Roure-Dupont Mfg., Inc.Download PDFNational Labor Relations Board - Board DecisionsApr 9, 195193 N.L.R.B. 1240 (N.L.R.B. 1951) Copy Citation 1240 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD CONCLUSIONS of LAW 1. U. S. Rubber Company, Scottsville, Virginia, is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. 2. Textile Workers Union of America, CIO, is a labor organization within the- meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act. 3. The aforesaid U. S. Rubber Company has not engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of the Act. [Recommended Order omitted from publication in this volume.] ROURE-DUPONT MUG., INC. and MICHAEL PETERS AND JAMES MARTIN. Case No.. -CA-800. April 9,1951 Decision and Order On October 27, 1950, Trial Examiner John Lewis issued his Inter- mediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent had engaged and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices, and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the Inter- mediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and a supporting brief. The .General Counsel filed a brief in support of the Intermediate Report. The Respondent's request for oral argument is denied, as the record and the briefs, in our opinion, adequately present the issues and the positions of the parties. The Board 1 has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed.' The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Inter- mediate Report, the exceptions and briefs, and the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner, with the following additions and modifications : 1. As more fully set forth in the Intermediate Report, the Trial Examiner denied the Respondent's motions to adjourn the hearing for approximately 3 months until its president, Jacques D'Aigremont, and 1 Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a. three-member panel [Chairman Herzog and Members Houston and Reynolds]. 2 The Respondent urges that the Trial Examiner's refusal to grant its requests for adjournments and for a bill of particulars, as well as his permitting the General Counsel to amend the complaint "show a course of conduct indicating prejudice and bias on the part of the Trial Examiner towards the Employer and the Employer's counsel." The Board has carefully considered this contention and finds it without merit. The rulings were within the Trial Examiner's discretion, and the record fails to support a finding of an abuse of discretion. Under these circumstances and upon the entire record, the Board rejects the Respondent's contention and finds no bias nor prejudice upon the part of the Trial Examiner. 93 NLRB No. 230. ROURE-DUPONT MFG., INC. 1241 its former president, Gabriel Varvat, would be back from France, or in the alternative, to keep the record open to allow their testimony to be taken by deposition or cross-interrogatories. The Trial Examiner based his denials, in part, on the Respondent's asserted lack of good faith in making the motions. Respondent contends that the Trial Examiner committed prejudicial error by such rulings. We do not agree. With respect to D'Aigremont, the record shows that he sailed for France on a business trip on June 28,1950, approximately 3 weeks after the case was noticed for hearing and 5 days after he had been served with a subpoena to testify. While boat passage had been requested some 6 months earlier, the Respondent made no effort, particularly during the period between the time when the case was noticed for hear- ing and D'Aigremont sailed, to take his testimony by deposition or to make an application for a continuance.3 Yet D'Aigremont on June 19, 1950, verified the answer filed on behalf of the Respondent. The Board has long held that "in the absence of an adequate showing of substantial cause, private convenience must accommodate itself to public necessity," 4 particularly when the requested continuance is for so long a period of time and the moving party fails to make timely application (in this case, before the time when D'Aigremont sailed for France). Moreover, the Respondent made no offer of proof as to such testi- mony or as to any efforts to communicate with D'Aigremont to ascertain the nature thereof. Under all the circumstances, the Board finds that the Respondent has niade no adequate showing that the Trial Examiner's ruling was an abuse of his discretion. The ruling is there- fore affirmed. With respect to Varvat, Nye note particularly that, except for the abortive attempt to subpoena him during the hearing-at which time the Respondent first learned that he was in France-the Respondent, as in the D'Aigremont situation discussed above, apparently made no effort to contact him to determine what his testimony would be. Thus, at the hearing, the Respondent's attorneys admitted that they did not know whether Varvat would concede or deny that he had, as the Trial Examiner found, unlawfully offered the employees individual con- tracts. Further, the Respondent made no effort to call three of its present employees,' nor to question Shipping Department Supervisor Meikle, all of whom were present during the Varvat incident. Signifi- cantly, it was the Trial Examiner and not the Respondent who elicited 3 Upon application by the Respondent's trial attorney, Louis Monas, made after D'Aigremont had sailed for France, the hearing was adjourned from July 5 to July 12, 1950. 4 Ronnie Parfam, Ine, 8 NLRB 323. 325., enforced 104 F 2d 1017 (C A 2) ; Qnaltty Art Novelty Co, Inc, 20 NLRB 817, 821, enforced 127 F. 2d 903 (C A 2) ; Jac Feinberg Hosiery Mills , Inc, 38 NLRB 1359, enforced 134 F. 2d 620 (C. A. 4). Mossman , Darby, and Majors. 1242 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD testimony from Supervisor Meikle which corroborated other credited testimony that Varvat made such offers. Under all the circumstances, the Board finds that the absence of Varvat's testimony did not preju- dicially affect the Respondent's case, and that the Trial Examiner's ruling on the motion before him did not constitute an abuse of the discretion vested in him. The ruling is hereby affirmed." 2. The Trial Examiner found, and we agree, that the Respondent violated Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act by engaging in the following conduct detailed in the Intermediate Report: Shortly before Christmas 1948, the Respondent, through Gabriel Varvat, offered its employees individual contracts of employment in order to induce them to withdraw. from the Union. Further, as the Trial Examiner found, Varvat also advised the employees that if they would accept these individual contracts, they would receive their regu- lar Christmas bonus; and, thereafter, the Respondent omitted to pay the regular Christmas bonus in December 1948, in order to punish the employees for joining the Union and in order to induce them to leave that organization. Under all these circumstances, we find that by the offers of individual contracts, by the promise to pay the regular 1948 Christmas bonus to those who accepted, and by the withholding of the bonus from the others, the Respondent violated Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act. 3. The Trial Examiner found that, on February 25, 1949, and there- after, by refusing and failing to rehire the complainants because they went on strike, the Respondent discriminated in regard to their hire and tenure of employment in violation of Section 8 (a) (1) and (3) of the Act 7 The Board agrees with the Trial Examiner's conclusion only to the extent indicated below. At the February 24 meeting, having decided to abandon the eco- nomic strike, all the strikers proposed to return to work immediately as a group. Instead, the Respondent offered to recall each of them individually in accordance with seniority as it "rebuilt its business," 8 and suggested that they talk it over and "let us know." 9 The striking employees then held a meeting among themselves, voted to return on the Respondent's terms, and authorized Martin to notify Respondent of their decision. The next day, February 25, according to the Trial e Cf. Standard Oil Company of California , 62 NLRB 449 where the respondent made a sufficient offer of proof with respect to the testimony of witnesses who were temporarily out of the country. 7 The Trial Examiner , we believe inadvertently found the discrimination to have occurred on February 24 rather than on February 25. 8 During the strike, the Respondent had replaced one striker and had reassigned two nonstrikers to struck jobs, so that on February 24 it is clear that the Respondent did not have positions available for all eight complainants. 9 The Board has not relied on any testimony respecting statements alleged to have been made by D'Algremont to the Respondent ' s attorney, which may have been privileged communications. ROURE-DUPONT MFG., INC. 1243 Examiner's finding, Martin telephoned Stone and "advised him [that] the employees were willing to come back on the Company's terms." The Trial Examiner further found that Stone told Martin that "it wouldn't be too long before they were back, for things were beginning to pick up now that the strike was completely over." Under these cir- cumstances, we find that the strikers made an unconditional request for reinstatement on February 25, when they agreed to the Respond- 'ent's offer to recall them individually in order of their seniority as business returned to normal. We agree with the Trial Examiner that the Respondent, in order to penalize the complainants for engaging in concerted activity and "to prevent a recrudescence of activity on behalf of Local 65 among its employees," never intended to fulfill its promise to recall the com- plainants. This view is supported by the Respondent's illegal offer of individual contracts to its employees in order to induce them to abandon their Union; its discriminatory withholding of the regular Christmas bonus in 1948; its excuse to Martin that the charge filed with the Board was one of the reasons preventing the reinstatement of the strikers; and finally, its failure to reinstate or to offer reinstatement to even one striker during the time it hired replacements after February 25, 1949. But, while we agree with the Trial Examiner that the Re- spondent's intent was improper, we find that the Respondent did not thereby violate Section 8 (a) (1) and (3) of the Act. However, the Respondent did violate 8 (a) (1) and (3) by putting this intent into practice in the respects set forth below. Laboratory assistants.10-Part of the regular work of the laboratory assistants, before the strike, was compounding samples for distribution to potential customers. During the strike, and for approximately 1 month thereafter, the Respondent utilized two salesmen and a research technician to do this work. According to the uncontradicted testi- mony of Superintendent Long, the preparation of samples was not their regular work. These three employees "were helping out during the shortage during the strike." Under these circumstances, these em- ployees cannot be considered as occupying the positions permanently, but only as temporary replacements for three of the striking labora- tory assistants, whose positions were therefore available for them on February 25, 1949. Accordingly, we find that by failing and refusing to reinstate the three most senior laboratory assistants on February 25, 1949, because their jobs were occupied temporarily, the Respondent violated Section 8 (a) (1) and (3) of the Act." With respect to the remaining laboratory assistant, the record shows that during the month of May 1949, and virtually continuously there- '0 Gloria Merle , Marie Jensen, Franya Manfire , and Nadine Sanvajot 11 See N L R B v. Mackay Radio and Telegraph Company, 304 U. S. 333; Kansas Milling Company v. N. L. R B , 185 F . 2d 413 (C. A 10) 1244 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD after, the Respondent employed four laboratory assistants without first offering her reinstatement. As a position for this fourth laboratory assistant was available in May 1949, we find that, by failing and refus- ing to offer to reinstate this complainant, the Respondent again vio- lated Section 8 (a) (1) and (3) of the Act 12 Peters, the alcohol man, and Thompson, the messenger.-As to com- plainants Peters and Thompson, we find that the Respondent discrim- inatorily failed and refused to reinstate them on May 2 and 3, 1949, respectively. According to Superintendent Long, employee Peters spent practi- cally all his time before the strike compounding perfumes and colognes containing alcohol. On infrequent occasions he assisted the regular compounders. Peters also had experience in the shipping department. During the strike, Shipping Department Supervisor Meikle assumed Peters' alcohol duties in addition to his other duties. This was readily feasible, as the Respondent had very little alcohol work to be performed at that time. Thus, no alcohol job was available for Peters on Feb- ruary 25. However, on May 2, 1949, the Respondent, without offering Peters reinstatement, hired a new employee, Martin Hannon, to assist Meikle in the alcohol work and to help in the shipping department.l" Thompson, whose duties were equally divided between messenger work and helping in the shipping department and alcohol room before the strike, was replaced during the strike by a permanent employee, Irise. This the Respondent had the right to do in order to operate its business during the economic strike, and, therefore, no job was available for Thompson on February 25. The Respondent also made some change in Irise's duties by transferring some of his tasks to an outside messenger service. When Irise left on,April 29, how- ever, the Respondent, instead of first offering to recall Thompson to that vacancy, hired Jan Stanton on May 3 to perform Irise's duties.14 Under these circumstances and upon the record as a whole, the Board believes and finds that on May 2 and 3 there were jobs available for Peters and Thompson that were substantially equivalent to those they had before the strike, and that the Respondent violated Section 8 (a) (1) and (3) of the Act by failing and refusing to reinstate Peters and Thompson on these dates. Compounders Martin and McCaffrey.-Unlike the Trial Examiner, we do not find that the Respondent discriminatorily failed and refused to reinstate compounders Martin and McCaffrey. 12 After the strike, the Respondent increased its workweek from 35 to 40 hours. How- ever , the record fails to show that this change eliminated any vacancies to which this or any other complainant might have been reinstated earlier 11 When Hannon left in March 1950, the Respondent replaced him by employee Neil McCallum, who took over the primary job of filling alcohol orders as ell as performing some porter work in the shipping department 14 These duties were later performed by employee Hannon when Stanton left ROURE-DUPONT MFG., INC. 1245 The record shows that during and since the strike and up to the time of the hearing, the Respondent has utilized the services of only two permanent employees as compounclers,15 except for Ryan and Winters, who were employed on a temporary basis for brief periods of time to learn compounding. Thus, fora period of approximately a year and a half from the end of the strike to the time of the hearing, the Respondent has not hired any new compounders. Under all these circumstances and upon the entire record, we believe and find that no vacancies have existed that were available for complainants Martin and McCaffrey, and that therefore Respondent did not discrimina- torily fail and refuse to recall them. The Remedy Under the circumstances of this case and in view of the Respondent's unfair labor practices, particularly its discriminatory failure and refusal to reinstate any of its striking employees, there is grave danger that the Respondent since the hearing may have discriminated, or may in the future discriminate, against compounders Martin and Mc- Caffrey to the extent that their former or substantially equivalent positions were or will become available. We therefore expressly reserve the right to modify the back pay and reinstatement provisions of our order herein, if made necessary by a change of conditions since the hearing, and to make such supplements thereto as may hereafter become necessary in order to define or clarify their appli- cation to a specific set of circumstances not now apparent. Order Upon the entire record in this case, and pursuant to Section 10 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, the National Labor Rela- tions Board hereby orders that the Respondent, Roure-Dupont Mfg., Inc., New York, New York, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall : 1. Cease and desist from : (a) Discouraging membership in Local 65, Wholesale and Ware- house Workers' Union, or in any other labor organization of its employees, by ref using to reinstate any of its employees, or by in any other manner discriminating in regard to their hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment; (b) Offering its employees individual contracts of employment in order to induce them to withdraw from the Union; (c) Promising to pay its employees their regular Christmas bonus if they sign such individual contracts, and withholding the bonus if they do not sign; 15 Superintendent Long and employee Mossman. 1246 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD (d) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of the right to self-organization, to form labor organizations, to join or assist Local 65, Wholesale and Ware- house Workers' Union, or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any or all such activities except to the extent that such right may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of employment, as authorized in Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action, which the Board finds will effectuate the policies of the Act : (a) Offer to employees Gloria Merle, Marie Jensen, Franya Man- fire, Nadine Sauvajot, Michael Peters, and Thomas Thompson im- mediate and full reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent positions without prejudice to their seniority or other rights and privileges; (b) Make whole the above-named employees for any loss of pay they may have suffered by reason of the Respondent's discrimination against them, in the manner provided in the section of the Intermediate Report entitled "The remedy" ; (c) Make whole all six above-named employees and James Martin and Robert McCaffrey for the loss of pay suffered by reason of with- holding the Christmas bonus of December 1948, by payment to each of them of the amount of such bonus; (d) Upon request, make available to the National Labor Relations Board, or its agents, for examination and copying, all payroll records, social security payment records, time cards, personnel records and reports, and all other records necessary to analyze the amounts of back pay due and the rights of reinstatement under the terms of this Order ; (e) Post at its plant in New York, New York; copies of the notice attached hereto and marked Appendix A16 Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for the Second Region, shall, after being duly signed by the Respondent's representative, be posted by the Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof and main- tained by it for sixty (60) consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material; is In the event this Order is enforced by a decree of a United States Court of Appeals, -there shall be inserted in the Notice , before the words "A Decision and Order ," the words "A Decree of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing." ROURE-DUPONT MFG., INC. 1247 (f) Notify the Regional Director for the Second Region in writing, within ten (10) days from the date of this Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the allegations of the complaint that the Respondent violated Section 8 (a) (1) and (3) of the Act by failing and refusing to reinstate James Martin and Robert McCaffrey be, and they hereby are, dismissed. Appendix A NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES Pursuant to a Decision and Order of the National Labor Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Relations Act, we hereby notify our employees that : WE WILL NOT discourage membership in LOCAL 65, WHOLESALE AND WAREHOUSE WORKERS' UNION, or in any other labor organiza- tion, by refusing tb reinstate any of our employees, or by dis- criminating in any other manner in regard to their hire and tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment. WE WILL NOT offer our employees individual contracts of em- ployment in order to induce them to withdraw from the Union; we will not promise to pay our employees their regular Christmas bonus if they sign such individual contracts; and we will not withhold the bonus if they do not sign. WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of the right to self -organiza- tion, to form labor organizations, to join or assist LOCAL 65, WHOLESALE AND WAREHOUSE WORKERS' UNION, or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any or all of such activities except to the extent that such right may be affected by an agreement requiring mem- bership in a labor organization as a condition of employment, as authorized in Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act. WE WILL OFFER to the following named employees immediate and full reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent positions without prejudice to any seniority or other rights and privileges previously enjoyed, and make them whole for any loss of pay suffered as a result of the discrimination against them, as set forth in the Decision and Order: Gloria Merle Nadine Sauvajot Marie Jensen Michael Peters Franya Manfire Thomas Thompson 1248 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD WE WILL MAKE whole the above-named employees and James Martin and Robert McCaffrey for the loss of pay sustained by them by reason of our withholding payment to them on the Christmas bonus in December 1948. All our employees are free to become, remain , or refrain from becoming or remaining members of any labor organization . We will not discriminate in regard to the hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment against any employee because of membership in or activity on behalf of any labor organization. ROURE-DUPONT MFG., INC., Employer. By --------------••---------------- (Representative ) ( Title) Dated -------------------- This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof, and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. Intermediate Report and Recommended Order Mr. Oscar Geltman, for the General Counsel. Messrs. Louis Monas and Louis A. Stone, of New York, N. Y, for the Respondent. Messrs. Neuberger, Shapiro, Rabinowitz and Boudtn by Victor Rabinowitz, of New York, N. Y., for the Charging Parties. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Upon charges duly filed by :Michael Peters and James Martin, the General Coun- sel of the National Labor Relations Board, herein called, respectively, the General Council I and the Board, by the Regional Director for the Second Region (New York, New York), issued his complaint, dated June 8, 1950, against Roure- Dupont Mfg., Inc., herein called the Respondent and on occasion the Company, alleging that the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) and (3) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended (61 Stat. 136), herein called the Act. Copies of the complaint, the charges, and notice of hearing were duly served upon the Respondent and the Charging Parties. With respect to the unfair labor practices, the complaint alleged, in sub- stance: (a) That the Respondent in or about the month of December 1948, attempted to induce its employees not to become or remain members of Local 63, Wholesale and Warehouse Workers' Union, herein called the Union, by offering said employees individual contracts of employment at increased wages ; (b) that in or about the month of December 1948, the Respondent did with- hold the payment of a customary Christmas bonus to its employees in order to induce them not to become or remain members of the Union; 2 and (c) that Re- ' The attorney representing the General Counsel at the hearing is also referred to herein as the General Counsel 2 This allegation was added at the hearing on motion of the General Counsel Through a typographical error the date appears in the transcript as December 1949 The correct date is December 1948 and the transcript is hereby corrected to read December 1948. ROURE-DUPONT MFG., INC. 1249 spondent refused to reinstate certain named employees' on and after February 24, 1949, for the reason that said employees had selected or become members of the Union, or had participated in a strike of the employees of Respondent on or about February 8, 1949 The Respondent duly filed an answer in which it denied commission of any of the alleged unfair labor practices.` In addition, the answer of the Respondent alleged certain affirmative matter by way of affirmative defense as follows: (a) That the employees named in the complaint were offered reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent positions on or about February 24. 1949, and thereafter, but refused and rejected said offers; (b) that the conduct and actions of said employees in leaving their employment on or about February 8, 1948, constituted a voluntary quitting and abandonment of their employment; (c) that the employees listed in the com- plaint and/or their representatives and agents committed, and threatened the Employer with, violence and acts of violence; (d) that the employees listed in the complaint and/or their representatives and agents did commit and threaten to commit acts of intimidation and coercion against the Employer; and (e) that the acts and conduct of the employees and their authorized representatives and agents were intended to, and actually did, interfere with collective bargaining as allegedly requested by the employees and/or their duly authorized representa- tives or agents. Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held at New York, New York, from July 12 to July 20, 1950, before John Lewis, the undersigned Trial Examiner, duly desig- nated by the Chief Trial Examiner. The General Counsel, the Respondent,' and the Charging Parties were represented by counsel and participated in the hearing. Full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing on the issues was afforded all parties. At the opening of the hearing Respondent moved for a continuance of the proceeding until October 1950, due to the absence of the Respondent's president, Jacques D'Aigremont, who was alleged to be a material witness and to have left on a business trip to Paris, France, on June 28, 1950. The General Counsel opposed the granting of said motion on the ground that D'Aigrernont had been served with a subpoena to appear and testify at the hearing, 5 days before he sailed for France, and on the further ground that the acts complained of in the complaint were committed by persons other than D'Aigreniont The undersigned denied Respondent's motion for an adjournment until October 1950, without prejudice to its right to renew said motion in the event that the evidence indicated D'Aigrernont's necessary connection with the proceeding. Respondent moved for an adjournment of 2 weeks in order to enable it to prepare for trial, which motion was denied by the undersigned s On a number of occa- sions during the hearing, Respondent renewed its motion for a continuance pend- ing the return of D'Aigremont to this country Respondent also moved that if the case proceeded, it should be given the right to further cross-examine witnesses 3 The employees named in the complaint are Gloria Merle, Marie Jensen, Franva Manfire, Nadine Sauvajot, James Martin, Michael Peters, Robert McCaffrey, and Thomas Thompson 4In its original answer Respondent did not deny the allegation of the complaint referred to as (a) above However, it was permitted to file an amended answer at the hearing in which this allegation of the complaint was denied 6 The original answer filed in Respondent's behalf in this proceeding was filed by Louis A Stone as attorney Although the Regional Dnector for the Second Region was subsequently advised that Louis Morris had been retained to represent Respondent and an amended answer was subsequently filed by Monas , both Monas and Stone appeared as attorneys of record and represented Respondent at the hearing. 6The hearing herein, which was originally set for July 5, 1950, was adjourned to. July 12, 1950, after Monas advised the Regional Director for the Second Region that he had been retained by Respondent and requested an adjournment. 943732-51-80 1250 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD called by the General Counsel upon the return of D'Aigremont from France, or, in the alternative, that it be permitted to take his testimony by deposition or cross-interrogatories, and that the record be left open for such purpose. Said motions were denied.' The undersigned also denied at the opening of the hear- ing Respondent's motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground that the Gen- eral Counsel was guilty of laches in that the original charge had been filed May 24, 1949, and the complaint was not issued until June 8, 1950. Respondent fur- ther moved that the General Counsel be required to serve upon it a bill of par- ticulars in accordance with the demand mailed on the day preceding the opening of the hearing and received by the General Counsel on the day of the hearing. The General Counsel opposed said motion on the ground that it had not been timely made and that a bill of particulars was not necessary in order to enable Respondent to frame its pleadings, it having already filed an answer in the case. The General Counsel also stated that although he was opposed to formally supplying Respondent with a bill of particulars, he was willing to state for the record the names of the parties who participated in the unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint, and stated that he had advised Respondent's attorney over the telephone prior to the hearing as to the names of such individuals, and that Respondent did not require a bill of particulars in order to properly defend itself at the hearing a The undersigned denied the said motion for bill of particulars. The undersigned also denied a motion by Respondent under Sec- tion 10 (b) of the Act, to dismiss that portion of the complaint alleging the names of three individuals refused reinstatement who were not named in the original charge a During the course of the hearing, the undersigned granted a motion by the General Counsel to amend the complaint to include an allegation that Respondent had withheld payment of a customary Christmas bonus in order 7In its brief Respondent assigns as reversible error the undersigned 's failure to grant its various motions for a continuance or for the right of further cross -examination of witnesses after D'Aigremont ' s return or to take his deposition The credible testimony at the hearing disclosed that although D'Aigremont was present on two occasions material to the issues , the statements which are claimed to have resulted in a violation of the Act were made by persons other than him His testimony at best would merely have tended to corroborate the testimony of others as to whether they made certain statements to employees Despite the imminence of D'Aigremont ' s departure , no effort was made to take his testimony by deposition and no application for a continuance was made until the eve of the hearing , although 20 days intervened between the time the case was noticed for hearing and his departure from the country , and an answer verified by D'Aigremont was filed on Respondent 's' behalf in the meantime . Respondent 's explanation that it did not realize the importance of D'Aigremont's testimony until after it had retained Attorney Monas to represent it on the day of D'Aigremont ' s departure and its claim that Monies had not had an opportunity to discuss the facts with D'Aigremont did not impress the undersigned in view of the active part which its original attorney , Stone, continued to play in the proceeding, his thorough familiarity with the facts as en active participant therein, and his evident legal astuteness. The undersigned was not convinced, as the hearing proceeded , that the various applications to continue the hearing or hold the record open were made In good faith For this reason and for the reason that the testimony disclosed that none of the statements attributed to Respondent were made by him , and also because he had taken it upon himself to disregard a subpoena served upon him (albeit his motives may not have been improper) the undersigned did not consider it appropriate to adjourn the hearing or to leave it open in any way until D'Aigremont 's return. 8 The General Counsel stated that Gabriel Varvat, former president of the Company, was the person who offered the employees individual contracts of employment , and that its attorney , Louis A Stone, was the person who acted on Respondent 's behalf in refusing the employees reinstatement. 9 The complaint includes the names of James ,Martin, Thomas Thompson, and Nadine Sauvajot , in addition to those named in the original charge The undersigned ' s denial of Respondent 's motion was based on the 'authority of the Board's decision in the Cathey Lumber Company case , 86 NLRB 157 ROURE-DUPONT MFG., INC . 1251 to induce its employees not to become or remain members of the Union 10 The undersigned denied a motion by the General Counsel, during the hearing, to amend the complaint to include the name of Jim Sanchez as one of the employees who was denied reinstatement on or about February 24, 1950. During the course of the hearing Respondent moved to adjourn the hearing until the return from France of Gabriel Varvat, former president of the Company, who allegedly offered the employees individual contracts of employment; or, in the alternative, that the record be kept open to allow his testimony to be taken by cross-inter- rogatories or deposition Said motions were denied by the undersigned 11 At the close of the hearing Respondent moved to dismiss the complaint on the ground that the General Counsel had not made out a prima facie case. Ruling on said motion was reserved by the undersigned and said motion is disposed of in accordance with the findings, conclusions, and recommendations hereinafter made. Motions by the General Counsel and the Respondent to amend the plead- ings to conform to the proof with respect to names, dates, and other formal mat- ters were granted at the conclusion of the hearing. Opportunity was afforded all parties to argue orally before the undersigned and to file briefs or proposed find- ings of fact and conclusions of law, or both. The General Counsel and the Respondent made brief oral argument on the record. Since the close of the hear- ing, briefs have been received from the General Counsel and the Respondent and have been carefully considered by the undersigned. Upon the entire record in the case and from his observation of the witnesses, the undersigned makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY The Respondent, Roure-Dupont Mfg., Inc., is a corporation organized under the laws of the State of New York, maintaining a place of business at 518 East 80th Street in the city and State of New York, where it is engaged in the manu- facture, sale, and distribution of aromatic chemicals, perfumes, and related products. During the year 1949 Respondent, in the course and conduct of its business operations, caused to be purchased, transferred, and delivered to its plant aromatic chemicals, essential oils, and other materials valued in excess of $500,000, of which approximately 66 percent was transported to said plant in interstate and foreign commerce from States of the United States other than the State of New York, and from foreign countries During the year 1949 Respondent, in the course and conduct of its business operations, caused to be manufactured at its plant aromatic chemicals, perfumes, perfume bases, and related products valued in excess of $1,000,000, of which approximately 66 per- cent was transported from said plant in interstate commerce to States of the United States other than the State of New York. The undersigned concludes and finds that the Respondent, at all times material, was and is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act 1a 10 In its brief Respondent assigns the granting of this motion by the undersigned as prejudicial error. The General Counsel's motion to amend the complaint was made after various witnesses had given testimony regarding this incident, without objection, and had been cross-examined thereon by Respondent 11 Respondent stated that it was not in a position to determine whether the alleged offer was made by Varvat, until counsel had an opportunity to discuss the matter with him. However , it made no effort to produce several employees, still in its employ, whom the testimony discloses were present when the alleged offer was made . Likewise, as will 'appear , the testimony of the General Counsel ' s witnesses regarding this incident was substantially corroborated by a supervisory employee still employed by Respondent. u The above findings are based on the allegations of the complaint which were admitted in the answer Respondent does not contest the jurisdiction of the Board. 1252 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED Local 65, Wholesale and Warehouse Workers' Union, is a labor organization which admits to membership employees of the Respondent. III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Background " During the period in issue Respondent employed approximately 14 production employees at its 80th Street plant in the manufacture of its products. Respond- ent also maintained an office at 366 Madison Avenue where its clerical and sales force had their headquarters The president of the Company from Jan- uary 1948 to February 1949 was Gabriel Varvat. who was also employed as a chemist by the Company and maintained his office at the 80th Street plant. For part of this period the treasurer and general manager of the Company was Jacques D'Aigreniont, who was brought to this country from France in May 1948 to help put the Company on a more sound financial basis. D'Aigremont was given complete charge of the Company's finances and was appointed director of personnel. He maintained his office at Madison Avenue but spent part of his time in the plant on 80th Street Sometime after Varvat's resignation in February 1949, D'Aigremont became president of the Company. There is no evidence of union activity among the employees at the 80th Street plant prior to November 1948. On November 18. 1948, the bulk of these em- ployees, including all of those named in the complaint, went in a group to the offices of the Union and made application for union membership. On November 24, 1948, the Union sent Respondent a letter advising it that the employees had designated the Union to represent them, and requested a conference to discuss the possibility of entering into a collective bargaining agreement Thereafter, between the latter part of November 1948 and early February 1949, a series of bargaining conferences were held between representatives of the employees and representatives of management. The employees were represented at the bargaining meetings by Robert Burke and Morris Doswell, organizers for the Union, and by several rank and file employees, including James Martin, Isi- dore Bronfein, William Meikle," and Marie Jensen. At the earlier meetings the Company was represented by D'Aigremont, Varvat, and by a Mr. Herbert, its attorney. At the later meetings Varvat ceased to participate and, in Jan- uary, Herbert was succeeded as attorney by Louis A Stone. Since no charge of violation of Section 8 (a) (5) of the Act has been filed, the Union not being in compliance with Section 9 (f), (g), and (h) of the Act, it is unnecessary to consider the details of these bargaining negotiations Suffice it to say that the parties were unable to conclude an agreement and had arranged for a meeting with the New York State Mediation Board on February 8, 1949, to explore the possibilities of reaching an agreement under mediation auspices. On the morning of February 8, one of the employees, Isidore Bronfein, was discharged by D'Aigremont The circumstances suriounding Bronfein's dis- charge are not in issue in this proceeding. It may be noted, however, that an unfair labor practice charge which was subsequently filed by Bronfein was dis- missed and no complaint wa§ ever issued because of insufficient evidence to sus- tain the charge. The employees learned of Bronfein's discharge when they The findings in this subsection are based on facts which were either not controverted of concerning which there was no material dispute. is Ileikie withdrew from the Union after the first conference and ceased to participate in the bargaining conferences thereafter. ROURE-DUPONT MFG., INC. 1253 prepared to take their lunch hour around 12 noon. They left the plant and decided not to return because of Bronfein's discharge. Later in the afternoon Burke and a group of employees went to the State Mediation Board to attend the meeting which was scheduled for 2 p. in. Representatives of management did not attend the meeting but sent a telegram to the Mediation Board and to the Union advising that they were unwilling to attend the meeting because of the strike action of the employees and the alleged threats of physical injury to employees willing to continue work. Burke later returned from the Media- tion Board meeting and advised the employees who had remained outside the plant of Respondent's refusal to attend the meeting Beginning on the afternoon of February 8 or the following morning the em- ployees began to picket the plant The decision to strike and picket the plant was apparently based on a combination of circumstances, including the dis. -charge of Bronfein, the dissatisfaction with the progress of the bargaining nego. tiations, and the failure of the Company to attend the Mediation Board meet- ing. Since the General Counsel concedes that the strike was an economic strike rather than an unfair labor practice strike it is unnecessary to determine its precise motivation. All of the employees, except William Meikle, participated in the strike and for approximately a week the strike was a success, with no materials or goods moving in or out of the plant. However, during the second week of the strike three of the strikers, Herbert Mossman, Bernard Darby, and Leonard Majors, and Meikle, who had worked the first day of the strike but remained at home thereafter, returned to work. With the return of these four employees it was possible to resume production. Several days later the remain- ing employees decided that the strike was lost and decided to seek reinstate- ment. B. The alleged discrinianatory Iefusal to reinstate the strikers 1 The meeting of February 24 On February 23, the remaining strikers, including James Martin, Michael -Peters, Robert McCaffrey, Thomas Thompson, Gloria Merle, Marie Jensen, Franya Manfire, and Nadine Sauvajot, designated Martin to communicate with the Company with a view to securing reinstatement. Martin telephoned D'Aigremont who referred him to Stone, the Company's attorney. Martin told Stone that the strikers were willing to return to work and wanted to find out what the Company would offer them. A meeting was arranged for late the following afternoon at the Company's offices, 366 Madison Avenue. Stone and D'Aigremont were present on behalf of the Company. All of the strikers named above were present as well as Bronfein, who had been discharged on February S. Peters, who had been the shop steward, acted more or less as spokesman for the group and stated that the employees were disgusted with the strike, that they felt the strike was lost and wanted to return to work Stone advised the em- ployees that it would not be possible to rehire them all at once due to the decline in business which had been caused by the strike, but that as conditions returned to normal they would all be recalled, on the basis of seniority. Stone stated that Martin, as the employee in the compounding department with the greatest seniority, would be the first to be recalled when the services of a com- pounder were required. The employees who testified regarding this meeting and Stone, who was Re- spondent's main witness, were in substantial accord that the employees indicated their willingness to return and that they were advised by Stone that it would be impossible to reinstate them at once clue to business conditions. The major 1254 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD difference in the testimony revolves about the response which the employees gave to Stone's offer and regarding the events which followed thereafter 15 Ac- cording to Peters, whose testimony was substantially corroborated by that of the other employees, after Stone had stated that the Company would rehire them on a seniority basis, Peters asked him whether that meant the employees would be rehired "one or two at a time," to which Stone replied in the affirmative. Peters then stated : Well, due to the fact that you brought four employees back to work with- out saying anything to the rest of the peop1e,16 at this time it might create hard feelings ; so I am not at liberty to say whether the people would care to go [back] under that procedure, and I would have to meet with the people to find out whether they want to go back as a group or go back singularly. Stone then replied, according to the testimony of most of the employees, that they did not have to give him an immediate answer and that they could talk it over among themselves and advise him of their decision. It was on this note that the meeting broke up. The employees further testified that after leaving the office they held a meeting in the downstairs lobby of the building and decided, that they had no alternative except to accept the Company's offer Martin was chosen to call Stone and inform him of the employees' decision. According to, Martin's testimony, he telephoned Stone the following day and advised him. the employees were willing to come back on the Company's terms. Stone told+ him that it wouldn't be too long before they were back as things were beginning to pick up now that the strike was completely over. Martin testified that he communicated with Stone on a number of occasions thereafter and was given different excuses why he and the others had not been recalled These included the fact that business hadn't picked up sufficiently and likewise the fact that the charge which Bronfein had filed against Respondent after his discharge was still pending. Martin kept the other employees informed as to his conversations with Stone. After the other employees had filed a charge against Respondent in May, Martin, who had not joined in this charge, was told by Stone that the action of the employees in filing charges was holding up his reinstatement but that he, Martin, had done a wise thing in not joining in the charge. Martin ceased calling Stone in October 1949, when he himself filed a charge in this proceeding. Stone's version of the employees' response to the Company's offer and of his subsequent conversations with Martin differed in a number of respects from that of the employees. According to Stone, when he stated at the February 24 meeting that the employees would be recalled in the order of seniority and that Martin would be the first to be recalled, the latter stated that he would not return alone because "we agreed that we are in this together and we must all go back at the same time or no individual in this group will go back alone" ; 15 There was also some difference in their testimony as to the part . if any, which D'Aigremont played in this meeting According to the employees lie said little, if anything , at the meeting, Stone acting as Respondent ' s spokesman According to Stone, D'Aigremont took an active part in the meeting , although concededly Stone did most of the talking on Respondent 's behalf . In view of D'Aigremont 's recent arrival in this country and Stone ' s own testimony that "lie experiences considerable difficulty with the language , both in understanding what is said and then replying to the question," the undersigned is satisfied that D'Aigremont played no active part in the discussion with the employees , as they testified while he and Stone may have had , private discussions about the matter , as Stone claimed , such hearsay testimony would not be admissible as against the employees 16 This reference is to the return of Mossman, Darby , Meikle , and Majors ROURE-DUPONT MFG., INC. 1255 that D'Aigremont then asked Martin to return the next day and that Martin refused "unless everyone else came back"; that Stone told the employees that by insisting on returning as a group they were giving the Company a condition which/could not be fulfilled and suggested: "If you care to change your mind, take a little time out to consider and let us know," but that Peters replied that the employees were going to "stick with" their decision to go back only as a group and that unless the Company agreed to put them back to work on those terms they were going to return to the picket line. Stone testified that after the meeting of February 24 none of the employees except Martin ever sought reinstatement According to Stone, Martin called him about a week or 10 days after the meeting and informed him that he was "out of the group" and asked Stone to intervene with D'Aigremont to get his job back Stone testified that he called D'Aigremont on Martin's behalf and that D'Aigremont told him : "I will not go back now and open the door for one when I was willing to do it for all of them and they turned it flown, and I will not do it for Martin now." Later Martin came to Stone's office with his wife who asked Stone to intercede in Martin's behalf. According to Stone, lie made further efforts to intercede on Martin's behalf with D'Aigremont but met with no success. The record thus presents two conflicting versions of the strikers' efforts to secure reinstatement According to the version of the General Counsel's wit- nesses they offered to return to work but were told they could only be taken back on an individual basis as the need for their services arose, that they did not decline this offer but were told to think over the offer, that their repre- sentative later informed Stone of their decision to accept, but that none of them was ever recalled. According to Respondent's version, the employees refused to accept the Company's offer to take them back individually as the need arose but delivered an ultimatum that they would only return as a group; and that thereafter only Martin communicated with the Company, and this on his own behalf. In resolving the conflict between Stone's version and that of the employees the undersigned has not been unmindful of Stone's standing as an attorney and member of the bar. However, from a careful consideration of the record as well as from his observation of the witnesses while testifying, the undersigned is satisfied that the version testified to by the employees more nearly accords with the facts and should therefore be credited. Stone's testimony was not character- ized by its directness, was lacking in conviction, and contained a number of contradictions which, if considered in the most favorable light, would indicate a faulty recollection concerning this incident For example, after testifying that he never received a call on behalf of the strikers as a group subsequent to the February 24 meeting, and that Martin had called him thereafter only to advise him that he had left the gi oup and to plead for his own reinstatement, Stone finally admitted that when Martin called him in the beginning it was on behalf of the group. albeit Stone claimed that Martin merely wanted to know whether the Company had changed its mind about taking them back as a group. Stone also insisted that at no time after February 24 did he ever tell Martin that he and the other strikers would be reinstated as soon as business conditions permitted Yet he admitted executing an affidavit 17 on March 21, 1949, in which he made the following statement : During the latter part of February and the early part of March, I had meetings and conversations with some of the striking employees who stated they wanted to come back to work. I advised them that their return to work was dependent solely and exclusively upon the economic circumstances 17 The affidavit was submitted by Stone in connection with the investigation of the Bronfein charge by the Regional Director for the Second Region. 1256 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD of the Company and not upon their membership or non-membership in Local 65 or Local 110'$ I indicated to them that if and when the Company had work available for any of them, the Company would call such individuals back on a non-discriminatory basis and without regard to their membership or non-membership in Local 65 or Local 110. [Emphasis supplied ] Stone's efforts to explain this statement and to make it conform to his testi- monv that none of the employees were promised reinstatement after the February 24 meeting were somewhat strained and unconvincing 19 The employees, on the other hand, testified in a straightforward, direct manner, and their testimony was not impeached in any material respect although they were subjected to extended and searching cross-examination. Their testimony is more in accord with the probabilities inherent in the situation, and was given some indirect support by Stone's testimony. The record indicates that for the most part they were novices in the field of organized labor. With the first break in their ranks they lost heart, and decided to quit the Union and seek reinstate- ment. When they came to the Company's office on February 24 they did not come as a group which still felt it had some bargaining power left by reason of the effectiveness of its strike, and which was in a position to insist on settle- ment terms which would be compatible with its position Instead, as their testimony discloses, and it was corroborated in this respect by Stone's own testi- mony,2d they presented the aspect of a beaten crew which had no further stomach for the fight. Although it is true that they came to the meeting in hopes of being reinstated at once, the undersigned is satisfied that they delivered no ultimatum to their employer. Peters' testimony that, when Stone told them they would be taken back one at a time as needed, he advised Stone lie could not give him an immediate answer because it might result in bad feeling if only some of them were taken back, and that Stone thereafter told the employees to think it over, is more in line with the probabilities of the situation. Stone's own testimony gives some support to the testimony of the employees that he told them to take time to think it over,21 albeit he claimed they insisted on giving him an answer then and there Stone's testimony that the employees threatened to continue the strike if they were not taken back as a group does not comport with the defeatist attitude which they had therefore displayed, and is not supported by the course of events thereafter since the evidence discloses that the picket line was never resumed after the meeting of February 24 Of considerable significance in supporting the testimony of the employees is the statement in Stone's affidavit, already referred to, which was made only 4 "At or about the time Local 65 was negotiating with the Company another union, Local 110, affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, had petitioned the Board for an election , claiming to represent the employees 39 Stone suggested that possibly the reference in the affidavit to advising the strikers in March that they would be reinstated as soon as conditions permitted may have been to others of the original strikers However, it is clear that the reference intended was not to the other strikers since the affidavit at another point specifically discusses the cases of Darby and Mossnian and, moreover, they had already been reinstated prior to February 24. Stone also suggested that possibly the reference to talking to employees in the eaily part of March was to a conversation he had with Peters or with another employee named Sanchez Ilowevei, lie later testified that his sole conversation with Peters after February 24 had no reference to reinstatement, and his testimony further indicates that any conversation with Sanchez took place prior to February 24 20 Stone testified that aftei lie asked the employees what it was they wanted, "lMr Peters then said they were disgusted with the strike, that they felt they had lost the strike, and tl.ey were ready to go back to work " 21 According to his testimony, Stone told the employees , "If you care to change your mind, take a little time out to consider and let us know." ROURE-DUPONT MFG., INC. 1257 weeks after the February 24 meeting at a time when, according to his own admission, his recollection was much clearer than it was at the time of the hearing. Nowhere in this affidavit is there any reference to any ultimatum delivered by the employees or of their refusal to accept the Company's offer. Had there been such a refusal on their part Stone would, presumably, have been astute enough to have made note of this fact in his affidavit. If the employees had already turned down the Company's offer there would have been no point in continuing, in March, to promise them reinstatement. On the other hand the fact that there was such a promise made in March, as stated in the affidavit, gives support to the version testified to by the employees that they did not turn down the Company's offer but continued, through Martin, to seek reinstatement. In its brief Respondent apparently recognizes the absurdity of claiming that this group of whipped strikers persisted in refusing to return on any but their own terms. Respondent states that a reconstruction of the probable course of events would indicate that: . . . after they [the strikers] had terminated the meeting, they realized the full import of their actions when discussing the matter among them- selves downstairs, changed their position so as to be agreeable to accepting Respondent's offer, and it was then that they may have told Martin to telephone Respondent regarding this change of position. Respondent's argument continues, that when Martin communicated with Stone he did so on his own behalf and not on behalf of the others, and that Respondent accordingly was never made aware that the group had accepted its offer. To support its claim that Martin's only contact with Stone was on his own behalf Respondent cites the following testimony by Martin : Q Nov, going back to the call that you made to Mr. Stone, the clay after the meeting with Mr. Stone, was your request to go back then on your own behalf or on behalf of everybody? A. Well, I was-each one gave me their permission to say they would be willing to go back under those conditions, but actually it was a plea for myself. Although this conclusionary statement does, at first blush, appear to lend some support to Respondent's argument, the inference which Respondent seeks to draw is not supported by the record as a whole. It is true that in his con- versations with Stone, Martin was pushing his own case, but that would be natural since the employees had been informed at the February 24, meeting that Martin would be the first to be recalled. It is also likely that after the other employees had filed their charge in May, Martin ceased to be interested in anyone but himself However, the undersigned is satisfied from Martin's testi- mony as a whole that in his first communication with Stone after the February 24 meeting, Stone was made aware that Martin was representing the group and that the group was accepting the Company's terms.22 This conclusion is sup- n Martin's testimony regarding this matter was as follows : Q I would like you to repeat foi me what JIr Stone said to you when you telephoned him on the morning of February 25th. A What Mr Stone said to me? Q Yes A. Well, he said, "Well , what did you decide-to come back or what 9" And I told him, "Yes, we decided to come back under your conditions , come back according to seniority , as you told us and come back as individuals , not as a group" That was the thing that seemed to be on their mind, that we were coming back as a group It scared them that we might come back as a group We said no 1258 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD ported by Stone's own testimony. Stone, after first insisting that Martin had called only on his own behalf and had informed him that he had left the group, later admitted that in his first telephone conversation with Martin the latter spoke to him on behalf of the group. Although Stone claimed that Martin did not say the group was ready to accept the Company's terms but, merely wanted to know whether the Company had changed its mind, the undersigned was not impressed with this claim. Since all picketing had ceased after February 24 and there was no further pressure being exerted on the Company by the em- ployees, there would appear to be no logical reason for them to expect the Com- pany to change its mind if in fact the employees had previously turned down its offer and delivered the ultimatum that they must be reinstated as a group, as testified by Stone. The more logical explanation for the telephone call which Martin admittedly made to Stone on behalf of the group shortly after the February 24 meeting is that it was to inform Stone of the employees' acceptance of the Company's offer. This explanation checks with the employees' version of the February 24 meeting and comports with the statement in Stone's affidavit referred to above. The undersigned concludes and finds that on February 24, 1949, the employees made an unconditional request for reinstatement; that Respondent advised them they could not be reinstated at once but would be rehired, on the basis of seniority, as business returned to normal ; that on February 25, 1949, the strikers named in the complaint, through Martin, made known to Respondent's agent, Stone, their willingness to return on its terms ; and that at all times thereafter Re- spondent failed and refused to reinstate them. 2. The hiring of new employees Respondent claims that as a result of a reorganization of its operations after the strike some of the jobs previously held by the strikers were eliminated or substantially changed Before considering the legal efficacy of this claim the factual picture of job allocations in the plant both before and after the strike will be briefly considered. Prior to the strike Respondent employed 14 employees in production and maintenance work connected with the manufacture of its products.. Martin, McCaffrey, and Mossman worked as compounders in the laboratory located on the upper floor of the two-story building comprising the 80th Street plant. Compounding is the principal job in the manufacture of Respondent's products. The compounders are given a formula indicating the various oils, essences, and other ingredients called for by the order of a par- ticular customer. They mix these ingredients to make the final product. Some- times it is necessary to prepare a number of subformulae from the basic oils before the necessary ingredients for the main formula can be obtained. This is skilled work and it takes about a year or more before a compounder can be entrusted to prepare the more expensive formulae. Peters was employed' in the alcohol department located on the ground floor, where perfumes and colognes containing alcohol were manufactured. This involves the mixing of prepared formulae with alcohol. When there was not enough work in this department Peters went upstairs to the compounding department and did compounding work, he having previously worked in that department. Martin, McCaffrey, and Peters had also had experience in the shipping department during the period of their employment. In addition to these four production employees there were four female em- ployees. Merle, Jensen, Sauvajot, and Manfire who were employed as so-called "laboratory assistant." These girls assisted the two perfumers or chemists, ROURE-DUPONT MFG., INC. 1259 Varvat and Andre F romentin, employed by the Company. The chemists ex- perimented with various formulae in order to produce new essences for potential sale to customers or to meet the needs of particular customers. The laboratory assistants did the compounding work necessary to produce these experimental formulae In addition, they did compounding to produce samples for distribu- tion to potential customers, and they also filled small orders for customers. Their work was essentially a compounding operation similar to that of the male compounders, except that they worked in smaller quantities. In addition to their compounding duties, they did certain clerical and typing work for the chemists whom they assisted. Their work was performed in the laboratory on the second floor. Also employed in the laboratory was Leonard Majors who worked as a porter, his duties involving the washing of chemical pots, sweeping the floor, and similar duties. In the shipping department located on the ground floor there was employed Meikle as head shipping clerk, assisted by Darby and Sanchez. Meikle's work was mainly supervisory and he did very little actual packing. Also employed on the ground floor was Thompson, who spent about half the day in messenger work involving the delivery of packages from the factory at 80th Street to the Company's office on Madison Avenue, and the balance of the day assisting in the shipping room and helping Peters wash pots or doing porter work in the alcohol room In its stockroom Respondent employed Brontein as stock clerk. Clarence Long was employed as superintendent of the plant, being in over-all supervision of the workers in the laboratory and in the shipping department. As previously indicated, four of the employees returned during the strike, Meikle, Mossman, Darby, and Majors. Long, who had been on vacation when the strike started, returned to work around February 21. The only new em- ployee hired prior to the end of the strike was R. W. Irise, who was hired on February 21. His work was substantially similar to that performed by Thompson. He did messenger work and performed the duties of a porter in the shipping and alcohol departments After the strike the workweek was lengthened from 35 to 40 hours. Long, whose duties had been principally supervisory and who was in charge of both floors, continued to be in charge of the compounding department but spent most of his time in doing actual compounding work. Subsequent to the strike Respondent hired a number of new employees. Since May 1949 it has had in its employ at least four employees performing the duties of laboratory assistant:' The duties of these employees are substantially the same as those formerly performed by Merle, Jensen, Sauvajot, and Manfire. At the present time the Company employs only two compounders (Mossman and Long) as compared to the three (Martin, McCaffrey, and Mossman) whom it employed before the strike. Between July and September 1949 it employed two different employees (John F. Ryan and Joseph P. Winters) to learn compound- ing, both of whom left voluntarily and were never replaced.24 It seems evident that after a period of experimentation Respondent found it possible to,have all its compounding work performed by fewer employees by relieving Long of some of his supervisory duties and having him work primarily on compounding, and 23 Three of these employees ( Virginia Klausman, Anne Cangro , and Joseph P. Watts) have been employed continuously since May 1949 Five different employees have held the fourth laboratory assistant job for varying periods beginning in May 1949 24 Ryan worked only 2 weeks and was succeeded by Winters. Although Respondent claimed at the healing that they were only hired on a temporary basis, it is clear from the record that if these employees had performed their duties satisfactorily they would have been retained after the time each voluntarily quit. 1260 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD by lengthening the workweek of the compounders and laboratory assistants. In the case of Peters' duties, the record discloses that Meikle, who was given complete charge of the operations on the first floor after the strike, took over the alcohol work in addition to his other duties, assisted to some extent by a new employee, Martin Hannon, who was hired in May 1949. When Hannon left in March 1950 he was succeed by an employee named McCallum who took over- the primaiy job of filling alcohol orders With respect to Thompson's work, as has already been indicated, Irise was hired to perform his duties on February 21, 1949. The latter left April 29, 1949, and was replaced by Jan Stanton who in turn left June 17, 1949. In the meantime Respondent began using an outside messenger service to deliver packages from the plant on 80th Street to the office on Madison Avenue. When Stanton left no one was hired to replace him,. the remaining porter duties which he had performed in the shipping and alcohol departments being turned over to Hannon. It thus appears that of the eight strikers named in the complaint, Jensen, Merle, Sauvajot, and Manfire were definitely replaced by new employees per- forming substantially similar duties; in the case of Martin and McCaffrey their duties were absorbed in part by assigning Long to compounding, by lengthening the hours of compounders and laboratory assistants, and for a short time by hiring Ryan and later, Winters. Thompson's duties were performed by Irise and later by Stanton and still later were absorbed by the use of a messenger service and the turning over of the balance of the work to Hannon. Peters' duties were absorbed by Meikle and Hannon and later,by McCallum. 3. Conclusions The undersigned has already found that the strikers requested reinstatement on February 24, 1949, that Respondent advised them it could only rehire them individually as business returned to normal, and that on February 25, 1949, they agreed to return on Respondent's terms. It is conceded that the strike was an economic, rather than an unfair labor practice, strike. Although an em- ployer has the right to replace economic strikers in order to carry on his busi- ness, he is under a duty not to discriminate in regard to the reinstatement of such strikers because of their concerted or union activity.26 It is clear from the record that at the time the strikers requested reinstatement only Thompson, had been replaced and even in his case Respondent did not state that it could not replace him for that reason. Its offer to reinstate the strikers, so far as appears from the record, also included Thompson, the only condition being that the strikers would have to wait until operations returned to normal. Considerable testimony was adduced at the hearing to show that subsequent to the strike Respondent was able to get along with fewer employees. Re- spondent contends that it had been losing money prior to the strike and that D'Aigremont had been put in charge of the Company to bring about a reorgani- zation. However, it is significant that at the time the strikers applied for rein- statement there was no mention of any reorganization or to the possibility that 28 The testimony shows that there is some interchange of work between the compounders and laboiatorv assistants to the extent that the latter fill some of the smaller orders. Presumably this condition has continued and, since the lahoiatory assistants are now working 20 man-hours a week more, it seems likely that with fewer compounders there. has been an accentuation in the tendency to have smaller orders filed by the former. 26 N L R B v Mackay Radio and Telegraph, Co , 304 U S 333 , N. L. R. B Y. Remington Rand, Inc . 130 F. 2d 919 (C A. 2) ; Ann Arbor Press, 85 NLRB 58 , Container Mf fg Co , 75 NLRB 1082. ROURE-DUPONT MFG., INC. 1261 it would affect their recall.'? The impression received by all of them, and Mar- tin was so advised when he phoned to tell Stone that the employees were will- ing to return on the Company's terms, was that they would all be recalled in a short time when orders from customers were back to normal. There is no dis- pute that in the fiscal year 1949 the Company's volume of business equalled or exceeded that in 1948 Despite the fact that Respondent found it possible after the strike to get along with fewer employees, at least some of the new employees were hired to perform duties similar to those performed by the strikers ; yet, it is significant that not a single striker was given an opportunity to fill one of these jobs 28 Respondent 's failure to recall a single striker , despite its need for the service of at least some of them, does not speak well of its claim that dis- criminatory motives played no part in its failure to reinstate any of the strikers 29 Although at the hearing Respondent sought to explain its failure to recall any of the strikers on the ground that none of them, except Martin, had agreed to return on its terms (a claim which the undersigned has already found to be without foundation in fact), it is worthy of note that even in Martin's case no mention was ever made of the possibility that a reorganization might prevent his recall. All he was ever told, according to Stone's own testimony, when he first applied, was that D'Aigremont would not take him back because of the ultimatum which the employees had delivered; later, after the others had filed a charge with the Board , Stone quoted D'Aigremont as saying : "Nothing doing" If he ever had any thought of doing it [reinstating Mar- tin], he was not going to do it now, he was not going back and open the door He said, ". . . these people made their decision, and, . . . I made my decision and the door is closed." Nowhere in Stone's testimony, accepting it at face value, is there any claim that Respondent was unable to take back the employees because their jobs were not available. The undersigned is convinced from all the evidence and finds that Respondent never had any serious intention of reinstating any of the strikers ; that the promise which it gave them that they would be recalled as their services were required was made without any serious expectation of its fulfillment and with the intent, as proven by later events, of replacing them with new employees ; that the failure to reinstate them was not due to any reorganization or change in its operations; and that the failure and refusal to reinstate the strikers was to penalize them for engaging in the union and concerted activity of striking, and to prevent a recrudescence of activity on behalf of Local 65 'among its em- ployees. Accordingly, it is found that by failing to rehire the strikers because 27 Cf . J. A Bentley Lumber Co , 83 NLRB 803, where the Board questioned the bona fides of an excuse for not reinstating strikers which was raised for the first time at the hearing 28 The four laboratory assistants hired after the strike performed duties substantially similar to Merle, Jensed , Sauvajot . and Manfire In its brief Respondent refers to the fact that one of the replacements , watts, was hired because Respondent felt it desirable to have a man in that department to help the other laboratory assistants in lifting heavy bottles and cans . and that another of the new laboratory assistants, Cangro, was hired because she would be able to take care of the French correspondence for the chemist. The undersigned does not regard these facts as establishing any substantial change in the basic duties of these positions It may also be noted that in the case of Thompson, while Irise bad been hired piior to the request foi reinstatement , the latter left in April and was replaced by Stanton, no opportunity being given to Thompson to return to his old job. 29 Cf Cincinnati Steel Castings Company, 86 NLRB 592, where although there were no vacancies left at the time the economic strikers sought reinstatement , Respondent thereafter scrupulously followed a policy of filling new openings with strikers. 1262 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD they engaged in concerted activities protected by Section 7 of the Act, the Re- spondent interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in violation of Section S (a) (1) of the Act. It is also found that the Respondent's conduct, in discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of the strikers, discouraged membership in the Union and thus violated Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act. C The interference, restraint, and coercion 1. The offer of individual contracts The complaint alleges that Respondent attempted to induce the employees not to become or remain members of the Union by offering them individual contracts of employment at increased wages. Martin, Jensen, Merle, and Peters testified, in substantial accord, that shortly before Christmas 1948, all the production and maintenance employees were called to a meeting in Varvat's office and offered individual contracts under which they would receive raises in pay which would' yield them more than they were then receiving from the Company, and, in most instances, at least as much or more than they had been offered by the Company in its negotiations with the Union.` In addition to the increases in wages the employees were offered increased vacation benefits and a retirement plan. The employees testified that Varvat told them that in view of the pleasant relations, which had existed for many years between the Company and its employees, and in view of the fact that the Company was offering them a contract which was as good or better than the proposed terms of the union contract, he could not understand why they wanted a union. When the employees appeared hesitant about giving any answer to his proposal Varvat suggested that they could leave his office and discuss the matter among themselves The employees later dis- cussed the matter, voted not to accept Varvat's offer, and so advised him. The testimony of the employees regarding this incident was corroborated in substantial part by that of William Meikie, the only employee who did not join the strike and who is presently employed as a supervisor by Respondent at a salary of $100 a week ' Meikie testified that the employees were called to Varvat's office sometime in December 1948 and offered wage increases. He was not sure whether they were actually offered a contract at that time or in a later discussion wtih Varvat. He also claimed that D'Aigremont who was present at the meeting did some of the talking, while the other employees testified that D'Aigremont, if present, did not participate in the discussion The under- signed regards the discrepancies between Meikle's testimony and that of the- other employees as minor. Accordingly, he finds that shortly before Christmas- 1948 Varvat offered the employees individual contracts of employment at wages in excess of the suns they were then receiving and in some instances in excess of the sums the Company had been offering in its negotiations with the Union,. and that such offers were made with the purpose and intent of getting the em- ployees to withdraw from the Union. 30 Peters, Martin, and Merle also testified that they had received similar individual proposals from Varvat earlier that day or the preceding day but that they had indicated their unwillingness to accept in the absence of the other employees. 31 Meikie was subpoenaed to testify by the General Counsel His direct testimony was restricted to a description of the duties perfoimed by the various employees supervised by him, both before and after the strike. Respondent's examination of Meikle concerned the matters covered on direct , and also other matters not brought out on direct examina- tion. However, neither party in its examination of this witness adverted to the meeting in Varvat's office, although it was evident from the testimony of the other witnesses that he had been present at this meeting . His testimony regarding this incident was elicited in response to questions addressed to him by the undersigned. ROURE-DUPONT MFG., INC. 1263 In its brief Respondent argues that, assuming Varvat made the offer attrib- uted to him,3` no finding of violation of Section 8 (a) (I) can be based thereon. Respondent contends, first, that since there was doubt as to the Union's bar- gaining status as a representative of a majority of the employees 33 and since the Union could not be certified because of its failure to comply with Section 9 (f), (g), and (h) of the Act, the Respondent was at liberty to make the best bargain it could with its employees; second, that since the Union was a noncomplying union and no finding of a violation of Section 8 (a) (5) of the Act could be based on the conduct here charged, a finding of violation of Section 8 (a) (1) based on such conduct would permit the Union to do in- directly what it could not do directly. The undersigned finds these argu- ments laekmg in merit. The fact that a union does not enjoy majority status or may not have been certified does not justify an employer's attempt to inter- fere with the employees' free choice of a bargaining agent' Likewise, the fact that the union may not be a complying union and cannot therefore complain of the employer's refusal to bargain with it, does not deprive the employees of the right to complain of the interference with the rights guaranteed to them under Section 7 of the Act. The Board has in a number of cases found violations of the rights of employees under Section S (a) (1) and (3) of the Act, based on interference with their rights under Section 7 and discrimination against them on account of union membership, even though the Union with which they were affiliated could not itself file a charge of violation of Section 8 (a) (5), and despite the fact that the union might receive some incidental benefit from the filing of the charge.3u The undersigned accordingly finds that by seeking to induce its employees to sign individual contracts containing provisions which were in some instances more favorable than they were being offered under the proposed contract with the Union, Respondent interfered with the rights of the employees under Sedition 7 of the Act, thereby violating Section 8 (a) (1) thereof 2. The withholding of a Christmas bonus in 1948 At the hearing the General Counsel amended his complaint to allege that Respondent withheld the payment of the customary Christmas bonus in the month of December 1948 in order to induce its employees not to become or re- main members of the Union The record discloses that Respondent paid a Christmas bonus, consisting of a varying number of weeks' salary, to its em- ployees each year from 1934 to 1949 with the exception of the year 1948. Martin and Jensen both testified credibly that during the meeting in Varvat's office when they were offered individual contracts, they were told by Varvat that if they agreed to accept the contracts offered they would receive their regular Christmas bonus. 3Y Respondent claims that it is unable to ascertain the facts regarding this incident due to Varvat's and D'Aigremont's absence However, it may be noted that it made no effort to call Mossman, Darby, and Majors, who were present on the occasion in question and who are still in its employ Likewise, as above indicated, it made no effort to interrogate its supervisor, Meikle, regarding this incident Presumably, if the testimony of these persons had contradicted, in any material manner, the testimony of the strikers, they would have been called to testify by Respondent ^ Respondent refers to the fact that Local 110 had petitioned for an election as alleged representative of the employees, as indicating doubt concerning the majority of Local 65. It may be noted, however, that at no time after the first bargaining meeting did Respondent question the Union 's majority status. 84 See Central Metallic Casket Co , 91 NLRB 572, and cases cited therein 33 Augusta Chemical Company, 83 NLRB 53 ; United Engineering Company, '84 NLRB 74, and Happ Brothers Company, Inc., 90 NLRB 1513. 1264 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Respondent argues that the bonus was omitted in December 1948 because the Company was losing money. However there is no evidence in the record that this is the reason for the passing of the bonus in December 1948. On the con- trary, the record discloses that the Company in early April 1949 paid a bonus to Mossman, Darby, Meikle, and Majors consisting of 3 weeks' salary, and resumed payment of the Christmas bonus in December 1949.x° Considering the circumstances surrounding its omission, and in view of Mar- tin's and Jensen's credible testimony concerning the statement made to them by Varvat regarding the bonus, the undersigned is satisfied and finds that the rea- son for the omission of the Christmas bonus in December 1948 was to punish the employees for having joined the Union and to induce them to leave that organization. Accordingly it is found that Respondent discriminated against its employees because they had joined the Union and interfered with the rights of the employees guaranteed under Section 7 of the Act, in violation of Section 8 (a) (1) thereof. 3. Other interference In his brief the General Counsel calls attention to the fact that Stone, in his testimony, admitted that when Mossman, Darby, and Majors sought to return to work lie suggested that they speak to the other strikers and ask them to also return. Gloria Merle testified that during the strike Mossman called her and suggested that she telephone D'Aigremont and ask for her job back. Although the Board has repeatedly held that the individual solicitation of strikers to return to work where they are represented by a bargaining agent is a violation of the Act,34 the undersigned will base no finding of violation on this testimony in view of the fact that the complaint contains no allegation covering this con- duct. The General Counsel, although conceding that this conduct is not covered by the complaint, requests that it be considered by the undersigned in framing an order to effectively remedy the unfair labor practices found. In view of the fact that no findings can be based on this incident, it will not be considered by the undersigned for any purpose. 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 described in Section I, above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States, and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and ob- structing commerce and the free flow thereof V. THE REMEDY Having found that the Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor prac- tices it will be recommended that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. 36 There is some question whether the bonus paid to the returning employees in April 1949 was a delayed Christmas bonus or was an Easter bonus. The evidence discloses that foi a number of years Respondent paid an Easter bonus as well as a Christmas bonus However, it appears that no Easter bonus was paid in the year 1948 , prior to the events in issue , and that no bonus was paid at Eastertime , 1950 Edward Galvin, Respondent ' s office manager, testified that lie did not receive a Christmas bonus in December 1948 but received a bonus in January 1949, and that he did not receive any bonus with the rest of the employees around Easter "because I had drawn a bonus . . . in January ." It seems evident that whether the bonus paid in April 1949 was a delayed Christmas bonus of an Easter bonus it was intended to compensate those employees who had not received a bonus in December 1948. Tr Old Town Shoe Company, 91 NLRB 240 ; Kansas Meilrmg Company, 86 NLRB 925. ROURR-DUPONT MFG., INC. 1265 It has been found that the Respondent on February 24, 1949, refused rein- statement to Gloria Merle, Marie Jensen, Franya Manfire, Nadine Sauvajot, James Martin, Michael Peters, Robert McCaffrey, and Thomas Thompson for the reason that such employees had joined or assisted a labor organization and engaged in concerted activities for the purposes of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection. It will therefore be recommended that the Re- spondent offer each of them immediate and full reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent positions," without prejudice to their, seniority or other rights and privileges. Although ordinarily where jobs are abolished or are-not available for legitimate business reasons the Board does not order the reinstatement of employees who have been discriminated against but requires them to be placed on a preferential hiring list, this principle is inapposite in the instant case since the undersigned is not convinced that in the absence of the discrimination against them the services of any of these employees would have been discontinued .3' The undersigned is of the opinion that the purposes of the Act will be effectuated only if the employees named above are reinstated to the position, or substantially equivalent position, which each held at the time of the discrimination against them, and that anything less than restoration to that position would allow the Respondent to take advantage of personnel changes which are inextricably tied up with its wrongful action toward these employees. In addition to reinstatement of said employees it will also be recommended that the Respondent make them whole for any loss of pay they may have suf- fered by reason of the discrimination against them, by payment to each of them of a sum of money equal to that which he or she normally would have earned as wages from ,the date of the discrimination, February 24, 1949, to the date of the Respondent's offer of reinstatement, less his or her net earnings 40 during said period. Said loss of pay shall be computed on the basis of each separate calendar quarter, or portion thereof, during the period from Respondent's discriminatory action to the date of a proper offer of reinstatement. The quarterly periods, herein called "quarters," shall begin with the first day of January, April, July, and October. Loss of pay shall be determined by deducting from a sum equal to that which each employee would normally have earned for each such quarter, or portion thereof, his or her net earnings, if any, in other employment during that period Earnings in one particular quarter shall have no effect upon the back-pay liability for any other quarter. In order to insure compliance with the foregoing back-pay and reinstatement provisions, it is recommended that the Respondent be required upcin reasonable request to make all pertinent records available to the Board and its agents 4' It has been found that the Respondent omitted the payment of a customary Christmas bonus in December 1948 for the purpose of interfering with the unionization of its employees and discouraging union membership. Whether this action be regarded as a violation of Section 8 (a) (1) or 8 (a) (3) of the Act, " it will be recommended that in order to effectuate the purposes of the Act, Respondent be required to pay to each of the employees named above the Christmas bonus which each would normally have received in December 1948, which the undersigned finds to be 3 weeks' salary." 31 The Chase National Bank of the City of New York, San Juan, Puerto Rico, Blanch, 65 NLRB 827. 70 Weiss & Geller, New York, Inc., 51 NLRB 796, J. A Bentley Lumber Company, 83 NLRB 803, N. L R. B. v. Skinner & Kennedy Stationery Company, 113 F 2d 667 (C A. 8). 40 See Crossett Lumber Co, 8 NLRB 440, 497-8. 41 F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289 43 Cf Gullett Gin Company, Inc, 83 NLRB 1. 43 See Young Engineereng Company, 57 NLRB 1221 ; Siillitan Dry Oock S Repair Corporation, 67 NLRB 627. 943732-51-81 1266 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD In the opinion of the undersigned Respondent's conduct discloses a'fixed pur- pose to defeat self-organization and its objectives. Because of Respondent's unlawful conduct and its underlying purpose; the undersigned is convinced that the unfair labor practices found are persuasively related to the other unfair labor practices proscribed by the Act and that the danger of their commission in the future is to be anticipated from the course of Respondent's conduct in the past. The preventive purposes of the Act will be thwarted unless the recom- mendations are coextensive with the threat. In order, therefore, to make ef- fective the interdependent guarantees of Section 7, to prevent a recurrence of unfair labor practices, and to minimize strife which burdens and obstructs com- merce, and thus to effectuate the policies of the Act, it will be recommended that Respondent cease and desist from infringing in any manner upon the rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act" Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon- the entire record in the case, the undersigned makes the following: " . , I CONcLusIONs OF LAW (1) Local 65, Wholesale and Warehouse Workers' Union is a labor organiza- tion within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act. (2) By discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of Gloria Merle, Marie Jensen, Franya Manfire, Nadine Sauvajot, James Martin, Michael Peters, Robert McCaffrey, and Thomas Thompson, the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act. (3) By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exer- cise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (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. [Recommended Order omitted from publication in this volume.] 44 See May Department Stores v. N. L. R. B., 326 U. S. 376. KINGSLEY STAMPING MACHINE Co. and INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS , LOCAL LODGE No. 1185, PETITIONER . Case, No. 21- UA-3300. April 9) 1951 Decision and Order Upon a petition duly filed pursuant to Section 9 (e) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, a union-security election was con- ducted by the Regional Director for the Twenty-first Region, in ac- cordance with the provisions of Section 102.67 of the Board' s Rules and Regulations, at the Employer's plant at Hollywood, California, ='nt December 1, 1950. At the close of the election, the parties were fur- n;! NLRB No. 229. A Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation