Heather Handkerchief Works, Inc.

' In the Matter of HEATHER HANDKERCHIEF WORKS, INC. and INTER- NATIONAL LADIES' GARMENT WORKERS' UNION, A. F. OF L. and HANDKERCHIEF BENEFICIAL EMPLOYES ASSOCIATION Case No. C-2154.-Decided February 20, 1943 Jurisdiction :' handkerchief manufacturing industry. Unfair Labor Practices Interference, Restraint, and Coercion: abandoning' "hands-off" policy in em- ployees' attempt to decide question concerning representation; authorizing meetings of employees and approving discussions by them on company time and property concerning union affiliation; permitting known anti-union em- ployees to leave work without loss of pay, in company car, to form independent organization to oppose union; permitting circulation of anti-union petitions on company time and property ; authorizing anti-union meeting on company time ; announcing anti-union meetings through official channels and urging employees to attend ; participating in administration of independent organization ; alleged non-discrimination by company as between two competing labor organizations found not to legalize its interference with union activity. Company Dominated Union: charges of, dismissed, on evaluation of totality of company's conduct. Remedial Orders : contract with independent organization abrogated, where employer's interference rendered finding impossible that contracting organiza- tion represented an uncoerced majority; recognition of independent organiza- tion ordered withheld unless and until certification. Mr. Sidney Reitman, for the Board. Mr. David M. Klausner, of Jersey City, N. J., and illr. Max Ehrlich, of Brooklyn, N. Y., for the respondent. Issermnan, Isserman d Kapelsohn, by 111r. Sol D. Kapelsohn and Mr. Jack Lerner, of Newark, N. J., for the Union. Jllr. J. George Fredman, of Jersey City, N. J., for the Association. Mr. Milton E. Harris, of counsel to the Board. DECISION AND ORDER STATEMENT OF THE CASE Upon charges duly filed by International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union, A. F. of L., herein called the Union, the National Labor Re- lations Board, herein called the Board, by the,Regional Director for the Second Region (New York City), issued its complaint dated De- cember 22, 1941, against Heather Handkerchief Works, Inc., herein 47 N. L. R. B., No. 100. 800 HEATHER HANDKERCHIEF WORKS, INC. 801 called the respondent, Jersey City, New Jersey, alleging that the respondent had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices affecting 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, were duly served upon the respondent, the Union, and Handkerchief Beneficial Employes Association, herein called the Association. With respect to the unfair labor practices, the complaint, as amended, alleged in substance that the respondent on or about Oc- tober 4, 1941, initiated, formed, and sponsored the Association; since said date assisted, dominated, contributed to the support of, and interfered with the administration of, the Association; on or about November 18, 1941, entered into a collective bargaining agreement with the Association relating to terms and conditions of employment; and from'on or about October 1, -1941, disparaged- and expressed dis- approval of the Union, interrogated its employees concerning their union affiliations, urged, persuaded, threatened, and warned its em- ployees to assist, become members of, and remain members of the Association and not the - Union, and "kept under surveillance the meeting places, meetings, and concerted activities of its employees for the purpose of self-organization or improvement of working conditions." On January 3, 1942, the respondent filed its answer, in substance denying the alleged unfair labor practices, admitting the allegations as to the nature of its' business, and setting up certain affirmative defenses.' On the same day, the Association filed its answer, in sub- stance denying the alleged unfair labor practices affecting it. Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held from January 22 to. February 6, 1942, and on March 3, 1942, at Jersey City, New Jersey, and New York City, before Walter Wilbur, the Trial Examiner duly designated by the Chief Trial Examiner. The Board, the respondent, the Asso- ciation, 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. Near the close of the hearing; oral argument was presented by counsel for the Board, the respondent, and the Asso- ciation, respectively, and appears in the record. The parties were afforded opportunity to file briefs with the Trial Examiner, but did not do so. During the hearing and in his Intermediate Report, the Trial Examiner made rulings on various motions and on objections to the admission of evidence. The Board has reviewed the rulings of 'As originally filed, the answer alleged certain affirmative defenses on constitutional grounds. These were stricken from the answer with the consent of the respondent's counsel J 513024=43-vol. 47-51 802 DECISIONS OF'NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD the Trial Examiner and finds that no prejudicial errors were com- mitted. r-The rulings are hereby affirmed .2 On April 3, 1942, the Trial Examiner filed his Intermediate Report, copies of which were duly served upon the respondent, the Union, and the Association. In substance, the Trial Examiner found that the respondent had assisted and interfered with the formation and admin- istration of the Association, but had not otherwise engaged in inter- ference, restraint, or coercion ; he recommended that the respondent cease and desist from (1) interfering with the formation or adminis- tration of the Association or, any other labor organization of its em- ployees, '(2) giving effect to any contract with the Association relating to terms and conditions of employment, and (3) engaging in like or related acts of interference, restraint, or coercion; and he further recommended that the respondent affirmatively withdraw all recognition from and completely disestablish the Association as the collective bargaining representative of any of its employees. On May 21, 1942, pursuant to various extensions of time, the re- spondent and the Association each filed exceptions to the Interme- diate Report and other parts of the record, and briefs in support -thereof. Pursuant to notice, a hearing for the purpose of oral argu- ment was held before the Board in Washington, D. C., on July 2, 1942, at which the respondent, the Union, and the Association presented argument by counsel. - The Board has considered the exceptions and briefs'and, insofar as the exceptions are inconsistent with the findings, conclusions, 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 L .THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT The respondent, a corporation, is engaged in the manufacture, sale, and distribution of handkerchiefs and related products in the State of New Jersey. It owns and operates two plants in Jersey City, New Jersey, the principal one at 102 Cambridge Avenue, and an auxiliary one, at 265 New York Avenue. In the conduct of its business during the last 6 months of 1941, the respondent purchased raw materials, consisting principally of cotton and linen fabrics, valued at more than $10,000, approximately 100 percent of which was shipped to its New Jersey plants from points outside the State of New Jersey. During the same period the respondent sold finished products, consisting chiefly of handkerchiefs, valued at more than $10,000, approximately 90 percent of which was shipped from its New Jersey plants to points outside the State of New Jersey. 2 On February 13, 1942, during a recess in the hearing, the Trial Examiner issued an order correcting the transcript in certain specified respects, and copies thereof were duly served on the parties The older is hereby affirmed. HEATHER HANDKERCHIEF, WORKS, INC. 803 The respondent admits that it is engaged in commerce, within'the meaning of the Act. II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union is a labor organi- zation affiliated with the American Federation of, Labor. It admits to membership employees of the respondent. Handkerchief Beneficial Employes Association is an unaffiliated labor organization, admitting to membership employees of the respondent. III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES IA. Chronology Prior to October 1941, the respondent's, Cambridge Avenue plant and its much smaller New York Avenue plant were unorganized. On -Thursday morning, October 2, shortly after work had started, Veronica Weber, an employee at the New York Avenue plant, began to solicit the help of a few of her fellow employees in organizing the Union. When Weber solicited Helen Newkirk, an old' New York Avenue employee, the latter indicated that she was opposed to Weber's pro- posal and that there was no necessity for an outside union. On the following morning, after the start of work, Newkirk went to Weber's work station and expressed resentment for Weber's act in having called at Newkirk's home the previous evening accompanied by an organizer for the Union. An altercation ensued, precipitat- ing a general discussion of the Union by the New York Avenue employees. In the afternoon some of them, having heard a rumor that the Union was planning to call a strike, went to Newkirk and asked her to "do something" about the situation that was developing. Later in the afternoon Emil Metzger, the respondent's president, ap- proached the New York Avenue workroom on a routine inspection trip, and overheard enough of the general discussion then going on to learn that the- subject was the Union. When he appeared in the doorway, however, the discussion abruptly stopped,, although he said nothing to the employees. - When Caesar Kieve, the respondent's vice president, reached his office on Saturday morning, October 4, Metzger told him of these activities and added that it had been rumored that the Union would call a strike on the following Monday. Kieve admitted that he and Metzger "knew . . . that . . . the A. F. of L. [the Union] was not going to be unopposed, that there were some girls who were against it." 4 Metzger and Kieve thereupon decided to seek the advice of the ?In 1935 Newkirk had led a strike of the respondent 's employees in protest against a 20-percent wage reduction Thereafter, Newkirk had acted as spokesman in piesenting grievance] on behalf of the employees , who regarded her as their leader. Most of the respondent's employees are women and girls. :804 DE,CISION'S OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD respondent's attorney, David M. Klausner, and Metzger at once-called him,on the telephone. According to Metzger, he was "riot particularly concerned" about the rumored strike, but rather desired Klausner's advice with respect to the Union's organizational campaign. It was then decided that on the following Monday Metzger' would' go to the New York Avenue plant and Kieve to the Cambridge Avenue plant before work was scheduled to begin, to await"developments. On Sun- day, October 5, Metzger further discussed the matter with Attorney Klausner during the`course of a game of golf. On Monday, October 6, according to Metzger, he stationed himself at the entrance to the New York Avenue plant at 7: 30 a. in., arriving before any of the girls. Upon their arrival some of the girls told him that they knew he had overheard their discussion on the preceding Friday afternoon for and against the Union, and were surprised that he had not said anything to them at that time. Further according to'Metzger, a discussion again took place in his hearing in favor of and against the Union; and he was. approached by some of the girls, including Newkirk and Kathryn. McDermott, who told him that they did not want to be forced to join the Union and asked him what they should do. He replied that the law forbade him to give any advice on, the subject ' and that the girls should go= upstairs to work, it then being past 8 a. in.,, the starting hour. A few minutes later he also went upstairs to' the workroom, where he heard the girls discussing the question whether the employees at the other phint had all joined the'Union. Some of the girls again approached him, according to Metzger, and said that they did not believe the Cambridge Avenue girls wanted the Union. They added that they would like'to go over to the Cambridge Avenue plant and find out. He told them that he could not take all the girls, but that if they would select a few girls he would be glad to drive them to the other plant. He then went downstairs, and a few minutes later was followed by Vera Reid Hestermann,5 Newkirk, and Weber, who said that they had been se- lected. He drove them over"to the Cambridge Avenue plant, mean- while forbidding them to discuss the Union in his presence. On ar- riving at the Cambridge Avenue plant he took them upstairs to Kieve's ,office, where he told Kieve that they wished to speak to the Cambridge Avenue employees. He then told the three New York Avenue girls that they could go into the factory adjacent to the office, and hold a dis- cussion with the other employees. As the girls started toward the second floor of the factory,6 Metzger instructed Forelady Lillian Liguori ,7 who was, in charge of the Cambridge Avenue "operators" 5 Hestermann,, like Newkirk and McDermott, opposed the Union. 9 The Cambridge Avenue factory consisted of three operating floors. 7 The respondent designates Liguori, and also Dorothy Ederman and Florence Allen, an "foreladies " Its contention that it is not responsible for their activities will be considered infra. HEATHER HANDKERCHIEF WORKS, INC . - 805 f , and the "gang" girls, to shut off the power. Liguori did so, and pro- ceeded to follow the three girls into the factory. The employees from the various sections and floors of the Cambridge Avenue plant gathered around, and Liguori joined them. Upon being observed, however, Liguori was requested to leave. She thereupon returned to the office, where she remained in conversation with Metzger, Super-' visor Anna Nicolay, and other management representatives while the meeting of the employees was in progress. After the employees had assembled, Weber gave a talk in favor of the Union and announced that there would be an open meeting at. 5'o'clock that afternoon which the employees would do well to attend. Newkirk then started a-general discussion on the subject among the employees. Many of them stated that they favored the Union, while others favored an "independent" labor organization, and still others preferred to have no representative at all. The discussion lasted about three-quarters of an hour, at the conclusion of which the New York Avenue girls returned together to the office, and Metzger drove them back to the New York Avenue plant. Upon their return to the New York Avenue plant, the girls went upstairs to the operators' workroom; the power *as shut off by Dorothy Ederman, the forelady in charge; and the other girls gathered around to hear whether the Cambridge Avenue girls wanted the Union. Weber announced that they all wanted the Union there; Newkirk denied the statement, but admitted that there were "quite a few" for the Union; Weber declared that all the New York Avenue girls would" have to join; and Newkirk retorted that she would quit her job rather than do so. Some of the girls then asked Newkirk what she was "going to do about it." Newkirk replied that she was "going to do- something." • According to Metzger he spent this time on the ground floor (just below the workroom) allegedly attending to some work, meanwhile hearing a so-called "commotion" upstairs, consisting of the girls "talking" and the machines "not running." However, he claimed that he "didn't listen very much." He then returned to the Cambridge Avenue plant, where he likewise observed that "the girls . . . were not doing the usual work, and there was a great deal of discussion.... I went around to see what was going on." Despite this neglect of work, however, he admitted that he made no attempt to reprimand or discipline any of the girls, nor did he' admonish any of the foreladies for permitting such conduct. Shortly after 10 a. in., Newkirk's resolve to "do something" about the Union ripened into a .plan of action. She went to her forelady, Ederman, and asked Ederman to tell Nicolay to stop by on her next round. When Nicolay stopped by shortly' thereafter, according to Newkirk's uncontradicted testimony, which the Trial Examiner cred- ited, she asked _Nicolay for permission to take two other girls away from work on a "very important errand" or "mission" to a certain 806 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD business section of the city, and to be driven there by one of the "boys" in a company car. ' Nicolay, admittedly a supervisor, consented to this request, although Newkirk had not stated the purpose or duration of the errand. -Newkirk then asked McDermott and Hestermann to go with her, and without punching out their time cards they left and ivere driven in a company car by employee Eddie Kaliski, the son of one of the respondent's officials, to the office of an attorney, J. George Fredman. The three girls conferred with Fredman for about an hour and a half, and finally decided to call a meeting of the employees dur- ing the lunch hour in the Cambridge Avenue plant, so that Fredman could address them about forming an "independent" to head off the, Union. As the girls departed, Newkirk decided to notify he Cambridge Avenue employees of the meeting by telephone, since it was near the 12-to-1 lunch hour.' Accordingly, she telephoned the respondent and asked for Liguori, who was .summoned by a call system regularly in effect for the foreladies. ' She asked Liguori to call employee Mary Schadewald s to the telephone, and Liguori did, so. Newkirk then told Schadewald of the proposed meeting, and asked her to notify the Cambridge Avenue girls. Schadewald, after advising Liguori of New- kirk's message, proceeded in Liguori's presence to announce the meet- ing to the- employees. According to Liguori, Schadewald announced that the meeting would be held in the plant, on the second floor. After speaking to Schadewald on the 'telephone, Newkirk, accom- panied by McDermott and Hestermann, returned to the New York Avenue plant, arriving after the beginning of'the lunch hour. New- kirk at once announced the meeting to the girls, and they left in a body to attend. Upon their arrival in front of the Cambridge Avenue plant, Metzger went down to see what was occurring. Newkirk ap- proached and introduced him to Fredman, who had joined the group. Fredman then told, Metzger that he wanted to address the girls at 12: 30 in the factory. Metzger replied that Fredman could not do -so, since he was a stranger.. ' Fredman thereupon, turned ovev to Newkirk a number of applica- tion blanks or, petitions which he had prepared for signature by the employees, reading as follows : APPLICATION'FOR MEMBERSHIP We, the undersigned, hereby apply for membership in the Hand- kerchief Berne facial Employes Association ,9 and hereby authorize and request the Handkerchief Beneficial Employes Association, through its designated officials, to represent us for the purpose of collective bargaining in regard to wages, hours, and working con- Also referred to in the record as Margaret Schadewald. The named organization did not exist at the time, but had occurred to Fredman as an appropriate designation for the counter-union movement. HEATHER HANDKERCHIEF WORKS, INC. 807 ditions. We further agree to be bound by the Constitution and By-Laws of the Handkerchief Beneficial Employes Association, and its rules and regulations. Fredman also discussed with Newkirk the possibility of securing a hall in convenient proximity, to the plant, where he could address the employees later in the day. Newkirk undertook- to investigate, and Fredman agreed to meet her again that afternoon in the vicinity of the plant. _ Newkirk then left to find a meeting place, and ascertained that Burke's HIIill, which was nearby, would be available throughout the afternoon. By the time she returned to the New York Avenue plant, the afternoon work period had already started. She nevertheless pro- ceeded to canvass the employees at their work, soliciting their signa- tures to the application blanks or petitions which Fredman had given her. Forelady Ederman observed her 'activity but made no effort to put a stop to her interference with work. Upon securing the signa- tures of most of the 40 girls, Newkirk proceeded to the much larger, Cambridge Avenue plant, accompanied by McDermott and Hester- mann. None punched out her time card. At the Cambridge Avenue plant the 3 New York Avenue girls effected a similar canvass,, like- wise soliciting the employees while at work. Forelady-Liguori ad- mitted that she observed the solicitation and knew it was for "some kind of a union." She further .admitted that, although she was re- sponsible for the production of her floor, she did not attempt to stop the interference of the New York Avenue girls. Forelady Florence Allen, who was in charge of .the pressing, folding, and ,lace-cutting departments, admitted that during the canvass of her girls Newkirk approached her with a petition for "some kind of a union" and asked her to sign it; but she claimed that she was not interested in anything that was going on, and neither signed the petition nor took any action to stop the solicitation during working hours. However, she too ad- mitted that she was responsible for the amount of work her girls produced, and would have put a stop to the solicitation at any other time. The final result of the canvass at the Cambridge Avenue plant, completed shortly before 3 o'clock, showed that only a minority of the employees there favored Newkirk's plan for defeating the Union. Newkirk, McDermott, and Hesterman then left the .building and en- tered one of the company cars standing in front of the plant, to await Fredman. When Fredman arrived shortly thereafter, they showed him the signatures they had `been able to obtain. After some discus- sion, Newkirk asked Hestermann to go upstairs and get three, Cam- bridge Avenue employees to come down to the car. Hestermann went up, approached Liguori, and asked her permission to take employees 808 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Rose Simpson, Alice Beam Tagliabue, and Schadewald off the floor. Without being advised of the purpose-or the length of time they would, be kept away from work,, Liguori consented. Simpson, Tagliabue, and Schadewald each testified that Liguori, their forelady, told them, to go downstairs to the company car. Liguori denied that she spoke ,to any of the three employees, claiming instead that Hestermann did so upon receiving her permission. Hestermann did not deny that Liguori spoke to these employees, testifying only that she, (Hester- mann) also, spoke to them. The Trial Examiner did not advert to this particular conflict of testimony. Nevertheless, because of the mutual corroboration of Simpson, Tagliabue, and Schadewald that Liguori• told them to'go downstairs to the car, further because of Liguori's admission that she consented to their' absence, and further because of Liguori's other activities in support of the Association, we credit the testimony of Simpson, Tagliabue, and Schadewald. After Simpson, Tagliabue, and Schadewald joined Newkirk and the others in the car, it was decided to hold a meeting of all the em- ployees at 4 o'clock at Burke's Hall. Meanwhile, Metzger had entered his own car, parked about 20 feet in the clear behind the company car, and, according to his testimony, was listening to a radio broadcast. Newkirk testified that she knew that Metzger was facing them, and she therefore asked Hestermann to go back to his car and ask him for per- mission to hold a mass meeting at 4 o'clock. According to Metzger, Hestermann came over to his car and said, "The girls would like to get off at 4 o'clock and go to a meeting" ; and he replied at once, "Sure, ,go ahead." Hestermann returned to the company car and so informed the others. The girls at once went back to their respective work sta- tions in order to inform all the employees of Metzger's permission for the early closing in order to hold the meeting. In addition, Simpson testified that when she told Liguori of Metzger.'s permission for a 1' o'clock meeting, Liguori volunteered to "tell the girls here" in her own section, and that she later saw Liguori doing so. Liguori denied this testimony. Because of Liguori's other activities in support of the Association, we do not credit her denial. We find that Liguori notified some girls of the meeting. Shortly before 4 o'clock, however, Metzger decided upon advice of counsel to retract the permission he had given for the early closing, and had word sent through the plants that there could be no meeting until after working hours. According to Newkirk, her forelady, Ederman, announced that there would be no meeting at 4 o'clock, but that "the time was changed to 5 o'clock." According to Liguori, she told the girls in her charge that there would be no meeting at 4 o'clock, but that "there would be a meeting at 5, if, anybody wanted to attend." Newkirk, again without punching out, at once left the New York HEATHER HANDKERCHIEF WORKS,( INC. 809 Avenue plant and went to Burke's Hall, where she made new arrange- ments'for the use of the hall at 5 o'clock instead of at 4 o'clock. To be sure that all the employees knew where to meet- at 5, o'clock, she then telephoned the respondent's switchboard operator and asked her to spread word throughout both plants that the meeting would be held at Burke's Hall; and all the employees were so advised by their respective supervisors. According to employee Rose DeFrances, her forelady, Allen, came to each girl at her work station shortly before 5 'o'clock, and not only announced the meeting but added that "if we were interested in what was going on we had better go." Allen gave no testimony concerning this statement. - Employee Margaret Knapp, testified that at about this same time Allen asked her to join the "independent," saying that all the other girls had done so, that they did not want any outsiders in, and that she hoped Knapp would, think it for the best and, sign up. Allen denied Knapp's testimony. The Trial Examiner did not advert to this particular testimonial conflict, although he otherwise credited Allen. However, Allen subsequently joined` the Association, ran unsuccessfully for president, and was elected treasurer and a member of the negotiating committee. Allen further admitted having "spoken" in favor of the Association, alf though she claimed that she did so only at her home. On the basis of the entire record, we do not 'credit Allen's denial. We find that Allen solicited Knapp to join the Association. At 5 o'clock m ore than 200 of the employees met at- Burke's Hall.10 Newkirk called them to order and introduced Fredman, who gave a talk in favor of an "independent" and called for a vote. A motion was made, to "join our independent' group," and was carried unanimously., Fredman then announced that an organizational meeting would be held in the near future. The organizational meeting was held immediately after working hours on Thursday, October 9,,and was attended by Foreladies Liguori," Allen, and Ederman, as well as by a large number of other employees. Newkirk presided and presented Fredman, who again discussed the features of an "independent." He added that the "Asso- ciation" wanted only voluntary members and that, although many of the employees had already signed the petitions, he wanted another vote taken on whether or not an unaffiliated organization was wanted. A vote by show of hands was unanimous in the affirmative. The name originally suggested by Fredman was approved, and it was voted to organize under that name. Liguori, Allen, and Ederman joined, as 10 This number represents about 85 percent of, the respondent 's employees. The record does not show how many attended the'Union 's meeting, which had been announced for the same time I 11 Liguori had attended a meeting of the Union on the preceding day, not by invitation, but as a result of having heard that "anybody could go." 810 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD did John Staiger, who was in charge of a group of "boxers " and the "manglers," and Grace Liguori, who acted as substitute for her sister Lillian and also for Ederman , and who at the time was in charge of some "boxing"_ girls. Newkirk was elected president over Allen, Staiger was elected second vice president , Grace Liguori was elected financial secretary, Allen was elected treasurer , and Staiger and Allen were among those elected as members of the negotiating committee. Ederman ran unsuccessfully for trustee, On Friday, October 10, the Association's negotiating committee, including Allen, called on I^ieve and requested recognition, exhibiting ajority of the employees on the petitions. After the signatures of a majority' checking the signatures, Kieve advised the committee that he would have to take the matter up with the respondent's attorney, who would then get in touch with them. On the same day the Association' filed, its certificate of incorporation, signed by Allen, Staiger, and others, as trustees. About a week later, on October 18, the Union filed a charge with the Regional Director, alleging that the respondent had unlawfully aided the Association ; and the respondent was advised thereof a few days later. On October 20 the Association held a further meeting, at which the members were requested to approve the continuance of the Association, and did so unanimously. Newkirk then asked that all members sign individual ,cards,, which were made available to them. On October 23 the negotiating committee met at the office of Fred- man, who had been selected as. the Association 's attorney, to prepare a list of terms desired in a contract with the respondent . On October 28 Fredman and the negotiating committee met with Kieve and pre- sented the Association's demands. After a discussion Kieve stated that he would take, the matter up with Metzger. ' On November 13 the committee , again called at Kieve's office, ac- companied by Fredman , and find agreement was reached on the terms of a contract. On November 18 the respondent and the Association signed a contract embodying such terms, to remain in effect until the end of 1942. B. Concbuding findings The principal issue presented by the foregoing facts is whether or not the respondent illegally interfered with its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them in the Act. That the respond- ent did so is conclusively established in this case. Early in the morning of October 6, 1941, Metzger, the respondent's president, with full knowledge that the employees were striving to decide for them- selves whether or not to select the Union ns their representative, abandoned- a ."hands-off" policy by authorizing three outstanding partisans among the employees (two of whom were strenuously op- HEATHER HANDKERCHIEF WORKS,, INC. 811 ,posed to the Union) to hold an extended meeting in each plant during working hours to,discuss the question of union affiliation. Although aware that as a result of these meetings the employees were neglecting their work to discuss the matter, Metzger nevertheless refrained from ordering them to resume work. In mid-morning, when one of the anti-union partisans asked Nicolay, admittedly a supervisor, to be al- lowed to take two other employees in a company car on a "very im- portant errand" or `-mission," Nicolay approved the, request with- out so much as an inquiry as to the purpose or duration of the ab- sence from work or even an admonition to "punch out." At lunch time, Metzger was fully apprised of the progress of the anti-union movement when its organizers requested him to let Fredman, their attorney, address the employees in the plant; but still there was no reprimand from Metzger for activities which he-must have known had taken-place on company time. Again at about 3 o'clock in the afternoon, during working hours, Metzger observed, these opponents of" the Union holding a discussion with Fredman outdoors in the company car. Yet when one of these employees asked him to let all the employees off early to attend an anti-union ineeting, he not only failed to object to their obvious misuse of company time but on the contrary he showed his approval by readily consenting to their re- quest: All the employees were thereupon advised of the special per- mission given by Metzger for the early closing in order to hold the opposition' meeting. Only' after the employees had been thus no- tified did Metzger decide that it would be better to postpone the meet- ing until after work, and appropriate announcements- were accord- ingly made to the employees through official channels. The success of the respondent's campaign of interference with the union activities of its employees is attested by the fact that 85 percent of the employees were finally induced to attend the sanctioned meeting and to vote unanimously in favor of joining the so-called "independ- ent group" opposing the Union, despite the fact that earlier that day many of them had announced that they favored the Union or no collective bargaining representative at all, and despite the further fact that only a minority of the employees at the larger plant had signed the "independent" petitions circulated on company time a few hours earlier. Incontestable proof that Metzger encouraged the anti- union movement deliberately and intentionally is furnished by his failure to attempt at any time; either directly or through his super- visory staff, to have the girls discontinue their extraneous discussions about the Union and return to work; nor did he subsequently dock their pay or otherwise discipline them for disregarding their regular tasks.12 1 12 We note that Newkirk could not ha\ e devoted more than a brief hour or so to her regu- lar work on October 6. 812 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Consistent with the anti-union activities of Metzger and Nicolay are the aid and assistance given to the anti-union movement by 'Lillian Liguori, Florence Allen, Dorothy Ederman, John Staiger, and Grace Liguori: (1) in permitting anti-union employees to absent themselves from work without loss of pay to perfect an opposing organization, (2) in permitting them to circulate petitions for such an organization during, working hours, (3) in facilitating the announcement of anti- union eetings and urging the employees to attend, and (4) in par- ticipating in the subsequent administration of the Association. The respondent contended that it was not responsible for the activities of these employees, on the ground that they had no supervisory authority. However, the record shows that the ordinary- employees reasonably 'considered them as identified with the management. We find, as did the Trial Examiner, that the respondent is responsible for their activities. The respondent, while conceding that it is responsible for the acts of Metzger and Nicolay, argues that the activities related above do not constitute an interference with the rights guaranteed to employees 'in the Act.13 On the basis of the entire record, we reject this argument as without merit. It is further contended that the respondent cannot be held to have interfered with such rights because Metzger stated to some known opponents of the Union that-they should not discuss the Union' in his presence, because' he declined their request for advice about opposing the Union, because he refused to let their attorney hold a meeting in the plant, and because, after giving the employees per- mission to get off early to attend a meeting to organize a movement to oppose the Union, he thereafter retracted such permission. In some- what different vein it is then argued that, although Metzger may'have interfered by sanctioning the meetings and other activities of October 6, 'he had taken no steps to suppress activity in the plant on behalf of the Union, thus benefiting the Union and nullifying the legal effect of 'any aid and assistance given to the-Association. In summary, these arguments reduce to the proposition that an employer may lawfully interfere with union activity'where there are competing factions, if only he takes care, as the respondent states in its brief, that there is "no discrimination between those who favored the independent Asso- ciation and those who favored the A. F. of Ii." This proposition is unsound both in law and in fact. The Act unconditionally prohibits employers from interfering with union activity; nor is the prohibition relaxed even where, unlike in the instant case; the interference does hot discriminate between the various choices available to the employees. On the basis of the entire record we find, as did the Trial Examiner, that the respondent interfered' with, restrained, and coerced its em- 11 The Association advances a similar argument. HEATHER HANDI ERCHIEF WORKS; INC. 813 ployees in the exercise of the rights'guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. - In addition to the allegations of interference , restraint, and coercion, the complaint alleged that the respondent formed the Association and assisted , dominated, contributed to the support of, and interfered with the administration of that organization, within the- meaning of Sec- tion 8 (2) of the Act. In his intermediate Report the Trial Exam- iner concluded that the respondent had interfered with the formation and administration of the Association . We do not so evaluate the respondent's conduct in its totality. We are of the view that while the activities of the respondent 's supervisory employees constituted prohibited interference within the meaning of Section 8 (1) of the Act, the character and extent of these activities do, not furnish a suffi- cient basis for finding that the respondent had engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (2) of the Act. Ac- cordingly, we shall dismiss the 8 (2) allegations of the complaint. IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES ON COMMERCE The activities of the respondent set forth in Section III, above, occurring in connection with they operations of the respondent de- scribed 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. V. THE REMEDY Having found that the respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor practices, we shall order, it to cease and desist therefrom and to take certain affirmative action, which we find will effectuate the policies of the Act. We have found that the respondent interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Sec- tion 7 of the Act. By such unlawful conduct, the ,respondent has rendered it impossible for us to find that the action of the employees in selecting the Association to represent them reflected their genuine and uncoerced desire. Accordingly, the recognition which the re- spondent extended to the Association and the contract which it made with the Association constitute further aspects of its unlawful inter-. ference with the rights guaranteed to employees in the Act. In order to insure to its employees the full and free exercise of such rights without interference, restraint, or coercion by the respondent, we shall order that the respondent withdraw recognition from the Association as the collective bargaining representative of any of its employees, and withhold such recognition unless and until we certify the Asso- 814 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD ciation as their representative; 14 and we shall further order the-re- ,spondent to cease giving effect to the contract of November 18, 1941,, and to any,other contract it may have made with the Association, with- out prejudice, however, to the assertion by the employees of any legal rights thereby acquired. Moreover, nothing herein shall be taken to authorize the respondent to vary those wage, hour, or other sub- stantive features of its relation with its employees which may have been established pursuant to any agreement,with the Association.15 The record indicates 'that a strike commenced shortly after the respondent undertook its campaign of interference with union activity, but there is no direct evidence as to the cause of the strike. In his Intermediate Report, the Trial Examiner did not find that the strike was caused or prolonged by unfair labor practices, nor did he recom- mend that the respondent take any remedial action with respect to the strike. The Union did not file exceptions to the Intermediate Report or object thereto' at the oral argument. On the contrary, it indicated in a letter to the Board on June 10, 1942, that it was, sat isfied with the Intermediate Report.' Accordingly, we shall not order the respondent-to take, any remedial action with respect to the strike. Although finding that the respondent interfered with, restrained, and coerced is employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section _7 of the Act, the Trial Examiner nevertheless recommended the dismissal of certain subsidiary allegations of the complaint re- specting disparagement of 'the Union, interrogation and surveillance of employees, and threats made to employees. The Union filed no ex- ' ceptions; to the Intermediate, Report. Accordingly, we shall, dismiss these allegations of the complaint. Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and upon the entire' record in th, case; the 'Board makes the following : ' CONCLUSIONS OF LAW L, International Ladies' Garment Workers' -Union, A. F. of L:, and Handkerchief Beneficial Employes Association, unaffiliated, are labor' organizations, within,the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act. 2. By interfering with,' restraining, and' coercing its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the re- - spondent has engaged in and' is engaging in unfair labor practices, within the meaning of Section 8 (1) of the Act. 3: The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce, within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and\(7) of the Act. "I 14 Matter of Abraham B Barron, doing business under the t,ade name of Pennsylvania Handbag Frames 1lanufacturing'Company and Local 12211, United Electrical, Radio and 21achane Workers of America, C. 1 0., et al , 41 N L. R. B, 1454, and cases therein cited. See National Licorice Company V . N. L. R. B , 300 U S.'350. HEATHER HANDKERCHIEF WORKS, INC. 815 ORDER Upon the basis of the foregoing 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 respondent, Heather Handkerchief Works, Inc., Jersey. City, New Jersey, and its officers, agents, successors, and assigns shall: 1. Cease and desist from : ' (a) Recognizing Handkerchief Beneficial Employes Association• as the representative of any of its employees' for the purposes of col- lective bargaining with respect to grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of • employment, or other conditions of employ- ment, unless and until-that organization shall have been-certified by the Board as the representative of the employees; (b) Giving effect to the-contract of November 18, 1941, with Hand- kerchief Beneficial Employes Association, or to any extension, re- newal, modification, or supplement thereof, or to any other contract made with'Handkerchief Beneficial Employes Association, unless and until that organization shall have been certified by the Board as the representative of the employees; (c) Engaging in like or related acts or conduct interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of the right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bar- gain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, or to engage in concerted activity for the purposes of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, as guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action, which the Board finds will effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Withdraw and withhold recognition from Handkerchief Bene- ficial Employes Association as the representative of any of its em- ployees for the purposes of collective bargaining with respect to grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of -employment, or other conditions of employment, unless and until that organization shall have been certified by the Board as the representative of the employees; - (b) Post immediately in conspicuous places throughout its plants in Jersey City, New Jersey, and maintain for a period of at least sixty (60) consecutive days from the date of posting, notices to its employees stating (1) that the respondent, will not engage in the conduct from which it is ordered to cease and desist in paragraphs 1 (a), (b), and (c) hereof; and (2) that the respondent will take the affirmative action set forth in paragraph 2 (a) hereof; r 816 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS- BOARD (c) Notify the Regional Director for the Second Region (New York City) in writing within ten (10) days from the date of-this Order what steps the respondent has taken to comply herewith. AND IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint, insofar as it 'alleges that the respondent initiated, formed, and sponsored the, Asso- ciation, and assisted, dominated, contributed to the support of, and interfered with -the administration of-that organization; dis- paraged and expressed disapproval of the Union; interrogated its employees concerning their union affiliations; urged, persuaded, threatened, and warned its employees to assist, become members of, and remain members of the Association and not the Union; and "kept under surveillance' the meeting places, meetings, and concerted activi- ties of its employees for the purpose of self-organization or improve- ment of working conditions," be, and it hereby is, dismissed.