Corning Glass Works

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 22, 1939

15 N.L.R.B. 598 (N.L.R.B. 1939)

In the :Matter of CORNING Grass WORKS, MAciai rx-EvAics DIvISION"
and FEDERATION OF FLAT GLASS WORKERS OF AMERICA
Case No. C-852.-Decided September 22, 1939
Glass Manufacturing Industry-Interference, Restraint, and Coercion: anti-
union statements by officials and supervisory employees in plant during work-
ing hours ; engendering fear of closing of plant and loss of employment because
of union activity ; expressed opposition to outside labor organizations ; threats
of legal action against individual employees because-of their union activity-
Comp,asty-Dominated Unions: domination of and interference with formation,
and administration of nine departmental unions by predecessor ; continuing
domination and interference with administration ; failure to eliminate effects
of predecessors' unlawful conduct, continued recognition and negotiation with,
interference with employee attempts at plant-wide unionization and affiliation
with outside • organizations, offer of form of employees' representation plan,
based' upon. departmental lines, assistance in revival of departmental organi-
zation, whose members had withdrawn to join: an, outside organization; con-
tribution of support to ; character of constitutions and bylaws ; disestablished,
as representatives for collective bargaining-Contracts: with organizations
found to be company dominated ; employer ordered to cease giving effect to-
Check-off: collection of dues and assessments for company-dominated organ-
izations, by means of ; employer ordered to 'reimburse employes.for deductions
from wages in accordance with-Discrimination: allegations of, dismissed as
to two employees, not sustained by evidence ; found, as to 14 employees, selected
for discharge on basis of non-membership in company-dominated organiza-
tion-Reinstatement Ordered: discharged employees, dismissing newly hired
employees, if necessary ; preferential list ordered : to be followed in further
reinstatement-Back Pay: awarded.
Mr. Benjamin E. Gordon, for the Board.
Reed, Smith, Shawl and McClay, by Mr. John C. Bane, Jr., Mr..
Arthur B. Van Buskirk, and Mr. Seward H. French, Jr., of Pitts-
burgh, Pa., for the respondent.
Mr. Roy I. Carson, of Charleroi, Pa., for I. S. G. W. U.
Mr. Robin B. Wolf, of Pittsburgh, Pa., for six intervenors."
Mr. Harry B. Holmes, of Columbus, Ohio, for the Federation .2
Mr. William F. Guffey, Jr., of counsel to the Board.
1 Mr. Wolf appeared on behalf of Macbeth Co-Workers Glass Union ; Associated Shop-
men ; Shipping and Trucking Union Furnace and Tank'men's Union ; Decorating and Proc-
ess Workers Union ; and Construction and Maintenance Union.
2 Mr. Holmes appeared on behalf of the Federation at the hearing for the purpose of oral
argument. The Federation was not represented by counsel at the hearing before the Tiial
Examiner.
15 N. L. R. B., No. 64.
598
CORNING GLASS 'WORKS 599
DECISION
AND
ORDER
STATEMENT OF. THE CASE
Upon charges and amended charges duly filed by the Federation
of Flat Glass Workers of Americas herein called the Federation, the
National Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board, by the,
Regional Director for the Sixth Region (Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania),.
issued its complaint dated January 25, 1938, against Corning Glass.
Works,4 ' Charleroi, Pennsylvania, herein called the respondent,.
alleging that the respondent had engaged in and was engaging in
unfair labor. practices affecting commerce within the meaning of
Section 8 (1), (2), and (3) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat: 449, herein called the Act.
With respect to the unfair labor practices, the complaint alleged
in substance, (1) that the respondent had dominated and interfered
with the formation and administration of, and contributed support to,
9 departmental labor organizations among its employees 5; (2)" that
the respondent had discouraged membership in the Federation and
encouraged membership in the said departmental labor organizations
by discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of
Marian Chacko, Emma Picinotti,a and 14 named' employees in the
shipping and trucking department; and (3) that by the aforesaid
acts and each of them, and by other acts, the respondent had inter-
fered with, restrained, and coerced, and is interfering with, restrain-
ing, and coercing its employees in the exercise of the rights guaran-
teed in Section 7 of the Act. The camplaint and accompanying notice
of hearing were duly served upon the respondent, the Federation,
and the nine departmental labor organizations named in the
complaint.
Thereafter the respondent filed its answer admitting the allegations
of the complaint with respect to the nature of its business and inter-
state commerce, and denying the' commission of the alleged unfair
labor practices. The answer avers that the discharge of the 14
8 The original charges were signed by Jacob Heinrichs , as District President , District
No. 1, Federation of Flat Glass Workers of America. The amended charges were signed.
by Heinrichs as Regional Director of the Glass Workers Organizing Committee.
• Designated Corning Glass Works, Macbeth-Evans Division , in the complaint.
5 The nine departmental organizations named in the complaint are : Independent Skilled
Glass Workers Union , Independent Machine Glass Workers' Union, Co-Workers of Inde-
pendent Skilled Glass Workers Union , Associated Shopmen, Shipping and Trucking Union,
Macbeth Co-Workers Glass Union, Decorating and Process Workers Union , Construction
and Maintenance Union, and Furnace and Tankmen ' s Union.
6 Incorrectly spelled Vicinotti in the record.
600 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
employees in the shipping and trucking department was made neces-
sary by changing business conditions.
Pursuant to due notice a hearing was held at Charleroi,? Pennsyl-
vania, from February 3 to 17, 1938, before Ernest R. Strempel, the
Trial Examiner duly designated by the Board. The Board, the
respondent, and seven 8 of the departmental labor organizations
named in the complaint were represented by counsel and participated
in the hearing. All parties were afforded full opportunity to be heard,
to examine and cross -examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence bear-
ing on the issues. At the beginning of the hearing, the seven depart-
mental labor organizations which were represented at the hearing
by council, filed motions ,to intervene. The Trial Examiner granted
all of the motions to the extent that the interest of the respective
intervenors might appear. The Board's motion to conform the plead-
ings to the proof made at the close of the entire case, was granted
by the Trial Examiner. During the course of the hearing, the Trial
Examiner made rulings on other motions and on objections to the
admission of evidence. The Board has reviewed the rulings which
the Trial Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no preju-
dicial errors were committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The
Trial Examiner reserved ruling on the respondent's motion to strike
certain portions of the testimony of Marian Chacko and Harry
Prentice.
On July 28, 1938, the Trial Examiner filed his Intermediate Report,
copies of which were duly served upon the respondent, the Federa-
tion, and the nine departmental labor organizations. In his Inter-
mediate Report, the Trial Examiner granted the respondent's motion
to strike the testimony of Marian Chacko with respect to matters
which she heard from William Miller; 9 the testimony of Marian
Chacko relative to a conversation allegedly had. with James Sharp;
and, the testimony of Harry Prentice with respect to what McClaren,
head of the machine shop, had told another person regarding Pren-
tice's radicalism. The Trial Examiner denied the respondent's motion
to strike as hearsay the testimony of Marian Chacko regarding
Mildred Podany. We have reviewed these rulings and find that no
prejudicial errors were committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed.
The Trial Examiner found that the respondent had engaged in and
was engaging in the unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint,
7 The hearing was originally scheduled to be held in Pittsburgh . Notice of change of
place of hearing was duly served on the respondent , the Federation , and the nine depart-
mental organizations.
8 The seven departmental organizations which appeared at the hearing are : Shipping
and Trucking Union , Construction and Maintenance Union, Furnace and Tankmen's Union,'
Decorating and Process Workers Union , Macbeth Co -Workers Glass Union, Associated
Shopmen , and Independent Skilled Glass Workers Union.
9 Variously referred to in the record as Billy Miller and William Miller.
CORNING GLASS WORKS 601
except as- to the alleged discrimination against Marian Chacko and
Emma Picinotti. He accordingly recommended that the respondent
cease and desist from engaging in such unfair labor practices; that
it cease giving recognition to and completely disestablish the 9 de-
partmental labor organizations as collective bargaining representa-
tives of any of its employees; and that it reinstate with back pay
the 14 employees of the shipping and trucking department who were
discharged on or about August 20, 1937. He further recommended
that the complaint be dismissed in so far as it alleges that the re-
spondent has discriminated in regard to the hire and tenure of em-
ployment of Marian Chacko and Emma Picinotti.
Thereafter, the respondent and the seven intervening departmental
organizations filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Intermediate
Report. The Federation also filed exceptions to that part of the
Intermediate Report which recommended the dismissal of the com-
plaint with respect to Chacko and Picinotti: Oral argument before
the Board was requested by all the parties who filed exceptions to the
Intermediate Report, except the Federation and the Independent
Skilled Glass Workers Union. Pursuant to notice duly served on the
respondent, the Federation and the nine departmental labor organi-
zations, a hearing for the purpose of oral argument.was had on March
2, 1939, before the Board in Washington, D. C. The respondent, the
Federation, Associated Shopmen, Shipping and Trucking Union,
Macbeth Co-Workers Glass Union, Decorating and Process Workers
Union, Construction and Maintenance Union, and Furnace and Tank-
men's Union appeared by counsel and participated in the hearing.
The Board has considered all the exceptions and the briefs in sup-
port thereof and save as the exceptions are consistent with the find-
ings of fact, conclusions of law, and order hereinafter set forth, finds
them to be without merit.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
Corning Glass Works is a New. York corporation, with its. prin-
cipal office at Corning, New York. It is engaged, at factories located
at Charleroi, Pennsylvania; Corning, New York; Wellsboro, Penn-
sylvania; and Central Falls, Rhode Island, in the manufacture and
sale of a great variety of glass products.
Prior to December 24, 1936, the Charleroi plant was owned and
operated by the Macbeth-Evans Glass Company, a Pennsylvania
corporation, herein called Macbeth-Evans. It is the only plant of
the respondent involved in this proceeding and is -operated under the
name of Corning Glass Works, Macbeth-Evans Division.
602 DECISIONS OF .NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The Charleroi plant employs about 1,100 employees exclusive of
the office staff . The raw materials used by the respondent at its
Charleroi plant consist chiefly of soda ash , limestone , felspar, alumi-
num, zinc oxide , lead oxide, and sand. A substantial proportion
of the raw materials , exclusive of sand, is obtained outside the State
of Pennsylvania . The dollar value of the finished products produced
at the Charleroi plant in a normal year amounts to between 3 and 4
million dollars. About 85 per cent of the finished products of the
Charleroi plant are shipped to points outside the State of Pennsyl-
vania, and are distributed in all parts of the United States . and many
foreign countries . . At the hearing, the respondent admitted that its
manufacturing operations place it within the jurisdiction of the
Board.
II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
The Federation of Flat Glass Workers of America is a labor organi-
zation affiliated with the Committee for Industrial Organization,l°
admitting to its membership employees of the respondent's Charleroi
plant.
Independent Skilled Glass Workers Union, Co-Workers of the
Skilled Glass Workers Union, Independent Machine Glass Workers'
Union, Associated Shopmen, Shipping- and Trucking Union, Macbeth
Co-Workers Glass Union, Decorating and Process Workers Union,
Construction and Maintenance Union, and Furnace and Tankmen's
Union are unaffiliated departmental labor organizations admitting to
membership employees in the respondent's Charleroi plant."l
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Events prior to December 24, 1936
1. Background; the formation and administrations of four depart-
mental labor organizations prior to July 5, 1935
Prior to the passage of the National Industrial Recovery Act,
herein called the N. I. R. A., Macbeth-Evans pursued a definitely anti-
union policy and, 'by the use of yellow-dog contracts, successfully dis-
couraged union organization. Upon passage of the N. I. R. A.
Macbeth-Evans posted on its bulletin boards notice of its intention
to comply with the terms of that Act, and instructed its * supervisory
staff to advise their subordinates of the employees' rights thereunder.
In accordance with such instructions, the supervisors in the various
departments called their respective employees together, discussed the
10 Now the Congress of Industrial Organizations. - .
' The exact jurisdiction limits of these departmental organizations appear in Section
III, A, 1 and 2, infra.
CORNING GLASS WORKS 603
,collective bargaining provision of the N. I. R. A., and suggested, that
the employees organize for the purpose of collective bargaining. Pur-
suant to this suggestion labor organizations were formed in several
departments of the Charleroi plant.
Independent Skilled Glass Workers Union, herein called the I. S.
,G. W. U. was the first departmental organization thus formed. Its
membership is limited to the skilled glass workers in the blowing
room. During the summer of 1933, Macbeth-Evans called the skilled
glass workers together in the plant during working hours. Henry
Blau, then plant superintendent and director of research, informed
the assembled employees that the N. I. R. A. gave them the right
to organize for the purpose of collective bargaining and stated that
they could organize their own union or, if they so desired, they could
join any other labor organization. After appointing Carl Aschman,
an assistant glass blower, chairman of the meeting, Blau withdrew.
The employees, after discussing the advantages and disadvantages
of affiliation with an outside organization, voted to join the Flint
Glass Workers of America, an affiliate of the American Federation
of Labor. When Blau returned to the meeting and was advised of
the action taken by the employees, he expressed disapproval and
stated that Macbeth, then president of Macbeth-Evans, would be
disappointed. He also told the employees that they did not need
outside help since there were enough intelligent men among them to
form their own union. Blau again left the room and after further
discussion, the employees voted to form an unaffiliated organization.
Shortly thereafter, at a second meeting held in the plant, officers
were elected and a constitution which had been drafted by a commit-
tee of the I. S. G. W. U., was adopted."
In January 1934, Blau lent Rube Hatton, then president of the
I. S. G. W. U., $111 of the company's funds to defray the cost of a
corporation charter. This sum was repaid by the treasurer of I. S.
G. W. U. about a month later.
On August 25, 1934, Macbeth-Evans entered into a preferential
contract with the I. S. G. W. U. which included a provision for the
arbitration of all issues in serious dispute "without stoppage of work."
This contract was renewed annually and with minor modifications
was in effect on December 24, 1936, when the respondent acquired
the Charleroi plant.
Co-Workers of Independent Skilled Glass Workers Union, herein
called Co-Workers of I. S. G. W. U., was organized in the fall of 1933
among the "carrying-in-boys" or helpers who assisted the skilled glass
12 The constitution and bylaws of the I. S. G. W. U. are not in evidence. They contain
substantially the same provisions, however, as those of the I. M. G. W. U., summarized
below.
604 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
blowers. Its membership is limited to such employees. This group
sought to have themselves included in the I. S. G. ' W. U. when it
was organized. When the I. S. G. W. U. denied them membership,
Albert Doyle, an assistant to the skilled workers, organized the as-
sistants. -Blau told Doyle, who became the organization's first presi-
dent, that he should discontinue his activity or he would "have the
blowers sore at him." Macbeth-Evans recognized the organization
as the collective bargaining representative. of the skilled workers'
assistants, and early in 1934 Blau agreed to consider the organiza-
tion's demand for a wage increase. About the same time Macbeth-
Evans submitted a proposed contract to the organization. No agree-
ment was reached on the proposed wage increase and the proposed
contract, which did not find favor with Co-Workers of I. S. G. W. U.,
was never consummated.
Independent Machine Glass Workers' Union, herein called the
I. M. G. W. U., was organized in the summer of 1933, its member-
ship being limited to operators of automatic machines used ,in making
pressed glassware. The first meeting of the employees of the auto-
matic-machine department, held in Macbeth-Evans' office building,""
was attended by Blau, and by Schuck, the foreman of the automatic-
machine department. It is not clear who called the meeting, but it
was announced by a notice in the office. Blau stated that the em-
ployees could form their own union and Schuck expressed the belief
that "we ought to be able to form a nice little union under ourselves."
Blau appointed Ralph Harrison, a non-supervisory employee, tempo-
rary chairman. After Blau and Schuck withdrew from the meeting,
officers were elected. Harrison was elected president. Monthly
meetings of the I. M. G. W. U. were held in the Macbeth-Evans'
general office building for about 18 months. Meetings in the office
building were discontinued because some of the members thought
they were being overheard by the Macbeth-Evans officials and thought
"if we would hold our meetings outside we would have a more free
say-so."
The I. M. G. W. U. has a constitution which provides, inter alia,
that monthly meetings shall be held in the general. office building;
that executives and representatives of the organization must have>had
at least 3 years' continuous service in Macbeth-Evans' automatic-ma-
chine department; that representatives of the organization are free
to discharge their duties without fear of discrimination; that in case
of permanent reduction of force and subsequent rehiring members
of I. M. G. W. U. shall be given preference of employment; that
18 It does not appear whether or not this meeting was held during working hours.
CORNING GLASS WORKS 605
-disputes which cannot be settled otherwise shall be submitted to the
National Mediation ^ Board, "without interruption of work"; that
dues shall be collected by means of a check-off system; and that the
constitution and bylaws may be amended "with the company's ap-
'proval." The purpose of the organization, as stated in its consti-
tution is to promote cooperation between the employer and its
employees; to give the employees a voice In matters of interest; to
provide a procedure for the prevention and adjustment of differ-
ences; and to afford a means whereby the employer may furnish
information of interest regarding its affairs to the employees. The
preamble refers to the constitution as a "compact," and contains an
-expression of "intention and expectation" on behalf of the employer
as well as the union.
The record does not show when or how the constitution was adopted
nor whether it has been modified in any way since its adoption.
Associated Shopmen, a departmental organization with member-
ship limited to machinists, pattern makers, mold polishers, paste-mold
workers, and similar employees, was organized in the fall of 1934.
The employees eligible to -membership in this organization except
the paste-mold workers, were called to a meeting in Macbeth-Evans'
chemical building by means of a notice posted on the bulletin board.
While it is not clear who called the. meeting, it was presided over
by McLaren, foreman of the machine shop, who explained the em-
ployees' right of collective bargaining under the N. I. R. A. and
named two national organizations to which he believed they were
eligible. He also stated that the employees could form their own
union, or "last but not least, leave things as they are." McLaren
appointed James Sharp, a non-supervisory employee, temporary
chairman, and then left the meeting. The employees voted to in-
vestigate the various unions suggested by McLaren before they took
definite action as to what form of organization they would adopt.
A similar meeting of the employees in the paste-mold department
was held pursuant to notice given by Lotsy Farkos, a mold polisher,
and a brother of the foreman in the mold department. Farkos con-
,ducted the meeting and distributed paper for the signature of those
wanting to ally themselves with the employees of the machine shop
in the organization which they were setting up.
At a second meeting, which was held outside the plant, Sharp was
elected president. It does not appear whether an investigation of
the organizations mentioned by McLaren at the first meeting was
actually made. It is clear, however, that the group perfected a
departmental organization and, as such, negotiated with Macbeth-
Evans.
606 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The administration of these four organizations and Macbeth-Evans'
relations with them subsequent to July 5, 1935, are more fully dis-
cussed in subsection 3, infra. 14
2. The formation and administration of five departmental labor
organizations subsequent to July 5, 1935
Shipping and Trucking Union, with membership limited to the em-
ployees in the warehouse and in the shipping and trucking depart-
ments of the Charleroi plant, was organized in January 1936. The
movement for organization was started by John Sokol, a non-super-
visory employee,in the shipping and trucking department, who dur-
ing working hours' circulated a petition which was signed by a sub-
stantial number of the employees in his department. At the first
meeting, of which notice was posted on the bulletin board in the plant,
but which was held in a hall outside the plant, officers were elected
and a committee appointee to draft a constitution and bylaws.
The constitution and bylaws of Shipping and Trucking Union,
dated January 9, 1936, were modeled after those of the
I. S. G. W. U.1' The bylaws provide, inter alia, for preference of
employment for Shipping and Trucking Union members ; for 1 week's
notice by the employer before making a reduction in the force ; and
for a division of work rather than discharges during slack periods..
The constitution and bylaws were presented to Macbeth-Evans for its
approval and after minor changes Herbert Miller, then head of
Macbeth-Evans' labor-relations department, approved them and
requested the Shipping and Trucking Union to prepare a "working
agreement" for Macbeth-Evans' approval. On February 1, 1936,
Macbeth-Evans and the Shipping and Trucking Union executed an
agreement which provided for preference of members in case of a
permanent reduction in force and subsequent rehiring.
Decorating and Process Workers Union, with membership limited
to employees in the decorating department, was organized in August
1936.
On or about August 1, a meeting of the employees of the decorat-
ing department was held in the plant during work hours. While
14 In addition to the four organizations discussed , supra, ' the employees on the night
shift of the No. 1 finishing department formed an organization in the summer of 1934
which later became known as Co-Workers of Independent Machine Glass Workers Union
herein called Co-Workers of I. M . G. W. U. In 1936 its membership was absorbed by
Macbeth Co -Workers Glass Union and it is treated in conjunction with. Macbeth Co-
Workers Glass Union in subsection 2, infra. The complaint contains no allegation that
the respondent has dominated or interfered with Co-Workers of I. M. G. W. U., and we
make no separate findings herein relative thereto.
15 As has been stated, the constitution and bylaws of the I. S. G. W. U. are not in evi-
dence, but the record shows that they are substantially the same as those of the I. M. G.
W. U., discussed in Section III, A, 1, supra.
CORNING GLASS. WORKS, 607
it does-not appear' from the record who called the-meeting, it was
attended by Blau, Herbert Miller, Hower, assistant to Miller, and
Brand, foreman of the decorating department. Blau stated that
he had heard that the employees were organizing and causing a lot
of trouble; and that the employees were a big happy family, and he
did not want any trouble 16 The Macbeth-Evans officials then left
the meeting and the employees elected officers and various committees.
Other employees of the decorating department who were not pres-
ent at the meeting on August 1 joined the organization by signing
check-off slips which were mimeographed by Macbeth-Evans and
made available to the organization's committee through Ohliger, its
personnel manager and paymaster. Such slips were distributed by
the committee and signed by the employees during working hours.
Furnace and Tankmen's Union, with membership limited to em-
ployees of the melting department, was organized in the summer of
1936. The first meeting was held in the plant during working hours
on August 1. Although it does not appear who called this meeting,
Miller, head ' of the labor-relations department, addressed the em-
ployees and stated that all other departments were organizing and
he thought this department should do likewise. He told the em-
ployees to appoint a chairman who should report back to him. The
employees accordingly appointed George Wentzell their chairman,
and when Wentzell reported back to Miller, Miller told him to hold
another meeting and elect officers. The following, day the second
meeting of the employees was held in Macbeth-Evans' general, offices
and was attended by the 15 of the 25 employees of the melting de-
partment who were not working during the afternoon on which the
meeting was held. With the exception of the first two meetings, the
organization's monthly meetings were held outside the plant.
Immediately following the second. meeting, Wentzell, who had
been elected president, supplied Miller with the names of all the of-
ficers. Miller suggested that the organization draw up an agreement
if the members "wanted (one) with the company." Upon Wentzell's
request Miller supplied a contract form which contained a statement
of the "intention. and expectation" of the employee organization that
the contract' would result' in an organization strong enough "to com-
mand the respect of the Company without being forced to resort to
millitant (sic) and 'unfriendly relations." This statement was in-
cluded in the agreement between Macbeth-Evans and Furnace and
16 The substance of Blau 's speech was placed in the record by Mijo Gossle, who turned
hostile when called as a witness for the Board and testified concerning Blau ' s.speech only
after being confronted with his previously signed statement dated October 28 , 1937. While
the statement contains no verification, Gossie testified that its contents were true and that
he so swore when he signed it.
608 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Tankmen's Union dated October 29, 1936.17 The agreement provides
inter alia, that in case of rehiring after a permanent reduction in
the number of employees, preference of employment shall be given to
members of Furnace and Tankmen's Union. Wentzell testified .that
this provision "was put in (the agreement) by the company."
Wentzell's testimony was not contradicted and we credit it.
Although the agreement between Macbeth-Evans and Furnace and
Tankmen's Union had no provision for a check-off, the organization's
dues were collected by means of a check-off system. Authorization
to make such deductions from employees' wages was given by signing
"check-off slips" which Macbeth-Evans mimeographed and supplied.
Construction and Maintenance Union was likewise organized in
August 1936. Its membership embraces employees in the electrical,
carpentering, blacksmithing, and laboring departments and is limited
to construction and maintenance employees. By permission of
Thomas Carroll, head foreman in the electrical department, the first
meeting was held after working hours in the carpenter shop. Tem-
porary officers were elected and the employees discussed the drafting
of bylaws. Subsequent meetings were held outside the plant.
Macbeth Co-Workers Glass Union, herein called Macbeth Co-
Workers, was organized during the summer of 1936 among the em-
ployees on the night and day shifts in the No. 1 finishing department
of the Charleroi plant. Sometime in 193515 Ingland,ls foreman of
the No. 1 finishing department, divided the employees in his depart-
ment into small groups to meet with him and discuss any grievances
which the employees might have. Ingland appointed a.leader to
head each group. When it appeared that the employees were re-
luctant to discuss their grievances in Ingland's presence, the groups
began meeting without him. Ingland, however, frequently dis-
covered which employees presented grievances to their groups, .and
reprimanded them.. One of the groups, of which Marian Chacko
was a member, became dissatisfied with the way in which the groups
were functioning and decided to elect their own leader and deal di-
rectly with Ingland's superiors. Upon the request of the members
of this group, Chacko took charge of the election. When Ingland
discovered this, he reprimanded Chacko for "causing trouble" and
stated to Chacko "when I appointed her (the group leader) I in-
tended for her to stay there . . ." Ingland immediately trans-
ferred Chacko to another group and when the same thing happened
in that group, Ingland told Chacko she could not meet with any of
17 A similar statement of "intention and expectation " is a part of practically all agree-
ments to which the various departmental organizations are parties.
18 The exact date does not appear.
19 Sometimes spelled England in the record.
CORNING GLASS WORKS 609
the groups and that if she caused further trouble; he "would have to
get rid of her." The group meetings continued until July 1936.
By July the employees on the day shift of No. 1 finishing depart-
ment. had become dissatisfied with the small group meetings. They
resented Ingland's hostile treatment. The employees on the night
shift of No. 1 finishing department who had organized Co-Workers
of I. M. G. W. U. had likewise found it difficult to bargain with
Ingland and, failing in their efforts to build an effective organization,
had in January 1935, .allied themselves with I. M. G. W. U. Al-
though the two organizations continued to meet separately, member-
ship dues deducted from the wages of the members of Co-Workers
of I. M. G. W. U. were paid over to the treasurer of I. M. G. W. U.
which in turn assisted Co-Workers of I. M. G. W. U. in its
negotiations with the employer.
About July 20, 1936, when this discontent on both the night anc1
day shift of No. 1 finishing department had become apparent, Blau
suggested to Chacko and three other employees that they form one
organization for both shifts in that department. A few days later,
Miller called Chacko to his office and asked her to take charge of
starting such 'an organization. He stated that, if necessary, he would
stop work in the department so that she might be able to talk to the
employees. Chacko rejected that offer but, with Miller's permission,
she left her own work and talked to the employees individually.
Miller offered the use of the plant for meetings to accomplish the
organization and, in the alternative, offered to pay the rent for a
hall outside the plant. Chacko refused both offers, and held organi-
zation meetings outside the plant.
At the first joint meeting during the latter part of July, employees
of the day and the night shifts nominated officers. Miller arranged
for an election of officers which was held in the plant during working
hours on August 7, 1936. Chacko selected four employees of No. 1
finishing department who were not working at that time, to watch
the ballot boxes. Miller told Chacko that these girls would be paid
for their time. It does not appear, however, whether or not they
actually received compensation from Macbeth-Evans.
The constitution and bylaws of Macbeth Co-Workers which were
drafted at Macbeth-Evans' general offices by the organization's
officers and committee were modeled after those of the I. S. G. W:
U.,20 supplied to the employees by Miller. They provide inter alia,
that representatives and executives of the organization must have had
at least 1 year of continuous service with Macbeth-Evans;. that the.
A
E0 As has been stated , the constitution and bylaws of the I. S. G. W. U. are not in evi-
dence. They are, however, the same as those of the I . M. G. W. U. discussed in Section
III, A , 1, supra.
610 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
representatives of 'the. organization shall not be discriminated against
because of any action taken in their representative capacity ; that
preference of work shall be given to members of the organization;
that the constitution and bylaws may be amended with the approval
of Macbeth-Evans ; and that monthly dues shall be deducted from
the. wages of members who have signed authorizations. After the
constitution and bylaws were drafted, they were submitted to and
approved by Macbeth-Evans , and the latter voluntarily and at no
cost to the organization mimeographed 500 copies of them. Because
of several errors in the first run, Macbeth-Evans mimeographed 500
additional copies without charge. Macbeth-Evans also mimeo-
graphed check-off authorization slips used by Macbeth Co-Workers.
3. Interference, restraint, and coercion ; and domination of and
interference with the administration of the nine departmental
organizations
We have set forth above the pertinent facts relative to Macbeth-
Evans' interference with the formation and administration of the
departmental organizations, separately. In addition to the conduct
already described Macbeth-Evans engaged in activities constituting
domination of labor organizations, and interference, restraint, and
coercion, directed against the combined efforts of several of the
departmental organizations , as well as of individual employees.
During the period in which the nine departmental organizations
were forming and subsequent thereto, several attempts were made by
two or more of the departmental organizations to combine and thus
to strengthen their bargaining positions. Each attempt met with
opposition from Macbeth- Evans.
In July 1936 several of the departmental organizations , led by the
Shipping and Trucking Union, started a movement to organize a
plant-wide union. They proposed to accomplish this objective by
having the employees in all the departments join the Shipping and
Trucking Union which was thereafter to be reorganized. Walter
Ackerson and Billy Miller, nonsupervisory employees in the shipping
and trucking department, were the spokesmen at the meeting held
sometime prior to July 20, when the plan,was submitted to the
employees. About 300 of the 400 employees attending' the meeting
signed the check-off slips in the Shipping' and Trucking Union.
Ackerson and Billy Miller presented the check-off slips to Herbert
Miller, head of Macbeth-Evans'. labor-relations ' department.21
21 Billy Miller died before the bearing. Mariana Chacko's testimony with respect to what
Billy Miller told her concerning'-Herbert Miller's statement when the check -off slips were
presented to him was stricken from the' record as hearsay ., Neither Ackerson ' nor Herbert
Miller appeared as witnesses at the hearing. .
CORNING GLASS WORKS 611
About July 20, 1936, Ingland called Marian Chacko, who was
representing No. 1 finishing department in the plant-wide organiza-
tion movement, and three other employees to his office. After ex-
pressing his disapproval of the plant-wide union movement, he
warned them against such activity and tried to persuade them to
sign a pledge not to join the Shipping and Trucking, Union. Hower,
Herbert Miller's assistant, was also present. Blau entered the
office and upon learning what was taking place, stated that the em-
ployees did not have to sign such a pledge, but suggested that No. 1
finishing department form its own union. A few days later Herbert
Miller made the same suggestion to Chacko which resulted in the
organization of Macbeth Co-Workers as set forth in subsection 2,
supra.
On July 27, 1936, George D. Macbeth, then president of Macbeth-
Evans, signed and posted in the plant the following notice :
NOTICE
A number of different reports on how the Company feels
about the forming of Unions have come to me in the last few
days. I feel that each employee should know the true facts
on this subject.
1. No employee need join a Union to hold his or her job.
2. Joining a Union will not cause any employee to lose his or
her job.
3. All employees, Union and non-Union will be treated alike
by the Company.
The company favors direct meetings for discussion of wages,
hours and working conditions between the elected representa-
tives of each Department and the Management without any
Department Head or Foreman present.
Each department or group of workers who are employed on
the same work or similar work should elect their own com-
mittees. In doing this it is required by law that :
1. All. the employees in the group be given a chance to vote
by secret ballot.
2. That there shall be no dictation, threats or coercion on the
part of the Management or anybody else.
At the hearing witnesses for the respondent claimed that the last
two paragraphs of this notice were not intended to discourage the
plant-wide union movement which had just started, but merely
recognized the existence of the departmental unions which had there-
tofore been organized. They further claimed that the notice was
posted at this particular time merely as a statement..of policy,
612 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
expressed to clear up rumors relative to the attitude of Macbeth-
Evans. toward self-organization. The claim is not convincing. The
notice.was posted immediately after the inception of the plant-wide
union movement and shortly prior to the organization of the last
four departmental unions. It could have served no other purpose
than to warn the employees that the respondent preferred depart-
mental organizations and disapproved of the attempts to form a
plant-wide organization.
Immediately following the posting of the notice, and shortly after
Ingland's warning to Chacko, Blau's suggestion to form an organi-
zation in No. 1 finishing department, and Miller's active assistance in
the formation of an organization in that department, attempts to
form a plant-wide organization were abandoned.
In the fall of 1936, the Co-Workers of I. S. G. W. U. were planning
to amalgamate with the I. M. G. W. U. George Milkent, then presi-
dent of the former organization, informed Blau of the proposed
amalgamation. Blau told Milkent that Macbeth-Evans might not
recognize such an organization as the representatives of the skilled
workers' assistants and stated that he would prefer that they combine
with the I. S. G. W. U.
In November 1936, Macbeth Co-Workers voted 209 to 37 to join
American Flint Glass Workers' Union, affiliated with the. American
Federation of Labor. A few days after the meeting at which the
vote was taken the employees of No. 1 finishing department were
called to a meeting during working hours. It does not appear who
called the meeting but it was attended by Ingland, Macbeth, and
Blau. Blau stated that the meeting was called because Macbeth-
Evans was angry with the employees for joining the American Flint
Glass Workers' Union. He also stated that, "if things aren't ironed
out, the company would have to shut down and pull out." Chacko
testified that Macbeth stated that his office was open to all but he
would not have any employees joining outside organizations. Mac-
beth denied making this statement and claimed that he merely
expressed his disappointment that the employees were afraid to come
directly to the management with their grievances. We need not
resolve the . conflict. In their context, the remarks admitted by '
Macbeth clearly evidence hostility to "outside" unions and prefer-
ence for the departmental form of employee organization.
In addition to expressing its disapproval of outside affiliation at
the meeting of Macbeth Co-Workers, Blau told the husband of
Marian Chacko to persuade Chacko to cease her outside union
activity. At the time Marian Chacko was confined to a hospital.
She testified that her husband came to the hospital and told her that.
Lambert Heaton, foreman of the blower room, had called at the
CORNING GLASS WORKS 613
Chacko home and had taken Mr. Chacko to Blau's office where Blau
stated :
You know we have been taking care of your wife. We gave
her a job and we don't feel that she is being fair to the Com-
pany by mingling with outside organizations. If she will just
go along with the Company and forget outside organizations,
she will be well taken care of, her job will be secure, but unless
she does, we cannot guarantee that her job will be secure.
Frank J. Chacko,22 the husband of Marian Chacko, corroborated the
testimony of his wife as follows :
Mr. Lambert Heaton was looking for me. . . . so I met him
down street and he says to me about coming down to talk to
Mr. Blau. I said I would do that. That was the morning of
my wife's operation.... so Mr. Blau said to me, "What is the
matter with your wife? She is making trouble," he says, don't.
you think the people of this town are satisfied? What if they
move the plant? What is (sic) the people in Charleroi going-
to do, And I says to him, "Well, she is pretty well liked in this
fa,ctory." He says, "Yes, she is. We understand that," and I
don't know, just through me trying to talk to my wife- so she-
would quit the outside organization, and I told Mr. Blau, I says,
"Mr. Blau, she is her own boss. What she does, that is up to.
her." That is all was said at that time. He said she was a very
smart woman and that is about all we talked about.
At about the same time, Blau told a sister of Mildred Podany,.
close friend of Chacko's and a leader in the movement to affiliate
with a -national labor organization, to keep her sister away from
outside unions. When Podany learned of Blau's statement, she-
went to his office and told him that "if he had anything to say about
outside organizations" he should tell her and "not bring the whole
family into it." Podany testified that Blau did not deny making-
the statement to her sister. Podany's testimony is not contradicted.
Blau also asked Podany if she thought "a man would make a better-
president" of Macbeth Co-Workers than Marian Chacko.
Notwithstanding the decision of a vast majority of its members,.
Macbeth Co-Workers never consummated its affiliation with Amer_
ican Flint Glass Workers' Union.
At the regular monthly conference between Macbeth-Evans and
the committee of Macbeth Co-Workers in December 1936, Miller-
expressed his displeasure at Chacko's activity in the movement to-
m Frank J. Chacko is not employed by the respondent.
199549-39-vol. 15-40
614 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
affiliate with an outside organization. Chacko's testimony concern-
ing the incident is as follows:
A. Well, we were sitting waiting for one of our grievance
committee girls to come in,-well, she came in and she was rather,
surprised to see that I was attending a meeting.
Q Do you recall the name of the girl?
A. Thelma Kopnicky.
Q. What did she say to you?
A. She said, "Oh, are you here, Marian?" And I said, "Why,
yes, don't I belong here?" And right away Mr. Miller stepped
up and said, "I don't know whether you do or not, the activities
that you have been carrying on." He said, "I think you are
on. the wrong- side of the river, you don't know the side your
bread is buttered on," and I said, "Well I think I am still presi-
dent of this organization, and the girls said that I was." He
said, "Well, I will have you understand that you won't be long
unless you change your ideas." He told me, he says, "Inviting
Mr..Gillooly 28 in to speak to your meeting. You didn't even
have permission, you just go ahead without the members' per-
mission," and I said, "Oh, no, we had a vote taken before Mr.
Gillooly came in." He said, "Well, I am telling you, you had
better get on, the right side-of the river," he said, "before it is
too late." 'He said, "We took you in here and gave you a job
during the depression." I said, "Well, you must have needed
me or you would not have hired me." I said, "I have been
doing my work. You cannot say that I do not do my work,"
and one of our boys, Ewing Chalfont, stepped up and he said,
"Why, Mr. Miller, isn't there a law we are. allowed to join- an
organization if we wish," He said, "Your president might give
you that law, but the president of the glass works didn't have
that law."
Q. Do you know who he meant by "your president?"
A. The President of the United States.
Q. Do you recall in what manner the meeting ended?
A. Yes, I do..
Q. What was the manner of Mr. Miller at the end of the
meeting?
A. Mr. Miller had changed his attitude at the end of the
meeting. He shook hands with me and he said he hoped that
I would cross the bridge and get on the right side of the river
and let outside organizations alone.
e
21 President of the American. Flint Glass Workers' Union.
CORNING GLASS WORKS 615 ,
4. Summary of events prior to December 24, 1936
As has been stated, high-ranking officials of Macbeth-Evans di-
rectly instigated and participated in the formation of six 24 of the
nine departmental labor organizations named in the complaint; an-
other such. organization 25 came into being as the result of a petition
circulated in the plant during working hours; and an eighth'26 at a
meeting held in the plant by permission Of the departmental
foreman.27
The evidence requires the conclusion, further, that the. manage-
ment dominated and interfered with the administration of at least
three of the departmental unions by influencing them in the
adoption of constitutions and bylaws.28 The constitutions of the
I. M. G. W. U. and of the Macbeth Co-Workers, for example, provide
that they may be amended "with company approval," a provision
which so subjects the will of the labor organizations to that of the
employer as to render the entire constitutions instruments of em-
ployer domination. The constitutions of the Shipping and Trucking
Union and of the Macbeth Co-Workers were submitted to Macbeth-
Evans for approval, before adoption. The constitution of the
Macbeth Co-Workers was modeled after that of the I. S. G. W. U.
(itself similar to that of the I. M. G. W. U.), of which Blau provided
the employees with a copy.
Agreements were entered into between Macbeth-Evans and three
of the departmental unions : the I. S. G. W. U., the Shipping and
Trucking Union, and the Furnace and Tankmen's Union. Each
agreement contains the provision that members of the labor organiza-
tion involved shall be entitled to a preference in employment. There
is undisputed testimony that the preference provision was inserted
in the Furnace and Tankmen's Union contract "by the company."
Similar preference provisions occur, curiously enough, in the consti-
tution of the I. M. G. W. U. and of the Macbeth Co-Workers Union.
In the light of these circumstances and of the hostility of Macbeth-
Evans toward "outside" organizations , we are of the opinion that
24 The I. S. G. W. U., the I. M. G. W . U., and the Associated Shopmen , formed prior to
the effective date of the Act (see Section III, A, 1, supra ) ; and Decorating and Process
Workers Union , Furnace and Tankmen's Union, and Macbeth Co -Workers, formed there-
after ( see Section III, A , 2, supra).
25 Shipping and Trucking Union.
zs Construction and Maintenance Union.
27 Although Co-Workers of I. S . G. W. U. was free , in its inception, from the taint of
employer encouragement, it may be recalled that Blau sought to interfere with the forma-
tion of that organization also, by warning its president that his activities would antagonize
the glass blowers ( see Section III, A, 1, supra).
28 The record is incomplete as regards the constitutions and bylaws adopted by the de-
partmental unions. Only four of the organizations were shown to. have adopted any,
namely, the I. S. G. W. U., the I. M. G. W. U., the Shipping and Trucking Union , and the
Macbeth Co - Workers. '
616 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Macbeth-Evans suggested the insertion of the provision under dis-
cussion not only in each of the agreements, but also in the consti-
tutions in which it appears, and that it did so in order to encourage
membership in the respective departmental unions and to discourage
membership in other labor organizations.
The use of the check-off for the collection of dues is another
method by which Macbeth-Evans encouraged the departmental
unions. That this accommodation was gratuitously extended by the
employer is a necessary inference from the fact that the constitutions
of two of the organizations 29 contain provisions for the collection
of dues by means of the check-off. The unions lacked the power
unilaterally to effectuate such a provision; its occurrence must be
attributed to the employer.
In addition, as has been shown, Macbeth-Evans contributed sup-
port to several of the departmental unions by permitting meetings
within the plant, paying wages for time spent at meetings and in
other organizational activities, and mimeographing large numbers
of constitutions, bylaws, and check-off authorizations without charge.
Most persuasive, however, of the conclusion that Macbeth-Evans
dominated the departmental labor organizations, is the evidence,
summarized in Section III, Al 3, supra, of its hostility and opposi-
tion to all attempts on the part of its employees to combine their
organizations, to organize upon a plant-wide basis, or to affiliate with
labor organizations admitting to membership others than employees
of the Charleroi plant. Although the evidence of employer domina-
tion of some of the departmental unions is slight if the. employer's
activities directly relating to those unions are considered separately,
we find, in view of the foregoing considerations, that at the time of
the transfer of the plant's ownership, on December 24, 1936, Mac-
beth-Evans dominated all nine such organizations within the mean-
ing of Section 8 (2) of the Act.
B. Events subsequent to (December 24, 1936
1. Interference, restraint, and coercion; domination of and interfer-
ence with the nine departmental labor organizations
Upon the acquisition of the Charleroi plant by the Corning Glass
Works, on December 24, 1936, George D. Macbeth, until then presi-
dent of Macbeth-Evans, became vice president of the respondent.
By authority of Amory Houghton, the respondent's president, Mac-
beth immediately "ratified and confirmed" on behalf of the respond-
21The I. M. G. W . U. and the Macbeth Co-Workers. The check -o8 was actually used
in collecting dues for all the departmental organizations with the exception of Associated
Shopmen.
CORNING GLASS WORKS 617
ent all existing contracts between Macbeth-Evans and the depart-
mental unions. For at least 3 months after the respondent acquired
the plant the officials of Macbeth-Evans remained at their former
posts and represented the respondent in its dealings, with the em-
ployees. The policies of Macbeth-Evans were continued by the re-
spondent; it likewise continued to recognize and deal with the de-
partmental unions.30 During 1937 the respondent signed agreements
with four- of the departmental unions which had had no written
contracts with Macbeth-Evans, and, upon expiration of their con-
tracts with Macbeth-Evans, signed new agreements with the I. S.
G. W. U., the Shipping and Trucking Union, and the Furnace and
Tankmen's Union.
In March 1937, the respondent granted a wage increase to all its
,employees except the automatic-machine operators. When the re-
spondent refused to grant the wage increase requested by the I. M.
G. W. U., the departmental organization in that department, the
latter called a sit-down strike. The strike, which was supported by
all the other departmental organizations except the Furnace and
Tankmen's Union, continued for 2 days. During the strike the offi-
cers of the various departmental organizations started another move-
ment looking toward the amalgamation of all the departmental or-
ganizations into one plant-wide union. Blau again expressed his
disapproval and stated that the employees' conduct had already
-caused a glass-brick plant to be taken to Port Alleghany instead of
to Charleroi.
Concurrently with the plant-wide union movement, Blau sug-
gested that the departmental organizations meet with the respondent
and arbitrate the strike difficulty. After some discussion relative to
whether or not arbitration should precede the return to work, the
,employees did return to work and started negotiations looking
toward a settlement of the grievances which had caused the strike.
When Dan Capelli, president of I. M. G. W. U., and Marian Chacko,
president of Macbeth Co-Workers, appeared at the first and only
arbitration conference representing their respective organizations,
McKibben and Macbeth expressed distrust for Capelli and Chacko.
Macbeth stated that he had caught them lying before and for " that
reason could not now accept anything they might say. He there-
upon sent Capelli and Chacko back to their organizations to get
notarized authorizations of their election to the arbitration committee.
ao On one occasion , however, the respondent compelled its employees to resort to indi-
vidual bargaining . On January 8, 1937, it responded to a request for a wage increase for
the selectors and packers on the night shift of No. 1 finishing department by announcing
that "the management feels that if any man thinks he is entitled to a raise , he should see
his department head, Mr. Corwin."
91 Co-Workers of I. S. G. W. U., I. M. G. W. U., Associated Shopmen, Construction and
Maintenance Union.
618 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR -RELATIONS BOARD
Chacko called a special meeting of Macbeth Co-Workers for the
purpose of obtaining such an authorization. She posted on the
bulletin board in the respondent's plant a notice of the meeting which
contained an announcement that a fine of $3 would be levied upon
any member who failed to attend. After the posting"of the notice,
Blau suggested to Mildred Podany, a member of Macbeth Co-Work-
ers, that she could stay away from the meeting without paying the
$3 fine. Blau further told Podany that she, Chacko, and Thelma
Kopnicky were agitators and that all married women would be dis-
charged if they did not "quit the outside union." Podany told Mary
Ellen O'Neill what Blau had told her and when Podany failed to
appear at the special meeting of Macbeth Co-Workers, O'Neill told
Chacko, the president, the reason for Podany's absence. Thereupon,.
three or four members of the organization went to Podany's home
and brought her to the meeting. Upon her arrival at the meeting,.
Podany took the floor and told the assembly what Blau had said.
The next day, Blau attempted to persuade Podany to sign a pre-
pared document retracting the statement which she had made at the
meeting of Macbeth Co-Workers the previous evening. Podany
refused to sign at that time. Later, however, Blau upon threat of
suing Podany for $10,000, succeeded in persuading Podany, Chacko,
and O'Neill to sign a statement. confessing that they were agitators
and retracting the statement which Podany had made at the pre-
vious meeting. This document is not in evidence but Podany,.
Chacko, and O'Neill testified to its contents. Their testimony is not
contradicted and we find it to be accurate.
On March 20, 1937, Chacko sent a telegram to the Pennsylvania
State Labor Relations Board, requesting that someone be sent to.
Charleroi to assist in settling the controversy between the respondent
and its employees. When Blau discovered that Chacko had sent the
telegram, he told her that he would sue her for $10,000 if "she got
that labor man down here" and told him that he was "coercing" the
employees.
In March 1937 the Federation 32 established a local in Charleroi
and began organizing the Charleroi plant. Shortly after the Fed-
eration commenced its membership drive, Corwin, who by this time
had replaced Ingland as foreman of No. 1 finishing department, and
Ohliger, the respondent's paymaster and personnel manager, accused
O'Neill, a charter member and officer of the Federation local, of
soliciting members for the Federation in the plant. They expressed
At that time the Federation was affiliated with the American Federation of Labor. It. 12
does not clearly appear when it became affiliated with the Committee for Industrial Organ-
ization. It may, however, be presumed from the testimony of Jacob Iieinrichs, regional
director of Glass Workers Organizing Committee, that it occurred sometime between Marcia
29, 1937, and July 1937.
CORNING GLASS WORKS 619
-to O'Neill their surprise that she would join an outside union, and
told her that she would be discharged if found signing cards.' They
also stated that the plant would probably close if the outside organi-
zation succeeded.
On April 1, 1937, McKibben, then plant superintendent'33 signed
and posted the following notice on the bulletin board in No. 1 finish-
ing department :
No worker in this plant must sign any card or paper to keep
his or her job or join any organization to do so.
Any employee that is found taking time to sign cards or papers
or to try to get cards or papers signed will be fired at once.
The signing of any card under force or unfair, influence is not
lawful and need not be honored and will not be honored by this
Company.
Macbeth testified that this notice was merely an expression of the
respondent's policy except as it had been set aside by the preferential.
clause in some of the contracts with departmental organizations. He
further testified that the notice was posted at this time because there
was so much disturbance in the plant it had to be stopped in order
to protect the interest of the respondent.
Shortly after the above notice was posted the respondent called a
meeting of the presidents and vice presidents of all the departmental
organizations. All such officers were present and the respondent was
represented by Macbeth, Ohliger, Hower, and McKibben. The meet-
ing was held in the plant during working hours. Macbeth stated
that since the employees wanted one organization in the plant, he had
asked Sharp, president of Associated Shopmen, to explain the em-
ployees' representation plan which was in use at the Corning, New
York, plant. The plan, as explained. by Sharp, provided for depart-
mental organizations with representatives on a central labor-relations
board which would negotiate with the respondent on behalf of the
departmental organizations.
Marian Chacko testified that after Sharp had explained the plan,
Albert Doyle, president of the Co-Workers of I. S. G. W. IT., asked
why the employees could not have one plant-wide organization; that
Macbeth replied that the employees did not know enough about each
others' work; and that when Doyle inquired why they could not join
an outside union, Macbeth replied that he had had enough of outside
unions years ago and he would have nothing to do with outside rep-
resentatives. Chacko further testified that Macbeth also stated that
the company would get rid of the Charleroi plant unless the em-
ployees "settled down." At the hearing, Macbeth denied that he had
8' Sometime after the respondent acquired the Charleroi plant , Blau , until then plant
superintendent , was transferred to the respondent 's plant at Corning, New York.
620 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
made the last statement . Macbeth , however , was unable to remember
anything that occurred at the meeting except the opening statement
which he had made. Both Hower and McKibben admitted at the
hearing that substantially the statement related by Chacko had been
made at the meeting . We find , therefore , that Macbeth made sub-
stantially the statement attributed to him by Chacko.
The same day that the meeting above referred to was held, the
respondent 's employees were called together in small group meetings
which were attended by Hower , Corwin, Ohliger , and McKibben.
Hower delivered an extemporaneous address to each of these small
group meetings, stating in substance , that union organizers, were
"lazy loafers"; and that their hotels, trains , and any drinks that they
might set up , were paid for by the laborers . He further stated that
the respondent 's employees were a "happy family" ; that they did not
need outside help to assist in organizing them; and that "a big raise
(in wages was ) coming" if the employees would "play along with
the company and settle down." He added that the respondent might
be. forced - to shut down the Charleroi plant; that the people in Corn-
ing, New York, appreciated what the respondent did for them.
In April 1937 the respondent entered into an agreement with the
Co-Workers of I. S . G. W. U. providing for "preference of employ-
ment" for the members of the union . Although the agreement con-
tained no provision for a check -off, dues were collected in that man-
ner, and the authorization slips used therefor were mimeographed
by the respondent without charge.
By May 1937 , despite the respondent 's efforts to defeat the Federa-
tion's membership campaign , a majority of the members of the Mac-
beth Co-Workers had joined the Federation . At their May meeting
the members of the Macbeth Co -Workers voted to dissolve that
organization and to affiliate with the Federation.
In July 1937 , a few employees who were opposed to affiliation with
the Federation began, under the leadership of Kathryn 34 Salovey, to
reorganize the Macbeth Co-Workers . McKibben told Jennie Lav-
erick, an employee interested in reorganizing the Macbeth Co-Work-
ers, that if they reorganized , the respondent would recognize the
new organization . A reorganization meeting, held outside the plant
on August 10, 1937 , was attended by about 30 or 40 of the then more
than 300 employees in No. 1 finishing, department . The meeting was
presided over by James Sharp . president of the Associated Shopmen,
wlin assisted in reorganizing Macbeth Co -Workers.
The reorganized Macbeth Co -Workers drafted a constitution and
bylaws, but it does not appear who drafted them or by what means
they were adopted.
"* Incorrectly spelled Catherine in the record.
CORNING GLASS WORKS 621
Shortly after the reorganization was completed Ohliger told Mac-
beth Co-Workers to draft a contract and the respondent would sign
it. Although a proposed contract was submitted, it did not meet
with the respondent's approval, and at the time of the hearing it had
not been executed. The employees interested in reorganizing Mac-
beth Co-Workers induced other.*employees to join the organization
by telling them that the respondent was going to sign a preferential .
contract with it. They also reminded potential members that the
respondent had selected men in the shipping and trucking depart-
ment for discharge because they were not members of the Shipping
and Trucking Union .35
Counsel for Macbeth Co-Workers contends that the evidence of
domination and interference with this organization prior to July 1937
is of historical value only since the Macbeth Co-Workers involved
herein had its beginning in July 1937 subsequent to the dissolution
of tie old Macbeth Co-Workers after most of its members had.
joined the Federation. This contention cannot be accepted. The new
organization is merely a revival of the old. The effects of employer
interference and domination of the old organization survived its dis-
solution and made possible the respondent's domination, of the re-
organized departmental union. Such domination, in our view, is
evidenced by McKibben's gratuitous offer of recognition made at a
time when the majority of the members of the old Macbeth Co-
Workers had shifted their allegiance to. the Federation, and by the
fact that Sharp, president of the Associated Shopmen, who had been
selected by the respondent as its spokesman to explain its employees
representation plan to the officers of the departmental unions, took
an active part in the reorganization.
2. Conclusions with respect to interference, restraint, and coercion;
domination of and interference with the nine departmental
organizations
When the respondent took possession of the Charleroi plant it did
nothing to correct the situation created by its predecessor or to elimi-
nate the effects of its predecessor's unlawful conduct. On the. con-
trary, the respondent ratified the existing contracts between Macbeth-
Evans and three of the departmental organizations, subsequently
signed new agreements with those organizations, entered into con-
tracts with four other departmental unions, and continued to recog-
nize and bargain with such organizations as the representatives of
its employees. The objectionable features of the constitutions and
bylaws of the organizations remained unchanged. The respondent
85 These discharges are discussed in subsection 3, infra.
622 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
continued the check-off, gratuitously instituted by Macbeth- Evans,
end the practice of furnishing mimeographed authorization slips
free of charge.
But the respondent did not content itself with accepting the domi-
nated status of the departmental unions or with continuing the
routine practices of its predecessor. On the contrary, it took vig-
orous action to maintain and. defend the departmental unions, and
to resist all attempts on the part of its employees to change the form
of their self-organization.
The posting of the April 1, 1937, notice, which proscribed the
signing or circulating of cards or papers on company time on pain
of immediate dismissal, is glaring evidence of the respondent's deter-
mination to resist any such attempted change. The notice was posted
when the Federation was seeking members among the respondent's
employees. Theretofore the respondent's employees had spent count-
less hours on company time in pursuit of the business of the depart-
mental unions without objection by the respondent. Shortly after the
posting of the notice, as has been stated, the respondent sought to
placate the employees in their desire for plant-wide organization and
national a$iliation by offering them a form of employees' representa-
tion plan based upon departmental lines. Clearly, the respondent's
desire was to perpetuate its control over its employee-relations by
stifling independent self-organization. To that end it went so far
as to vilify union organizers , warn that it would close the plant if
"outside" organization succeeded, and threaten reprisals against in-
dividual employees who persisted in independent activity toward
self-organization. In July 1937 it further pursued its policy of sup-
porting the departmental organizations by helping to revive the
Macbeth Co-Workers, whose members had withdrawn to join the
Federation.
We find that the respondent, by its activities described above, has
dominated, and interfered with the administration of the nine de-
partmental labor organizations named in the complaint, has contrib-
uted support to them, and has thereby interfered with, restrained,
and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in
Section 7 of the Act. The nine departmental labor organizations are
incapable of serving the respondent's employees as their genuine bar-
gaining representatives.
We further find that the respondent, through its officers and agents,
has made intimidating speeches, threats of closing the plant because
of union activity, and threats of legal action against individual em-
ployees because of their union activity, and has thereby interfered
with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
CORNING GLASS WORKS- 623
3. The discharges in the shipping and trucking department
On August 12, 1937, the respondent mailed discharge notices to
15'6 employees in the shipping and trucking department, the dis-'
charge to become effective 1 week after receipt of the letter. Pur-
suant to the notices the respondent discharged the persons named in
Appendix A, below, and has not reinstated them. The respondent
claims that the department had been overmanned for a long time
and that Macbeth had been trying since 1935 to persuade Blau to
reduce the force. The respondent further claims that the over-
crowded condition was aggravated in 1937 due to a decline in busi-
ness together with the moving of some of the operations of the
Charleroi plant upon consolidation with Corning Glass Works.
Late in July 1937, McKibben, the plant superintendent, requested
.Metz, the head of the shipping and trucking department to investi-
gate and make recommendations looking toward a reduction of the
force. On August. 10, Metz, in a memorandum to McKibben, pro-
posed a reorganization which called for the discharge' of 15 em-
ployees. We are satisfied from the record that the respondent acted
in good faith in curtailing its working force in the shipping and
-trucking department. The only question presented to us is whether
or not the men selected for discharge were discriminated against.
At the time of the discharge, the contract in effect between the
respondent and the Shipping and Trucking Union provided that in
•case of a permanent reduction of force, the best qualified members
of the Shipping and Trucking Union would have preference of em-
ployment over employees who were not members and, when the force
was again increased, those members of the Shipping and Trucking
Union who had been discharged, if any, should have preference of
-employment over non-members. All of the employees discharged had
originally belonged to the Shipping and Trucking Union but had
resigned from that organization and had joined the Federation on
various dates from April to August. Ten of the 14 discharged em-
ployees testified that they resigned from the Shipping and Trucking
Union in reliance upon the notice posted by the respondent on April
1, 1937, stating "No worker.in this plant must sign any card or paper
to keep his or her job or join any organization to do so." 37
The respondent claims that it selected the men for discharge solely11
on the basis of their non-membership in the Shipping and Trucking
Union,' although it would have preferred to have made the selection
80 One of the discharged employees was immediately rehired. We are therefore concerned
with only 14 whose names are set forth in Appendix A of this Decision.
37 The notice is set out in full in Section III, B, 1, supra: .
624 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
on the basis of seniority and merit. In- accordance with-the respond-
ent's alleged preference for seniority and merit, as the basis of
selection of the employees to be discharged, McKibben, on August 10,
1937, requested the Shipping and Trucking Union to waive the pref-
erential clause in its agreement. On August 12, the respondent
received a reply, signed by the officers and bargaining committee of
the Shipping and Trucking Union, refusing to waive this provision.
Upon receipt of the refusal to waive the provision, McKibben re-
quested that the Shipping and Trucking Union submit a list of their
members in order that he might know which of the employees were
non-members. On August 12, Ackerson, then president of the Ship-
ping and Trucking Union, supplied such a list. The letters of dis-
charge stated that non-membership in the Shipping and Trucking
Union was the basis of the selection for discharge.
Selection for discharge was admittedly made pursuant to the pref-
erence provision of the agreement between the respondent and the
Shipping and Trucking Union dated May 3, 1937. It was based
upon non-membership in the Shipping and Trucking Union. The
discharges were, accordingly, discriminatory within the meaning of
Section 8 (3) of the Act unless the agreement pursuant to which the
selection was made falls within the proviso of that section.38
Having found that the Shipping and Trucking Union was domi-
nated, first by Macbeth-Evans, and thereafter by the respondent, we
need consider neither the preference provision of the agreement nor
the question of designation of the Shipping and Trucking Union by
a majority of the employees in an appropriate collective bargaining
unit. The proviso of Section 8 (3) does not apply to agreements
with labor organizations which are "established, maintained, or as-
sisted by any action defined in [the] Act as an unfair labor
practice." 89
Accordingly, we find that the respondent, by discharging the indi-
viduals named in Appendix A of this Decision, has discriminated in
regard to their hire and tenure of employment, thereby encouraging
38 The proviso reads as follows :
Provided , That nothing in this Act , ° + ► shall preclude an employer from making
an agreement with a labor, organization (not, established , maintained , or assisted by any
action defined in this Act as an unfair labor practice ) to require as a condition of employ-
ment membership therein , if such labor organization is the representative of the employees
as provided in Section 9 (a) in the appropriate collective bargaining unit covered by such
agreement when made.
80 It may be noted that domination of the Shipping and Trucking Union began in Janu-
ary 1936 when its constitution and bylaws were submitted to Macbeth -Evans for approval,
and that the agreemept entered into between the organization and Macbeth -Evans on Feb-
ruary 1, 1936 , was prepared pursuant to the suggestion of Herbert Miller, the head of the
labor-relations department ( see Section III, A, 2 , supra ). Thus the labor organization
was dominated by Macbeth -Evans prior to consolidation as well as by the respondent at
the time of the execution of the contract under consideration.
CORNING GLASS WORKS 625
membership in the Shipping and Trucking Union and in the other
departmental labor organizations of its employees and discouraging
membership in the Federation, and interfering with, restraining, and
coercing its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in
Section 7 of the Act.
4. The alleged discrimination against Marian Chacko and
Emma Picinotti
Marian Chacko, at the time of the hearing, had been employed by
the respondent for approximately 3 years. During most of that
period she was a platinum banding checker in the No. 1 finishing
department.
At the time of the hearing Chacko had not been discharged or laid
off. The allegation of- discrimination against- her is based upon her
transfer to various departments within the Charleroi plant.
On April 12, 1937, Chacko was transferred to the labor-relations
department under Harry Hower and was given a wage increase from
42 cents to 49 cents per hour. The new position was in many respects
more desirable than Chacko's former work. The work, consisting of
the preparation of illustrations of items produced in the Charleroi
plant for use in the Corning, New York office, was temporary. It
appears that this transfer was satisfactory to Chacko. In May 1937,
upon the completion of the ,temporary work assigned to Chacko, she
was transferred to'the glass-brick department of the Charleroi plant.'
The increase of 7 cents per hour which she had received upon transfer
to the labor-relations department continued until December 22, 1937,
at which time she was again reduced to 42 cents per hour.
Chacko claims that the respondent, by transferring her to the glass-
brick department instead of returning her to the No. I finishing de-
partment, discriminated in regard to her tenure and conditions of
employment. Her claim of discrimination is based upon an alleged
decreased earning capacity in the glass-brick department and the
fact that the No. 1 finishing department provides opportunity for
advancement which is lacking in the glass-brick department.
Chacko's claims are not adequately supported by the evidence.
An analysis of the hours worked in the glass-brick department from
July 3, 1937, to January 29, 1938, inclusive reveals that Chacko worked
more hours and had a higher average weekly wage than 9 of the 13
employees in the department. Moreover, she was not singled out for
any disproportionate reduction in working hours. When the number of
working hours was reduced all the employees shared the reduction in
substantially equivalent proportions. There is no evidence that during
the period under consideration the employees in No. 1 finishing
department were working more hours or earning higher wages than
626 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
those in the glass-brick department. Nor is there any evidence sup-
porting Chacko's claim that No. 1 finishing department provides
greater opportunity for advancement than does the glass-brick
department.
On December 12, 1937, Carl Corwin, Chacko's foreman, told her
that work was getting scarce and it had come. her turn to be laid off.
Chacko objected to being laid off before other employees with less
seniority. It is not clear how she arrived at her conclusion with
respect to her seniority status and no evidence was introduced in
support of her claim to seniority over those who were being retained.
She was not laid off, however.
Although Chacko had been most active in the attempts of the
respondent's employees at plant-wide organization and affiliation
with outside labor organizations and had been criticized for such
activity by the respondent and was, at the time of the hearing, presi-
dent of the Federation local, we are not convinced that such conduct
was the cause of her transfer from the labor-relations department to
the glass-brick department.
We find that the respondent has not discriminated in regard to
the hire and tenure of employment or any term or condition of
employment of Marian Chacko.
Emma Picinotti, who had been employed in the respondent's
decorating department for approximately 31/2 years was laid off on
April 20, 1937, together with several other employees. She had
resigned from the Decorating and Process Workers Union just prior
to her lay-off. During the sit-down strike in March, Picinotti urged
several other employees "to come on and join a good bunch," and on
specific questioning by the Board's attorney, she testified that she had
meant the C. I. O. when she spoke of "a good bunch." She did not,
however, at the time of the strike actually mention the C. I. O. and
she was not herself a member of the Federation local at that time.
Picinotti testified that in previous lay-offs she had always been
the first employee called back to work, but that at this time four
other employees who were laid off at the same time that she was had
returned to work and that she had not been recalled. She later
testified, however, that she had been laid off only once before and
that her statement that the four others had returned to work was
based entirely upon hearsay. She further testified that she did not
request reinstatement because she had an idea that she "was not
called back to work on account of talking too much union." Pici-
notti was not as active in union affairs as were many other employees
of the respondent.
We find that the respondent has not discriminated in regard to the
hire and tenure of employment of Emma Picinotti.
CORNING GLASS WORKS 627
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
We find that the activities of the respondent set forth in Section
III-B, 1, 2, and 3 above, occurring in connection with the operations
of the respondent described in Section I, above, have a close, intimate,
and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the
several States and tend to lead and have led to labor disputes burden-
ing and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce.
0
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that the respondent has engaged in certain unfair
labor practices, we shall order it to cease and desist therefrom.
Moreover, we shall order the respondent to take certain affirmative
action which we deem necessary to effectuate the policies of the. Act.
We have found that the respondent has dominated and interfered
with the administration of the nine departmental labor organizations
named in the complaint, and has contributed financial and other sup-
port. thereto. We. shall order the respondent to withdraw all recog-
nition from and to disestablish these organizations as the collective
bargaining representative of any of its employees. We shall further
order the respondent to cease giving effect to any contracts between,
it and any of the nine departmental labor organizations named in the.
complaint, whether they be those in effect. at the time of the hearing'
or others entered into since that date. We shall also order the
respondent to reimburse its employees for any monies the respondent
has deducted from their wages on account of dues 'and assessments
in the departmental organizations.
Having found that the respondent has discriminated in regard to-
the hire and tenure of employment of the 14 employees named in
Appendix A, we shall order the respondent to offer to' said employees.
immediate and full reinstatement to their former or substantially
equivalent positions, without prejudice to their seniority or other-
rights and privileges.
Such reinstatement shall be effected in the following manner : All'
employees hired after August 20, 1937, shall, if necessary to provide-
employment for those to be offered reinstatement, be dismissed. If,
thereupon, by reason of a reduction of force since August 20, 1937,
there is not sufficient employment immediately available for the.
remaining employees, including those to be offered reinstatement, all
available positions shall be distributed among such remaining-
employees in accordance with the respondent's usual method of reduc-
ing its force, without discrimination against any employee because
of his union affiliation or activities, following a system of seniority to-
such extent as has heretofore been applied in the conduct of the-
respondent's business. Those employees remaining after such dis--
628 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
tribution, for whom no employment is immediately available, shall
be placed upon a preferential list prepared in accordance with the
principles set forth in the previous sentence, and shall thereafter, in
accordance with such list, be offered employment in their former
or substantially equivalent positions, as such employment becomes
available and before other persons are hired for such work.
We shall also order the respondent to make whole said employees
for any loss of wages they have suffered by reason of the respondent's
discrimination against them, by the payment to each of them of a
sum of money equal to that which he normally would have earned
from the date of his discharge to the date of the offer of reinstate-
ment or placement upon a preferential list had not the respondent
discriminated against him, less his net earnings 40 during said period.
We have found that the respondent did not discriminate in regard
to the hire or tenure of employment or any condition of employment
of Marian Chacko and Emma Picinotti. We shall therefore order
the complaint dismissed as to them.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire
record in the case, the Board makes the following :
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Federation of Flat Glass Workers of America, Independent
Skilled Glass Workers Union, Co-Workers of Independent Skilled
Glass Workers Union, Independent Machine Glass Workers' Union,
Associated Shopmen, Shipping and Trucking Union, Decorating and
Process Workers Union, Furnace and Tankmen's Union, Construc-
tion and Maintenance Union, and Macbeth Co-Workers Glass Union
are labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the
Act.
2. The respondent, by dominating and interfering with the ad-
ministration of and by contributing financial and other support to
the. Independent Skilled Glass Workers Union, Co-Workers of Inde-
pendent Skilled Glass Workers Union, Independent Machine Glass
Workers' Union, Associated Shopmen, Shipping and Trucking
Union, Decorating and Process Workers Union, Furnace and Tank-
men's Union, Construction and Maintenance Union, and Macbeth
40 By "net earnings" is meant earnings less expenses , such as for transportation, room,
and board , incurred by an employee in connection with seeking work or working elsewhere
than for the respondent , which would not have been incurred but for his unlawful dis-
charge and the consequent necessity of his seeking employment elsewhere . See Matter of
Crossett Lumber Company and United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America,
Lumber and awmill Workers Union, Local 2590, 8 N. L. R. B. 440. Monies received for
work performed upon Federal, State, county, municipal, or other work-relief projects are
not considered as earnings, but, as provided below in the Order, shall be deducted from the
sum due the employee, and the amount thereof shall be paid over to the appropriate fiscal
agency of the Federal, State, county, municipal, or other government or governments which
supplied the funds for said work-relief projects.
CORNING GLASS WORKS 629
Co-Workers Glass' Union; has engaged in and is engaging in unfair
labor practices within the meaning. of Section 8 (2) of the Act.
3. The respondent, by discriminating in, regard to the hire and
tenure of employment of ' the employees named in Appendix A,
thereby discouraging membership in Federation of Flat Glass Work-
ers of America, a labor organization and thereby encouraging mem-
bership in Shipping and Trucking Union and in the other depart-
mental labor organizations in its Charleroi plant, has engaged in and
is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section
8 (3) of the Act.
4. The respondent, by interfering with, restraining, and coercing its
employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the
Act, has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within
the meaning of Section 8 (1) of the Act.
5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices
affecting commerce, within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7)
of the Act.
6. The respondent has not discriminated in regard to the hire or
tenure of employment or any condition of employment of Marian
Chacko or Emma Picinotti, and has not thereby ^Wcouraged or dis-
couraged membership in any labor organization within the meaning
of Section' 8 (3) of the Act.
ORDER
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and conclusions of law,
and pursuant to Section 10 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act,
the National Labor Relations Board. hereby orders that the respond-
ent, Corning Glass Works, and its officers, agents, successors, and.
assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from :
(a). In any manner dominating orsinterfering with the administra-
tion of Independent Skilled Glass- Workers! Union, Co-Workers of
Independent Skilled Glass Workers Union, - Independent Machine
Glass Workers' Union, Associated Shopmen, Shipping and Truck-
ing Union, Decorating and Process Workers Union, Furnace and
Tankmen's Union, Construction and Maintenance Union, and Macbeth
Co-Workers Glass Union or any of them, or with the formation or
administration of any other labor organization of its employees, and
from contributing support to any of the above-named organizations
or to any other labor organization of its employees;
(b) Discouraging membership in Federation of Flat Glass Work-
ers of America, or any other labor organization of -its employees, or
encouraging membership in any of the labor organizations named in
paragraph 1 (a) of this Order, or any other labor organization of its
19D549-39-vol. 15-41
630 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR.RELATIONS BOARD
employees, by discharging. or in any other manner discriminating in
regard to the hire and tenure of employment or any term or condi-
tion of employment of any of its employees;
(c) Giving effect to any contract it may have entered into with any
of the'labor organizations named in paragraph 1 (a) of this Order,
whether it be the contract in existence at the time of the hearing in
this case, or whether another has been entered into subsequent to
said hearing;
(d) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing
its employees in the exercise of the right to self-organization; to form,
join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through
representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted
activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual
aid or, protection.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds
will effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Withdraw all recognition from each and all of the labor
organizations named in paragraph 1 (a) of this Order as the repre-
sentative of any of its employees for the purposes of dealing with the
respondent concerning grievances, labor disputes, rates of pay, wages,
hours of employment, or other conditions of employment, and com-
pletely disestablish said labor organizations and each of them, as
such representatives;'
(b) Reimburse individually and in fall all employees who were
or still are members of any of the labor organizations named in para-
graph 1' (a) of this Order, for all dues and assessments, if any, which
it has deducted from their wages, salaries, or other earnings and
which have been paid into the treasury of any of said labor organ-
izations ;
(c) Offer to each of the individuals listed in Appendix A, below,
immediate and full reinstatement to their former or substantially
equivalent positions, without prejudice to their seniority or other
rights and privileges, dismissing, if necessary all employees hired
since August 20, 1937, in the manner set forth in the section entitled
"The Remedy,'.' above; and place those employees for whom employ-
ment is not immediately available upon a preferential list and offer
them employment as it becomes available, in the manner set forth
in said section;
(d) Make whole the employees named in paragraph 2 (c) of this
Order, and each of them, for any loss of earnings each may have
suffered by reason of the respondent's .discrimination against.him, by
the payment to him of a sum of money equal to that which he
normally would have earned as wages during the period from the
date of his discharge to the date of the offer of reinstatement or
CORNING GLASS WORKS 631
placement upon a preferential list had not the respondent discrimi-
nated against him, less his net earnings during said period; provided,
however, that the respondent shall deduct from the amount other-
wise due said employees any monies received by them during said
period. for work performed upon Federal, State, county, municipal,
or other work-relief projects, and pay over the amount so deducted
to -the appropriate fiscal agency of the Federal, State, county, munici-
pal, or other government or governments which supplied the funds
for said work-relief projects,;
- (e) Immediately post notices in conspicuous places about its
Charleroi plant and maintain such notices for a period of at least
sixty (60) consecutive days, stating (1) that the respondent will
cease and desist as aforesaid; and (2) that the respondent will take
the affirmative action required by paragraphs 2 (a), (b), (c), and.
(d) of this Order;
(f) Notify the Regional Director for the Sixth Region in writing
within ten (10) days from the date of this Order ' what steps the.
respondent has taken to comply therewith.
AND IT-IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint, in so far as it alleges
that the respondent has discriminated against Marian Chacko and
Ennna Picinotti, within the meaning of -Section 8 (3) of "the Act,;
be.,, and it hereby is,. dismissed.
APPENDIX A
Roger Gillot
Cecil Matson
Peter Malinchok
Peter Martorella
.Joseph Rush
Steve Sosariko
John Ma.linchok
George Schaum
Charles Sedor
John Belusko
Joseph Kopnicky, Sr.
Julio Bercini
James Houston
William Mencer