Yale Filing Supply Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 6, 1950

91 N.L.R.B. 1490 (N.L.R.B. 1950)

In the Matter Of SAMUEL FLATAU D/B/A YALE FILING SUPPLY Co. and
PRINTING SPECIALTIES AND PAPER CONVERTERS UNION, LOCAL No.
388, A. F. L.
Case No. 21-CA-333.-Decided November 6, 1950
DECISION AND ORDER
On August 9, 1950, Trial Examiner Maurice M. Miller issued his
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that
the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair
labor practices and recommending that he cease and desist therefrom
and take certain affirmative action as set forth in the copy of the
Intermediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the Respondent
filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report, together with a supporting
brief.
The Board 1 has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner and
finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are
hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Intermediate Report,
the exceptions and briefs, and the entire record in the case, and
hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of
the Trial Examiner, except as indicated below.
Like the Trial Examiner, we find that the Respondent is engaged
in commerce and activities which affect commerce. We find further
that it would effectuate the policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction
in this case.2
1. In adopting the Trial Examiner's finding that the Respondent
was responsible for Rodriguez' antiunion activities 3 on January 10,
1949, we rely solely on the fact that Rodriguez' avowal to Robinson,
his supervisor, of his intention.to engage in such activity 4 was made
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 [ Members Houston , Reynolds,
and Styles.]
2 Hollow Tree Lumber Company, 91 NLRB 635; Stanislaus Implement and Hardware
Company, Limited, 91 NLRB 618; The Rutledge Paper Products, Inc., 91 NLRB 625.
3 As stated in the Intermediate Report, Rodriguez solicited the return of union cards
from the employees for submission to the Respondent, in many instances threatening that
the employees would be dismissed or the plant closed if their applications were not turned
over to the Respondent.
4 As set forth in the Intermediate Report, Rodriguez told Robinson that he intended
to ask all the girls if they had joined the Union, to persuade them to surrender their union
membership applications and to tell them that they would lose their jobs if they retained
their union membership.
91 NLRB No. 221.
1490
YALE FILING SUPPLY CO. 1491
in the presence of another employee, Vigil, and that Robinson's failure
to object thereto necessarily conveyed to Vigil management's endorse-
ment of Rodriguez' plan of action, particularly as it coincided with
Robinson's own course of conduct in interrogating Vigil at the time
Rodriguez made his announcement. We find, therefore, in agreement
with the Trial Examiner, that Rodriguez had apparent, if not actual,
authority to carry out his announced plan.'
2. We find, in agreement with the Trial Examiner, that the dis-
charges of January 10 and 11 were discriminatory. In addition to
the considerations cited by the Examiner in support of his finding
of discriminatory motivation for these discharges, we rely upon the
Respondent's own admission in the record that a few days before
January 11, 1949, he had stated to Robinson that he could not "live
with the union" because of his financial condition.
3. The Respondent contended at the hearing that the January 10
discharges were made necessary by his precarious financial condition.
The Trial Examiner, while refraining from reaching any definite
conclusion on this point, stated that the evidence in the record raised
serious doubt as to whether the Respondent was in fact in straitened
circumstances on January 10. However, we are satisfied upon the
entire record that, whatever the Respondent's financial condition may
have been on that date, the purpose of the January 10 discharges was
not to improve the Respondent's economic position by reducing his
working force, but solely to discourage membership in the Union, in
violation of Section 8 (a) (3) and (1) of the Act.
ORDER
Upon the entire record in the case, and pursuant to Section 10 (c)
of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board hereby orders that the Respondent, Samuel Flatau,
d/b/a Yale Filing Supply Co., Los Angeles, California, and his offi-
cers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall :
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Discouraging membership in the Printing Specialties and Paper
Converters Union, Local No. 388, A. F. L., or any other labor organiza-
tion of his employees, by discharging and refusing to reinstate any of
his employees, or by discriminating in any other manner in regard to
their hire or tenure of employment, or any term or condition of their
employment;
(b) Interfering with, restraining, or coercing his employees, in any
other manner, in their exercise of the right to self-organization, to
"See Precast Slab and Tile Company, 88 NLRB 1237; Macon . Textiles, Inc., 80 NLRB
1525,1528: Union Twist Drill Co., 88 NLRB 1361.
917572-51-vol. 91--95
1492 * DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
form labor organizations, to join or assist Printing Specialties and
Paper Converters Union, Local No. 388, A. F. L., or, any other labor
organization, to bargain collectively through representatives of their
own free choice, to engage in concerted activities; for the purposes of
collective bargaining and other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain.
from any or all of such activities, except to the extent that such rights
may be affected by an agreement which requires membership in a labor,
organization as a condition of employment, as authorized in Section 9
(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 Henrietta Arriola, Emily Baca, Richard Elisaldez,,
Josephine Espinoza, Peter Hernandez, Florence Hidalgo, Aurora
Ramirez Flores, Sarah Vigil, and Mary Villegas, in the manner set
forth in the section of the Intermediate Report, entitled "The rem-
edy," immediate and full reinstatement to their former or substan-
tially equivalent positions, without prejudice to their seniority or
other rights and privileges previously enjoyed;
(b) Make whole Henrietta Arriola, Emily Baca, Faustina Cuella.r,,
Richard Elisaldez, Josephine Espinoza, Peter Hernandez, Florence
Hidalgo, Rebecca Lopez, Aurora Ramirez Flores, Aurora Rivas, Sarah
Vigil, and Mary Villegas, in the manner set forth in the section of the.
Intermediate Report, entitled "The remedy," for any loss of pay they
may have suffered as a result of the Respondent's discrimination,
against them ;
(c) Upon request, make available to the Board or its agents, for
examination and copying, all payroll records, social security payment
records, time cards, personnel records and reports, and all other rec-
ords necessary to analyze the amounts of back pay due and the rights
of reinstatement under the terms of this Order;
(d) Post at his two establishments in Los Angeles, California, copies:
of the notice attached to the Intermediate Report .6 Copies of the
notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for the Twenty-first
Region, shall be posted by the Respondent immediately upon their
receipt, after being duly signed by him, and shall be maintained by-
him 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 the Respondent to insure that these
notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material ;
' This notice shall be amended by substituting for the words "The Recommendations
of a Trial Examiner" in the caption thereof the words "A Decision and Order." In the
event this Order is enforced by decree of a United States Court of Appeals, there shall
be inserted before the words "A Decision and Order ," the words "A Decree of the Unitedi
States Court of Appeals Enforcing."
YALE FILING SUPPLY CO. 1493
(e) Notify the Regional Director for the Twenty-first Region in
writing, within ten (10) days from the date of this Order, what steps
the Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
INTERMEDIATE REPORT AND RECOMMENDED ORDER
Mr. Jerome Smith, for the General Counsel.
Hill, Morgan and Ferrer, by Messrs. Wtn. WPhitsett and Carl M. Gould, of Los
Angeles, Calif., for the Respondent.
Messrs. Daniel Johnston and Patrick J. Morgan, of Los Angeles, Calif., for the
Union.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon a charge duly filed by the Printing Specialties and Paper Converters
Union, Local No. 3S8, A. F. L., designated herein as the Union, the General Coun-
sel of the National Labor Relations Board,' in the name of the Board, caused the
Regional Director of its Twenty-first Region, at Los Angeles, California, to' issue
a complaint dated June 30, 1949, against Samuel Flatau, d/b/a Yale Filing Sup-
ply Co., of Los Angeles, California, herein called the Respondent. The complaint
alleged that the Respondent had engaged and has continued to engage 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, 49 Stat. 449,
as amended and reenacted in the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947, 61
Stat. 136, designated herein as the Act. Copies of the charge, the complaint, and
a notice of hearing were duly served upon the Respondent and the Union.
With respect to the unfair labor practices, the complaint alleged, in substance:
(1) that the Respondent, on or about January 10, 1949, discharged three em-
ployees' and has since failed and refused to reinstate them ; (2) that the
Respondent, on or about January 11, 1949, discharged nine additional employees a
and has since failed and refused to reinstate them; (3) that the Respondent's
action was motivated by their membership in and activities on behalf of the
Union ; and (4) that the Respondent's conduct, thus described, involved unfair
labor practices affecting commerce, within the meaning of the Act as amended.
In due course, on July 11, 1949, the Respondent filed an answer, in which it
admitted the jurisdictional allegations of the complaint, but denied the
commission of any unfair labor practices.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held at Los Angeles, California, on Jan>n
ary 24, 1950, and from February C to 10, 1950, inclusive, before the undersigned
Trial Examiner, duly designated by the Chief Trial Examiner. The General
Counsel and the Respondent were represented by counsel, and the Union by
Daniel Johnston of the National Labor Bureau and a representative. All of
the parties participated in the case, and were afforded full opportunity to
be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence
pertinent to the issues. A motion on behalf of the Respondent for a continuance
at the outset of the case, on the ground that he did not wish to authorize an
appearance on his behalf by substitute counsel while the only attorney familiar
with his defense was temporarily unavailable, was granted, over the General
'The General Counsel and his representative in this case are designated herein as the
General Counsel, and the National Labor Relations Board as the Board.
2 Named in the complaint as Aurora Rivas, Emily Baca, and Josephine Espinoza.
3 Named in the complaint as Peter Hernandez, Rebecca Lopez, Sarah Vigil, Mary
Villegas, Aurora Ramarez (Ramirez), Richard Elisaldez, Faustina Cuellar, Florence
Hidalgo, and Henrietta Arriola.
1494 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Counsel's objection.` At the conclusion of the General Counsel's case, the Re-
spondent moved that the complaint be dismissed; the motion was denied. It
was renewed at the close of the testimony. A decision on the motion was then
reserved by the undersigned ; it is disposed of by the recommended order
embodied in this report. The parties waived oral argument and elected to
submit briefs. The Respondent's counsel and the General Counsel's representa-
tive subsequently submitted briefs as indicated; they have been considered by
the undersigned.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Upon the entire record in the case and from his observation of the witnesses,
the undersigned makes the following findings of.fact:
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
The Respondent, Samuel Flatau, is an: individual doing business as the Yale
Filing Supply Co., with his office and places of business at Los Angeles, California,
where he is engaged in the manufacture and sale of file folders, envelopes, ac-
counting forms, index guides and other office forms. In 1948 he purchased
materials, equipment, and supplies valued approximately at $35,000; about
90 percent of this amount was spent for materials, equipment, or supplies which
were shipped directly to the Respondent's plant from points outside of the
State. With respect to the materials purchased from local sources, the
Respondent estimates that 5 percent, in value, originated outside of the State.
In the same period, the Respondent's sales enabled him to derive approximately
$200,000 in gross revenue. About 5 percent of the Respondent's product, in
value, was shipped directly to points outside of the State; approximately 50
percent of his product, in value, was sold, locally, to concerns which in turn sold
a substantial part of their production in other States.
The parties stipulated that the situation with respect to the purchases and
sales of the Respondent in 1949 was substantially similar to that revealed by
the approximate figures cited. Upon the record, and on the basis of the ad-
missions embodied in the Respondent's answer, the undersigned finds that he
is engaged in commerce and activities which affect commerce, within the mean-
ing of the Act.
II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The Printing Specialties and Paper Converters Union, Local No. 388, affiliated
with the American Federation of Labor, is a labor organization, within the
.meaning of the Act, which admits and has admitted to membership employees
of the Respondent.
M. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The organization of the Respondent's business
The Respondent, in the course and conduct of his business operations, previ-
ously noted, maintains two establishments-a plant on South Clarence Street,
and a warehouse and office at Third and San Pedro, in Los Angeles. All of his
productive operations, with a minor exception not material in this case, are
conducted at the South Clarence Street plant, with which this report is primarily
concerned.
At the outset of the events now to be related, Russell._ Robinson was re-
sponsible for the general supervision of plant operations, although his exact
4 Cf. Mississippi Valley Structural Steel Co. v. N. L. R. B., 145 F. 2d 664 (C. A. 8).
YALE FILING SUPPLY CO. 1495
title was not clear.' Employed by the Respondent since 1942, he was-at the
time of the events to be noted-in charge of a staff which had varied in size,
within the period which this.report will consider, from 19 to 33 employees. In
discharging his responsibilities , he was authorized and required to hire and
dismiss these employees, to assign their work, and to instruct new employees
in the operation of the plant machinery and other duties. In addition, he was
expected and required to repair inoperative plant machinery, when able to
do so.
The productive operations at the plant involve, and still involve, printing,
bindery , and table work-"gathering and bunching"-index making , slitting,
scoring, and other functions incidental to the conversion of paper. Most of
the men in the plant were employed as "printers " or "rulers" or assisted in
the performance of these functions. While Robinson's authority over them
was somewhat tenuous, he was clearly in charge of the female employees, who
made paper boxes, operated tabbing and scoring machines, crimped and drilled
holes in paper , and "bunched" sheets which required assembly.
Upon the entire record, the undersigned is satisfied, and finds, that Robinson,
by virtue of his status, was a supervisor within the meaning of the Act as
amended.
B. The general course of events
1. The attempt of the employees to join a union .
In 1948, and for it major part of 1949, the business operations of the Respond-
ent, as summarized in the financial statements prepared by his auditor, resulted
in net losses.' While the evidence available is in conflict as to the nature of
the concrete plans he made, if any, to minimize costs in the light of these losses,
it establishes to the satisfaction of the undersigned that the Respondent was
worried about the possible effects of unionization in that connection, and that
lie took action calculated to forestall the development of sentiment in favor of
a union among his employees. Foreman Robinson testified, for example, and the
undersigned finds, that he was advised by the Respondent on several occasions
that union help was not wanted in the plant; he testified credibly, also, that he
had been instructed by the Respondent, several times, to question applicants for
employment with respect to their union affiliation, if any, and to make sure
that union members were not hired.' And, on December 8, 1948, specifically,
5 The Respondent employed a general manager , Peter Robert Diaz , with an office at the
warehouse at Third and San Pedro Street . Counsel attempted to establish that Diaz was
actually in charge of the plant, and that he issued orders to Robinson which the latter,
in, turn, transmitted to the employees. Upon the entire record, however, the undersigned
is satisfied that Robinson was-in fact , if not in title-the general superintendent or
foreman of the South Clarence Street establishment.
B This finding is based upon the testimony of the Respondent ' s bookkeeper as to the net
losses reported in the profit and loss statements prepared by the auditor . No statements
were produced at the hearing, however, and no effort was made to analyze or explain the
reason for the losses. Their significance , as noted in the profit and loss statements given
to the Respondent , will be evaluated elsewhere in this report.
T Robinson 's testimony, in this connection , was received over the objection of the Re-
spondent 's counsel that it involved hearsay , and that the Respondent 's remarks , if any,
could not be used as evidence of an unfair labor practice under Section 8 (c) of the Act.
These objections are clearly without merit . Robinson ' s testimony was offered and received
to establish that statements of a particular tenor were made, not to establish the "truth"
of their content . And inasmuch as the statements involved or accompanied " instructions"
and not mere "views, argument , or opinion " Section 8 ( c) of the Act, obviously, has no
application to them.
1496 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the Respondent himself, it is found, while driving Mary Villegas-then newly
hired-from the warehouse to the plant, asked her if she belonged to a union.'
She replied in the negative, but went on to ask, in turn, if the "company" was
unionized . The Respondent , it is found , informed her that it was not, and
that he did not favor unions! The record does not establish the character or
content of any further conversation between them.
On Saturday, January 8, 1949, however, about 12 of the Respondent's em-
ployees repaired to the office of the Union,-where all of them signed union mem-
bership applications. An analysis of the record reveals that the group included
Arriola, John V. Baker, Jr., Cuellar, Espinoza, Gloria Garcia, Peter Hernandez,
Hildalgo, Lopez, Ramirez, Rivas, Vigil, and Villegasl° Each of them. signed
an application in the presence of the others.
On the following day, at church, Garcia asked Adam Rodriguez, an appren-
tice "ruler" in the Respondent's employ, if he intended to sign a union member-
ship card . He replied in the negative , saying that he was satisfied with his
wages.
2. Developments on the 10th of January
Early in the morning of the 10th of January, at the Respondent's plant, Baca
was also asked to sign a union membership application . The card was offered
to her in the plant rest room; all of the Respondent 's female employees, not
otherwise identified , were present' Her execution of the application,' as the
record reveals , marked the end of the attempt at self-organization on the part
of the Respondent 's employees.
Shortly after Plant Foreman Robinson arrived, Walter Knell, the Respond-
ent's ruling machine operator and the immediate superior of Rodriguez, came to
the supervisor 's office at the front of the plant and informed him that. the
"girls" had joined the Union ; Robinson replied however , according to the record,
that there was "nothing" he could do about it. After a "little bit" of further
conversation , Knell left. Later in the morning , however, Rodriguez also ap-
peared at the foreman 's office to volunteer the statement that he did not be-
lieve it would be a "good thing" for the girls to join the Union, since they would
lose their jobs. Robinson , as a witness , could not recall his reply. In spite of
his declared lack of interest , however, . Robinson subsequently went through the
plant and questioned "nearly all" of the girls . with respect to whether they had
8 The testimony of Robinson , previously noted, and that of Villegas in this connection,
was categorically denied by the Respondent ; his denial , however, is not credited.
° This expression of opinion has not been relied upon by the undersigned in assessing
the legal significance of the interrogation noted. The Respondent 's counsel , however,
sought to negate any inference that the Respondent was opposed to unions by the elicita-
tion of testimony that two of the plant employees were, in fact, union members. The
record will not support such a conclusion ; in any event , however , it is clear as a matter of
law that the presence of union members on the Respondent ' s payroll , even if it could be
established , would be insufficient, without more, to rebut positive evidence with respect
to the commission of an unfair labor practice.
10 Emily Baca and Richard Elisaldez , named as dischargees in the complaint , were not
members of the group on this occasion . All of the employees named , with the exception
-of John V. Baker , Jr., and Gloria Garcia, were discharged or laid off, with Baca and
Elisaldez , in the following week ; the circumstances of their discharge , as noted, give
rise to the instant case.
"Elisaldez , the other dischargee named in the complaint , became an employee of the
Respondent on the 10th , under circumstances to be noted elsewhere . His execution of a
union membership application is not definitively established ; he could not be located at
the time of the hearing , and the only evidence with respect to his status as an applicant
for union membership is to be found in the testimony of Garcia that he "told " her he had
signed an application.
YALE FILING SUPPLY CO. 1497
joined the Union, or signed union membership applications . His testimony es-
tablishes that none of them admitted union membership , or the execution of
an application , in response to his questions .12 One male employee, unidentified,
gave him a blank union membership application.
At or about the same time Rodriguez , on his own initiative , began a campaign
to persuade the "girls" to abandon the Union . Among others , he spoke to Sarah
Vigil, who was then engaged at a punch press, designated in the record as the
"metal tabbing" machine . Robinson was present . He had just questioned Vigil
with respect to her union membership ; she had, however, refused to answer his
question . In the presence of Vigil, Rodriguez then told the foreman
that he intended to ask all the girls if they had joined the Union, and to
,persuade them to surrender their union membership applications . He stated,
according to Robinson 's credible testimony , that he intended to tell them they
would lose "their jobs if they retained their union membership .i3 The record
•establishes that Robinson made no reply or comment with respect to this
declaration of intention.
Rodriguez , it is found , did speak to a number of the employees . The record
establishes , inter "alia, to the satisfaction of the undersigned , in spite of the
apprentice ruler 's denial, that he requested Peter Hernandez , a fellow apprentice
ruler, to assist him in the collection of the "union cards" for submission to the
Respondent ; that he made a similar request of John V. Baker, Jr ., and asked
him for his,own union membership application ; that he solicited information
with respect to the cards and their location ; and that several of the employees
were informed by him that they would be dismissed , or that the plant would
be closed , if their applications were not turned over to the Respondent employer.
' At approximately 11: 30 a. m. the Respondent appeared at the plant. He
was informed of the day's developments by Robinson , and left the foreman's
,office at once to speak to Buell. When he returned Robinson was directed, in
forceful terms, to lay off " "all" of the . girls. The foreman protested that the
.plant would be unable to operate ; the Respondent replied, however , that he did
Snot care to consider the consequences , and that he would rather have the plant
shut down than be forced to deal with a union.
Later, in the plant, the Respondent instructed Robinson , deliberately, in the
presence of Vigil , to lay off four of the girls ." When the foreman asked what
excuse he ought to gave, the Respondent authorized him to use any excuse he
chose, to "get rid" of them.
Although the record does not reveal the length of the Respondent 's stay,
it establishes , to the satisfaction of the undersigned , that he was at the plant
for. at least a part of the afternoon . He appears to have spent most of his
time in the office at the front of the plant which Robinson normally used-and
the record establishes that he was in consultation there, on several occasions,
12 Gloria Garcia testified credibly, however, that the "girls" spoke freely among them-
selves "now and then" as to those who had signed membership applications and those
`'who had not.
"Vigil testified that Rodriguez had declared directly that he knew she had signed a
union card , and that he had told her she would be discharged if she did not turn it over
to him. While the undersigned does not regard this testimony as inconsistent with that
of Robinson, the statement of the latter, with respect to this incident, is accepted.
.Rodriguez denied the foreman 's testimony ; his denial is not credited. -
34 Thereafter, according to the foreman 's credited testimony , the Respondent pointed out
the four girls to be laid off ; Robinson, as a witness , was of the opinion that the Respondent
had designated Baca, Cuellar , Espinoza , and Rivas.
1498 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
with Rodriguez,1' whose activity.among the other employees had already been
noted.
At or about this time, in the afternoon, the Respondent instructed Robinson,
in the office, to determine the identity of those responsible for the action of the
employees who had joined the Union, and to avoid any attempt to lay them off
in accordance with 'previous instructions, on the ground that it would look
"funny" if the Respondent were to dispense with their services'." Robinson,
according to his testimony, was able to learn, thereafter, that the "leaders"
of the union activity were Peter Hernandez, John V. Baker, Jr., and Rebecca
Lopez ; he testified, credibly, that this information was communicated by him
to the Respondent, and that the latter bad then told him not to dismiss the
employees named, saying that he would "get rid" of them separately, later.
At approximately 3: 30 p. m. Robinson told Baca, Espinoza, and Rivas of
their layoff. The testimony of these laid-off employees indicates, and the
undersigned finds, that Robinson, when pressed for an explanation, told Rivas
that he did not know the reason for the Respondent's action, but told Espinoza
and Baca that their employment was being terminated because of the Respond-
ent's desire to reduce his payroll." The girls, however, were permitted to finish
the day at work.
15 Among the employees who testified that Rodriguez made more trips to the "office" on
this day than he customarily did were Lopez, Ramirez, John V. Baker, Jr., and Peter
Hernandez . Their testimony was denied by the Respondent and Rodriguez . Knell, whose
testimony was offered to corroborate that of Rodriguez in this respect, testified that he
had not seen Rodriguez in conversation with the Respondent, or any of the female em-
ployees, on either of the two days with which this report is directly concerned. The Re-
spondent's counsel also attempted, by extensive cross-examination, to elicit an admission
on the part of various witnesses for the General Counsel that the shelving in the plant
and various piles of paper stock had made a clear view of the office impossible and would
have interfered with their observation of any conference between the Respondent and others.
The undersigned has rejected the testimony of Rodriguez and the Respondent-and
that of Kuell must likewise be rejected in view of his admission that his vision was im-
paired and that his normal place of work did not permit him to observe the plant. Upon
the entire record, the undersigned is not convinced that the other rank-and-file employees
would have been unable to observe or note the unusual activity attributed to Rodriguez;
in any event, the undersigned is satisfied that the evidence with respect to the physical
condition of the plant, whatever its significance may be in connection with the testimony
of Lopez and Ramirez, cannot vitiate the comparable and.equally credible testimony of
Hernandez and John V. Baker, Jr.
11 The Respondent denied all of the relevant testimony given by Robinson and others
with respect to his activities at the plant on the 10th of January. In the light of the
entire record and his observation of the witnesses, however, the undersigned is constrained
to reject these denials.
14 Robinson, in direct examination, had testified that lie could not recall the reasons he
gave to justify his action. In cross-examination, he testified that lie had replied, "You
know," when asked to give a reason for his action and that one of the girls had observed
that they were being deprived of their employment because of their action in joining the
Union. Counsel for the Respondent points to the discrepancy between the testimony of
Robinson in cross-examination, and that of the dischargees, to support his contention that
the testimony of the foreman was, and is, motivated by a desire to "hand" the Respondent.
V bile the undersigned has accepted the testimony of the dischargees in preference to that
of Robinson, at this point it should be noted that Robinson's testimony on direct exami-
nation was not inconsistent with the testimony of the dischargees and does not reveal
the animus against the Respondent upon which counsel relies to impeach the foreman's
testimony. Upon the entire record, the undersigned does not consider the discrepancy
noted, between the testimony of Robinson in cross-examination and the testimony of the
January 10 dischargees, sufficiently serious to warrant the rejection of Robinson's
testimony in other respects. The Respondent also sought to demonstrate the existence
of an animus against him on the part of Robinson, by evidence that the latter had
YALE FILING SUPPLY CO. 1499
In the meantime, Peter Hernandez had been called to the plant office by the
Respondent, at which time he was informed by the latter that he was understood
to be a "ringleader" of the union activity. His testimony establishes, to the
satisfaction of the undersigned, that he asked what the Respondent meant, and
that he was told his job would be guaranteed if he would agree to abandon the
Union and to collect all of the union membership applications. Hernandez,
according to his credited testimony, said that he was not interested, and depre-
cated the value of the Respondent's guarantee. He was advised to think it over ;
on this note, the conversation ended.
After the discharge of Baca, Espinoza, and Rivas, however, Hernandez was
reminded, in a further conversation with Rodriguez, that he had been told
everyone would be discharged if the Union's cards were not given to the
Respondent.18 The record does not reveal his reply, if any.
3. The layoffs on the 11th of January
I
At 11: 30 a. in., or thereabouts, on the following day, the Respondent returned
to the plant.19 According to Robinson, whose testimony is credited, he complained
that only three girls had been laid off, in spite of his instruction that four should
be dismissed. Robinson, it is found, avoided a direct answer. The Respondent
then asked him to specify the girls he would lay off that night in order to get
rid of the rest of the union supporters; the record establishes that Robinson
made no reply. There is no evidence with respect to the Respondent's reaction.
The foreman went to lunch at noon ; he was absent for about a half-hour.
When he returned, the Respondent was gone. Robinson, also, left the plant
almost immediately to call upon a supplier.
Rodriguez, in the meantime, had renewed his activity of the previous day ;
the record establishes, despite his denial, that, at a time not specified, he had
asked Villegas for her union membership application, and that he had followed
a similar request, addressed to Ramirez, with the observation that the employees
would be discharged if the cards were not turned over to him.
The Respondent reappeared at the plant while Robinson was out. When the
latter returned, at approximately 2: 30 p. in., he learned that the Respondent,
with the assistance of a plant employee, had moved a work table, used by two
of the female employees, into his office. He was, in fact, accosted by the Re-
spondent, almost immediately after his return ; the latter proceeded to berate him
at length with respect to his alleged failure to comply with previous instructions
in regard to a change in the location of the table. An argument followed ; at its
climax the Respondent seized Robinson's shirt and demanded that he turn over
suggested an appeal to the Union on the part of the discharged employees . The evidence,
however, will not support an inference that such a suggestion was made, or that Robinson's
testimony was colored , in any way, by a bias against the Respondent.
18 Rodriguez denied this testimony ; his denial , however, is not credited.
19 The record establishes that Walter Knell , who usually left work at noon because of
his impaired vision, was approached by the Respondent , at or about the time indicated,
and was asked not to go home early. When questioned as to the Respondent 's explanation
of his request, if any, Knell testified that :
. . . he said there might be some matter come up and " I wish you would stay."
Other than that he said nothing.
The Respondent admitted that he had asked Knell to remain at work , and explained that
he had done so because he had already made up his mind to discharge Robinson , for reasons
to be noted elsewhere in this report.
1500 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the keys to the plant forthwith.20 Robinson refused to do so until he received
his pay. The Respondent requested a check for him, and Diaz brought it to the
plant. Immediately after being paid by Diaz, Robinson turned over the keys,
and left.
Shortly thereafter, the Respondent called upon Gloria Garcia to determine
the name and address of each plant employee, except those in the printing
department, and to prepare a list of them. This she did. At or about 4 p. m. the
Respondent, then in possession of the list prepared by Garcia, summoned all of
the employees to a meeting, at which he addressed them briefly. A synthesis
of the available testimony with respect to his remarks establishes to the satis-
faction of the undersigned that the Respondent opened the meeting with an
announcement that a number of the employees would be "laid off" for a week or
two because "funny things" had occurred in the plant and because he wished
to get to the "bottom" of the situation?' After a reference to his dispute with
Robinson and the discharge of the latter, he announced that Francis G. Coffey,
the folding machine operator, would be "in charge" of the plant temporarily.
He promised that some of the workers would be recalled after he "straightened
out" the situation, and advised them all to leave their correct address and
telephone number, and to "keep in touch" with the Respondent if they had no
telephone. In the course of his remarks, at a point not revealed by the record,
he read aloud a list of those laid. off, stating generally that the "old employees"
would stay. The layoff involved Arriola, Cuellar, Elisaldez, Peter Hernandez,
Hidalgo, Lopez, Ramirez, Vigil, and Villegas 22 With respect to the layoff of
Hernandez, the record establishes that the Respondent bad informed Walter
Knell, in the course of his speech, that all but one of his apprentices would have
to. be laid off ; that Knell had been given an opportunity to name the apprentice
20 The Respondent's counsel, in an attempt to negate any possible inference that the
angry statements of the Respondent with respect to the foreman were motivated by
Robinson's lack of concern in the face of the union activity, adduced evidence to show
that the employees required to work at the table in question had had a legitimate
grievance with respect to the conditions prevalent at its previous location ; that the
Respondent had noted their grievance; that Robinson had been ordered to correct the
situation sometime earlier ; and that he had failed to comply with these instructions..
Robinson, in cross-examination, denied that the Respondent had even referred, in the course
of the argument, to the change in the table's location. While the testimony of the Re-
spondent, in this respect, appears to be more consistent with the general course of events,
and has been accepted, the matter-in the opinion of the undersigned-is not material-
For reasons to be set forth elsewhere in this report, the undersigned finds it unnecessary,
in short, to determine the merits of the Respondent's apparent contention that Robinson's
dismissal , noted , was due entirely , or in part , to his procrastination in this respect.
Counsel, however, also sought to establish, in cross-examination and by direct testi-
mony, that Robinson had, upon occasion, disputed the wisdom of other instructions given
him by the Respondent, and that he had been dilatory in their execution. The testimony,
and the inference that such conduct had been a factor in the decision of the Respondent
to discharge Robinson, were disputed by the latter. To the extent that such testimony
bears upon the validity of any inference with respect to the motivation for the discharge-
of Robinson, it is obviously immaterial. Its significance with respect to the contention
of the Respondent that all of the discharges or layoffs challenged in this case were eco-
nomically motivated will be considered elsewhere in this report.
21 The testimony of the General Counsel's witnesses with respect to this statement was:
uniformly denied by the witnesses offered by the Respondent. Upon the entire record,
however, the undersigned finds that it was made.
22 Although the Respondent's General Manager had testified that he and the Respondent
had conferred previously in order to select the employees to be laid off, the Respondent,
when called as a witness , made no reference to such a discussion, except for a generalized,
statement, in response to a suggestive question. In the light of his testimony that Garcia's
list was not available until 10-15 minutes before the meeting, the undersigned finds the
evidence insufficient to establish that such a conference occurred.
YALE FILING SUPPLY CO. 1501
to be retained ; and that his election to retain Rodriguez had led-necessarily-
to the inclusion of Hernandez in the layoff.' At the conclusion of his remarks,
the Respondent, it is found, reminded the employees that none of them were being
discharged ; he reiterated his previous statement that all of them were only being
laid off temporarily, until the problem of plant supervision could be adjusted a'
In fact, however, Coffey-designated by the Respondent as temporarily "in.
charge" of the plant-has continued to serve in that capacity at all times since
he was so designated.
4. Subsequent developments
A substantial number of those laid off on the 11th were reemployed before any
lengthy period of time had elapsed. Arriola and Cuellar, laid off on Tuesday,
were rehired on the 13th, the following Thursday. Elisaldez was rehired on the
14th and Rivas on the 17th, the following Monday. Thereafter, on the 25th of
January, Lopez was recalled. Baca, the last of those reinstated, resumed em-
ployment thereafter, on the 10th of February. None of the other workers, laid
off on the 11th, have been reemployed by the Respondent.
On the 16th of March the Respondent laid off eight employees, apparently
for economic reasons.26 Those laid off included all five of the employees pre-
viously laid off and reinstated who were still in the Respondent's employ, Gloria
Garcia, John V. Baker, Jr., and Adam Rodriguez. Three other employees re-
signed ; one of these was Walter Knell. Of the group thus terminated, Aurora
Rivas was the first to be reemployed. She returned to work at the Respondent's
plant on the 11th of April. Rodriguez was reemployed on May 21, 1949; Knell
and Rebecca Lopez on October 24, 1949; 27 and John V. Baker, Jr., on the 24th
of November.
C. Conclusions
1. Interference, restraint, and coercion
The record summarized in this report establishes, and the undersigned has
found, that the Respondent directed his plant foreman, on various occasions
which antedated the organizational activity of his employees, to question ap-
plicants for employment with respect to their union affiliations, if any, and to
avoid the employment of union members. It has also been found, elsewhere,
that the Respondent himself, on one occasion, questioned a new employee with
respect to her possible membership in a union.
23 The record is not clear with respect to the subsequent employment history of the
other apprentice ruler, Gregoria Molina, a male employee. The Respondent expressed
the belief that he had been retained to do some "heavy" work for a few days.
24 Garcia, who was not laid off on this occasion, testified in corroboration of the testimony
offered by those laid off that the Respondent had referred to something "funny" going
on at the plant. Similar testimony was given by John V. Baker, Jr. Garcia also testi-
fied that the Respondent had commented about the fact that he had had to fire the
"foreman" because he was getting old and unable to concentrate on his work-and that
he would have to lay off some of the employees because of Robinson's discharge. Both of
these employees impressed the undersigned as credible witnesses. Substantial reliance
has been placed upon their testimony, and that of Garcia in particular, in the under-
signed's attempt to synthesize the available evidence with respect to the Respondent's
speech.
26 In the meantime on February 4, 1949, Cuellar had resigned, for personal reasons.
26 This layoff is not challenged by the General Counsel as an unfair labor practice.
27 A letter of recall, addressed to Cuellar on July 22, 1949, had been returned,
undelivered, to the Respondent ; a similar letter sent on or about August 15 had elicited
no reply.
1502 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
On the 10th of January, when the interest of the employees in union affiliation
was brought to the attention of Foreman Robinson, a systematic effort was made
to determine the identity of those interested in the Union and to induce them
to abandon it. Robinson's undenied testimony in that connection establishes
that he went through the plant and questioned "nearly all" of the female em-
ployees with respect to their union membership applications. Rodriguez, the
apprentice ruler, although a rank-and-file employee, also questioned the "girls"
with respect to their applications, and sought to persuade a number of em-
ployees to surrender them, to the accompaniment of threats that the Respondent
would close the plant in the face of any attempt to achieve self-organization,
or, in the alternative, that applicants for union membership would be deprived
of their employment. These activities were clearly undertaken with the knowl-
edge and tacit approval of Foreman Robinson, and ultimately with the knowl-
edge and approval of the Respondent. 2'
The latter, when first advised of the situation, had instructed Robinson to lay
off "all" of the female employees ; when reminded that the plant would then be
unable to operate, he had replied that he would rather have it shut down than
be forced to deal with a union. Subsequently, as the record establishes, and as
the undersigned has found, the instructions given by the Respondent were modi-
fied. In connection with their modification, Foreman Robinson was directed
to determine the names of those responsible for the action of the employees ;
when informed as to their identity, the Respondent instructed Robinson not to
dismiss the employees named, saying that he would "get rid" of them separately
later. In the meantime, Peter Hernandez, one of those identified as a "leader"
of the union activity, had been called to the plant office by the Respondent.
There, it has been found, the Respondent advised him that his activity as a
leader was known, and offered to guarantee his employment if he would agree
to abandon the Union and to collect all of its outstanding membership applica-
tions. The employee disclaimed any interest in the Respondent's offer, but was
advised to think it over ; subsequently, in a further conversation with Rodriguez,
Hernandez was reminded of that individual's earlier prediction that the failure
or refusal of the employees to surrender their union cards would lead to dis-
charges. In the light of the notices given earlier to Baca, Espinoza, and Rivas,
the impact of the apprentice ruler's comment, and its purpose, would seem clear.
The essential character of the acts and statements noted, attributable or im-
putable to the Respondent, as unfair labor practices within the meaning of the
Act would also seem to be pateht.
The Respondent argues, however, that Robinson's testimony with respect to
his own activities, and those of Rodriguez and the Respondent, ought to be re-
garded as unworthy of credit. Essentially this contention is based upon the
fact that Robinson was subsequently discharged; it is argued that his testimony
was motivated and colored by the bias and prejudice engendered in him as a re-
28 These conclusions of fact, insofar 'as they involve a finding with respect to the Re-
spondent's knowledge and approval of the activities of the apprentice ruler, are based upon
inference. The fact that a number of employees had joined the Union was a matter of
common knowledge ; information with respect to their interest in that organization had
been communicated directly to Robinson and by him to the Respondent. Thereafter, at
various times in the course of the day, Rodriguez was seen in or near the office which the
Respondent utilized when at the plant while the Respondent was in it. In the light of the
Respondent's established desire to determine the identity of the union adherents and to
discharge them, and the concurrent activity of Rodriguez, previously noted, there would
seem to be ample justificaton, in the opinion of the undersigned, for an inference that the
activities of Rodriguez were the subject of any conversation between the apprentice ruler
and his employer.
YALE FILING SUPPLY CO. 1503
suit. This contention has already been rejected. Robinson impressed the uni=
dersigned as a candid and straightforward witness ; his testimony in direct
examination did not, in the opinion of the undersigned, reveal the bias and preju-
dice ascribed to him by the Respondent's counsel . The mere fact that several.
witnesses for the Respondent offered testimony calculated to rebut that given
by the foreman does not provide a sufficient basis, in logic or law, upon which:
to impugn his motives. And the record contains no evidence to support the,
Respondent's assertions, in this connection, that Robinson was "probably" a
union member, or that he had been the instigator of the protest which led the
Union to file its charges in the instant matter. It establishes, on the contrary,
that his testimony was not volunteered. Upon the record, summarized in this
report, and in the light of his demeanor as a witness, the undersigned has found,
and finds, Robinson's testimony worthy of credit.
It is argued, also, that the statements of the foreman were privileged, in any
event, as expressions of "views, argument or opinion" within the meaning of
Section 8 (c) of the Act. The record establishes however, as noted, that Rob-
inson questioned a number of the employees with respect to their union activity,
and that he undertook, at the request of the Respondent, to determine the iden-
tity of the union "leaders" at the plant ; certainly, in the light of the decided cases
it most now be taken as datum that such conduct involves more than privileged
speech within the meaning of the statute, since it involves an attempt on the,
part of the Respondent, or his agent, to. elicit information with respect to a type
of employee activity which the Act is calculated to immunize against employer
interference. Robinson's activity, in the opinion of the undersigned, clearly in-
volved an unfair labor practice. It is so found.
The Respondent contends, additionally, that he cannot be held responsible for
the activities of Rodriguez on the ground that the record is insufficient to estab-
lish the Respondent's knowledge of that activity, or to establish that he ever had
a chance to stop it, even if aware of it. Essentially, it is argued in this connec-
tion that the status of Rodriguez as the Respondent's "agent" has not been estab-
lished by.reliable, probative, and substantial evidence. This contention, how-
ever, also lacks merit. The credited testimony of Robinson, a responsible super-
visor, establishes that Rodriguez had openly declared an intention to engage in
the course of conduct attributed to him elsewhere in this report. It establishes
also that the foreman, despite his knowledge of the apprentice ruler 's plan, made
no effort to interfere with it, or to disassociate the Respondent from it. Robin-
son's failure to object, on behalf of the Respondent, to the plan of action outlined
by Rodriguez must be construed as a sufficient manifestation, imputable to their
employer, that Rodriguez was free to act in the name of the latter. And since
that manifestation was given, simultaneously, to the apprentice ruler and a third
person, it was sufficient, in fact and law, to create both actual and apparent
authority for the subsequent conduct of the former. 20 His status as an agent of
the Respondent, under the circumstances, seems patent.
The contentions of counsel as to the application of the statutory privilege with,
respect to the expression of "views, argument or opinion" in connection with the
statements and conduct of the Respondent have been noted. In regard to them
it has been found, specifically, that the Respondent questioned a newly hired
employee as to her union affiliation approximately 1 month before the em-
ployees attempted to achieve self-organization ; that he directed his plant fore-
man to determine the identity. of the union "leaders" on the staff ;. 40 and that,
-A Restatement of the Law of Agency, §§ 26 (d), 27 (a).
30 Cf. Eastman Cotton Mills, 90 NLRB 31, 26 LRRM 1158.
1504 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
when apprised of their identity, be offered one of them guaranteed employment
if he would agree to abandon the Union and collect the union membership appli-
cations previously executed 31 Such a course of conduct on the part of the Re-,
spondent Cannot be considered a mere exercise of the statutory privilege ex-
tended to expressions of "views, argument or opinion" absent threats of re-
prisal or promises of benefit. Upon the record the undersigned finds it violative
of the statute.
Specifically, therefore, it is found that the Respondent, by the acts and state-
ments of Plant Foreman Robinson and Apprentice Ruler Rodriguez, imputable to
him and herein set forth, as well as by his own course of conduct, with the excep-
tion previously noted, interfered with, restrained, and coerced his employees in
connection with their attempt to exercise rights established and guaranteed by
the Act, as amended.
2. The discharges
The Discharges on the 10th of January
It is contended, in support of the complaint, that the discharges of Baca,
Espinoza, and Rivas were discriminatorily motivated and calculated to discourage
union membership on the part of the Respondent's employees. This contention,
in substance, is bottomed upon the available evidence with respect to the Re-
spondent's expressed opposition to the concept of unionization ; his instructions
with respect to the interrogation of applicants for employment in regard to
their union affiliation ; his own action in questioning a newly hired employee
on the point ; his choleric reaction when advised of the union activity with
which this case is concerned ; his expressed determination to rid the plant of
union adherents ; his attempt to ascertain the identity of the union leaders ;
his endorsement of the apprentice rulers' attempt to learn the identity of the
union supporters and to subvert their interest in self-organization-and the
fact that he ultimately discharged almost all of those who had executed union
membership applications while retaining in his employ every worker who had
failed or refused to do so. In the absence of evidence sufficient to compel a
contrary finding, the record thus summarized clearly warrants a conclusion that
the January 10 discharges, and the others previously noted, involve the commis-
sion of an unfair labor practice.
The Respondent, however, argues generally-and with particular reference
to the January 10 discharges-that the actions challenged by the complaint
were taken to reduce expenses. In support of this contention, his counsel
adduced evidence to show that the Respondent's financial position was precarious,
that he had reached a decision to reduce the staff and communicated it to the
plant foreman long before the union activity in issue began, that the foreman's
failure to implement that decision promptly explains completely the fact that
no individuals were discharged before the attempt of the employees to achieve
self-organization, and that the Respondent was completely unaware of that
activity, in fact, when the foreman was ordered to discharge some of the
employees. In the light of this testimony, the undersigned is asked to find
31 The record established, as found, that the Respondent directed his foreman, on several
occasions, to question applicants for employment with respect to their union affiliation,
if any, and to make sure that union members were not hired. The date on which this
instruction was given, and the dates of its repetition, are not established. In the absence
of reliable, probative, and substantial evidence that such an instruction was given or
repeated within the 6-month period immediately antecedent to the filing of the present
charge, no finding will be made that it involved an unfair labor practice.
YALE FILING SUPPLY CO. 1505
that the Respondent 's instructions could not have been discriminatorily
motivated.
Upon the entire record, the undersigned finds these contentions deficient in
merit. With respect to the particular contention that the Respondent 's financial
position at the turn of the year was so precarious as to require or justify re-
trenchment, the evidence offered is particularly' unpersuasive. At the outset of
his presentation , the Respondent 's counsel sought to establish that his accounts
payable exceeded his accounts receivable during the last quarter of 1948, and
in each of the first 6 months of the following year. An exhibit, offered to
establish the facts in this connection in summary form, revealed that the
amount of that excess , each month , was substantial . The record also estab-
lishes, however, that the exhibit in question had been specially prepared, that
its comparison of the accounts receivable with accounts payable had not been
relied upon in connection with the alleged decision of the Respondent to reduce
expenses , and that the accounts payable, for each month , had been "inflated"
by the inclusion of the amounts due under long term contracts for the purchase
of four large machines . 32 The figures for the first quarter of 1949 had also
been inflated by the addition of $8,000 due on a loan by the Respondent 's brother.
A revised compilation of the Respondent ' s accounts payable, subsequently
offered-exclusive of notes payable and the balance due for equipment, but
computed to include current office expenses , delivery expenses , rent, and the
current cost of telephone service and other utilities-reveals instead that his
accounts receivable exceeded his payables at the end of every month in the
year antecedent to the discharges-and throughout 1949's first quarter.
(Parenthetically, it may be noted that the Respondent's attempt to establish
the correctness of any business decision on the basis of a comparison between
his accounts receivable and his trade payables alone cannot be justified on the
basis of accepted accounting practice-which recognizes , for the purposes of
financial statement analysis, only such ratios as that of total current assets to
current liabilities , and the so -called liquidity ratio or "acid test" of cash, tem-
porary investments, and accounts receivable to the total current liabilities of a
business enterprise 33 While the record suggests that the liquidity ratio of the
Respondent 's business at the turn of the year was poor, it was certainly not
hopeless. And an analysis of the available balance sheet figures reveals that the
current assets of the Respondent, at the time of the discharges, included a sub-
stantial inventory of raw materials , work in process , and finished goods. Al-
though the methods of inventory valuation employed by the Respondent's auditor
are not revealed by the record, his inventory of $121,202.12 was only slightly
less than six times greater than the amount of his accounts receivable; in spite
of the fact that figures sufficient to establish, with accuracy, the. ratio of his
total current assets to his current liabilities are not available, there would
seem to be ample justification for a conclusion that the ratio of the formerto
the latter was entirely satisfactory.)
32 The undersigned notes , officially, that long term obligations for the purchase of capital
equipment are -not ordinarily considered as accounts currently payable. Paton , Account-
ant's Handbook, infra, pp . 40-41 ; Foulke Practical Financial Statement Analysis , infra,
pp. 95, 97. The record, in fact , establishes that the Respondent 's ledger accounts included
a separate account for contracts payable, in accordance with accepted practice.
33 W. A. Paton, Accountant's Handbook ( 3d ed.) The Ronald Press Company , New York,
1949 , pp. 73-78; Roy A. Foulke , Practical Financial Statement Analysis ( 2d ed .) McO,sw-
Hill Book Company, Inc., 1950 , pp. 173 if.
1506 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
In spite of the Respondent's poor cash position on December 31, 1948-he was
overdrawn $760.91 at the bank and possessed $10 in petty cash-the record as
a whole, therefore, entirely fails to sustain the contention that the foundations
of his business were so precarious as to "require" a readjustment in the level
of his plant employment. The testimony of the Respondent's bookkeeper indi-
cates that his business operated at a loss in 1948 for the first 6 months of
the following year. The undersigned has already noted, however, that the finan-
cial statements upon which this testimony was based were not produced at the
hearing, and that no effort was then made to analyze or explain the reason for
the losses. Several aspects of the bookkeeper's testimony raise a serious ques-
tion as to the completeness of the impression given by the profit and loss picture
cited. There is evidence, for example, that the Respondent was required to accept
paper shipments quarterly, in substantial amounts, to preserve his sources of
supply. And the record warrants an inference, if it does not establish, that
substantial shipments of paper were received by the Respondent in December
of 1948, prior to the discharge. Although normal accounting practice would
justify an assumption that his accounts payable had been substantially increased
as a result, the Respondent's accounts payable control revealed a balance due
suppliers approximately one-sixth as large, in dollars, as his inventory. This
certainly suggests, if it does not compel, an inference that the Respondent's cash
on hand had been depleted to reduce the amount of his accounts payable, and that
his business "losses" may have been due, at least in part, to the large amounts
paid out for paper purchases during the 1948 calendar year. While the under-
signed is in no position to reach definitive conclusions in this connection, enough
is revealed by the record to raise a serious doubt as to the legitimacy of the Re-
spondent's contention that he was in straitened circumstances.' The evidence
offered in support of that contention, at least, must be regarded as insufficient to
establish that the January 10 discharges, now in issue, were economically
motivated.
The additional contentions of the Respondent with respect to these discharges
involve more subtle credibility issues. With respect to his argument that a
reduction of the staff had been decided upon in December, the Respondent and
General Manager Diaz testified that a decision had been reached to lay off three
"girls" for economic reasons ; Diaz testified categorically on direct examination
that he and the Respondent had chosen Baca, Espinoza, and Vigil for the layoff,
in December, because they were believed to be the "least apt" employees, and
that the Respondent had undertaken to communicate that decision to Robinson,
the plant foreman. The testimony of the Respondent, in this respect, is in-
hQrently incredible; he testified that he did not know any of the "girls" by name,
and his counsel made no effort to establish the method by which he could have
reached an informed decision as to the identity of the employees to be laid off.'
Di; ,z, whose testimony was most detailed, contradicted himself in cross-examina-
3; Among the items of evidence relevant in this connection must be reckoned the extensive
testimony with respect to the raises given by the Respondent in the months immediately
after the discharges. The General Counsel contends that the raises given to Rodriguez. in
particular, establish not only that the Respondent's financial position was sound, but also
that the apprentice ruler was being rewarded for his cooperation with his employer's
antiunion policy. While there is certainly ground for suspicion that the rapid series of
raises received by Rodriguez was calculated to reward him for his "cooperation," the
evidence is not substantial enough to warrant such a conclusion, and the undersigned has
referred to his employment history only as an illustration of the Respondent's financial
situation.'
35 At the hearing, lie identified Aurora Ramirez as one of the "girls" chosen for the layoff.
YALE FILING SUPPLY CO. 1507
tion; lie testified that he was surprised at the layoff of Baca, a good worker, and
denied his previous testimony, in direct examination, that she was one of the
three "least apt" employees. 'In cross-examination, Diaz testified for the first
time that he and the Respondent had given Robinson. the names of two workers
to be laid off and let him choose the third. He explained his testimony in direct
examination by the statement that Robinson had chosen Baca for discharge, and
had thus designated her as inept, in his own opinion. The undersigned finds.
this explanation unpersuasive. In the light of the entire record on the point, the
undersigned finds the testimony of Diaz, also, to be incredible and rejects the
contention that a decision had been reached, in December, to reduce the staff at
the plant.
The employment history of Elisaldez also serves to rebut the Respondent's
contention that a program of retrenchment had been initiated before any union
activity began. The record establishes that Elisaldez was hired on the 10th
of January ; the Respondent contends that he was not hired as an addition to
the staff, but as a replacement for another employee, Abelardo Obeso, injured
on that date. An examination of the exhibits offered by the Respondent, how-
ev7er, reveals that Elisaldez began work at 7: 15 a. in. on the 10th, and that
Obeso sustained his injury at 10: 30 a. in. on that date. It is noted, elsewhere
in this report, that the Respondent arrived at the plant on January 10, 1949,
at approximately 11: 30 a. in.; there is no evidence that he made any effort,
whatsoever, to take advantage of Obeso's injury as a fortuitous reduction,
temporarily, in his payroll expenses, or that he sought to countermand the action
of the foreman with respect to the employment of Elisaldez. It is inferred,
therefore, and found-contrary to the Respondent's contention-that he did
not arrive at the plant on the morning of January 10 to enforce a reduction
of personnel for economic reasons.
The payroll records of the Respondent, as a whole, furnish additional support:
for this conclusion. They reveal that the total, number of the Respondent's,
employees, in the 1948 calendar year, at the South Clarence Street plant and
in the "red rope" department at the warehouse, ranged from 19, in the first
payroll period ending in that year, to 26 in July and August. While the total
number of employes fell to 23 in the first pay period of September, it rose slowly
thereafter, reaching 25 in October, 28 in November, and 32 in the pay period end-
ing on December 8, 1948. The records show that in the 4 weeks between the
13th of October and the 10th of November, 2 employees were separated and 5,
were hired; in the 4-week period from the 10th of November to the 8th of
December, 1 was separated and 5 were employed. An analysis of the Respond-
ent's payroll for the period ending December 22, 1948, read into the record, re-
veals that it contained 33 names; of those who appeared on the previous payroll,
1, Rosabelle Corrella, appears to have been terminated, and 2, Weaver Dell
Poso and Bertha Casseto 36 were added. In the pay period ending on Jan-.
nary 5, 1949, immediately before the discharges, the total number of the Re
spondent's employees remained steady at 33; 1, W. A. G. Stephens, left and:
another, Charles A. Cox, was added. While the Respondent contends that
Foreman Robinson was primarily responsible for the employment and termi
nation of plant personnel, his admission that he made no effort to compel a
reduction in force at any time in this period is, in the opinion of the undersigned,.
significant.
30 Also named in the record as Bertha Caslitto and Bertha Dell Costello.
917572-51-vol. 91 96
1508 'DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
If the problem of retrenchment was as important to the Respondent as his
testimony would indicate , it certainly could have been achieved by a ban on
the employment of new workers, if not by a direct layoff. The record, however,
is barren of evidence as to any attempt on the part of the Respondent to promul-
gate or enforce such a ban. Certainly the Respondent can not, and does not,
plead ignorance as to the state of his payroll. In the absence of evidence with
respect to positive action, available to him, to check its expansion, an inference
is certainly warranted that it was expanded for good and sufficient reasons, with
the Respondent 's approval . 37 Robinson so testified.
Upon the entire record, the undersigned finds no basis for the conclusion that
Robinson was directed to lay off employees , in order to reduce expenses , before
the 10th of January.
With respect to the contention that the Respondent was unaware of the union
activity among his employees at the time the layoffs of January 10th were ordered
it is sufficient to note that Foreman Robinson and Knell were aware of it early
in the morning of the first working day after the employees had signed union
membership applications . The knowledge of the former , at least, is chargeable
to the Respondent ; and, in any event, the testimony of Robinson that informa-
tion with respect to it was communicated immediately upon his arrival has been
credited . Even if this were not established , it is worthy of note that the plant
is a small one, and that the interest of the employees in the union was a matter
of general knowledge and a subject of general discussion , among the female
workers in particular , on the morning in question .3 B Kuell, for example, admitted
that he had learned of the union activity from his fellow employees. In the
light of the established fact that the Respondent conferred with Knell imme-
diately after his arrival , and the finding , elsewhere in this report , that he was
visited on a number of occasions . by Rodriguez , the undersigned is unable to ac-
cept the argument that he was unaware of the fact that some of his employees
had evinced an interest in a labor organization 39 The conclusion that he was,
in fact, aware of it finds additional support in the Respondent 's admission, after
he was confronted with the affidavit given by him to a Board agent, that he had
spoken to Robinson, just before the 11th of January, with respect to "some talk
about a union " which he had heard in the plant.
Upon the entire record, the undersigned concludes and finds that the Re-
spondent, when he ordered the discharge of Baca, Espinoza, and Rivas, did so
with full knowledge of the union activity then under way at the plant, and the
identity of the union supporters . The undersigned , accordingly , infers and finds
that the discharge of Baca, Espinoza, anod Rivas was discriminatory, that it was
reasonably calculated to discourage, and did discourage, membership in the Union,
and that the Respondent, by these discharges, intended to, and did, interfere
with, restrain, and coerce his employees in their exercise of rights guaranteed by
Section 7 of the Act, as amended.
"The record establishes , to the satisfaction of the undersigned , that the Respondent's
production for "stock " was fairly steady, and that he had a large number of "special"
orders on hand at the time. The existence of these orders would seem to explain the
recall ' of certain dischargees after the layoffs noted herein-in spite of the Respondent's
"concern " over his financial situation at the end of January.
as Rodriguez testified that he could not remember whether there was any talk about the
Union in the plant on the 10th or 11th ; under all the circumstances , the undersigned
regards his lapse of memory on this point as further justification for the conclusion , previ-
ously expressed, that his version of the events with which this case is concerned must be
regarded as incredible. '
30 See Quest -Shop Mark Brassiere Co., Inc ., 80 NLRB 1149 , 1150 ; Ames Spot Welder Co.,
Inc., 75 NLRB 352, 355; N. L . R. B. v. Abbott Worsted Mills, 127 F. 2d 438 , 440 (C. A. 1).
YALE FILING SUPPLY CO. 1509
, The 11th of January
The Respondent contends that the layoffs of January 11, 1949, were made
necessary by the summary dismissal of Foreman Robinson , and that every em-
ployee directly supervised . by him was laid off temporarily until the Respondent
could secure another supervisor . The argument , set forth sweepingly in the
Respondent 's brief, is summarized therein as follows :
With this summary dismissal of Robinson , the entire plant except for
the printing department , which did not require Robinson 's supervision in
order for it to continue to operate , was totally without supervision . Flatau
had no alternative but to lay off the employees who had been under Robin-
son's supervision and thus temporarily cease operations.
The record , however , does not sustain this categorical assertion . At the outset,
it may be noted that the layoff did not include all of the employees directly
subject to Robinson's supervision . Of the female workers in the Respondent's
employ, seven were laid off on the 11th ; seven others were retained. Of the
seven "girls " retained , five possessed substantial seniority ; one, Gloria Garcia,
had seniority equal to that of Rebecca Lopez, a dischargee , and another Bertha
Casseto, had been in the Respondent 's employ for less than " a month. The
testimony on behalf of the Respondent was that he had chosen to lay off his
less experienced employees for lack of effective supervision , in view of Robin-
son's discharge , and that the "girls" retained were those with more experience
who did not require detailed direction or control . In this connection , however,.
it is sufficient only to note that every one of the female workers laid off was a
union adherent . The fact that Garcia, who had also signed a union member-
ship application, was not included in the layoff is not enough, in itself, to lay
at rest the obvious inference suggested .40 And, in the absence of any evidence
that Casseto possessed special qualifications or ability warranting her retention,
in the face of a layoff affecting others with equal or greater seniority , the Re-
spondent's contention that the layoff included all of those unable to continue at
work in the absence of effective supervision must fall.
The persuasive character of the justification advanced by the Respondent is
also impaired by a consideration of the subsequent developments at the plant.
The Respondent has made much of the fact that the layoffs were necessitated
by the absence of a knowledgable and effective supervisor-yet the record estab-
lishes that Francis Coffey , the employee designated by him as a temporary
supervisor , has continued to serve in that capacity to date. In spite of this,
six of the employees laid off-two of those laid off on the 10th and four dismissed
on the 11th of January-were rehired within a month . No showing has been
made that Coffey had acquired, in the meantime , the skill or knowledge required
to make him an effective supervisor . In this posture of the record , the under-
signed finds it impossible to accept the Respondent 's contention that the absence
of effective supervision after Robinson 's discharge was a compelling reason for
the layoff now in question.
The Respondent adduced considerable evidence to establish that the discharge
of Robinson had not been premeditated-and that he had, in fact , been dismissed
for cause . Much of the testimony in this connection has been characterized,
elsewhere in this report , as immaterial . The Respondent contends that the
arguments of the General Counsel necessarily rest upon the subsidiary contention
41'W. C. Nabors Company, 89 NLRB 538; Duro Test Corporation, 81 NLRB 976 ;, Stewart
Warner Corporation , 55 NLRB 593.
1510 D'E'CISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
that Robinson had been dismissed only to create an excuse for the layoff of his
subordinates ; it is argued that if Robinson's discharge was not a pretext, the
good faith of the Respondent in connection with the layoff may be inferred.
The undersigned, however, does not so view the case. Even if it be assumed
for the purpose of argument, in short, that Robinson's performance as a super-
visor was subject to criticism, and that the Respondent's dissatisfaction with
him in that capacity had come to a head on the 11th of January, it does not
follow that the existence of such a logical or emotional justification for the
Respondent's reaction, with respect to the foreman, renders the subsequent
layoff of his employees less subject to question. The record establishes that
the Respondent has requested Kuell, who might otherwise have left the plant,
to remain at work on the afternoon of the 11th because "some matter" might
come up. He says that he did so because he had already made up his mind
to discharge Robinson; yet he testified also that his subsequent ultimatum to
the foreman with respect to the incident which precipitated the discharge had
been conditional. The undersigned finds it unreasonable to' conclude that the
Respondent knew his instructions would not be followed, at the time he re-
quested Kuell to remain. Upon the entire record-including, without limita-
tion, the declared intention of the Respondent with respect to the dismissal of
the union supporters ; his attempt to subvert the interest of Hernandez in self-
organization ; his acquiescence in the campaign of Rodriguez to the same end ;
and his reference at the time of the layoff to the fact that "funny things" were
going on in the plant, and that he wished "to get to the bottom" of them-the
undersigned concludes and finds that the Respondent's request, addressed to
Knell, was made in anticipation of the layoff, and not in anticipation of Robin-
son's discharge. If this conclusion is sound then, even if Robinson's discharge
involved an action taken on the spur of the moment in a fit of anger and not
part of a "carefully calculated" scheme, it is possible to infer, and the under-
signed does infer, that the layoff had been planned without reliance upon the
discharge of the foreman, and that his dismissal merely served to provide a
more convenient and plausible pretext for the action which the Respondent had
already decided to take. The motives which actuated that decision have already
been the subject of discussion in this report.
With respect to the General Counsel's contention that the action of the Re-
spondent was discriminatorily motivated the Respondent has, however, ad-
vanced certain subsidiary contentions: (1) that as to Cuellar, Elisaldez, and
Hidalgo, there is no evidence to establish their status as applicants for union
membership; (2) that the record with respect to Lopez establishes that she
signed her union membership application after the layoff; and (3) that the re-
tention of Garcia, a union adherent, as an employee effectively negates any in-
ference that the layoff was discriminatory. As to the first of these contentions,
it may be noted that the testimony of several dischargees fully supports a finding
that Cuellar and Hidalgo were present at the office of the Union on the 8th of
January, and that they had executed union membership applications there.
While it is true that the evidence as to the union membership of Elisaldez is bot-
tomed on hearsay, the absence of definite proof as to his status is immaterial;
it is clear that he was included, deliberately, in a layoff decided upon by the Re-
spondent to discourage union activity on the part of his employees." Even if
91 The Respondent 's payroll records show that Elisaldez was absent due to illness on the
11th and 12th, but his time card does not show it. He is recorded there as temporarily
laid off ;. and the Respondent's bookkeeper testified that her notation with respect to his
illness may have been based upon hearsay from the Respondent or someone connected
with the firm.
YALE FILING SUPPLY CO. 1511
it be assumed, then, for the purpose of argument that Elisaldez had been selected
for layoff erroneously, the fact that he was included in a layoff which was dis-
criminatorily motivated is sufficient to justfy his inclusion as a beneficiary of
any remedial order necessary to effectuate the objectives of the Act, as amended.
It is so found. As to the Respondent's contentions in regard to Lopez, the rec-
ord relied upon by the Respondent will not support the argument made ; al-
though Lopez was vague, it is true, as to whether her execution of a union mem-
bership application antedated her layoff, she was certain that she had joined
the Union on a Saturday, and believed that-it was on January 8, 1948. This
testimony is consistent with the facts which have been established by other wit-
nesses; it provides all of the evidence necessary to sustain a conclusion that
Lopez was an applicant for union membership on the date of the layoff. As to the
third contention noted, reference has already been made to the fact that the re-
tention of some union members in a respondent's employ has been held insuffi-
cient, in law, to destroy the validity of a conclusion, based upon reliable, proba-
tive, and substantial evidence, that the dismissal of other union members was
discriminatorily motivated.
An additional question arises, however, with respect to the layoff of Hernan-
det. The evidence adduced by the General Counsel establishes, as noted, that
Hernandez was nominated for the layoff as a result of Knell's decision, at the
invitation of the Respondent, to retain Rodriguez as an apprentice ruler. The
evidence is not sufficient to establish that Kuell had supervisory authority, or
that his decision to retain Rodriguez was the result of prearrangement with the
Respondent. The inclusion of Hernandez in the layoff, therefore, cannot be di-
rectly imputed to the Respondent. In his case, however, as in that of Elisaldez,
consideration must be given to the fact that the layoff in which they were caught
was, as a whole, discriminatorily motivated ; i. e. that it was the result of the
Respondent's reaction to the Union's advent. Absent any attempt on the part
of the employees, in short, to achieve self-organization, it is extremely doubt-
ful, upon the present record, that any layoff would have occurred at the time.
If this inference is sound, and the undersigned believes that it is, it follows that
the layoff of Hernandez involved discrimination as to him, in spite of the General
Counsel's failure to establish that Knell had actually nominated him for it as
the Respondent's agent.
In the =light of the record summarized in this report there is, at the very
least, strong reason to suspect that the Respondent was astonished and dis-
mayed at the news that some of his employees had sought membership in the
Union ; that his decision to lay off the union adherents was hastily made ; 43 that
his subsequent decision to discharge Robinson was due, in large part, to the
tensions under which he was laboring at the time ; and that his decision, there-
after, to recall a number of the dischargees was prompted primarily by the
realization that the necessities of his business required it 43 While the record,
in this case, will not sustain such generalized findings with respect to the state
of the Respondent's mind, the plausibility of the inferences suggested indicates
persuasively, at least, that the evidence offered by the Respondent is insufficient
to overcome the General Counsel's case in support of the complaint.
Upon the entire record, therefore, the undersigned concludes and finds that
Hennrietta Arriola, Faustina Cuellar, Richard Elisaldez, Peter Hernandez, Flor-
32 Cf. Inter-City Advertising Company of Greensboro, N. C., Inc., 89 NLRB 1103.
"The record
.
establishes that Diaz had been shifted to work at the plant, that he had
put in extra hours there after the 11th of January, and that the "special orders" on hand
were delayed in production thereafter.
1512 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ence Hidalgo, Rebecca Lopez, Aurora Ramirez Flores,' Sarah Vigil, and Mary
Villegas were laid off by the Respondent discriminatorily on January 11, 1949,
to discourage membership in the Union, and that the Respondent by his actions.
in that respect interfered with, restrained, and coerced his employees in the
exercise of rights guaranteed by the Act, as amended.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent set forth in Section III, above, which occurred
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 of commerce. -
V. THE REMEDY
Since it has been found that the Respondent has engaged and is engaged in
unfair labor practices, it will be recommended that he cease and desist there-
from and take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of
the Act.
It has been found that the Respondent discriminated in regard to the hire
and tenure of employment of the employees named below, by the termination
of their employment on the dates noted elsewhere in this report :
Henrietta Arriola Josephine Espinoza Aurora Ramirez Flores
Emily Baca Peter Hernandez Aurora Rivas
Faustina Cuellar Florence Hidalgo Sarah Vigil
Richard Elisaldez Rebecca Lopez Mary Villegas
and by his later failure or refusal to reinstate six of them, as noted, because
they had joined or assisted the Union, or because they had engaged in other
concerted activity for the purposes of collective bargaining and other mutual aid
or protection. Six of the employees terminated were subsequently reinstated,
however. The record establishes that one of these, Cuellar, resigned shortly
thereafter-and that the rest of those reinstated were subsequently laid off
in connection with a reduction in force which the General Counsel has not
challenged as discriminatory. Two of those reinstated and laid off have since
been rehired and are now in the Respondent's, employ. To effectuate the pur-
poses of the Act, under the circumstances, it would seem advisable to modify the
terms of the reinstatement recommendation which the undersigned would nor-
mally make. It will be recommended, therefore, that the Respondent offer each
of the persons discriminatorily terminated on the dates noted elsewhere in this
report, exclusive of Cuellar and those subsequently reinstated who are now in
the Respondent's employ, immediate and full reinstatement to their former or
substantially equivalent positions," without prejudice to their seniority and
other rights and privileges, dismissing, if necessary all replacements hired on
or after January 11, 1949, not employed by the Respondent on that date. If,
despite any reduction of the staff thus accomplished, there are not enough sub-
stantially equivalent positions available to provide employment for all those
entitled. to reinstatement, the available positions should be distributed among
a This employee , named in the complaint as Aurora Ramirez . had been married shortly
before the adjourned hearing in this matter ; her married name is used at this point and
hereinafter.
^ The Chase National Bank of the City of New York, San Juan, Puerto Rico, Branch,
65 NLRB 827.
YALE FILING SUPPLY CO. 1513
the recipients of the reinstatement offer, without discrimination against any
of them because of his or her union affiliation or activity, in accordance with
a system of seniority or any other nondiscriminatory practice which the Respond-
ent may have applied heretofore in the conduct of his business. And if such
a distribution of the positions immediately available operates to leave un-
employed any of the six persons who were never reinstated, their names should
be placed on a preferential hiring list, and they should be offered reemployment
as work becomes available, before other persons are hired for such, work, in
the order determined among' them by the aforesaid nondiscriminatory system
or practice.' '
It will also be recommended that the Respondent make whole each of the
employees discriminatorily terminated for any loss of pay they may have suf-
fered as a result of the Respondent's discrimination against them by the pay-
ment to each of them of a sum of money equal to that which he or she would
have earned as wages during any period in which employment was available
for them, between the date of the discrimination practiced against them and
the date of their reinstatement, if they were reinstated, or alternatively, to the
date on which the reinstatement offer recommended in his report is made, or the
date on which the Respondent's preferential list is established . 41 In conformity
with the policy adopted by the Board in the Woolworth case,' and for the
reasons there stated, it will be recommended that the loss of pay suffered by
each of the dischargees be computed on the basis of each separate calendar
quarter or portion of one during the period from the date of the Respondent's
discrimination against them to the date of his or her reinstatement, or to the
date of a proper reinstatement offer or placement on a preferential hiring list..
The quarterly periods, hereinafter called quarters, should begin with the first
day of January, April, July, and October. Loss of pay should be determined
by deducting from a sum equal to that which the discharged employees would
normally have earned as wages during each such quarter or portion of one,
their respective net earnings,94 if any, in other employment during the same
period. Earnings in one particular quarter should have no effect upon the back.
pay liability for any other quarter.
It will be further recommended, in accordance with the Woolworth decision,.
that the Respondent, upon request, make available to the Board and its agents
all records pertinent to an analysis of the amounts due as back pay and the
right of any employee to reinstatement.
Since the activities herein attributed to the Respondent-the discharges and
the independent acts of interference, restraint, and coercion found-reveal a.
basic antipathy on his part to the objectives of the Act,-the undersigned infers.
and finds that a threat with respect to the commission of further unfair labor
practices is to be anticipated on the basis of the Respondent's past unlawful
conduct. The preventive purpose of the Act may be frustrated unless the Re-
spondent is required to take such action as may be necessary to dissipate that'
46 The Warren Company, 90 NLRB 689; see Pacific Gamble -Robinson Company, 88
NLRB 482.
44 Possible differences as to the amount of back pay due the employees, if any, in con-
formity with this recommendation, involve a question of compliance which the undersigned'
will make to attempt to resolve on the present record. The parties may be able amicably
to adjust the amount of back pay due upon the basis of facts disclosed when compliance
with this recommendation is attempted.
48 F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289.
49 See Crossett Lumber Company, 8 NLRB 440, 497-498; Republic Steel Corporation.
v. N. L. R. B., 311 U. S. 7.
1514 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
threat. In order to effectuate the policies of the Act, therefore, it will be recom-
mended that the Respondent declare his intention to cease and desist from all
interference, restraint, and coercion directed against employees, in any manner,
with respect to their exercise of the right which the Act guarantees.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAw
In the light of these findings of fact, and upon the entire record in the case,
the undersigned makes the following conclusions of law :
1. The Respondent, Samuel Flatau, doing business as the Yale Filing Supply
Co., is an employer within the meaning of Section 2 (2) of the Act, en-
gaged in commerce and business activities which affect commerce within the
meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
2. Printing Specialties and Paper Converters Union, Local No. 388, A. F. L., is
a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
3. By his discrimination with respect to the hire and tenure of employment
of Henrietta Arriola, Emily Baca, Faustina Cuellar, Richard Elisaldez,, Jose-
phine Espinoza, Peter Hernandez, Florence Hidalgo, Rebecca Lopez, Aurora
Ramirez Flores, Aurora Rivas, Sarah Vigil, and Mary Villegas to discourage
membership in the Printing Specialties and Paper Converters Union, Local
No. 388, A. F. L., the Respondent engaged in and continues to engage in unfair
labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
4. By his interference with, restraint, and coercion of employees involved
in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the Respondent
engaged in and continues to engage in unfair labor practices within the meaning
of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act. ,
5. The unfair labor practices cited are unfair labor practices affecting com-
merce, within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
[Recommended Order omitted from publication in this volume.]