organization of their employees, by discriminating in,
regard to hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of-
employment , or by threats of such discrimination;
c. Spying, maintaining surveillance , or employing any other man-
ner of espionage over the meetings or meeting places and activities
of the United Electrical and Radio Workers of America, Local No.
1203, or any other labor organization of their employees;
d. In any manner dominating or interfering with the administra-
tion of the Metropolitan Employees ' Association or with the forma--
tion and administration of any other labor organization of their-
employees , or contributing financial or other support to the Metro-
politan Employees ' Association or any other labor organization of-
their employees;
e. R .cognizing or dealing in any manner with the Metropolitan
Employees' Association or any group or committee purporting to.
represent the said organization concerning grievances, labor dis-
putes, rates of pay, wages, hours of employment , or other conditions
of employment.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
a. That the Metropolitan Device Corporation , its officers, agents,
successors , and assigns shall offer Sarah Weisser immediate and full
reinstatement to her former position without prejudice to her sen-
iority and other rights and privileges;
b. That the Metropolitan Device Corporation , its officers , agents.
successors , and assigns shall make whole Sarah Weisser for any loss
of pay she has suffered by reason of her discharge , by payment to her
of a sum of money equal to that which she would . normally have-
Z66
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
earned as wages during the period from the date of her discharge on
April 26, 1937, to the date of such offer of reinstatement, less he
amount earned by her during such period;
c. Make whole the male employees who were locked out during
the period from March 19 to March 26, 1937, for any loss of pay
-they have suffered by reason of the lockout, by payment to each of
-them of a sum of money equal to that which each would normally
.have earned as wages from March 19 to March 26, 1937;
d. Withdraw all recognition from the Metropolitan Employees'
Association as the representative of any of their employees for the
purpose of dealing with the respondents concerning grievances, labor
disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, or other condi-
tions of employment, and completely disestablish the Metropolitan
Employees' Association as such representative;
e. Instruct all of their officials and agents, including their super-
intendent, foremen, and other supervisory employees that they shall
not in any manner approach employees concerning, or discuss with
the employees, the question of their labor affiliation or threaten em-
ployees in any manner because of their membership in any labor
organization in general, or the United Electrical and Radio Workers
of America, Local No. 1203, in particular;
f. Post immediately notices in a conspicuous place on each floor of
t he respondents' plant stating : (1) that the respondents will cease
and desist in the manner aforesaid; (2) that the Metropolitan Em-
ployees' Association is disestablished as the representative of any of
their employees for the purposes of dealing with it with respect to
grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employment,
or other conditions of employment, and that the respondents will
refrain from any recognition thereof; (3) that the respondents will
not discharge or in any manner discriminate against members of the
Milted Electrical and Radio Workers of America, Local No. 1203, or
any other labor organization, or any persons assisting said organiza-
tions or engaging in union activity; (4) that the respondents have
instructed their. foremen and other supervisory employees to remain
impartial as between organizations and that any violations of this
instruction should be reported to it; and (5) that such notices will
remain posted for at least thirty (30) consecutive days from the date
of posting; and
g. Notify the Regional Director for the Second Region in writing
within ten (10) days from the date of this order what steps the
respondents have taken to comply herewith.
The allegations in the complaint that the respondents have en-
gaged in and are engaging in unfair labor practices within the mean-
ing of Section 8, (1) and (3) of the Act by discharging George
Kramer, are hereby dismissed.