Nathan Chesler, Reuben Chesler, Abraham Chesler And Samuel Kalm, Doing Business Under The Name And Style Of J. Chesler & Sons Company And Novelty Mirror W Orkers Union, Local No. 7, 1 (1939)
In the Matter of NATHAN CHESLER, REUBEN CHESLER, ABRAHAM CHESLER AND SAMUEL KALM, DOING BUSINESS UNDER THE NAME AND STYLE OF J. CHESLER & SONS COMPANY and NOVELTY MIRROR W ORKERS UNION, LOCAL No. 7 Case No. C-800.-Decided June?, 1939 Mirror, Hardware, and Related Products Manufacturing Industry-Interference, Restraint, and Coercion: anti-union statements; threats of discrimination;promise of higher pay; questioning employees regarding union activitiesEspionage: surveillance of meetings, charges of, dismissed for want of evidenceDiscrimination: discharge; for union activity-Testifying Under Act: in view of findings of discriminatory discharge, unnecessary to decide whether statements made constitute 'testimony' within meaning of Section 8 (4) of the ActReinstatement Ordered: discharged employee-Back Pay: awarded to discharged: employee-Unit Appropriate for Collective Bargaining: all employees, excluding clerical and supervisory employees; no controversy as to-Representatives: proof of choice: consent election-Collective Bargaining: meeting with union representatives but with no bona fide intent to reach an agreement; refusal upon request to discuss terms of a proposed collective bargaining agreement; failure to offer counterproposals; insistence that the union first organize the respondents' competitors; refusal to embody in a 30-day agreement conditions to which no objections on the respondents' part were raised; respondent ordered, upon request, to bargain with union, and if an understanding is reached, to embody such understanding in a written signed agreement. Mr. Jacob Blum, for the Board. Mr. David 7'. Smith, of New York City, for the respondent. Mr. John K. Odisho, of counsel to the Board. DECISION AND ORDER STATEMENT OF THE CASE Upon charges and amended charges duly filed by Novelty Mirror Workers' Union, Local No. 7, herein called the Union, the National Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board, by the Regional Director for the Second Region (New York City), issued its complaint dated April 16, 1938, against Nathan Chesler, Reuben Chesler, Abraham Chesler and Samuel Kalm, doing business under the name and style of J. Chesler & Sons Company, New York City, herein called the respondents, alleging that the respondents had engaged in and were engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce, within the meaning of Section 8 (1), (3), (4), and (5) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein called the Act. The complaint and accompanying notice of hearing were duly served upon the respondents and the Union. With respect to the unfair labor practices, the complaint, as amended,' alleges in substance that the respondents (1) on and after August 19, 1937, refused to bargain collectively with the Union although the Union had been designated by the majority of the respondents' employees within an appropriate unit as their representative for the purposes of collective bargaining; (2) on or about July 28, 1937, discouraged membership in the Union by discharging Joseph Barbera, an employee, because he had joined and assisted the Union; (3) so discharged said Joseph Barbera for the additional reason that he had given testimony under the Act; and (4) by the foregoing acts and refusals, by urging, persuading, and warning their employees to refrain from becoming members of the Union, threatening them with discharge and other reprisals if they remained members of the Union, and keeping under surveillance the meetings and meeting places of the Union, interfered with, restrained, and coerced their employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. The respondents duly filed an answer to the complaint, in substance admitting that all of the employees of the respondents' mirror department in the respondents' Brooklyn plant exclusive of clerical and supervisory employees constitute a unit appropriate for the purpose of collective bargaining, and that the Union is and has been the exclusive bargaining agent of employees of the respondent within such unit, but denying the alleged unfair labor practices. Pursuant to the notice, a hearing was held in New York City on May 16, 17, and 18, 1938, before Charles E. Persons, the Trial Examiner duly designated by the Board. The Board and the respondents were represented by counsel and participated in the hearing. Full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing upon the issues was afforded all parties. The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner upon motions and objections to the admission of evidence made at SOn March 10, 1939, the Board, for the purpose of conforming the allegations of the complaint to the proof adduced at the hearing, issued, and served upon the respondents, an amendment to the complaint. On the same day the Board notified the respondents of their right, within 10 days, to file an answer to the amended complaint, and granted the respondents permission to submit, with such an answer, a request for a hearing and a statement of the nature of the proof to be offered at such hearing. The respondents have not filed an answer to the amended complaint nor requested a hearing thereon. the hearing and finds that no prejudicial errors were committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. Pursuant to permission granted at the hearing by the Trial Examiner, the respondents filed a brief which the Board has considered. On July 21, 1938, the Trial Examiner filed his Intermediate Report. He found that the respondents had engaged in and were engaging in unfair labor practices, within the meaning of Section 8 (1), (3), (4), and (5) and Section 2 (6) hnd (7) of the Act, but that the respondents had not kept the meetings and meeting places of the Union under surveillance, and recommended that the respondents cease and desist from their unfair labor practices and, affirmatively, reinstate Joseph Barbera with back pay, and, upon request, bargain collectively with the Union. He recommended, further, that the complaint, in so far as it alleges that by keeping the meetings and meeting places of the Union under surveillance the respondents engaged in unfair labor practices, within the meaning of Section 8 (1) of the Act, be dismissed. Copies of the Intermediate Report were duly served on the respondents and the Union. No exceptions to the Intermediate Report were filed. Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT I. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENTS The respondents are partners having their principal office and place of business at Brooklyn, New York. They are engaged in the manufacture, sale, and distribution of mirrors, hardware, and related products. The mirror and hardware...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP