Rollway Bearing Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 28, 1936

1 N.L.R.B. 651 (N.L.R.B. 1936)

In the Matter of ROLLWAY BEARING COMPANY, INC. and FEDERAL
LABOR UNION 18482
Case No. C-32.-Decided April 28, 1936
Machine Parts Industry-Unit Appropriate for Collective Bargaining : produc-
tion employees ; eligibility for membership in only organization making bona fide
effort at collective bargaining-Representatives : proof of choice : membership in
union ; participation in strike called by union-Collective Bargaining : refusal to
recognize representatives as bargaining agency representing employees ; refusal
to meet representatives-Strike-Discrimination : discharge ; non-reinstatement
following strike-Reinstatement Ordered, Strikers : strike provoked by employ-
er's law violation ; displacement of employees hired during strike ; preferential
list ordered , including-Reinstatement Ordered, Non-Strikers-Back Pay:
awarded, non -strikers.
Mr. Daniel B. SItortal for the Board.
Hancock, Dorr, Kingsley, & Shove, by Mr. Carl E. Dorr and Mr.
Stewart F. Hancock, of Syracuse, N. Y., for respondent.
Mr. Melvin C. Smith, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF CASE
Upon charges duly filed by Federal Labor Union 18482, hereinafter
referred to as the Union, the National Labor Relations Board, by
John P. Boland, Regional Director for the Third Region, issued its
complaint, dated October 30, 1935, against Rollway Bearing Com-
pany, Inc., Syracuse, New York, respondent herein. The complaint,
and notice of hearing thereon, were duly served upon respondent and
upon the Union on October 31, 1935.
The complaint alleges that respondent has engaged in unfair Iabor
practices affecting commerce, within the meaning of Section 8, sub-
divisions (1), (3) and (5), and Section 2, subdivisions (6) and (7)
of the National Labor Relations Act, approved July 5, 1935, herein-
after called the Act. Respondent filed a motion to dismiss the com-
plaint on the ground of the unconstitutionality of the Act as applied
to the respondent. Without prejudice to its rights under the motion
to dismiss, respondent also filed an answer to the complaint admitting
the allegations concerning its incorporation and place of business,
but denying the allegations with respect to its activities in interstate
651
652 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
commerce and further denying the allegations regarding the unfair
labor practices.
Pursuant to the notice thereof, Thurman W. Stoner, Trial Exam-
iner duly designated by order of the Board, conducted a hearing on
November 12, 13, 14, 15, 19 and 20, 1935, at Syracuse, New York.
Respondent, appearing by counsel, participated in the hearing. Full
opportunity to be heard, to cross-examine witnesses and to produce
evidence was afforded to all parties. At the close of the Board's
case and also at the conclusion of the hearing, respondent renewed
its motion to dismiss the complaint on-the ground that the Act is
unconstitutional and on the further ground that the evidence did not
support the allegations in the complaint. , The Trial Examiner denied
the motions to dismiss. The rulings of the Trial Examiner are
hereby affirmed.
, Briefs were filed by counsel for respondent and counsel for the
Board.
Upon the record thus made, the transcript of the hearing and all,
evidence, including oral testimony, documentary and other evidence
offered and received at the hearing, the Trial Examiner, on December
28, 1935, filed an intermediate ' report, finding and concluding in sub-
stance that respondent had engaged in unfair labor practices affecting
commerce, within the meaning of Section 8, subdivisions (1), (3) and
(5), and Section 2, subdivisions (6) and (7) of the Act. The Trial
Examiner recommended that the complaint be dismissed as to Frank
Cherry, Howard Hooper and Robert Parslow, that respondent offer
immediate and full reinstatement with back pay to John Fowler,
Carl Kramer and George Kugler, and that respondent offer to rein-
state to his former position at the same rate of pay any employee,
member of Federal Labor Union 18482, who participated in a strike
beginning August 29, 1935, and who had not been offered reemploy-
ment by respondent.
Respondent thereafter filed a statement of exceptions, dated Jan-
uary 9, 1936, wherein respondent made exceptions to the Trial Exam-
iner's rulings upon its motions and objections, as well as to the Trial
Examiner's intermediate- report.
By order of the Board, dated January 9, 1936, the proceeding was
transferred to and continued before it, in accordance with Article II,
Section 35 of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regula-
tions-Series 1.
An oral argument on the record was held before the Board in
Washington, D. C., on January 22, 1936, pursuant to Article II, Sec-
tion 34 of said Rules and Regulations-Series 1.
We find no error in the Trial Examiner's rulings upon respondent's
motions and objections, and such rulings are hereby affirmed. As set
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 653,
forth below , we also find that the evidence supports the findings and
conclusions made by the Trial Examiner in his intermediate report
that respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices affecting com-
merce, within the meaning of Section 8, subdivisions (1), (3) and
( 5), and Section 2, subdivisions ( 6) and ( 7) of the Act.
Upon the evidence adduced at the hearing and from the entire
record now before it , the Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. RESPONDENT AND ITS BUSINESS
1. Respondent , Rollway Bearing Company , Inc., is and has been
since February 13, 1923, a corporation organized under and existing
by virtue of the laws of the State of New York , having its principal
office and place of business in the. City of Syracuse , County of Onon-,
daga, State of New York, and is now and has continuously been
engaged at the aforesaid place of business , hereinafter referred to as
respondent 's plant, in the production , sale and distribution of roller,
bearings.
2. All of respondent 's manufacturing operations are performed at
its plant in Syracuse , and it maintains no branch offices. However,
sales representatives are stationed in Chicago , Illinois; Detroit,
Michigan ; Philadelphia and Pittsburgh ; Pennsylvania ; and Cleve-
land, Ohio. It appears that the sales representatives have no au-,
thority to enter into contracts binding respondent , and orders for
finished products are not binding on respondent until approved by the
sales department in Syracuse , New York. The service of respond-
ent's engineering department is recommended to its customers for
assistance in the mounting and installing of roller bearings , and the
chief inspector for respondent makes occasional trips of inspection
throughout the United States in answer to complaints concerning its
products.
3. The raw materials used in the manufacturing of respondent's
finished products consist principally of stampings , steel bars, bronze
castings , steel forgings , steel tubes and wires . A substantial propor-
tion, approximately 25 percent , of the raw materials is obtained from
without the State of New York, mainly from the States of Pennsyl-
vania, Ohio and Michigan . The remaining portion of raw materials
is obtained from within the State of New York.
Extensive shipments of respondent 's finished products are made
throughout the United States. Approximately 90 percent of the
finished products are destined to points without the State of New
York. Shipments are usually made f. o. b. Syracuse . Occasional
shipments are made to Canada, and it appears that one shipment to
654 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Italy and one shipment to Sweden have been made within the past
two years. A substantial amount of respondent's finished products
are purchased by the United States Navy Department, Pennsylvania
Railroad Company (through General Electric Company or Westing-
house Company), automobile manufacturers in Michigan and Indi-
ana, steel mill equipment builders in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, a
manufacturer of machine tools in Illinois, and general construction'
companies in Pennsylvania and Massachusetts.
4. The aforesaid operations of respondent constitute a continuous
flow of trade, traffic and commerce among the several States and with
foreign countries.
H. FEDERAL LABOR UNION 18482 AND EARLY DEALINGS WITH RESPONDENT
5. Federal Labor Union 18482 is a labor organization affiliated with
the American Federation of Labor. It was organized August 16,
1933, for the purpose of collective bargaining with respondent in
matters concerning respondent's production employees. At that time
about 140 employees of approximately 200 production employees
in respondent's plant, eligible for membership in the Union, became
members thereof.
The first meeting between the Union's duly elected Shop Com-
mittee and respondent took place late in August, 1933, shortly after
the organization of the Union. At that time Bell, President of re-
spondent, agreed "to go along" with the Union. The second meeting
was held in September, 1933, and layoffs and working conditions
were discussed. Thereafter meetings were held about once each
month.
In July, 1934, the Shop Committee asked respondent for increased
wages but was informed that respondent was not able to meet its
demands. Shortly thereafter Bell, President of respondent, at his
own request, was permitted to address a union meeting. He asked
the employees to "go along with him", and announced that he would
raise wages when he was in a position to do so. Bell also stated on
this occasion that he considered it a waste of money to pay dues to
the American Federation of Labor, and that the men could be better
represented through a lawyer.
The present Shop Committee, representing the Union, was elected
in January, 1935.
III. THE BARGAINING UNIT AND MAJORITY REPRESENTATION BY THE UNION
6. The complaint alleges that the production department at re-
spondent's plant constitutes a unit appropriate for the purposes of
collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act.
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 655
Only production employees are eligible for membership in thb
Union. Respondent has raised no issue relative to the appropriate
unit as such for the purposes of collective bargaining. However, in
its answer, respondent argues that its production employees do not
constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining
within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act, for the reason that
respondent is not engaged in interstate commerce and its business or
operations do not come within the purview of the Act. We are
unable to see that this argument is relevant to the question of the
appropriate bargaining unit. We find that the production employees
at respondent's plant constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes
of collective bargaining.
7. It was testified that in August, 1933, at the time of the organiza-
tion of the Union, approximately 140 of the 200 employees at re-
spondent's plant became members of the Union. In December, 1933,
the Shop Committee informed respondent that it represented a
majority of its employees for the purposes of collective bargaining,
and this statement was not questioned by respondent at that time or
at any time thereafter.
Superintendent Polloe testified that on August 29, 1935, at the time
the strike hereafter discussed was called at respondent's plant, ap-
proximately 40 production employees of 180 employed at the plant
reported for work. Approximately 140 employees went out on strike.
Thus, the record clearly indicates that a majority of the employees
have adhered constantly and consistently to the Union.
Between July 18, 1935, and August 22, 1935, numerous attempts
to bargain collectively with respondent were made by the Union.
We find that at all such times the Union was the duly designated
representative of a majority of the employees in the appropriate
unit.
IV. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Events leading up to present controversy
8. Clarence O. Walter and Samuel Polloe, Vice-President and Su-
perintendent of respondent, respectively, testified that an inventory of
respondent's business on July 1, 1935, disclosed that during the first
six months of 1935 respondent had suffered approximately a 20 per-
cent decrease in its volume of business as compared with the previ-
ous six months, and that it was decided to put the plant on a more
economical operating basis by making a reduction in the force of
approximately 50 to 60 employees. On July 1, 1935, respondent be-
gan to reduce the number of its employees, and continue to discharge
employees during the months of July and August, 1935. A proxi-
mately 200 workers were employed at respondent's plant on Luly 1,
1935, and an average of 180 workers were employed at its plant dur-
656 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ing August , 1935. Thus respondent discharged only about 20 em-
ployees between July 1, 1935 , and August 29, 1935, the date of the
strike hereafter discussed.
B. The six discharges named in the complaint
9. The complaint alleges that the following six employees of re-
spondent were discharged and refused reinstatement by respondent
because of their union membership and activity :
John Fowler-discharged July 12, 1935'
Frank Cherry-discharged July 15, 1935
Carl Kramer-discharged August 1, 1935,
George Kugler-discharged August 19, 1935 2
Howard Hooper-discharged August 19, 1935 2
Robert Parslow-discharged August 19, 1935 2
Respondent denies this allegation.
10. Cherry , Hooper, and Parslow may be considered together.
Cherry and Hooper did not appear and testify at the hearing. No
evidence was offered in behalf of Cherry ; and Henderson , Financial
Secretary of the Union, indicated that Hooper does not wish to be
reinstated to his former position with respondent . Parslow testified
that he now has satisfactory employment and does not desire to re-
turn to work for respondent . The complaint with respect to Cherry,
Hooper, and Parslow will be dismissed , without prejudice.
Fowler was employed as a timekeeper and tool crib clerk, and
applied first aid to minor injuries. He had been employed by re-
spondent about six and one half years and has been a member of the
Union since its inception . He was discharged July 8, 1935.
Kramer was employed as a stamping machine operator. He had
been employed by respondent since 1929 ; and has been a member of
the Union since its inception , and has served on the Shop Committee.
He was informed on August 1, 1935, by Foreman Karb that he would
be "laid off for a day or two until business picked up ." However,
-he has never been recalled.
Kugler was employed as a lathe operator . He had been in the
employ of respondent for eight or nine years . He is Treasurer of the
Union and has been a member of the Shop Committee on several
occasions. He was discharged July 19, 1935 . Although Kugler has
never been recalled to work, shortly after his discharge Cliff Kaiser
was placed in his job. Respondent contends that he was laid off
and that his employment was terminated temporarily because of a
reduction in the force.
1 Amended to July 8, 1935
2 Amended to July 19, 1935.
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 657
In addition to the above employees , David McDonald, President
of the Union from January to April , 1935, was discharged July 1,
1935; and Herbert Henderson , Financial Secretary of the Union, was
discharged July 2, 1935 .3 The three members of the Shop Committee
and other members of the Union were also discharged between July
.1 and July 5, 1935 . Substantially all of the 20 employees discharged
by respondent between July 1, 1935 , and August 29, 1935, were
officers and members of the Union.
It is true that McDonald , Henderson , the three members of the
Shop Committee and other members of the Union were discharged
before July 5, 1935 , the effective date of the Act; thus, no charges
were made against respondent with respect to them. However, the
fact that substantially all of the 20 employees discharged by re-
spondent were members of the Union , and that among them were
practically all the officers and committee -men of the Union , indicates
clearly that even if it is true that respondent had found it necessary
to reduce its force , it was taking advantage of the opportunity to get
rid of those of its employees who were. active in Union affairs.
In the case of Kugler , respondent frankly states that its sole
reason for terminating his employment was because of the necessity
to reduce the force . It is clear that Kugler had been a competent
and conscientious worker. Although respondent, at the time of the
hearing, had increased its personnel to approximately the same num-
ber as were employed on July 1, 1935, Kugler had not been recalled.
We conclude that he was discharged because of his Union membership
and activity.
One of the reasons respondent gives for the discharge of Fowler is
that his job was abolished . However, the evidence shows that two
weeks after he was discharged his job was given to another employee,
Donald Milburn . Further , this was not the reason given to him at
the time he was discharged . Superintendent Polloe merely told him
that he was being laid off because it was necessary to reduce the force.
In the case of both Fowler and Kramer , respondent also contends
that they were inefficient or had failed to obey instructions at various
intervals since 1933. However, the evidence shows that the last of
these incidents took place months before either was laid off. For
example, respondent offered evidence to show that during 1933, 1934,
and the early part of 1935, Fowler had been instructed on several
occasions concerning the manner in which tools should be catalogued,
and had been told not to allow more than one man to enter the tool
crib at a time ; and that he had failed to obey these instructions, and
consequently the tool crib had remained disorderly . , However, re-
8 George Kugler, Treasurer of the Union, testified that in July 1935 Foreman Biddle
informed him that he wished to put Henderson back on the machine, but the officials of
respondent would not let him.
658 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
spondent offered no evidence that this was the case during the period
just prior to his discharge. In the case of Kramer, Superintendent
Polloe testified that in February, 1935, a foreman told him that he
saw Kramer passing a machine with a hammer in his hand and strike
a tool when it was not necessary. Polloe also testified that on mcre
than one occasion Kramer had left his machine to talk with other
men. As in the case of Fowler, these incidents, even if taken at face
value, were not shown to have occurred at or about the time of
Kramer's layoff.
Thus, the evidence clearly fails to sustain respondent's contentions
that Fowler and Kramer were discharged for inefficiency or failure
to obey instructions. The record convinces us that the discharge of
these men, when viewed in conjunction with the discharge of the other .
Union members and officials, was due to their Union membership.
We find that respondent has discriminated in regard to the hire and
tenure of employment of Fowler, Kramer and Kugler for the pur-
pose of discouraging membership. in the Union, and that by such acts,
respondent has interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees
in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
C. The alleged violation of section 8, subdivision (5)
11. The complaint alleges that respondent has engaged in unfair
labor practices, within the meaning of Section 8, subdivision (5) of
the Act.
On July 3, 1935, Henderson, Financial Secretary of the Union, and
the two other members of the Shop Cominittee, all of whom had been
discharged several days previous thereto, went to respondent's office
and talked with Bell, President of respondent, concerning the dis-
charges. Bell stated that there was nothing in particular wrong
with the employees' work, but that it was necessary to reduce the
force and seniority was not being taken into consideration. Bell
further stated that he would not meet with a representative of the
employees concerning grievances, but would deal with each employee
individually.
Following the meeting on July 3, 1935, Henderson received word
that Bell wished to see him. On July 8, Henderson attempted to
reach Bell, but was informed that he was ill. He made further
attempts to see Bell on July 10 and 11, without success.
12. On July 18, 1935, Henderson and Walsh, representative of the
American Federation of Labor, went to respondent's office and talked
with Walter, Vice-President of respondent. Walter stated that Bell
was ill, but that he would attempt to communicate with him. He
further stated that he had no power or authority to take up any
matters concerning the employees. However, the evidence indicates
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 659
that in the absence of Bell, Walter was clother with authority to act
in such matters. On July 19, 1935, and again on July 24, 1935, and
on every following working day during the month of July, 1935,
Walsh and Henderson called at respondent's office and attempted to
reach Bell with a view to discussing the various discharges. They
were unsuccessful in their efforts to reach Bell, and Walter refused
to enter into any negotiations with them. On August 2, 1935, Walsh
and Henderson again called at respondent's office. They were told
that Bell was in his office, but was not feeling well and did not wish
to discuss business. Henderson was permitted to go in and greet Bell,
but Walsh was requested to wait in an outer office. Henderson was
not permitted to discuss the discharges.
13. On August 8, 1935, Darrington, a Conciliator of the New York
Bureau of Mediation, called at respondent's office and was informed
that Bell was ill. Walter discussed briefly with him the cases of cer-
tain of the employees who had been discharged. Darrington re-
quested Walter to meet with the Shop Committee, but Walter refused
and stated that there was nothing to talk over.
Henderson and Walsh made a final effort to meet with Bell on
August 22, 1935. They called at respondent's office and Walter in-
formed them that he lacked authority to speak for respondent and
that he had been unable to arrange a meeting with Bell.
On August 27, 1935, the, union held a meeting and because of the
unsatisfactory state of negotiations with respondent, voted to strike.
The strike became effective August 29, 1935. On September 4, 1935,
Darrington called at respondent's office with a view to settling the
strike and asked for Bell. A clerk informed him that Bell did not
care to see him. Again on September 9, 1935, Darrington called at
respondent's office, accompanied by Haines, a member of the Union.
Bell was in his office and Haines walked in, but as Darrington was
about to follow, Bell ordered him to stay out. The following day,
September 10, 1935, Darrington called at respondent's office and made
a last attempt to talk with Bell. Bell was in his office, but a clerk
informed Darrington that he could not see him. However, Walter
talked briefly with Darrington and stated that the men had left their
jobs without notice, and if they wanted to get back to work they
would have to fill out applications like anyone else.
14. On October 7, 1935, just previous to the filing of formal charges
in this case, John P. Boland, Regional Director for the Third Region,
National Labor Relations Board, called at respondent's office and
asked to see Bell. He was informed that Bell was not there and that
his duties were being assumed by Walter. Boland talked with
Walter, and upon asking if he would meet with the employees as
union men, Walter stated that the office was open to anyone and he
would meet with the employees as they came in individually.
660 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
15. Respondent 's conduct as set forth in findings 11, 12 , 13 and 14
above appears to be a wilful , deliberate and conscious attempt to
evade its obligations under the Act, and constitutes a refusal to bar-
gain collectively with the representative of its employees in respect
to rates of pay, wages , hours of employment , and other conditions
of employment.
V. EFFECT OF UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES ON COMMERCE
16. The strike which took place in respondent 's plant on August 29,
1935, was caused by respondent 's refusal to meet and bargain collec-
tively with its employees through a labor organization of which they
were members . Approximately 180 employees were employed at
respondent 's plant on August 28, 1935, and approximately 40 employ-
ees reported for work on August 29 , 1935. The strike was called off
October 24 , 1935. Respondent 's plant was picketed continuously
during the period of the strike.
The strike substantially reduced and diminished respondent's nor-
mal volume of business and decreased the volume of its normal pur-
chases of raw materials and normal sale and transportation of finished
products in interstate commerce. As a direct result of the strike it
became necessary for respondent to cancel a substantial order placed
with it by Ford Motor Company, amounting to approximately $2,400,
and to likewise cancel orders placed with it by the Ladle Conveyor
Manufacturing Company, New Philadelphia , Pennsylvania , and the.
Precision Bearing Company , Los Angeles , California . It was also
necessary to defer shipment of other orders.
17. On the basis of experience in respondent 's plant and in other
plants , respondent 's conduct as set forth in findings 11 to 15 above,
and each item of such conduct , has led and tends to lead to labor
disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of
commerce.
FORM OF RELIEF
Approximately 60 to 70 new employees have been hired by respond-
ent since the beginning of the strike, and approximately 77 union
employees who participated in the strike have not been reinstated to
their former positions by respondent . A question now arises concern-
ing the form of relief to be granted in this matter . "It would be
futile simply to order the respondent to bargain with the union since
the plant now has ( approximately ) its full quota of men and the
process of bargaining could yield little comfort to those who are not
employed . . . Under these circumstances we must restore, as far
as possible , the situation existing prior to the violation of the Act, in
order that the process of collective bargaining , which was interrupted,
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 661
may be continued." In the Matter of Colu,nbiaro Enameling and
Stamping Company, Case No. C-14.
Thus in order to restore, as far as possible, the situation to status
quo, we shall order respondent to offer employment to its striking
employees insofar as the positions held by them on August 28, 1935,
are now filled by persons employed by it since August 28, 1935, and
who were not in its employ on August 28, 1935.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the
entire record in the proceeding, the Board finds and concludes as a
matter of law that :
1. Federal Labor Union 18482 is a labor organization, within the
meaning of Section 2, subdivision (5) of the National Labor Relations
Act.
2. The production employees at respondent's plant constitute a unit
appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining, within the
meaning of Section 9 (b) of the National Labor Relations Act.
3. By virtue of Section 9 (a) of the National Labor Relations Act,
Federal Labor Union 18482, having been designated by a majority
of the employees in an appropriate unit, is the exclusive representa-
tive of all the employees in such unit for the purposes of collective
bargaining in respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment,
and other conditions of employment.
4. Respondent, by refusing to bargain collectively with the repre-
sentative of its employees in respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of
employment, and other conditions of employment, has engaged in
and is engaging in unfair labor practices, within the meaning of
Section 8, subdivision (5) of the National Labor Relations Act.
5. Respondent, by its discharge of John Fowler, Carl Kramer and
George Kugler, and each of them, did discriminate and is discrimi-
nating in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of said persons,
and each of them, and did thus discourage and is thus discouraging
membership in Federal Labor Union 18482, and by all of said acts
and each of them did thereby engage in and is thereby engaging in
unfair labor practices, within the meaning of Section 8, subdivision
(3) of the National Labor Relations Act.
6. Respondent, by interfering with, restraining and coercing its
employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to form,
join, or assist labor organization, to bargain collectively through
representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted'
activities, for the purpose of collective bargaining and other mutual
aid and protection as guaranteed in Section 7 of the National Labor
Relations Act, has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor prac-
tices, within the meaning of Section 8, subdivision (1) of the said Act.
662 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
7. The unfair labor practices in which respondent has engaged and
is engaging constitute unfair labor practices affecting commerce,
within the meaning of Section 2, subdivisions (6) and (7) of tjie
National Labor Relations Act.
8. Respondent in laying off or discharging Frank Cherry, Howard
Hooper and Robert Parslow has not engaged in unfair labor prac-
tices, within the meaning of Section 8, subdivisions (1) or (3) of the
National Labor Relations Act.
ORDER
On the basis of the findings of fact and the conclusions of law, and
pursuant to Section 10, subdivision (c) of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders :
1. That respondent, Rollway Bearing Company, Inc. and its officers
and agents, shall :
(a) Cease and desist from any refusal to bargain collectively with
Federal Labor Union 18482 as the exclusive representative designated
therefor by the production employees at its plant, in respect to rates
of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other conditions of employ-
ment.
(b) Cease and desist from discouraging membership in Federal
Labor Union 18482, by discrimination in regard to hire or tenure of
employment or any term or condition of employment.
(c) Cease and desist from in any other manner interfering with,
restraining or coercing its employees in the exercise of their right to
self-organization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bar-
gain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and
to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargain-
ing or other mutual aid or protection.
(d) Take the following affirmative action, which the Board finds
will effectuate the policies of the National Labor Relations Act :
(1) Upon request, bargain collectively with Federal Labor Union
18482 as the exclusive representative designated therefor by the pro-
duction employees at its plant, in respect to rates of pay, wages, hours
of employment, and other conditions of employment.
(2) Offer employment to all employees who were employed by
respondent on August 28, 1935, and have not since received substan-
tially equivalent employment elsewhere, where the positions held by
such employees on August 28, 1935, are now filled by persons who were
not employees on August 28, 1935, and were employed by respondent
subsequent thereto, and place all other employees who were employed
by respondent on August 28, 1935, who struck on August 29, 1935, and
have not since received substantially equivalent employment else-
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 663
where, on a preferential list to be offered employment , on the basis of
seniority in their respective classifications , as and when their labor is
needed.
(3) Offer to John Fowler, Carl Kramer and George Kugler iimne-
diate and full reinstatement, respectively , to their former ' positions,
without prejudice to any rights and privileges previously enjoyed.
(4) Make whole John Fowler , Carl Kramer and George Kugler,
for any loss of pay they have suffered by reason of their discharge by
payment to each of them , respectively , of a sum of money equal to that
which each would normally have earned as wages during the period
from the date of his discharge to the date of such offer of reinstate-
ment, computed at the wage rate each was paid at the time of his
discharge, less the amount earned subsequent to his discharge.
(5) Post immediately notices to its employees in conspicuous places
at its plant , stating ( a) that respondent will cease and desist in the
manner aforesaid , and (b) that such notices will remain posted for a
period of at least thirty (30) consecutive days from the date of
posting.
2. That the complaint is hereby dismissed , without prejudice, as to
the allegations of discriminatory discharge of Frank Cherry, Howard
Hooper and Robert Parslow.
97571 --:.fi--v 1 i--43