I. Taitel & Son

In the Matter of IRVING TAITEL AND RUTH TAITEL DOING BUSINESS AS 1. TAITEL & SON and AMALGAMATED CLOTHING WORKERS OF AMERICA, AFFILIATED WITH THE C. I. O. Case No. C4289. Decided November 13, 1942 Jurisdiction : garment manufacturing industry. Unfair Labor Practices In General: employer held responsible for activities of working foreladies and foremen. Interference, Restraint, and Coercion: interrogation of employees as to union membership and activity by high ranking officials and supervisory, employees ; anti-union statements ; threats of plant shut-down and loss of employment for union membership, support, and success in consent election ; circulation of and inducing employees to sign anti-union petitions ; offering refreshments, en- tertainment, and other inducement to retard union organization. Company-Dominated Union: participation of supervisory employees in forma- tion and administration of Grievance Committee, organized at meeting held on company property and required to be attended by employees. Remedial Orders : employer ordered to cease and desist unfair labor practices and to disestablish company-dominated union. Mr. Robert E. Ackerberg, for the Board. Sehortemeier, Eby cQ Wood, by Mr. Frederick E. Schortemeier, of Indianapolis, Ind., and Lundin d Lundin, by Mr. Charles M. Lundin, of Knox, Ind., for the respondents. Mr. Frank Schaps, of Chicago, Ill., for the Union. Mr. Max E. Halpern, of counsel to the Board. DECISION AND ORDER STATEMENT OF' THE CASE Upon charges and amended charges duly filed by Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America, affiliated with the C. I. 0., herein called the Union, the National Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board, by the Regional Director for the Eleventh Region (Indian- apolis, Indiana), issued its complaint, dated June 3, 1942, against Irving Taitel and Ruth Taitel, doing business as I. Taitel & Son, Knox, Indiana, herein' called the respondents, alleging that the respond- 45 N. L. R. B, No. 81. 551 552 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD ents had engaged in and were engaging in unfair labor practices affect- ing commerce, within the meaning of Section 8 (1) and (2) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein called the Act. Copies of the complaint, accompanied by notice, of hearing thereon, were- duly served upon the respondents, the. Union, and the.Grievance Committee, herein called the Committee. With respect to the unfair labor practices,, the complaint alleged. in substance that the respondents: (1) since August 1,.1941; had inter- fered with. the rights of their employees to self-organization and discouraged membership in the Union by interrogation of employees concerning their union membership and activity; disparagement of the Union and outside labor organizations; threats of discharge of employees and their relatives, employed elsewhere, for the employees' membership in and support of the, Union, threats to shut down or iraiisfer the plant if the employees joined or voted for the Union in an election held on September 30, 1941; fostering and permitting circu- lation of, and inducing employees to sign, various petitions disparag- ,ing the Union and outside labor organizations; requiring employees to attend. a meeting on September 23, 1941, at.the plant; offering free entertainment, refreshments, a movie, and other inducements to dis- courage union membership and to influence the results of the Board election; maintaining surveillance and espionage of union meetings and activities;, encouraging "loyal employees" to disrupt the Union's meeting on September 19, 1941; and by other similar and related acts; (2), on or about September 23, 1941, proposed, formed, and sponsored the Committee, and 'thereafter dominated and interfered with its ad- ministration and contributed support thereto; and (3) by the fore- going acts interfered with, restrained, and coerced their employees_ in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7,of the Act. On June 10, 1942, the respondents filed their answer denying that they had engaged in the unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint. Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held at Knox, Indiana, on June 15 and 16, 1942, before Earl S. Bellman, the Trial Examiner duly designated by the Chief Trial Examiner. The Board, the respond- ents, and the Union were represented by counsel and participated in the hearing., Full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross- examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing upon the issues Was afforded all parties. At the close of the hearing, a motion by counsel for the Board was granted, without objection, to conform the pleadings to the proof in respect to names, places, dates, and figures. During the course of the hearing, the Trial Examiner made rulings on various motions and on objections to the admission of evidence. The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner and finds that I The Committee filed no answer and made no appearance at the hearing. I. TAITEL- & - SON 553 no prejudicial errors were committed. The rulings are hereby af- firmed. Subsequent to the hearing counsel for the Board and the respondents filed briefs with the Trial Examiner. On August 6, 1942, the Trial Examiner issued his Intermediate Re- port, copies of which were duly served upon the respondents and the ,Union, in which he found that the respondents had engaged in and were engaging in unfair labor practices , within the meaning of Section 8 (1) and (2) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act, and recommended that the respondents cease and desist therefrom and take certain af- firmative action deemed necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act. On September 11, 1942, the respondents filed exceptions to the Inter- mediate Report and a brief in support thereof. Pursuant to notice, a hearing for the purpose of oral argument was held before the Board at Washington , D. C., on September 29, 1942. The respondents were representdd by counsel and participated therein. The Board has considered the respondents' exceptions to the Intermediate Report and brief, and insofar as the exceptions are in- consistent with the findings , conclusions, and order set forth ' below, 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 RESPONDENTS Irving Taitel and his wife , Ruth Taitel , the respondents , are and have been since January 1, 1941, a partnership doing business under the firm name of I. Taitel & Son . The respondents operate plants in Knox, Bremen, and Scottsburg , Indiana, where they are engaged prin- cipally in the manufacture , sale, and distribution of corduroy pants and jackets. Only the Knox plant is involved in this proceeding. In 1941 the respondents purchased raw materials for use at their Knox plant valued in excess of $500,000 , all of which was shipped to the Knox plant from points outside the State of Indiana. During this period the respondents sold finished products valued in excess of $1,000,000 , 90 percent of which was shipped to points outside the State of Indiana. II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America is a labor organiza- tion affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations. It admits to membership employees of the respondents. The Grievance Committee is an unaffiliated labor organization composed of employees of the respondents. _ 554 IYECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Sequence of events In 1928 the firm of I. Taitel & Son, then composed of Isaac Taitel and his son, Irving Taitel, entered into a verbal agreement with several residents of Knox to manufacture clothing in one of the town's factory buildings which was then not in operation. It was agreed that the firm should purchase the plant equipment for $1,200 in cash and the building for approximately $7,700, plus accrued taxes, payable at the rate of $75 per month, which sum was computed to cover interest, amortization, and the cost of repair. In 1931 the community, concerned that the firm might move out of town to larger quarters, erected a plant addition at a cost of $6,000, pur- suant to an agreement that the firm would purchase the necessary land and install the heating equipment. Thereafter various residents of Knox and the firm entered into a lease covering the plant ad- dition. ' The lease provided for a term of 50 years at a rental of $1 per year, and the firm covenanted to provide a pay roll aggregat- ing $200,000 during the first 6 years of its occupancy of the plant addition. The firm has conducted its business under the same name in Knox, continuously since 192&, and in 1941 when the population of Knox numbered approximately 2,300, employed 175 people. According to the respondents, Irving Taitel, who also spent about' one-third of his time in Chicago and at the two other plants of the respondents in Bremen and Scottsburg, was general manager, and Henry Schwartz was superintendent of the Knox • plant, and, no other employed exercised any supervisory authority. The respond- ents specifically denied that Helen Lindstrand, Alice Marsh, Elsie Juday,2 William C. Storey, and James R. Sides, all of whom played a 'large part in the activities hereinafter set forth, were supervisory employees and that their activities are attributable to the respondents. Numerous witnesses for the Board,3 most of whom were no longer in the respondents' employ and who appeared at the hearing-pursuant to subpenas, testified that Lindstrand, Marsh, and Juday were the ,foreladies of the 3 sewing machine lines and that these foreladies worked directly under Superintendent Schwartz, receiving instruc- tions from him and transmitting them to the employees. Whitaker, Simpson, and Ewing testified specifically that the foreladies assigned the work to the operators on the sewing machine lines, informed them when they were to be laid off and when they were to return to work, instructed beginners, and criticized employees for defective work. In a Also referred to in the record as Elsie Swanson , her maiden name. Ethel Whitaker, Ruby Maggard, Ruth Simpson, Laverna Ewing, Maxine Crossgrove, Carrie Collins, Adeline Lechiy, Melba Easterday, Gertrude Alt, Fay Baker, Hannah Rock, Lillian and Jane Jordan. I. TAITEL & SON 555 addition, the pay-roll record for September 13, 1942, which was intro- duced into evidence, indicated that Lindstrand ,received $25.03, and Marsh and Juday each $22.56 as their weekly wages, whereas the aver- age weekly earnings of the machine operators was approximately $15. Lindstrand, Marsh, and Juday denied that they exercised supervisory authority, and asserted that they were employed as "pinch hitters" working from one line to the other, wherever help was needed. How- ever, Lindstrand's testimony is contrary to a written statement, which she admitted she signed and gave to a Board agent prior to the hearing, in which she stated that for 4 or 5 years she has, been "responsible for the production on line one, on which 36 girls work at full capacity." Moreover, Marsh admitted that she "[got] the work prepared for the girls on her line," received instructions from Superintendent Schwartz and gave them to the employees. Juday's denial of supervisory status was contradicted by her own testimony to the effect that after 5 years of employment as a machine operator and "pinch hitter," she "took a department where [she] distributed the work," that she was an "over- seer of one department," and that she gave the orders, which she re- ceived from Schwartz, to the girls on her line and not on the other lines, since "each forelady has so many girls under her." Her denial is further contradicted by her signed statement,4 which was read into the record, and which recited that, "During 1937 she became forelady of line making boys' jumpers. She instructed the new employees on her line. She didn't hire or fire, but did recommend same if operators don't do good work they are turned over to Mr. Schwartz. She assigns the work to [the operators]. If the girls have trouble she helps them with it. She lets the girls know the night before if they are to come in or not the next day." In view of the obvious contradictions in their testimony, we do not credit, nor did the Trial Examiner, the denials of Lindstrand, Marsh, and Juday that they were supervisory employees. William C. Storey was "the head cutter," according to Horace Bar- num, who was employed by the respondents as a cutter for about 5 . years. Other witnesses 5 referred to Storey as foreman of the cutting department. Storey testified that he was a garment cutter, but admitted that he received the orders, marked the patterns on the cloth which was to be cut by the five cutters in his department, and that he supervised their work "to 'that extent." He denied that he had any discretionary powers over the employees in the cutting department. Although confronted with a statement, which he admitted'he made 4 Juday admitted in response to questions addressed to, her by the Trial Examiner that the statement, which admittedly she read , signed, and gave to a Board agent prior to the hearing, was correct except that it attributed to her more authority than she believed she had. s Maggard and Ewing. 5,56 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL, LABOR RELATIONS BOARD to, a Board agent, and signed after it was written out by the Board agent as Storey had stated it to him, to the effect that "if a cutter doesn't keep up with his end of the work, Storey usually tells Schwartz and has him laid off," and further that Storey "usually in- structs new men and if he thinks [anew man] isn't any good he tells Superintendent Schwartz," Storey persisted in his denial of super- visory duties with respect to reporting incompetence, recommending discharge, and instructing new men. He admitted, however, that his signed statement was correct in that he transmitted Schwartz's orders to the cutters as to lay-offs, and in that his earnings averaged $45 per week and amounted to as ninth as $58 per week in,the busy seasons, whereas the cutters earned from $20 to $30 per week. We do not credit, nor did the Trial Examiner, Storey's denials which are incon- sistent with his express admission of supervisory duties and in con- flict with his signed statement. James R. Sides was the "stock foreman" in charge of five or six men who worked in the stockroom, according to the testimony of Storey. A sworn statement 6 of David Shapiro, who was in the respondents' employ from August to December, 1941, recited that. Shapiro worked in the stockroom under Sides, who directed his work. Max White, who worked in the shipping room which was next to the stockroom, testified that Sides was the "stockroom boss" and "gave ,orders" to the boys in the 'stockroom. Ruth Simpson also testified that it was generally understood, and that her forelady told her that Sides was a foreman. Moreover, the September 13 pay-roll record indicated that Sides earned $24.41 for that week and that the other employees in the department averaged $15 or $16 per week. Sides testified that he had no supervisory authority and that he worked in the stockroom as a stock clerk under Taitel and in- Taitel's absence, under Schwartz. However, he admitted that "he felt free to in- struct" new men and "may have gone up" and complained about an employee, if it were- "someone that [he] didn't like, [as] is done in .any firm." In view of the admissions implicit in Sides' own testi- mony, Storey's description of Sides' position, and, the credible testimony of the above-named Board witnesses, we do not credit, nor did the Trial Examiner, Sides' denial of supervisory status. While Lindstrand, Marsh, Juday, Storey, and Sides, according to the respondents, had no authority to hire or discharge, the record establishes that it was their duty to take charge of the work per- formed in their respective departments, to transmit the orders of, 6 It was stipulated at the hearing that the foregoing statement which was signed and sworn to on June 12, 1942 , by David Shapiro, who was unavailable to attend the hearing and whose testimony was(to be taken by deposition , be introduced into evidence together with the statement 6f the Indiana State Police Bureau of Identification as to his past criminal record, in lieu of taking his deposition. I. TAITEL & SON 557, and report incompetence to, the general manager or superintendent of the plant, and to inform their subordinates when to lay off and ,when to return to work. Moreover, their weekly wages, on the average, were 50 percent higher than those of the employees in their respec- tive departments and they were regarded as supervisors by the em-' ployees, according to the testimony of numerous Board witnesses, whose testimony we credit, as did the Trial Examiner. Admittedly, plant operation was divided into various departments, i. e., cutting, pressing, cleaning and inspecting, shipping, stock, and the 3 sewing machine lines. Admittedly, Irving Taitel spent approximately one- third of his time away from the Knox plant and Schwartz 'vas "foreman all the way through" of this manufacturing enterprise, which employs 175 people. ' In view of the number of employees at the Knox plant, its size, the nature and method of its production, it appears incredible that Taitel and Schwartz were the only super- visory employees, in the plant. Upon the entire record, we find, as did the Trial Examiner, that Lindstrand, Marsh, Juday, Storey, and Sides were supervisory employees, and that the respondents are re- sponsible for their activities as hereinafter set forth.' In August 1941, the Union commenced an organizational drive at the plant, and an organizer for the Union, named Sheets, distributed union literature among the employees. The Union's activities evoked immediate opposition from the respondents. About the middle of August, according to the testimony of Forrest Rock, an employee who had worked at the plant over 12 years, Taitel asked Rock how his friend, Sheets, was. Rock asked Taitel who had told him that Sheets was his friend. Taitel replied, "Well, I have ways of hearing," and also that he had heard that Rock had joined the Union. Rock stated that he would not say whether he had or had not joined the Union. Rock also testified that sometime thereafter, Forelady Lindstrand accused him of being the "main instigator" in bringing the Union into the plant. Her accusations'led to a heated discussion, and Lindstrand went to Superintendent 'Schwartz and reported Rock for "talking Union." Schwartz then reprimanded Rock' for the way he had talked to Lindstrand. At about this time, according to Harry Conner, who is no longer in the respondents' employ, Schwartz had a conversation during working hours at the plant with Conner during which Schwartz told Conner that the Union would not get him anywhere; that the 40, cents an hour then being received was "good wages"; that the Union would not increase it; that they would have to pay 'union dues and 7 N. L. R. B v Link-Belt Co, 311 U S 584; International Association of Machinists V N. L R B, 311 U S 72; Matter of Ely & Walker Dry Goods Company and Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America, 40 N. L R B. 1262; Matter of Aintree Corporation and International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union, Local 373, 37 N. L. R. B . 1174;' Matter of Germain Seed and Plant Co. and International Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America, Local 575, AFL, 37 N. L R. B. 1090 1 558 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD fees; and that if the Union got into the shop, Taitel would shut down and they would all be out of work. Schwartz also said, "You would just have a union button. What are you going to do with it, sit on it?" According to Nova Baughman, whose memory was refreshed by a written statement which she herself had prepared shortly after the occurrence of the incident, about August 27 Schwartz told a group of women working in the cleaning and inspecting department that the respondents could take care of things without a union; that a union would do the employees no good; that if the Union got in the factory would close; and that if employees joined the Union they would be discharged. According to Gertrude Alt, ' after the Union started organizing, Forelady Marsh told a group of employees including Alt, Ewing, Elsie Metz, and Marcella Reinholt; one noon in the plant, that if the Union got in, Taitel would "move out" and the plant would "shut down"; that none of them would have their jobs and it would "break up our happy family." For the most part Taitel made only general denials of the conversa-. tions or statements attributed to him. Schwartz denied talking "to any [of the employees] about the union proposition." Lindstrand and Marsh also made general denials of interest in and discussion of the Union. The Trial Examiner was not convinced by these general denials, but was impressed by the testimony of the Board witnesses named above, who in each instance testified in detail concerning the time, place, and persons involved. Upon the entire record we find, as did the Trial Examiner, that the statements attributed to Taitel, Schwartz, Lindstrand, and Marsh by Rock, Conner, Baughman, and Alt respectively, were made substantially as set forth above. Late in August or early in September, a long poem which had appeared in a newspaper sometime in 1933 praising Taitel as the "Saviour of Knox," was posted on the bulletin board near the time clock. Taitel testified that he saw the poem and that it had been posted by Dessie Myers, "a very valued old employee." Whitaker, Simpson, and Jane Jordan testified that Marsh and Juday, their respective foreladies, told them or sent them to read the poem. Fore- ladies Marsh and Juday, although called as witnesses for the respond- ents, did not testify concerning the poem. We find, as did the Trial Examiner, that the poem characterizing Taitel as the "Saviour of Knox" was posted on the respondents' bulletin board with the respond- ents' knowledge and approval and that employees in the plant were required by their supervisors to read the poem. According to the testimony of union representatives Mildred Stout and 'Harold Freed, on September 15, they and organizer Sheets met with Taitel in the evening at his uptown office. Freed told Taitel that the Union represented a majority of the employees and requested Taitel I. TAITEL & SON 559 to enter into bargaining negotiations. Taitel replied that he was entitled to an election conducted by the Board, and Freed agreed. Taitel also indicated that he would not deal with the Union until it was certified by the Board S As the three union representatives were leaving, Taitel told Freed that if the Union won an election, he would consider Freed "a smarter man" than he., Taitel did not deny that he had made this statement. We find, as did the Trial Examiner, that Taitel made the statement attributed to him by Stout and Freed. After entering into the agreement for a consent election, to be held on September 30, the respondents redoubled their efforts to discredit the Union and entered upon an intensive campaign to,revive loyalty to themselves and to influence employees to vote against the Union in the election. About the middle of September, Taitel had a talk in the plant with Enoch Carlson, a 53-year-old presser who had been em- ployed by the respondents for about 5 years. According to Carlson's versioli of the conversation, Taitel told Carlson that he thought Carl- -son was a friend of his, to which Carlson replied that he did not think that he had been unfriendly. Taitel also told Carlson that certain unnamed individuals had discussed with Carlson's wife the matter of nis union membership. He then asked Carlson if he had joined the Union. Carlson would not commit himself. Taitel then asked Carl- son what; he thought of a union and Carlson replied that a good union was all right. Taitel said, "You better think the matter over." Taitel testified that he recalled "this incident of Mr. Carlson very distinctly," but that he had stated to Carlson that as a friend he would like to have Carlson's help in, stopping "all this monkey business" ; that Carlson evidently misunderstood; and that the had referred to loud conversa- tion among the pressers and had come to Carlson in order to get the noise stopped rather than bother Schwartz. Taitel's explanation is not persuasive, and we find, as did the Trial Examiner, that the conversa- tion took place substantially as testified to by Carlson. About this time, according to the testimony of Harry Conner, Taitel met Conner in the washroom and told him that Forrest Rock should not have brought the Union into the plant. He asked Conner_ if he knew how to vote in the election, and Conner said that he did. Taitel said he hoped that Conner spoke from the bottom of his heart. Taitel then informed Conner that from time to time he had helped boys who needed medical care. He told Conner, who had a facial disfigurement, that he would be glad to arrange to get Corner's "face straightened" and that Conner would not have to pay him back unless he felt like doing On September 20, after the filing of a petition for certification by the Union, the respondents entered into a consent election agreement with the Union. On September 25, a second election agreement was made between the respondents, the Union, and the United Garment Workers of America, affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, herein called the United. 560 D'EQISIONS OF NATIONAL -LABOR RELATIONS BOARD so. ' Taitel suggested that Conner think it over and ask his folks about it. Conner did not accept Taitel's assistance. ^ Taitel admitted offer- ing Conner medical aid for his facial disfigurement, but-denied speak-' ing to 'Conner about the - Union. Under all of the circumstances, Taitel's partial denial is not convincing and we find, as did the Trial Examiner, that Taitel had this conversation with Conner substantially as Conner testified. , During the 2-week period prior to the election, Superintendent Schwartz and the foreladies were particularly active in fomenting fear of plant shut-down and loss of employment, and in inciting union opposition. According to the uncontradicted testimony of Carlson and Rock, on the occasion that a clerk of the respondents came into the plant and began taking down the, serial numbers of the machines, Schwartz told Carlson that if the Union got in, the respondents could not continue to operate and were going to sell the machinery. Edward Falls, an employee, who was present and who shortly thereafter took part in breaking up a meeting of the Union on September 19, as here- after discussed, stated to Rock that if the Union got into the plant "that was the end of it" and that the respondents were going "to sell the machines all out." As Rock was leaving the plant shortly there- after, he heard Schwartz tell two women. employees, Maggie Wheeler and Marie Stailey, "Now it is up to you folks, over there is the insti- gators. Just talk to them." Rock punched out his card and walked out past Schwartz and the two employees ° About this time Forelady Lindstrand and Mary Corneil, an employee, who circulated one of the petitions discussed below, told Whitaker that if she was in the Union she would have to get out of it, and that if the Union won the election Taitel would move the factory out of town. On 'another occasion, Lindstrand asked Alt if she had signed a union card.- When Alt replied in the affirmative, Lindstrand asked her why she had done so, if she was not happy, and if she did not think Taitel was treating her right. Either Lindstrand or Marsh told Alt, upon another occasion, that if the Union failed to get *in, those who had signed union cards would lose their jobs. - At another time Forelady Juday asked Jane Jordan if she had joined the Union, and when Jordan admitted signing a union card, Juday asked her if she did not know that by signing up with" the C. I. 0., Jordan would cause her husband', who was a member of an A. F. L. union in another plant, to lose his job. Juday, as did Lindstrand and Marsh, denied that she ever discussed union matters with any of the girls. The Trial Examiner did not credit 5 Taitel testified only that the numbers of the machines were taken "quite often" because dealers might come in and want to buy equipment, but that he did not know of any clerk in his "present employ" who ever took such numbers Schwartz did not testify concerning the incident and Falls, Wheeler, and Stailey, who were presents at the time, were not, called as witnesses. I. TAITEL '& SON 561 these general denials, nor do we. ' We find, as did the Trial Examiner, that during this comparatively short period before the election, Schwartz made the statements attributed to him by Carlson and Rock, and that Lindstrand, Marsh, and Juclay made the statements attributed to them by Whitaker, Alt, and Jane Jordan, substantially as set forth above. During this same period, a number of so-called petitions were circu- lated in the plant and were also taken to the homes of the respondents' employees. While none of these several papers could be produced at the hearing, the evidence establishes that there were Several such docu-- ments pertaining to such subjects as whether or not employees were in favor of the Union ; whether individual employees were willing to withdraw from membership in. the Union ; whether or not the employees were in favor of the respondents' keeping their plant in Knox; and that Taitel was a fair employer and the employees could get along, without the Union. According to Barnum, a cutter, he conceived the idea of getting up the petitions from a discussion with some 12 women in the' cleaning department who were unfavorable to the Union, only 2 of whom he was able to name, and not 1 of whom was called to testify by the respondents. According to Barnum's testimony, - Barnum, accompanied by a group of employees who were opposed to the Union, went to a local attorney who aided them in the preparation of the petitions, for which service the attorney made no charge. Barnum admitted that shortly thereafter this group of, employees, including himself and also Ross Wiles, circulated these petitions in the plant and made a ,systematic canvass of the respondents' employees at their homes in an effort to induce them to sign the petitions. Foreladies Lindstrand and Marsh admitted that they assisted in securing signa- tures to these petitions by taking them to the homes of several employees. Taitel himself attempted to induce employees to sign petitions. Arofind noon on oi, about September 15, Taitel invited' Adeline Lechiy'° into his office and asked her to sign a petition which stated in substance that the employees did not want the Union; that the Union was not necessary; and that the respondents' employees were being satisfactorily paid. When Lechiy refused to sign, Taitel inquired whether she had joined the Union, to which Lechiy replied, "Well, not necessarily," and then left the office. A- day or two there- after, Lechiy was absent from work for 2 days because of illness. When she-returned on Friday morning, September 19, Schwartz told her in Taitel's office and in his presence that her place had been taken and that she could get her pay check at 8 o'clock.. Later, Lechiy received her separation report and applied for unemployment coln- 10 Also referred to in the record as Adeline Dortsch , her maiden name 403508-43-vol 45-36 562 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELAT IONS BOARD pensation . Thereafter the government representative to whom Lechiy had applied for unemployment compensation called at her home, gave her a card, told her that she could go back to work at any time, and that Taitel did not even know that she had been out of the factory. When Lechiy reported to the plant, Schwartz asked her whether she wanted her old job back and put her to work immediately. Schwartz ,made no explanation of this termination of Lechiy 's employment, although he denied it was for union activity. Schwartz's testimony that Lechiy discontinued her employment because of some domestic trouble related to an incident subsequent to her reinstatement, and not to the discharge concerning which Lechiy testified. Taitel did not testify specifically concerning Lechiy, but testified generally that he did not discuss the Union with employees or ask them to sign peti- tions. We do not credit Taitel's general denial or Schwartz 's inade- quate explanation and we find, as did the Trial Examiner, that Taitel sought to induce Lechiy to sign a petition as Lechiy testified. Less than a week before the election , and the day after Lillian Jordan, her sister, and several other employees had signed union application cards, Superintendent Schwartz 'and Forelady Lindstrand asked Jordan while she was at work if she had signed a membership card. When Jordan answered in the affirmative, Marsh, her fore- lady, advised her that Taitel wanted to see the girls in his office. The two Jordan sisters and Marcella Reinholt , another employee, then went into Taitel's office, where Taitel and another' man , unknown to the employees, were present. According to the testimony of Lillian Jordan, Taitel asked the girls if they had signed union cards and if they would like to renounce their signature of the Union's cards Taitel told them they were not required to do so. He also told their] that if any fees had to be paid to the Union in the event that the Union succeeded , he would make the payments for them. The employees, having heard that if the Union succeeded in organizing the plant, Taitel was going to sell out, and not wishing. to lose their jobs, "unsigned" their union cards , and signed a statement to the effect that Taitel had not coerced them into renouncing the Union. Taitel admitted that the Jordan sisters had been called into his office, but explained, that their presence was occasioned by Schwartz having reported to him that the girls had been threatened. He admitted also that without knowing the nature of the threat , he telephoned for a deputy sheriff and his attorney and upon their arrival , left the girls with them in his office. Taitel denied that he was present when any papers were signed, although he admitted that the papers which were signed had been prepared by his attorney . Schwartz did not testify concerning this incident , and neither Taitel's attorney nor the deputy sheriff was called as a witness by the respondents . Taitel's explana- tion and his partial denial are not,persuasive and were not credited I. TAITEL & SON 563 by the Trial Examiner. 'We find, as did the Trial Examiner, that the above,incident occurred substantially as Lillian Jordan testified. On another occasion, when Alt was in front of the plant and Taitel was standing in the hallway about 5 or 6 feet from her, employees Mary Corneil and Bessie Anderson asked her whether she had signed a union card and presented her, in Taitel's presence, with a petition for her' signature. According to Hannah Rock, at the meeting in the plant on September 23, discussed below, Foreman Storey, who was then presiding, announced that almost 100 persons had signed a peti- tion expressing themselves as 'opposed to the Union, and that "they wanted to have the entire shop to sign that paper before they were through." Storey admitted that he had made this announcement at the meeting. The following day, Ida Lockridge, who had been elected to the Grievance Committee on September 23, as is discussed below, attended a conference in Taitel's office and thereafter came to Ruth Simpson with a petition and said that she had been asked "to bring it to each girl on the line to have it signed." 11 The respondents contend that no persons were authorized to act or speak for them in circulating any,petitions. The testimony of the above-named Board witnesses, which was credited by the Trial Ex- aminer, together with the admissions of Foreman Storey, and Fore- ladies Lindstrand and Marsh as to the circulation of the petitions,'and Taitel's unpersuasive explanations of his own connection with the petitions do not sustain such a contention. Upon the entire record, we, find that the respondents were responsible for the circulation of peti- tions in the plant and at the homes of the respondents' employees and for the concerted efforts to induce employees to sign them in order to effect withdrawals from the Union and to regain support for the respondents. On Thursday, September 18, after work, a picnic was held in Wytho- gen Park, which was attended by the respondents' employees, super- visors, and by Taitel, and at which ample food and refreshments were served. Several Board witnesses 12 testified, without contradiction, that their respective foreladies invited them to attend the picnic. They also testified that so far as they knew everything was free. The following day during working hours at the plant, soft drinks were passed around to the employees without any charge. Soft drinks had never been thus served in the plant previously. According to Taitel, a few picnics had been held in prior years; one in 1931, which had been arranged by the employees, and another in 1934, which was provided by the respondents for the employees of their Knox and Bremen plants. Taitel also testified that the picnic 11 The testimony of Alt, Rock, and Simpson was undenled and was credited by the Trial Examiner 12 Alt, Ewing, Simpson, Maggard , and Baker. 564 DECISIONS OF 1\r PIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD of September 18 was a spontaneous affair, and that he had only heard of it the very day it was held when some of the girls invited him to attend. Schwartz testified that "all kinds of girls" collected for the picnic, but that he had made his donation to one of the men employees. Sides, the stockroom .foreman, testified that the employees contributed to the picnic, that he had contributed $1, and had "carried some of the groceries down in [his] car." Only one employee, Marv Peskie, a witness called by the respondents, testified to having made a con- tribution. She did not recall the amount of her contribution, but believed it was a quarter; nor did she recall the circumstances of, the time when, or the person to whom she had made the contribution. No one was able to identify the employees who made arrangements for the picnic or who handled the collections. The picnic occurred a little less than 2 weeks before the Board elec- tion and the night before the first public meeting of the Union. At that time the respondents were endeavoring to will their- employees away from the Union and to intensify their loyalty to the respondents, While some of the employees may have contributed toward the picnic, it is admitted that supervisors also made contributions. Furthermore, employees who were members of or interested in the Union, were in- vited to attend by their foreladies and testified that the picnic and the soda pop served in the plant the next day were free. Under such circumstances and upon the basis of the Trial Examiner's finding, we find- that the picnic and the free distribution of soda pop the following day were activities engaged in by the respondents' super- visors with the knowledge and approval of the respondents for the purpose of curtailing union support and enhancing loyalty to the respondents. The following evening the Union held its first open meeting of the respondents' employees in a- local hall. Sometime after the meeting began, a group of 10 'male employees came into the meeting in a body.13 Most of these employees took seats toward the front of the hall, while a few stood against the wall along the sides. Shortly after entering the meeting, they started shuffling their feet, stomping the floor, and talking in loud voices. When questions were asked, several would jump up at one time without giving the speaker an opportunity to answer questions, and shout remarks at the speaker. They later started moving forward toward the speaker, making remarks to the effect that they did not need a union. They asked "what in hell" the speaker was doing around Knox since they had not asked him to come. The conduct of these employees was such that the meeting had to 13 An analysis of the testimony of 9 Board witnesses shows that ' the 10 employees who went ' into the meeting were Barnum , Lockridge , Engelthaler , Wheeler, Edward Falls, Robert Krathwohl , John Lockridge, Ross Wiles, Richard Gollhofer, and David Shapiro, 5 of whom , Barnum , Lockridge , Wiles, Engelthaler , and Wheeler had commenced circu- lating the anti-onion petitions the afternoon of that same day. I. TAITEL & SON 565 be adjourned and-one employee, Ethel Whitaker, summoned the'police. .Several Board witnesses 14 testified, without contradiction,, that they .saw various members of this group- before or after the meeting or upon both occasions at the respondents' uptown office. ' Other Board witnesses 15 testified, without contradiction, that they saw Foreman .Sides outside the hall after the meeting. Barnum, one.of , the mem- bers of the group, admitted that he came to the meeting with Sides and several of the others and that after the meeting most of the group .went to the, respondents' uptown office. Barnum further testified that the arguing and commotion started when Wheeler, Falls, and Krath- wohl interrupted-Barnum, who was asking a question of the speaker, and that they acted this way because of their dissatisfaction with promises of wage increases which one of the union organizers pur- portedly made. Taitel did not specifically deny that any of these ,employees were in his office before or after the meeting. He testified only that many employees come to his office almost every night and that he does not, know where they have been before coming or where ,they go after'leaving his office. Upon all the surrounding circum- stances, and particularly in view of Barnum's admissions, the un- explained presence at the respondents' uptown office of this group of employees, some of whom were for various personal, financial, and other reasons indebted and subservient to the respondents, and the presence of Sides outside the meeting, we conclude, in accordance with -the finding of the Trial Examiner, that the respondents are chargeable ,with the'activity of these employees in breaking up the union meeting. On September 23, a meeting of the respondents' employees was held at the plant. Early Sunday morning, 2 days before the meeting, according to Hannah Rock, Schwartz broached the subject of holding a meeting at the plant, when he paid the Rocks an unexpected call at their home, which is across the alley from his home. -Both Hannah and Forrest Rock testified that Schwartz inquired how they felt about the union activity in the plant and what they would do if "Mr. Taitel -would leave "town" and warned them that they had their family to look after and that if the Union was successful, Taitel would shut down the plant. Schwartz admitted that he visited the Rocks "on a Sun- day," but asserted that it was a neighborly call of some 10 minutes, that he visited them "not so much, just occasionally" and that "we never talked about any union. We talked about different things, but not about the union." 16 Hannah Rock also testified, and it was not 14 Hannah and Forrest Rock , Harry Conner, and Harold Freed, one of the Union's representatives 16 Whitaker , Ewing, Jane Jordan , Collins, and Carlson. Is In the light of the fact that the Union had held its first public meeting only 2 days before this visit, and of all the existent conditions at the plant at this time , Schwartz's version of his visit is not credited , nor was it credited by the Trial Examiner and we find, in accord with the Trial Examiner, that Schwartz's conversation with the Rocks occurred substantially as they testified. 566 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD denied, that on the next day in the plant, she heard Foreladies Lind- strand and Marsh discuss with Marie Stailey, an employee; the meet- ing to be held the following day, Tuesday, September 23. At 3 p. in. of that day, an hour earlier than was customary, all the employees were required to punch out their time cards and to attend the meeting in the rear of the plant.17 The respondents' version of the calling of the meeting is contradictory. Taitel testified that he gave permission for the use of the plant for a meeting to a group -of girls, none of whom he could identify, and consented to leave the plant during the meet- ing, but gave the matter little attention because he was engaged in a long-distance telephone conversation at the time' the request was made. Schwartz, however, testified that it was he who gave Storey and some girls , whom he also could not identify, permission to hold the meeting in the plant. Storey testified that some girls, whose names he too did not recall, asked him to call the meeting; that he thought it would be a good plan to call together those "not interested in the Union"; that he asked for and received permission from Schwartz to use the building 3 or 4 days before the meeting; and that he explained to Schwartz that since a number of the employees left promptly at 4 o'clock, it would be better to hold the meeting earlier than 4, o'clock. The Trial Examiner did not credit the testimony of Taitel, Schwartz, and Storey to the effect that the meeting was a spontaneous activity of the respondents' employees, nor do we. Foreman Storey opened the plant meeting and stated that almost 100 employees had signed a petition expressing opposition to the Union and that he wanted them all to sign. He also stated that he felt that the employees could figure out some way to get along without a union and that the expense of union fees and assessments would be greater than the employees realized. He then introduced as an "impartial chairman" a retired druggist, named Charles Koffel, who was a member of the Town Board of Knox and who had been 17 The pay-roll record for September 23 shows that practically all of the employees, except some of the supervisors , worked only 7 hours that day Whitaker, Maggard, Simpson , Ewing, Collins , Alt, and Baker testified , and from Shapiro's signed statement it appears that, employees were instructed by their respective supervisors to check out an hour earlier in order to attend the meeting . Forelady Juday admitted that at 3 o'clock of this day the power was shut off. Forelady Marsh testified that she did not know whether she was paid for this hour and that "we checked out," contradicting the pay-roll record. Forelady Lindstrand could not recall whether she punched out or whether there were any_ instructions requiring punching out an hour earlier. As to whether or not the respondents had required employees to check out earlier than usual on this day, Taitel testified , "it would be optional, didn't make any difference to me whether they punched out or not," in spite of the fact that employees at Christmas time are required to check out early in order to exchange gifts and celebrate . The finding in the text, which is in accord with the finding of the Trial Examiner , to which the respondents took no exception , that the respondents closed down their plant and required their employees to attend the plant meeting, is based on the testimony of the above-named Board'wit- nesses. Juday's admission , Marsh's contradiction , Lindstrand 's lack of memory, and Taitel's unpersuasive explanation confirm the finding. I. TAITEL & SON 567 asked to attend the meeting by Foreman Sides. Koffel spoke well of Taitel, but- stated that he did not know very much about -the situation in the plant and asked for suggestions. When no response was forthcoming, Forelady Lindstrand admonished the employees to speak up. Sides then suggested selecting a Grievance Committee with representatives from the various departments. When Koffel asked for the employees' opiniofls and there appeared to be no dis- sent, the employees were requested to go to their respective de- partments to select `their representatives for the Committee. The elections,, at least among the women employees of the 3 sewing machine line's, were conducted by the foreladies who took charge of the elections in their departments, called for nominations, conducted the balloting by a show of hands, and announced the results of the elections is Although the Committee was supposed to consist of representa- tives of the seven or eight departments in the plant, the record reveals that Foreman Storey, Edith Marsh, sister of Forelady Marsh, Ida Lockridge, and Robert Krathwohl were the only members , whom witnesses at the hearing could recall. The Committee, the purpose of which was to discuss working conditions and individual griev- ances with the respondents, has no officers, constitution, bylaws, clues, or minutes, and makes no reports to the employees. Storey, who has acted as so-called chairman, testified he "just kind of went ahead with it." . The Committee had its first meeting with Taitel' and Schwartz immediately following the plant meeting, when Taitel was informed that it had been selected to take up grievances with him. According to Storey, the Committee was td meet with Taitel each Friday night at the uptown office and thereafter met with him on three or four occasions, although Taitel insisted that until he read of it in the complaint herein, -"he never knew of a Grievance Committee." Storey testified, however, that the Committee is still in existence, should there be any occasion for its services, but that after a few meetings it "just ran out of grievances" and has held no further meetings.19 As the date of the election approached, the respondents pursued their- plan of -threat of reprisal for union support. According to Whitaker, on the Thursday before the election'20 a telegram, ad- dressed to the respondents, was circulated in the plant stating : 18 The respondents excepted to the above finding merely upon the ground that the foreladies were not supervisors and that the respondents are not responsible for their activities. The finding is based upon the uncontradicted testimony of Board witnesses Crossgrove, Simpson , and Alt which we credit , as did the Trial Examiner 10 The above findings of the Trial Examiner with respect to the Committee , which we adopt, are based upon undenied testimony and were not excepted to by the respondents. 20 The telegram , a copy of which was introduced into evidence , bore no date , and other Board witnesses fixed the date of its circulation as within a week or two before the election. 568 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL, LABOR, RELATIONS BOARD CAN COME THURSDAY'TO TAKE INVENTORY ON YOUR PLANT CAN PAY BEST CASH PRICES FOR SEWING MACHINES AND, EQUIPMENT NO DEAL TOO LARGE GARFIELD SEWING MACHINE AND EQUIPMENT CO Numerous Board witnesses 21 testified that the telegram was circu- lated in the plant under the direction of the foreladies. Alt' testi- fied that Superintendent Schwartz and Foreladies Lindstrand and -Marsh discussed the telegram before' the foreladies passed it'down ,the sewing machine line. Schwartz.denied ever having seen the tele- gram or having shown it to anyone. Forelady Lindstrand testified that she did not remember seeing the telegram in the plant at any time. Foreladies Juday and Marsh did not testify concerning the telegram. Taitel testified that he had received the telegram over the telephone and had never actually seen the copy of the telegram, until it was produced from the respondents' files during the hearing. He also testified, that prior to the receipt of -the telegram, the pur- ported purchaser, a Chicago company, made inquiry by telephone as to whether respondents had "some equipment" to sell, and that 'Taitel's reply was that he had "something around," meaning "obso- lete sewing machines and pressing machines." Taitel admitted that this purported purchaser never appeared. Taitel's explanation of this inquiry would not warrant the language of the telegram. In view of this patent inconsistency, and the Trial Examiner's estimate of the credibility of the witnesses, we conclude, as did the Trial Ex- aminer, that the telegram was circulated in the plant, shortly before the election, by the respondents' supervisors with the respondents' knowledge and approval. Two or three days before the election, while Forelady Marsh was -telling LaVerna Ewing, whose testimony was credited by the Trial Examiner, about the "bad points" of the Union, Lindstrand joined them and said that if the Union won the election, Taitel would move to another community and, open under an assumed name. The day before the election, Forelady Lindstrand told a group of girls, in- cluding Ruby Maggard, whose testimony was credited by the Trial Examiner, while they were working on her line, "You know that the shop belongs to Taitel . . . stay away from the Union,,and if they come to you, tell them to keep out of your face." According -to the und'enied and credible testimony, of Gertrude Alt, the day before the election, when union girls were placing sample ballots on The sewing machines, the foreladies picked up the ballots, which had been placed upon the machines and told the union girls to stop passing out ballots. Other than their general denials of engaging ,in any anti-union activity, this testimony was undenied by the 21 Whitaker, Maggard, Simpson , Lillian Jordan , Ewing, Alt, Collins , and E, asterday. -1. 1ArIEL,_& SO 569' forelaclies 22 and in view thereof we concur in the concluslolis of the Trial Examiner that the foreladies engaged in the conduct attributed to them. - ' . ' On the afternoon of September 29, after notices had been issued by both the Union and the United for meetings at 7: 30 p. in., Presi- dent Hill of the Knox Kiwanis Club went through the respondents' plant passing out free tickets to the employees for a motion picture scheduled for 6: 45 that same evening at the Knox Theater.' Taitel, a member of the Knox Kiwanis Club, testified ,that he, saw Hill come into the plant and hold up something in his hand, and that he indi- cated to Hill that he might come in, as he customarily permitted' people to distribute cards and handbills 'in the plant. Charles F. Gardner, secretary of the Kiwanis Club, testified that he, knew nothing about the free movie before it was given and did not know that the- Board of Directors had been consulted. He testified that he knew of no other free movie which had been given by the Club;, that,in the monthly report, credit for the free movie had been given, to the educational committee; that Irving Eibe, chairman of the educa- tional committee, was out of town-at the time the free movie.was given; that he recalled no discussion of the movie among the member- ship; that he did not know the extent of the distribution of the tickets; and that the Club's president, Eugene Hill, was, in Texas, and the vice president, Al Jonas, was in Cleveland at the time of the hearing. The treasurer of the Kiwanis Club, Edward Musser, testi- fied that Jonas had served as chairman of the committee giving the free. movie and that Jonas and Hill had made all the arrange- ments; that he did not know anything about the movie and that it was the only free movie given by the Club; that Jonas gave him a personal check for $106 which he deposited to the account of the- Club on September 29; and that he paid out the $106 in three items,, $75 to the Knox Theater, $16 to Hill for printing, and $15 to a speaker. Jonas, apparently the owner of the Reiss Clothing Store, is a customer of the respondents and maintains a running account for the purchase of merchandise front them.23 The record establishes that the free movie, the only program of its type ever given by the Knox Kiwanis Club, coincided with the meetings of both unions scheduled for the same night in preparation for the Board election to be conducted the following day; that the responsible officials of the Club professed to have no knowledge 22 Forelady Lindstrand testified that she did not recall seeing the sample ballots. Fore. ladies Marsh and Juday were not asked concerning Alt's testimony as to the sample ballots. 22 According to the, respondents' accountant, the Reiss Clothing Stoie was indebted to. the respondents in the sum of $134 92 as of January 1, 1941 , and in the sum of $101 99, as of December 31, 1941, having made purchases during the year amounting to $636.33, and payments on account amounting to $669.26. 570 DECISIONS OF. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD concerning the arrangements or reasons for the movie ; that its cost equalled approximately one-third of the total 'annual dues of the entire membership ; 24 and that it Was given principally, if,not solely, for the employees of the respondent.25 Under all the circumstances, and particularly in view of Taitel's position in the community and his expressed opposition to the Union, we find that the movie was given with the respondent's knowledge and consent, for the purpose of inducing employees to stay away from , the meetings on the night prior to the scheduled election and generally to wean support from the Union. Ori September 30, the consent election was held and substantially more votes were cast for neither organization than for both the Union and the United. B. Concluding findings The foregoing facts make evident that at the very outset of the Union's attempts at employee -organization, the respondents declared and demonstrated to the employees their opposition to the Union, and forthwith adopted measures designed to frustrate self-organization. The main contention of the respondents is that the events which oc- curred during August and September 1941 were the spontaneous activities of certain of the employees and various townspeople, all of whom acted well within their constitutional rights, and that such activities may not be attributed to the respondents. We find this con- tention to be without merit. The record establishes that both Taitel and Schwartz personally interrogated employees as to their union membership and activity, made statements inimical to, evinced hos- tility toward , and incited others to similar efforts against union mem- -bership and activity . Due to the importance of so large a plant in this small community and to his past favors to employees, Taitel was able to attract to his support many who aided him in his plan to thwart the Union. Taitel's attitude is patently illustrated by the boast he made to union representative Freed, that if the Union won any election, Freed was "a smarter man" than he. The pattern of anti- union activity pursued by Taitel and Schwartz was followed closely by Foreladies Lindstrand , Marsh, and Juday. Their joint and several activities in the circulation of petitions in the plant and at the homes of employees to intensify loyalty for the respondents and to withdraw support from the Union , -in the repeated utterance of statements in derision of the Union , and in the spread of rumors, threats, and warn- ings that plant shut-down or transfer and loss of employment would ensue as a result of the selection of the Union as bargaining representa- " The Club had 29 members during 1941 and the dues were $10 per year. 25 Musser, a grocer in town , testified he knew that "the clerks in the store had tickets and went." I. TAITEL & SON 571 tive were plainly designed to discourage outside union activity. That the telegram , which insinuated the possibility of a wholesale disposal of the respondents' plant equipment, emanated from the desire of the respondents to instill such fear in the employees , is indisputable. The activities of the foreladies and Foremen Storey and Sides in the creation of the Committee , which formed an integral part in the re- spondents' pattern of anti -union activity, are not controverted in the record. It is undenied that the Committee was suggested and formed at a meeting held in the plant with the respondents ' permission, re- quired to be attended by the employees, and discussed in advance, ar- ranged, and conducted by supervisory employees . Foreman Storey started the meeting, was selected as a department representative, and served as the so-called chairman of the Committee . Foreman Sides arranged for the outside "impartial chairman" and suggested the formation of the Committee . The foreladies participated in the meet- ing and conducted the elections of representatives from their respective departments . The elections of all department representatives were held in the plant. While the Committee possesses no constitutional organization, independent finances, or functions other than the sub- mission of grievances , of which there were reputedly none, it is still ,in existence for the performance of such functions , should occasion arise. We find that the respondents interfered with, dominated , and sup- ported the formation and administration of the Committee, and that thereby, and by a continuous course of anti-union conduct, including interrogating employees concerning their membership and activity in the Union, threatening plant shut-down and loss of employment for union membership , support, and success, circulating petitions urg- ing repudiation of the Union and reaffirming loyalty to the respondents, and in repeatedly making statements , giving warnings, and spreading rumors in derogation of the Union and in detriment of employee self- organization; the respondents have interfered with, restrained, and coerced their employees in the exercise of the rights to self-organization, to form, join , or assist labor organizations , to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing , and to engage in con- certed activities for the purpose of collective bargaining , as guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE We find that the activities of the respondents set forth in Section III above, occurring in connection with the operations of the respondents described in Section I above, have a close, intimate , and substantial relation to trade, traffic , and commerce among the several States and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce. 572 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD V. THE REMEDY Since we have found that the respondents have engaged in unfair, labor practices, we shall order that they cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. We have found that the respondents dominated and interfered with the formation and administration of the Committee and con- tributed • support to it. 'Since the respondents' domination and interference render the Committee incapable of acting as the rep- resentative of the respondents' employees for the purposes of collec- tive bargaining, in order to free the respondents' employees from such domination and interference, we shall order the respondents to with- draw all recognition from the Committee as the representative of any of their employees for the purpose of dealing with the respondents concerning grievances, labor disputes, -wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, or other conditions of employment and completely to disestablish the Committee as such representative. The respondents' unlawful course of conduct discloses a purpose to defeat self-organization and its objectives. Because of such con- duct and its underlying purpose, it may reasonably be anticipated that* the respondents may seek to attain'these objectives by various other means prohibited by the Act.' The preventive purpose of the Act will be'thwarted, unless our order is made coextensive with such threat. In order, therefore, to make effective the interdependent guarantees of Section 7, to prevent a recurrence of unfair labor prac- tices, and thus to effectuate the policies of the Act, we shall order the. respondents to cease and desist from in any manner infringing the- rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. 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. Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America, affiliated, with the C. I. O., and the Grievance Committee are labor organizations, within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act. 2. By dominating and'interfering with the formation and admin- istration of the Grievance Committee and contributing support thereto, the respondents have' engaged in and are engaging in unfair labor practices, within the meaning of Section 8 (2) of the Act. 3. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing their employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the respondents have engaged in and are engaging in unfair labor prac- tices, within the meaning of Section 8 (1) of the Act. N. L R. B. v. Express Publishing Company, 312 U. 8 426. I. TAITEL & SON 573 4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce, within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) 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 respondents, Irving Taitel , and Ruth Taitel, doing business as 1. Taitel & Son, their agents, successors, and assigns, shall : 1. Cease and desist from : (a) Dominating or interfering with the administration of the Grievance Committee or with the formation and administration of any other labor • organization of their employees , and from contrib- uting support to said Grievance Committee or to any other labor 2)rganization of their employees; (b) Recognizing the Grievance Committee as the representative of any of their employees for the purpose of dealing with the respond- ents concerning grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, or any other conditions of employment; and (c) In any' other manner interfering , with, restraining, or coercing their employees in the exercise of their 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 and other mutual aid or protection , as guaranteed in Section 7.of the Act. 2. Take the following 4ffirmative action which the Board finds will effectuate the policies of the Act : (a) Withdraw all recognition from the Grievance Committee as the representative of any of their employees for the purpose of dealing with the respondents concerning grievances , labor disputes , wages, rates of pay, hours of employment , and other conditions of•employ- ment, and completely disestablish said Grievance Committee as such representative; (b) Post immediately in conspicuous places throughout their plant at Knox , Indiana, and maintain for a period of at least sixty (60) consecutive days from the date of posting, notices to their employees stating: (1) that the respondents will not engage in the conduct from which they have been ordered to cease and desist in paragraphs 1 (a), (b), and (c) of this Order; and (2) that the respondents will take the affirmative action set forth in paragraph 2 (a) of this Order; and (c) Notify the Regional Director for the Eleventh Region in writ- ing. within ten (10) days from the date' of this Order, what steps the respondents have taken to comply herewith. MR. WM . M. LEISERSON took no part in the consideration of the above Decision and Order.