Ray-Bell Films, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 10, 1941

28 N.L.R.B. 1197 (N.L.R.B. 1941)

In the Matter of RAY-BELL. FILMS, INCORPORATED and F. R. ARVER
Case, No. C-1721.-Decided January 10, 1941
Jurisdiction : commercial motion picture industry.
Unfair Labor Practices
-DZsorcmination: discharge ,. because of union membership and activity.
Remedial Orders : reinstatement and back pay awarded.
Mr. Lee Loevinger, for the Board.
Oppenheimer, Dickson, Hodgson, Brown, & Donnelly, by Mr.
'Edwin B. Baer, of St. Paul, Minn., for the respondent.
Mr. Raymond J. Compton, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
'ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon charges filed by F. R. Arver, the National Labor Relations
Board, herein called the Board, by the Regional Director for the
Eighteenth Region (Minneapolis, Minnesota), issued its complaint
dated May 2, 1940, against Ray-Bell Films, Incorporated, herein
called the respondent, alleging that,the respondent had engaged in
and was engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within
the meaning of Section 8 (1) 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 and notice of hearing were duly served upon
the respondent and Arver.
With respect to the unfair labor practices, the complaint alleged
in substance that the respondent (1) on or about February 9, 1940,
discharged and 'thereafter refused to reinstate Arver for the reason
that he joined and assisted Motion Picture Laboratory Technicians,
Local 734, International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees and
Moving Picture Machine Operators of the United States and Canada,
affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, herein called Local
734,- and engaged in concerted activities with other employees for
the purposes of collective bargaining and other mutual aid and pro-
tection; (2) advised, urged, threatened, and warned its employees to
refrain from becoming or,remaining members of Local 734; and (3)
28 N. L. R. B., No. 162.
1197
'1198 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
by the ' afore-mentioned acts, and by other acts, interfered with,, re-
strained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights
guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
On May 11, 1940, the respondent filed.an answer to the complaint,
admitting the allegations of the complaint as to the nature of its busi-
ness, denying that it had engaged in the unfair labor practices
alleged therein, and alleging affirmatively that Arver was discharged
because he performed his duties in an unsatisfactory manner.
Pursuant to notice and notice of postponement, a hearing was held
in St. Paul, , Minnesota, on June -10 and 11, 1940, before Martin
Raphael, the Trial Examiner, duly designated by the Board. The
Board and the respondent were represented by,counsel, participated
in the hearing, and were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to
examine, and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence bear-
ing on the issues. At the commencement of the hearing, the Trial
Examiner reserved ruling on a written motion filed by counsel for the
Board on May 20, 1940, for permission to take by deposition.the tes-
timony of James A. Wood. At the conclusion of the hearing, he also
reserved ruling on a motion by the respondent to dismiss the com-
plaint for failure of proof. Both motions were denied by the Trial
Examiner in his Intermediate Report issued thereafter. During the
course of the hearing the Trial Examiner made rulings on other
motions and on objections to the admission of evidence.- The Board
has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner and finds that no
prejudicial errors were committed. The rulings are hereby -affirmed.
The Trial Examiner thereafter filed his Intermediate Report dated
November 1, 1940, copies of which were duly served upon the parties,
in which he found that the respondent had engaged in unfair labor
practices within the meaning of-Section 8 ^ (1) and, (3) and-Section
2 (6) and (7) of the Act. He accordingly 'recommended that the
respondent cease and desist from engaging in the unfair labor prac-
tices found and that it reinstate Arver with back pay. Thereafter
the respondent filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and a brief
in support of its exceptions. The Board has considered the exceptions
of the respondent and finds them to be without merit except as they
are consistent with the findings, conclusions; and order set forth below.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT,
Ray-Bell Films, Incorporated, is a Minnesota corporation with its
principal office and place of business at St. Paul,,Minnesota, where it
is.engaged in -the production of commercial motion ^pictures° and the
i
RAY-BELL FILMS, INCORPORATED - 1199;
distribution and rental of ^ motion picture films for advertising pur-
poses. During the year 1939, the respondent purchased approximately
$40,000 worth of raw'materials, consisting principally of motion pic-
ture film and equipment, of which over 75 per cent were shipped from
points outside the State of Minnesota.' For the same year, the respond-
ent's gross -income was approximately $300,000, of which more than 50-
per cent represented receipts from the sale and rental of films shipped
to points outside the State of Minnesota.
II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Motion Picture Laboratory Technicians, Local' 734, International
Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees and Moving Picture Machine
Operators of the United States and Canada, is a labor organization
affiliated with the American Federation of Labor. It admits to mem-
bership laboratory technicians employed by the respondent.
-, III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES - ,
Frank R. Arver was continuously employed by the respondent and
its predecessor, Rath, Mills & Bell, from August 1920 until his dis-
charge on February 9, 1940. His duties during that, time included
photographing titles, and developing, editing, repairing, arid project-
ing films . From 1926 to June 1937, Arver worked as'a cameraman and
also as a laboratory man, spending about two-thirds of his time on
the latter job. From 1931 until discharged in 1940, he was in charge
of the laboratory.
In,the winter offi1929, Arver'and the other cameramen employed by
the respondent, joined Local 666 of the International Alliance of
Theatrical Stage Employees and Moving Picture Operators of the
United States and Canada, herein called the I. A. T. S. E., the-mem-
bership-°of which was confined to cameramen. Their initiation fees
were paid by R. H. Ray, president of the respondent, who together
with C. E. Bell, the respondent's vice president, also joined Local 666.
From 1929 to 1937, the members of Local 666 held few meetings and
presented no demands to the respondent respecting wages, hours, or
other working conditions. In 1931, Arver withdrew his membership
from this union. On several occasions thereafter, 'Ray asked him to
rejoin, but Arver refused. In June or July 1937, ho evCr, Arver did
rejoin Local 666 , which shortly thereafter entered into a collective
bargaining agreement with the, respondent. The day following the
signing of the agr''ement, Ray called Arver into'his office and told him
that he should not rejoin Local 666. According to Arver, Ray's
response to his statement that he had already rejoined was, "Well, what
did you,do that for'? Why didn't you come in and ask me about it?"
I
11
1200 DECISIONS OF' NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Ray admitted that he told Arver not to rejoin Local 666, but only
because it would have been a needless expense for Arver to pay initia-'
tion fees when no position as a cameraman was available.
In the fall of 1938, Ray learned that some of the men in the service.
department had become members of Local B-31, Film Exchange
Workers, affiliated with the I. A. T. S. E., hereinafter called Local'
B-31. After Ray had verified this information by having the service
employees show him their membership cards, he discussed the matter'
.with Esterlee, a representative of Local B-31. Ray expressed a prefer-
ence for a union which would have jurisdiction over both service and
laboratory technicians rather than , as was true of , B-31 , one whose
jurisdiction was limited to the service men . In the latter part of
November, after several conferences with Ray, Esterlee agreed that
Local B-31 was not suitable to the respondent's operations and that it,
would not seek membership among the employees. A few days later,
Ray called a meeting of the employees, told them that he did not think
that Local B-31 was the proper union for . the employees who were
"eligible to be organized ," suggested that a union similar to Local 666
be formed , and indicated that Arver was the one most qualified to
organize `it. As the meeting adjourned, several employees asked'Arver
if he would organize them. Arver consented to do so, and requested
that they obtain separate authorizations , one designating him as their
representative to conduct collective bargaining negotiations with the
respondent , and the other authorizing him to secure a charter from the
I. A. T. S. E. The first mentioned authorization was obtained on or
about December 1, 1938, and the latter on or about January, 13, 1939.
Several months later, Ray 'asked Arver if he had "anything to report"
concerning his efforts to organize the new union . Arver, who had
been thus far unsuccessful in obtaining a charter from the I. A. T.
S. E., replied that there were no further developments at that time.
During the third week in September 1939 , Frank Olson, a repre-
sentative of the I. A. T. S. E., telephoned Arver that he was coming to
St. Paul to explore the advisability of issuing a charter to the labora-
tory technicians. Arver immediately advised Ray of this communica-
tion and obtained leave to take the next morning off to confer with
Olson. That evening, Ray telephoned Arver that he had some work
at the studio which he wanted to finish early the following morning.
Arver testified that when he reminded Ray of his appointment with
Olson,•Ray replied that "he couldn't let him take time off like that."
Arver further testified that he then told Ray, "Well, you have had your
finger in this, in other words , you asked for this union , and so we
have just got to go through with'it now," and-that Ray replied, "Well,
I suppose you will have,to see him but it is just too bad it has gone so
far." ` We find, as did the Trial Examiner, that Ray, who could not
RAY-BELL FILMS , INCORPORATED 1201
"recall" having had this conversation, made the statements attributed
to him by Arver. , The next day, after having conferred with Olson,
Arver advised Ray that while there was some objection from the opera-
tors and stage hands to the granting of the charter, he would "clear
the way" so other unions would be kept out. He reassured Ray that
they "nNould keep the -union angle settled down to just the laboratory
technicians and Local 666."
The following week, Arver called Bell's attention to the fact that
the respondent was violating its contract with Local 666 by permitting
an assistant cameraman to operate a camera . in the absence of a first-
class cameraman . Bell replied that he would mention the matter to
Ray. A day or so, later, Ray informed Arver that the respondent had
not violated its contract with Local 666, that he was "getting tired of
this union stuff," and that Arver was going to be "out of a job" if he
continued. Arver then protested that he was a cameraman and that
he should be given consideration when camera work was available.
Ray told him that there vas insufficient work to assign him perma-.
nently to camera work, and moreover, that he, was too valuable in the
laboratory to spare him from his duties there. Arver insisted that
since a cameraman's salary was higher than that of a laboratory-man,
he should be compensated, for the respondent's faihu•e,to employ him
as a cameraman. Accordingly, the respondent gave him an' increase
in salary a week later.
During the first week in December 1939, Arver was notified that
the I. A. T. S. E. had, decided to issue a charter to the laboratory
workers. That same week, Ray called Arver, to his office and asked
him why he had not been told about the issuance of the charter and,
according to Arver, asked, "Why do I have to find these things out
,second hand?" Arver testified that during the course of the conversa-
tion, Ray stated that he did not like "things going on behind my back,"
that Arver was drawing away from the "old bunch," and that although
he [Ray] had wanted a union, he did not want "those bohunks there
in the service department that cannot even make a decent splice."
Arver further testified that when he told Ray that the new, union
would not ask him to sign an agreement of any kind until the following
spring, Ray retorted, "Wait until they come to me with that agreement
next spring. I'll tell them plenty." In response to Arver's suggestion
that members of the newly chartered union be given consideration
when periodic lay-offs were made, Ray stated that he- would -lay off
anybody that he wanted to. Ray admitted having had a discussion
with Arver in which he discussed lay-offs and referred to the service
department employees as "bohunks." He did not deny the statements
attributed to him by Arver, and we credit, as did the Trial Examiner,
Arver's version of the foregoing conversation.
1202 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD ,
Arver testified that during the first week in January 1940, Bell
warned him that Ray was "sore about these unions" and that he
[Arver] was in a "tight spot." When Arver protested that Ray had
wanted' the new union, Arver stated that Bell replied, "Well, he did
want it once, but he don't no more." Bell admitted that he had told
Arver that "he should not aggravate Mr. Ray so much . . . that Mr.
Ray was getting sore from his constant keeping things in a turmoil,"
but that he, was referring to the fact that Arver had not been perform-
ing his work in the laboratory efficiently. The Trial Examiner found
that Bell was not a convincing witness and credited Arver's version
of the conversation. We find that Bell made the statements above
attributed to him by Arver.
On or about January 21, 1940, Arver received the charter from the
1. A. T. S. E. designating the new union as Laboratory Technicians,
Local 734. Arver testified that the next day, Ray called him into his
office and, in the presence of Bell, the following conversation took
place:
A. I came into the office. 'Mr. Ray leaned back in his chair and
he said, "Well," he said, "you finally did it,'huh ?"
He said, "You got your charter and you got your union," and he
waved his arms. "Why do we always have to be first in every-
thing? We are the whole laughing stock of the country because
we have got a laboratory technicians' union here. Why didn't
you come in and tell me about it?"
Q. Tell us everything that was said, go on.
A. Mr. Ray rose in his chair and said to me, "I will have no con-
sideration for you. You are iiot an old employee any more. You
are nothing but Frank Arver to me, and when the time comes, I
will take care of you." _
He sat back in his.cliair and said, ".Humph, I can't fire anybody?
I can't lay anybody off? Huh." .
He said, "I can go out and fire the general sales manager, but
these fellows think that I can't fire any of them."
I said to Mr. Ray, "I hope now -,I don't like the attitude you
are taking on this. I would like to advise you on the fact that
we were going to be obligated last night, but you had a big im-
portant meeting here and we had no opportunity to tell you."
I said, "Do you want to talk to the boys about this?"
He said, "No, I don't want to talk to them, or do anything for
them at all." -
He said, "They will talk to me now that they have got some-
body to back them up, will they? - They will listen to what you
tell them, and you will get your orders out of the New York office."
K
RAY-BELL FILMS, INCORPORATED 1203
I told Mr. Ray that I was sorry that he took that attitude, that
we had no intention of hamstringing him or doing anything out
of the way here. '
Mr. Bell intervened and said, "Well, Frank, you should have
known better. You are an old employee here, and those boys
aren't."
He said, "You could have clone better if you had come in and
talked to Reid"-meaning Mr. Ray.
,He said, "You got hold of a particularly hot potato, and I
would advise you to drop -it."
Ray's version of the foregoing conversation was that he asked Arver
why he had not told him that the charter had been granted, in accord-
ance with his promise to keep Ray informed. Ray testified that due
to his "willingness in the beginning of the negotiations" he thought
Arver' ought to have kept him posted "on what was going on," that
the granting of the charter was the third occasion when an important
step had taken place in the formation of Local 734 which he had
learned of in a "roundabout way," and that he did not think "that
was a very businesslike way to handle the matter." In view of the
finding by the,Trial Examiner that Arver was a credible witness and
the- failure of Ray and Bell to contradict Arver's testimony regarding
the conversation set forth above, and Ray's corroborative testimony
above, we find, as did the Trial Examiner, that Ray and Bell made in
substance the statements attributed to them by Arver.
On February 1, 1940, the respondent laid off Rudolph Pretzel,
Arver's assistant. Pretzel, a member of Local 734, complained to
Arver that members of Local 666 who were working "in the field"
covered by Local 734 should have been laid off first, whereupon the
members of Local 734 appointed Arver and two other members to
discuss the matter with Ray. Arver testified that on February 7,
1940, he told Ray that they "had a few matters of a jurisdictional
nature to thresh out around here," and asked for an appointment.
They agreed to meet the following day. On February 8, Ray asked
Arver to postpone the meeting until the next day, to which Arver
assented. On February 9, Ray called Arver into his office and told
him that he was discharged, "mainly" because of his unsatisfactory
care of the developing machine. Arver asserted that he was being
discharged because of his,union activities, and told Ray that lie would
take the matter to the Board.
At the hearing, the respondent advanced the following reasons for
Arver's discharge : his alleged failure to keep the developing machine
clean, the dissatisfaction of the cameramen with his developing of
their films, his too frequent use of a helper in operating the developing
machine, and the loss of the respondent's Paramount News account
allegedly due to Arver's faulty developing of films. Ray testified that
413.07-42-vol 28-77
1204 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR • RELATIONS BOARD
he had spoken to Arver two or three times about the untidy appearance
of the developing machine , but was able to recall only that the first of
such occasions occurred in July 1939. Bell also testified that he told
Arver on several occasions to be careful with "conditions in the
laboratory," but was unable to fix the time of any of these admonitions.
Arver testified that only once did Ray complain about the appearance
of the machine and that was in November 1939 when he told Arver,
"Frank, look at the back of that machine. It looks as though we
have had it three years. Why don't you paint it up?" Arver after-
wards painted the machine . Assuming that Ray, as he testified, told
Arver to clean the machine in July 1939 , Arver's failure to keep it
clean could not have been regarded seriously , inasmuch as he was
given an increase in salary the following September , shortly after
Ray, in refusing his request for work as a cameraman , had commented
on the value of his services in the laboratory . Moreover , Arver was
never informed that failure to keep the developing machine clean
would jeopardize his job. In view of his long and satisfactory service,
we believe that had Ray considered the appearance of the machine to
have been a serious matter , he would have warned Arver of the conse-
quences which would follow his continued neglect of its care.
While Ray testified that on occasion Arver "bickered" with the
cameramen as to who was responsible for defects in developed film,
there is no credible evidence that such defects were attributable to a
deficiency in the quality of Arver's work rather than in that of the
cameramen . Ray maintained that Howard Cress, one of the respond-
ent's cameramen , made several complaints to him concerning Arver's
work during they period between July and December 1939. Cress,
however, testified otherwise , and stated that he had complained to Ray.
about the work of Peterson who was employed in the laboratory "three
or four years ago," but that since Arver had been in charge of the
laboratory he had made no complaints about the quality of his work.
The Trial Examiner found that Cress was a credible witness, and we
believe his testimony in this regard. The respondent also offered
evidence purporting to show that Bernard Schleiter , who replaced
Arver, required the assistance of a helper less frequently than Arver
and was otherwise more efficient. The Trial Examiner rightly excluded
this evidence, since prior to the date of Arver's discharge Schleiter
had never operated the developing machine and consequently his alleged
efficiency could not have been an operative consideration in the re-
spondent's decision to discharge Arver. Moreover, Schleiter testified
without contradiction that films which had been developed when
Arver was in charge of the laboratory were of "about the, same quality"
as those developed by himself after Arver was discharged.
Regarding the respondent 's contention that Arver was responsible
for defects appearing in a film of the Michigan-Minnesota football
RAY-BELL FILMS,- INCORPORATED 1205
game developed by the respondent for Paramount News in the fall of
1939, it does not appear either from Ray's testimony concerning the
incident or from any other evidence in the record that the resulting
loss of the Paramount News account was attributable to Arver's
faulty workmanship, or that the respondent believed the loss of the
account to be attributable to Arver's alleged faulty workmanship.
Moreover, we credit,, as did the Trial Examiner, Arver's testimony
that a week or so after the Michigan-Minnesota game Ray told
Arver that "he didn't care about this Paramount account, it was
just a lot of work."
We agree with the Trial Examiner and are satisfied that none of
the above reasons prompted Arver's discharge, but were assigned
by the respondent only as an ostensible justification for its dis-
criminatory action. We are convinced that the real reason for the
discharge lay in Arver's failure to confine his union activities to
the formation of a non-militant organization such as Ray had antici-
pated at the time he suggested Arver to undertake the formation of
an organization. Ray's rebukes to Arver for failing to keep him
intormed of his progress in organizing Local 734 and his subsequent
hostility to the new union, clearly indicate that the respondent had
become increasingly apprehensive over the trend of Arver's union
activities. Immediately after Arver sought a meeting with Ray
to discuss Pretzel's grievance and it thus became apparent that Arver,
despite the repeated admonitions of Ray and Bell, was seeking to
establish Local 734 as an effective representative of the respondent's
employees, he was discharged. This sequence of events, coupled with
the lack of any credible justification by the respondent for dismissal of
an employee who had been satisfactory for 20 years, plainly leads
to the conclusion that Arver's union activities motivated his discharge.
We find that Frank R. Arver was discharged on February 9, 1940,
and was refused reinstatement because of his membership and activity
in Local 734, and that by his discharge the respondent has discrimi-
nated in regard to the hire and tenure of his employment, thereby
discouraging membership in a labor organization. We further find
that the respondent by Arver's discharge and by the officer's ex-
pressed hostility toward Local 734, as described above, has interfered
with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
When discharged Arver was earning $185 a month. Since then he
has had no regular employment other than operating a small photo-
gi aphic laboratory of his own.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the respondent set forth in Section III above,
occurring in connection with the operations of the respondent de-
1206 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR . RELATIONS BOARD
scribed 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
We have found that the respondent has engaged in certain unfair
labor practices. We will, therefore, order the respondent to cease
and desist therefrom and, to effectuate the purposes of the Act, also
order the respondent to post notices stating that it will not engage
in the conduct from which it is ordered'to cease and desist.
Having found that the respondent discriminatorily discharged and
subsequently refused to reinstate Frank R. Arver because of his union
activity, we will order the respondent to offer him reinstatement to his
former position without prejudice to his seniority and other rights and
privileges. We will also order the respondent to make him whole for
any loss of pay he has suffered by reason of the respondent's discrimi.
nation,by payment to him of a sum of money equal to the amount
which he normally would have earned as wages from the date of the
discrimination to the date of the offer of reinstatement, less his net
earnings' during that period.
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact, and upon the entire
record in the case, the Board makes the following :
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Motion Picture Laboratory Technicians, Local 734, International
Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees and Moving Picture Machine
Operators of the United States and Canada, affiliated with the Amer-
ican Federation of Labor, is a labor organization within the meaning
of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
2. By discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of employ-
ment of Frank R. Arver, thereby discouraging membership in Motion
Picture Laboratory Technicians, Local 734, International Alliance of
Theatrical Stage Employees and Moving Picture Machine Operators
of the United States and Canada, affiliated with the American Federa-
tion of Labor, the respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair
labor practices, within the meaning of Section 8 (3) of the Act.
1 By "net earnings" is meant earnings less expenses , such as for transportation, room,
and board , incurred by an employee in connection with obtaining work and working else-
where than for the respondent , which would not have been incurred but for his unlawful
discharge and the consequent necessity of his seeking employment elsewhere . See matter
of Crossett Lumber Company and United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of
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 shall be considered as earnings . See Republic Steel Corporation v N. L. R. B
decided by United States Supreme Court , November 12, 1910
` -RAY-BELL % FILMS, 'INCORPORATED - 1207
3. By interfering with, restraining, and, coercing its employees in
the exercise of the rights, guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the: re-
spondent has engaged in and 'is engaging in unfair labor practices
within the meaning of Section 8 (1) of the Act.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices
affecting commerce , within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of
the Act.
ORDER
Upon the basis of the 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,
Ray-Bell Films , Incorporated , St. Paul, Minnesota , and its officers,
agents, successors , and assigns , shall :
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Discouraging membership in Motion Picture Laboratory Tech-
nicians, Local 734 , International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Em-
ployees and Moving Picture Machine Operators of the United States
and Canada, affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, or any
other labor organization of its employees , by discriminating in regard
to their hire and tenure of employment or any terms or conditions of
their employment;
(b) In any other manner interfering with, restraining , or coercing
its employees in the exercise of 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 as guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action, which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Offer to Frank R. Arver immediate and full reinstatement to
his former or substantially equivalent position , without prejudice to
his seniority or other rights and privileges;
(b) Make whole Frank R. Arver for any loss of pay he may have
suffered by reason of his discharge by the respondent on February 9,
1940, by payment to him of a sum of money equal to that which he
would normally have earned as wages from the date of his discharge
to the date of such offer of reinstatement , less his net earnings during
said period ;
(c) Post immediately notices to its employees in conspicuous places
throughout its plant and maintain such notices for a period of at
least sixty (60) days from the date of posting, stating ( 1) that the
respondent will not engage in the conduct from which it is ordered
to cease - and desist in paragraph 1 (a) and (b) of, this Order; (2) that
1208 DECISIONS OF-NATIONAL LABOR, RELATIONS BOARD
it will take the affirmative action set forth in paragraphs 2 (a) and
(b) of this Order; and (3) that its employees are free to join and
remain members of Motion Picture Laboratory Technicians, Local
734, International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees and Mov-
ing Picture Machine Operators of the United States and Canada,
affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, and that it will not
discriminate against any employee because of membership or activity
in said labor organization;
(d) Notify the Regional Director for the Eighteenth Region in
writing within ten (10) days from the date of this Order what steps
the respondent has taken to comply herewith.
CHAIRMAN HARRY A. MILLIs took no part in the consideration of the
above Decision and Order.