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)

Docket NumberC-800

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 operations are conducted on separate floors of the same building and for all purposes are distinct departments. This proceeding concerns the mirror department only.

Two-thirds of all the raw material, consisting of glass, brass, chemicals, and iron castings, purchased by the respondents from May 15, 1937, to May 14, 1938, came from points outside the State of New York. During the same period, finished products, consisting of mirrors and clocks from the mirror department, and locks and knobs from the hardware department, amounting in value to over $100,000, were shipped to customers in all the States of the United States and in foreign countries. At the hearing, the respondents stipulated that they are engaged in interstate commerce, within the meaning of the Act and, further, that they would not contest the jurisdiction of the Board in this proceeding or in any court.

The respondents employ approximately 60 persons in their mirror department.

  1. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED Novelty Mirror Workers' Union, Local No. 7, is a labor organization affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, admitting to membership all employees in the respondents' mirror department, excluding supervisory and clerical employees.

  2. TIIE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Interference, restraint, and coercion The Union started to organize the respondents' employees in the spring of 1937. Almost immediately, J. Ferrarini, foreman of the mirror department, indicated to the employees that the respondents were intensely hostile toward the Union. A. Giri, an employee, testified that after the Union had distributed circulars among the respondents' employees in the early part of June, Ferrarini said to him: 'You know if you were in my place you would do the same thing that I am doing. I have got to look out for the boss' interest, and I have got to look out for my job, and I have got to see that these papers don't go along and that they don't organize the shop because the boss doesn't want the shop organized'; that Giri made a non-committal reply, whereupon Ferrarini said: 'All right, but it is going to be bad for you because the boss is going to find out whether you are trying to organize, and that the first thing you know, they are going to give you less time and lay you off.' Giri testified further that after J. Barbera's discharge on July 28, discussed below, Ferrarini said to him: 'When the boss don't want you, he always has got ways of getting rid of you.' J. Blumental, G. Aiosa, and C. Parletto, employees, testified that during the summer of 1937, Ferrarini on several occasions questioned them about the Union, their affiliation, and the identity of those responsible for the distribution of union circulars. Blumental testified, in addition, that Ferrarini told him that he might as well forget about the Union because it would never win. Although Ferrarini denied the activities attributed to him, we do not credit his denials. We find that he engaged in them substantially as testified by Giri, Blumental, Aiosa, and Parletto.

    Aiosa testified without contradiction that DiMicelli, assistant foreman, said to him: 'What do you want to belong to the Union for? You...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT