A. Sartoeius & Co., Inc. And United Mine Workers Of America, District #50, Local #12090, 107 (1942)

In the Matter of A. SARTOEIUS & Co., INC. and UNITED MINE WORKERS OF AMERICA, DISTRICT #50, LOCAL #12090 Case No. C-1465.-Decided April 3, 1942 Jurisdiction: cosmetics manufacturing industry.

Unfair Labor Practices Interference, Restraint, and Coercion: anti-union statements; surveillance; layoffs; discriminatory treatment of union employees in contradistinction to non-union employees. * Discrimination: constructively and discriminatorily discharging returned unfair labor practice strikers by compelling them to work under unfavorable con:

ditions which constituted underlying reason for strike-failure to reinstate and discharging other strikers notwithstanding their failure to report to work after the strike, where such failure held to have arisen from an unwillingness to work under conditions constituting unfair labor practices.

Testifying under Act: employee's departure from plant caused by employer's discriminatory treatment accorded her because she had testified at Board hearing, held in effect a constructive and discriminatory discharge.

Collective bargaining: (Millis) found a refusal to bargain collectively on date employer denied union's request for recognition, which was prior to date union was certified by the Board, since employer's purported doubts about the unit and the designation of the union, as well as its request for delay, were not genuine but based on a determination to evade its duty to deal with the duly selected representative of its employees; also found a refusal to bargain collectively with the union after it had been certified by the Board by refusing to accord certified union recognition both before and after Board's denial of its application for reconsideration of certification; (Leisersondissenting) holding that the employer did not refuse to bargain at any time;

(Reilly-concurring in part) found no refusal to bargain prior to certification of union by Board.

Remedial Orders: reinstatement and back pay awarded; no order entered with respect to an unfair labor practice striking employee who was reinstated and who denied that employer had committed unfair labor practices; reinstated unfair labor practice striking employee who was subsequently compelled to quit by reason of employer's discrimination towards her awarded back pay between date employer originally refused to reinstate her to date of her reinstatement, deducting amount earned during the period of her employment; employee not desiring reinstatement awarded back pay between period of the discrimination to date she secured employment elsewhere;

unfair labor practice striker although not appearing at hearing ordered reinstated and awarded back pay; alleged misconduct of certain striking employees held not to warrant denying them reinstatement except in the case of one individual who is denied reinstatement but awarded back pay to date she engaged in the misconduct directed towards her superior.

Mr. Daniel Baker, for the Board.

Mr. Samuel M. Birnbaum and Mr. Simon L. Miller, of New York City, for the respondent.

Mr. Herman Edelsberg, of New York City, and Mr. Alfred Karnin, of Washington, D. C., for the Union.

Mr. Louis A. Roland, of counsel to the Board.

DECISION AND ORDER STATEMENT OF THE CASE Upon charges and-amended charges duly filed by United Mine Workers of America, District #50, Local #12090, herein called the Union, the National Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board, by Elinore M. Herrick, Regional Director for the Second Region (New York City), issued its complaint dated March 20, 1939, against A. Sartorius & Co., Inc., New York City, herein called the respond>ent, alleging that the respondent had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8 (1), (3), and (5) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein called the Act.

Copies of the complaint, accompanied by notice of hearing thereon, were duly served upon the respondent and the Union.

The complaint, as amended at the hearing, alleged in substance (1) that the respondent refused on about June 25, 1938, and at all times thereafter, to bargain collectively with the Union as the exclusive representative of all its employees in the appropriate unit, although the Union had been duly designated by a majority of the employees in the unit as their bargaining representative; (2) that beginning about June 15, 1938, and thereafter, the respondent warned its employees not to join or remain members of the Union, kept the Union's meetings under surveillance, and discriminated against union members and sympathizers by assigning them to disagreeable tasks in the plant;

(3) that because of the above acts of the respondent, its employees went out on strike on about July 18, 1938; (4) that the respondent refused on about November 23, 1938, and thereafter, to rehire or reinstate 15 named employees who applied for rei...

If you are already a vLex customer, Access Here