The Solomon Co.

In the Matter of JOSEPH SOLOMON, AN INDIVIDUAL, D/B/A THE SOLO- MON COMPANY AND THE SOLOMON COMPANY and UNITED GARMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA, A. F. L. Case No. 10-CA-77.-Decided June 14,1949 DECISION AND ORDER On October 29, 1948, Trial Examiner Sidney L. Feiler issued his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondents' had engaged in and were engaging in certain un- fair labor practices, and recommending that they cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the Intermediate Report attached hereto. The Trial Examiner also found that the Respondents had not engaged in certain other alleged unfair labor practices, and recommended dismissal of these allegations of the complaint. Thereafter, the Respondents filed ex- ceptions to the Intermediate Report and a supporting brief. The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner at the hearing and finds no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Intermediate Report, the exceptions and brief, and the record in the case, and finds merit in the Respondents' exceptions to the extent indicated below. 1. The Trial Examiner found and we agree, that the Respondents, by the activities of Plant Superintendent Glenn in interrogating an employee about his union sympathies, in attending union meetings on September 19 and 26, 1947,2 and in urging at the September 26 meeting that the union representatives return the union-authoriza- tion cards to the employees who wanted them, violated Section 8 (a) (1) of the amended Act. I On January 1, 1948, The Solomon Company , a Delaware corporation , took over the assets and assumed the liabilities of the unincorporated business conducted by Joseph Solomon . Joseph Solomon became president of and a principal stockholder in the corporation. 2 It is true that Glenn withdrew from the meeting on September 19 when requested to do so , but his uninvited presence must be viewed as having had a restraining effect on the exercise of the rights of the employees . Matter of Brezner Tanning Company, Inc., 50 N. L. It. B. 894. 84 N. L. R. B., No. 29. 226 THE SOLOMON COMPANY 227 We do not agree with the Trial Examiner, however, that the similar activities of the "foreladies" are attributable to the Respondents. These foreladies had worked for Glenn as utility girls in a garment factory in Mississippi. Glenn offered them a wage increase of 10 cents an hour and the title of "forelady" if they would transfer to the Respondents' new mill in Alabama, where there were few experienced garment workers. Although the foreladies were not assigned to a particular machine, they spent about 50 percent of their time operating a machine whenever a regular operator was unavailable, and the other 50 percent instructing new employees. They had no power to hire, discharge, promote, transfer, reward, or discipline employees. Glenn did not discuss the capabilities of individual workers with them, but depended on his own observation as he walked down the production line, which he did about every 30 minutes. The Trial Examiner found the foreladies to be supervisors, on the ground that they had authority responsibly to direct other employees. In several recent cases,3 however, we have found individuals, although designated as "foremen" or "foreladies," not to be supervisors within the meaning of the Act where their relation to their fellow employees was that of master craftsmen to apprentices, and their regulation of the flow of work and the training of new employees was the result of superior experience rather than of authority. The foreladies in the present case appear to us to be in the same situation. We therefore find that they are not supervisors within the meaning of the Act. On the record in this case we hold that the Respondents are not responsible for their activities in connection with the Union. 2. The Trial Examiner found that the Respondents had violated Section 8 (a) (5) of the amended Act by failing to bargain with the Union after receipt, on September 15, 1947, of the Union's letter of September 13, 1947. We do not agree. The letter, which is set forth in full at page 10 of the Intermediate Report, notified the Respondents that the Union was filing a petition with the Board requesting an election "to ascertain whether the employees want us to represent them as their bargaining representatives." The letter went on to request the Respondents to participate in a cross-check of cards to determine the Union's majority. The Respondents contend that they read the letter as proposing a determination of the Union's bargaining status, alternatively by a Board election or by a cross-check of cards, and that they decided to await the outcome of the Board proceeding as the petition had already been filed. We find the Respondents' interpreta- tion of the letter, under all the circumstances, to be entirely reasonable. 5 See, for example, Matter of Volney Felt Mills, Inc, 81 N. L. It. B. 1243 ; Matter of Johnson City Publishing Company, 81 N L. R B. 1341. 228 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR ' RELATIONS BOARD Moreover, if the foreladies are included in the unit, as they must be in view of our finding that they are not supervisors, the Union did not represent a majority either on September 13, when it wrote the letter, or on September 15, when the letter was received. As the Union did not make a clear and unequivocal demand for recognition, and did not represent a majority of the employees in the appropriate unit either when the alleged demand was made or when it was received, the Respondents have not refused to bargain within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (5) of the Act. ORDER Upon the entire record in the case, and pursuant to Section 10 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the Respondent Corporation, The Solomon Company, Leeds, Alabama, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall : 1. Cease and desist from : Interrogating its employees concerning their union affiliations, ac- tivities, or sympathies; engaging in surveillance of union activities; or in any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to form labor organizations, to join or assist United Garment Workers of America, A. F. L., or any other labor organization, to bargain collec- tively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, and to refrain from any or all of such activi- ties, except to the extent that such right may be affected by an agree- ment requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of employment, as authorized in Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will effectuate the policies of the Act : (a) Post at its plant at Leeds, Alabama, copies of the notice attached hereto marked "Appendix A." 4 Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for the Tenth Region, after being'signed by representatives of,the Respondent Corporation, shall be posted by the Respondent Corporation immediately upon receipt thereof, and main- tained by it for sixty (60) consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent Corpora- tion to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material; ,4 In the event that this Order Is enforced by decree of a United States Court of Appeals, there shall be inserted in the notice , before the words, "A DECISION AND ORDER," the words, "A DECREE OF THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS ENFORCING." - THE SOLOMON COMPANY 229 '(b) Notify the Regional Director for the Tenth Region in writing, within ten (10) days from the date of this Order, what steps the Respondent Corporation has taken to comply herewith. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint herein, insofar as it alleges that the Respondents refused to bargain collectively with United Gar- ment Workers of America, A. F. L., in violation of Section 8 (a) (5) of the Act, be, and it hereby is, dismissed. APPENDIX A NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES Pursuant to a Decision and Order of the National Labor Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Relations Act, we hereby notify our employees that : WE wuL NOT interrogate our employees in any manner con- cerning their union affiliations, activities, or sympathies; engage in surveillance of union meetings; or in any other manner inter- fere with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of the right to self-organization, to form labor organizations, to join or assist UNITED GARMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA, A. F. L., or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively through repre- sentatives of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any or all of such activities except to the extent that such right may be affected by an agree- ment requiring membership in a labor organization as a condi- tion of employment, as authorized in Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act. --------------------- Employer. Dated--------------------------- By--------- ----- ---- (Representative) (Title) This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof, and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. INTERMEDIATE REPORT Messrs. Gilbert Cohen and T. Lowry Whittaker, for the General Counsel. Mr. Robert H. Loeb, of Birmingham, Ala., for the Respondents. Mrs. Mary Sue Densmore, of Birmingham, Ala., for the Union. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Upon a third amended charge duly filed by United Garment Workers, A. F. L., herein called the Union, the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board 3 by the Regional Director for the Tenth Region (Atlanta, Georgia), issued i The General Counsel and the attorney representing him at the bearing are referred to as the General Counsel The National Labor Relations Board is referred to as the Board. 853396-50-vol. 84-16 230 DECISIONS OF- NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD an amended complaint dated April 8, 1948, against Joseph Solomon , d/b/a The Solomon Company and The Solomon Company , Leeds, Alabama , herein called the Respondents ;,alleging that the Respondents , had engaged_.in and were engaging in. unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8 (a)- (1) and ( 5) and Section 2 (6) and ( 7) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, 49 Stat. 449, 61 Stat. 136, hereinafter referred to as the Act Copies of the amended complaint and notice of hearing thereon were duly served upon the Respondents and the Union! With respect to unfair labor practices , the amended complaint alleges in sub- stance that the Respondents (1) by named officers , agents , representatives, and employees, by certain acts, statements, and conduct , interfered with, restrained, and coerced their employees in the exercise of their rights under the Act; and (2) failed and refused to bargain with the Union as the duly designated collective bargaining representative of all their employees in an appropriate unit. In their 'answer, the Respondents deity, the commission 'of -any of the unfair, labor practices charged Pursuant to notice , a hearing was held at Leeds, Alabama , from April 26 through 30 , 1948, before the undersigned , Sidney L. Feeler , the Trial Examiner designated by the Chief Trial Examiner. The General Counsel and the Respond- ents were represented by counsel ; the Union , by a representative . Full oppor- tunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses , and to introduce evidence bearing on the issues was afforded all parties. At the outset of the hearing, the undersigned denied an application by the Respondents for a continuance . A motion by the General Counsel to require the Respondents to plead more specifically was denied . The undersigned granted the Respondents ' motion to exclude prospective witnesses , with certain exceptions. During the hearing, the General Counsel moved to amend the amended complaint to exclude the category of maids from the alleged appropriate unit. The motion was granted . At the end of the General Counsel's case-in-chief , the Respondents moved to dismiss the amended complaint for failure of proof. The motion was denied. At the conclusion of-,the testimony, the General Counsel move to conform the pleadings to the proof as to formal matters. The motion was granted without objection. Oral argiunent was then presented on behalf of the General Counsel and the Respondents . Briefs were received from them subsequently. On the entire record and from his observation of the witnesses the undersigned makes the following : - FINDINGS OF FACT I. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENTS The Respondent, Joseph Solomon, began operations at Leeds, Alabama, under the trade name and style of The Solomon Company on or about July 1, 1947. The business conducted was the manufacture and sale of men's trousers. On January 1, 1948, The Solomon Company, a Delaware corporation, took over the assets and assumed the liabilities of the unincorporated entity. Joseph ^ Solomon owns 2 Prior to the issuance of the amended complaint, the General Counsel, upon a second amended charge, had issued a complaint directed against Joseph Solomon, individually. Thereupon, said Joseph Solomon filed an answer, dated March 20, 1948, together with a motion to dismiss the complaint alleging that lie had not been doing business under the firm name and style of The Solomon Company since January 1, 1948.. The motion was dismissed by the acting Regional Director The chief difference between the amended complaint and the original complaint is that The Solomon Company, a corporation, has been added as an additional party It was agreed at the hearing that the original answer should serve as the joint answer of the parties respondent to the amended complaint. THE SOLOMON COMPANY 231 a 40 percent interest in the corporation, and is its president ; two sons own an additional' 40 ' percent. The corporation proceeded to fill unfilled orders of the unincorporated company in the same plant and using -the same machinery,= equipment, and employees as had been used prior thereto. From July 1, 1947, until March 1, 1948, raw materials, consisting mainly of rayon and worsted fabrics, valued in excess of $100,000 were purchased of which more than 90 percent was shipped to the plant at Leeds, Alabama, from points outside the State of Alabama. During the same period, finished products, con- sisting of men's trousers, and valued in excess of $150,000 were shipped from the Leeds plant, of which more than 50 percent was sold and shipped to points outside the State of Alabama. The undersigned finds that the Respondents, at all times here relevant, were engaged in interstate commerce within the meaning of the Act. II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED United Garment Workers, affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, is a labor organization admitting to membership employees of the Respondents. III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES 3 A. Interference, restraint, and coercion 1. The organizational campaign of the Union and interference with it On September 8, 1947,' Mrs. Mary Sue Densmore, an international representa- tive of the Union, accompanied by other representatives of the Union, met with a group of plant employees at a nearby cafe. She distributed union member- ship application cards, answered questions, and arranged for another meeting at the same place. After the meeting, Dave Solomon, a son of Joseph Solomon and active in the operations of The Solomon Company, entered the cafe. He and Densmore had a conversation in which there was brief mention of the fact that the Union was attempting to organize the workers at the plant. On September 12, Densmore returned to Leeds with some other union repre- sentatives and met a group of employees after working hours at the same cafe where the previous meeting had been held. Membership application cards were distributed and some formal talks were made by the organizers. During the meeting Coy Glenn, office manager or superintendent of the plant, entered the cafe and remained until the end of the meeting. Later, Joseph Solomon came in. He became involved in an argument with a union representative and then came over to the table where Densmore was sitting with some workers and said that the Union would not do anything for the workers, that it was not interested in their welfare, and that when lie was connected with another plant, lie was ashamed to sign checks for dues check-off for it 3 The testimony, of the witnesses for the General Counsel and the Respondents as to what was said and done on occasions of importance herein was sometimes incomplete or conflicting, although the main course of events is well established Significant conflicts and discrepancies have been dealt with herein; minor clashes have been resolved as indi- cated in the narration of events 4 All dates referred to in this section are in 1947 unless otherwise specified I There was a conflict in the testimony as to whether Solomon made his remarks before or after the argument The undersigned accepts Solomon's testimony that it was after- wards Solomon admittedly was very angry at the time and the undersigned has credited Densmore's testimony as to what lie said rather than Solomon's. 232 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Densmore also spoke with Forelady Maxine Young whom she had met in another city. They had a brief discussion of Young's eligibility to join the Union, but no conclusion was reached. Glenn remarked to an employee that he had signed a contract with the Union while employed at another plant and that it was not worth the paper on which it was written. Densmore said that she would check into it. After the meeting, Densmore sent a letter to the Respondent, Solomon, re- questing recognition of the Union as collective bargaining representative. This letter will be considered later in this report. The Union next had a meeting on September 19 at a place away from the plant. Glenn and Foreladies Maxine Young and Banks Holloway were present.° Densmore, who was in charge of the meeting, asked them to leave and they did so. In a few minutes the foreladies returned and refused to leave. They were present for the rest of the meeting. The Union held its next and last meeting on September 26 at the same place as the prior meeting. Glenn, Taylor Gee, then a salesman for the Respondent, Solomon, and now a 10 percent owner of the Respondent corporation, and the foreladies, were present. Densmore, who presided, asked them to leave, but they refused to do so. Glenn stated that he wanted to see what Densmore had to offer the workers. Densmore then produced a contract which had been referred to by Glenn at the September 12 meeting. Glenn gave her a copy of a letter which management had distributed to the employees. Another topic discussed at the meeting was whether or not an employee, Herston Pickle, had received a salary increase while he had been employed at another plant organized by the Union. Densmore produced a letter indicating that Pickle had received an increase. Glenn asked to see the letter. Densmore testified that Trautwein, a union organizer, then said to Glenn, "Well, Boy, What do you think we are? Do you think we forged somebody's name to a letter and bring it up here?" Glenn took offense to being called "Boy" and he and Gee rushed over to Trautwein. After some words with Trautwein,, they returned to their seats. Several employees then asked for the return of their membership cards. Glenn joined in at that point and asked why did she not return the cards. Another employee said that Densmore should pack up and go back to Birmingham. Dens- more stated that she did not have the cards with her and she and Trautwein walked out of the meeting shortly thereafter. No further meetings were held.' I There were two other employees in the forelady category, Dorothy Pickle and Jesker Weaver. The testimony is in conflict as to whether they attended this meeting, but the weight of the evidence indicates that they were in attendance at either this meeting or the following one, and that Young and Holloway attended both. The status of the foreladies is in issue. As more fully appears later in this report, the undersigned has concluded that they were supervisory employees. 4 The findings as to the occurrences at the September 26 meeting are based on the testimony of Densmore as corroborated in significant details by witnesses Gaddis, Boloy, and others who testified concerning the meeting. Glenn admitted that he was asked to leave and did not do so. He testified that he told Densmore that he was only interested in her telling the "true facts" to the workers and that if she had anything better to offer them, "we would be glad for them to have it " He also recalled the Trautwein incident as previously related, but denied any further participation in the meeting. The chief point of disagreement between his testimony and that of witnesses for the General Counsel is on the question of whether he said anything when some employees asked for the return of their cards. The undersigned , from an examination of all the testimony, concludes that Glenn did ask Densmore at that point whether she would return the cards. THE SOLOMON COMPANY' 233 Contentions of the parties ; conclusions The complaint alleges that the Respondents attended and kept union meet- ings under surveillance. No company official was present at the September 8 meeting. Dave Solomon entered the cafe after the meeting and he spoke only with Densmore. Glenn and Joseph Solomon came into the cafe during the Sep- tember 12 meeting. There is no evidence that their appearance at the cafe, which is across the street from the plant, was part of any plan of surveillance and the undersigned credits their assertions that their appearance there was by chance. Glenn's remarks at the meeting were not violative of the Act. Solomon made disparaging remarks concerning the Union. These remarks, as almost all the witnesses agreed, were made in the heat of anger. In any case, they did not exceed permissible limits. Glenn's activities at the subsequent meetings are on a different footing. The meetings were at a private place. It is true that Glenn left the September 19 meeting when he was requested to do so. However, he came to the September 26 meeting, and refused to leave it. He became involved in an argument with a union representative. The merits of the disagreement are not relevant here, al- though it seems to have broken out when Glenn took offense at being called "Boy." However, the argument would not have occurred if Glenn had not been present. His refusal to leave the meeting, his engaging in an argument, and his support of those who wanted their membership cards returned, all had a dis- rupting effect on the meeting in addition to the deterrent effect his presence would have on the free expression of views by employees who were all under his super- vision. The latter factor also applies to the foreladies who, although they did not actively participate in the meetings, refused to leave them when requested to do so. Taylor Gee attended the September 26 meeting with Glenn. His status was that of salesman on that date and there was no showing that he had any supervisory authority. The undersigned finds that his activities at the meeting are not chargeable to the Respondents. The undersigned concludes that the afore-mentioned conduct of supervisory employees at the union meetings of September 19 and 26 were violated by the Act.' Glenn's testimony and that of the foreladies that their purpose in coming to the meetings was not to engage in surveillance or interference does not detract from the effect of their conduct. The rule applicable is that "the test is whether the employer engaged in conduct which, it may reasonably be said, tends to inter- fere with the free exercise of employee rights under the Act " 9 The motives underlying such conduct are for the purposes of that test, imulaterial.10 2. Other activities during the organizational period Elsie Baker testified that she had been employed at the plant during the Union's campaign, that she signed a union card on September 8, that thereafter 8 Matter of Kentucky Tennessee Clay Company, 49 N. L . R. B 252, Matter of Continental Pipe Line Company, 67 N. L R B. 389. The Respondents ' contention that proof that the employees were actually coerced is essential, is rejected Matter of the Ridge Tool Company, 58 N. L R. B. 1095, decision set aside and case remanded on grounds not relevant herein, 151 F. (2d) 947. The case of N L . R. B. v. National Motor Bearing Company, 105 F. ( 2d) 652 ( C. A. 9), cited by the Respondents , does not stand for the proposition, as contended that mere presence at a union meeting by itself is not enough to substantiate an unfair labor practice charge The decision turned on the nature and extent of the findings by the Board in its original decision on the issue of an alleged surveillance. "N. L R. B. v. Illinois Tool Works, 153 F. ( 2d) 811, 814 = 1" Republic Aviation Corp. v. N. L. R B., 324 U. S 793 , Home Beneficial Life Insurance Co., Inc., v. N. L. R. B., 159 F. (2d) 280, certiorari denied 322 U. S. 758. 234 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD in that same week or in the following week a general wage increase of 10 cents an hour was put into effect without prior notice. Dave Solomon testified that actually a 5 cent an hour general increase was put into effect on September 1 and was paid during the week ending September 6. Baker admitted that she did not have a clear recollection as to the facts and circumstances surrounding the pay increase Solomon's testimony, which was supported by entries on Baker's time cards, is credited. The undersigned finds, contrary to the contention of the General Counsel, that the evidence does not establish that the wage increase granted in September was put into effect to discourage union organization, but that it, affirmatively appears that it was made before the union campaign began. During the course of the campaign, management representatives took cog- nizance of it in speeches to employees, remarks to individual employees, and in the distribution of a letter to all employees. Former employee J. C Goodwin testified that at the September 12 union meet- ing Joseph Solomon told him that there "wasn't anything to the Union." Goodwin further testified that approximately 2 weeks after he signed a union card on September 8 Glenn asked him whether he was "for" the Union. When Goodwin replied that he was, Glenn said as Goodwin summarized it. He said it wasn't anything to it. He said they would get your money. He said you would never get them paid and he told us to go ahead and go to work and he was going to pay us more when we got to making production. Goodwin also testified that 'after the September 12 union meeting Glenn told all the employees that there was "nothing to the Union," that the employees should not "fool" with it, and that employees would not be paid more money until production was increased. Mattie Ethridge testified that on the day of the last union meeting Glenn told the employees to attend the last meeting and tell the union organizers to return to Birmingham. She could not recall the rest of his remarks in that or in other speeches. Joseph Solomon, she testified, also spoke to the employees that day. She recalled that he said that he hated a liar, thief, or murderer, but she could not connect this remark with the substance of the rest of his talk. Mary Howard testified that Glenn said, during one speech, that employees would not be discharged for attending union meetings. Joseph Solomon, she testified, said that he had prevented the Union from having an employee dis- charged at another plant. She also testified that she heard Joseph Solomon tell two emplbyees^that working conditions at union plants were not good and that a plant in Mississippi had been shut down because of difficulties with the ,Union. She also testified that he said that the plant would be shut down if the Union "came in." Howard further testified that she overheard a conversation between Glenn and two employees in which, as she put it, "they was asking him about our cards and he said they couldn't do nothing about our cards. Just not vote. Not vote for the Union." Arlene Gaddis testified that she heard Glenn make several speeches during the union campaign and that some of the points he made were that the employees should not let themselves be "sugar-talked, that organizers made money doing this," that the Union could not get them more pay, that workers in some union plants were earning less and that physical conditions in some union THE SOLOMON COMPANY 235 shops were bad. Before the last union meeting, Glenn said that the employees could tell Mrs. Densmore to return to Birmingham. According to Gaddis, Joseph Solomon made a speech to the employees shortly before the last union meeting. He mentioned poor working conditions in union factories. He further stated that he hated a liar , a murderer , or a thief, and explained that a liar was someone who would say that people would get some- thing when they would not. On the Friday before the last union meeting, Glenn asked Gaddis whether she had threatened a nonunion worker with loss of a ride, if she did not join the Union. , . Gaddis said she had not._ ..Glenn then, said that he wished the employees would forget about the Union and give the Company a chance. Gaddis replied that they needed more money. On cross-examination , Gaddis testified that Glenn had told the employees that they could join the Union, but that they should not unless they knew what they were "jumping into." Pearlie Howard recalled that Joseph Solomon compared working conditions at the plant with those at others and said that if they joined the Union, dues would be deducted from their pay, thus lessening their earnings . She also re- called that Glenn said that they could do what they wished concerning the Union, but that he wished they would wait and give the Company a chance. Lydia Boley testified that Glenn said they could sign union cards or not do so, that they would be better off without a union, and promised that a wage increase would be given when production was increased. She could not recall when Glenn made that statement nor the surrounding circumstances. Some time prior to the last union meeting a letter was distributed to the employees signed, "The Management ." The letter had for its announced pur- pose the enlightenment of the employees . It sought to make a comparison of working conditions and earnings between the Leeds plant and another plant, which was not identified , "the source from which the recent agitation and agitators originated." The comparison gave the Leeds plant the advantage on every score. The concluding paragraphs of the letter are : Hence, our setting a new modern example is envied and frightens some outside interest who are anxious to utilize every whispering propaganda, if not to crush , at least to weaken, confuse, and discredit the management and yourselves. Evidently your common sense is badly underestimated and, perhaps with some exception , we cannot believe that you will fall for such schemes. Mary Howard testified that, Forelady ' Weaver- asked' her "which side are you for ; the Union or not," and that she replied it made no difference to her. Lydia Boley testified that Weaver told her that Densmore had caused a plant to be closed in Mississippi. Glenn admitted that he had talked to the employees concerning the Union. He did this , he maintained , because he had been asked questions about it and because there had been many rumors around the plant . He further testified that he told the employees that they were free to join or not join the Union and that they should attend its meetings for their own information. Other talks he made were to the same effect. Joseph Solomon testified that he talked to the employees on September 15 because some of them had asked him if they would lose their jobs if they did not join the Union and asked other questions about wage scales in other plants. 236 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD He testified that he told the employees in his talk that they could have their jobs as long as they were "suitable" for them and willing to work, that he told of an instance in another plant where, as he maintained, he had saved an employee from discharge at the request of the Union. He also discussed wage scales at other plants and denied that he had come to Leeds to pay low wages. He also referred to good physical conditions at the plant. He denied that he had requested employees to withhold organizing for awhile, but testified that a company letter containing such a statement had reference to a remark by Dave Solomon to Densmore on September 8. Conclusions The testimony of the witnesses, while often fragmentary, clearly indicate the scope and character of the remarks made by management representatives in speeches to employees. While opposition to the Union was expressed, none of the remarks exceeded the bounds prescribed in the Act. The same is true of the letter distributed to the employees. As to remarks made to individual employees, these were generally of the same character as remarks made at general meetings and were not violative of the Act. Mary Howard, in her testimony, attributed certain remarks to Joseph Solomon and Glenn which merit more extensive treatment. She testified that she had heard Joseph Solomon tell two employees that the plant would be closed if the Union "came in." She mentioned this point after she had said several times that she could remember nothing further about the conversation which she was then relating and had been led over it repeatedly. She was unable to fix the date of this occasion nor did she furnish adequate details of the conversation leading up to the alleged remark by Solomon except that she testified that sometime dur- ing the conversation Solomon had said that a plant in Mississippi had been "torn up" when a union had organized or that the Union had "torn it up" and that it had been shut down. The undersigned finds that Howard's testimony on this point was too vague and indefinite to support a finding. Howard further testified that she heard some employees "asking him [Glenn] about our cards," and that he replied "they could do nothing about them and they need not vote for the Union. It is clear from Gardner's later testimony, in which she related that she had had a similar conversation with Glenn, that em- ployees were asking Glenn whether they were bound by their union cards to vote for the Union in an election arid'that Glenn told them that they were not so bound. The undersigned does not find this.conduct violative of the Act. Other remarks by supervisors, except as now noted, were not violative of the Act. However, Goodwin's testimony that Glenn asked him whether he was "for" the Union stands undenied in the record and is credited. Similarly, Mary How- ard's testimony that Forelady Weaver asked, "which side are you for ; for the Union or not," was not contradicted and is credited. Inquiries as to union affiliation, membership, or attitude towards the Union, are violative of the Act" and the undersigned finds that the conduct of Supervisors Glenn and Weaver was an infringement of the rights of employees as guaranteed in the Act. The coercive effect of the conduct found, violative of the Act was not dispelled by the statements which were made to the employees that they could join the "Matter of A. B. Fletcher et al, 78 N. L. it. B. 1215; Matter of Wytheville Knitting Mills, Inc., 78 N. L. R. B. 640; Matter of Art craft Hosiery Company, 78 N. L. it. B. 333. THE SOLOMON COMPANY 237 Union, if they wished. There was no specific disavowal of the unfair labor prac- tices and, in fact, the most serious violation took place after those announcements were made. Mere generalities could not dissipate the effects of conduct which was of an opposite character.'Z B. The refusal to bargain 1. The sequence of events On Saturday , September 13, 1947, Densmore sent the following letter to the Respondent, Joseph Solomon : BIRMINGHAM , ALA., September 13, 1947. Mr. JOSEPH SOLOMON, Solomon Garment Company, Leeds, Alabama. DEAR SIR : This correspondence is to notify your Company that the United Garment Workers of America represent the majority of the employees, em- ployed at your plant. On this day the United Garment Workers of America affiliated with the American Federation of Labor are petitioning the Government's National Labor Relations Board at Atlanta, Ga., for an election to determine bargain- ing rights of the Majority vote of the employees at your plant to ascertain whether the employees want us to represent them as their bargaining repre- sentatives the United Garment Workers of America, by an election. To eliminate an election or the red tape of the National Labor Relations Board, the United Garment Workers wishes the Company will agree to a cross check of cards, if the Union represents the majority when this cross check of crrds (sic) enabling the United Garment Workers to be certified by the National Labor Relations Board as bargaining representative and assisting these employees in collective bargaining to negotiations od (sic) wages, conditions and a contract, as provided under the Taft-Hartley Act. Trusting you will concede to work for the best interest of your employees and granting them this cross check of cards against the Company pay roll, enabling them to have the proper representation, without delay. Which will eliminate an election, further delay and will bring about better co- operation, better production and above all satisfied employees which will be a great stride for the progress of your Company in Leeds, Ala. With kind personal regards and best wishes for the progress of your Company, I am, Yours truly, /s/ Mrs Mary Sue Densmore Mrs. MARY SUE DENSMORE, Int. Rep. United Garment Workers of America, A. F. of L., 2 64th St. South, Birmingham, Alabama. The letter was received on September 15. No reply was ever made to this letter by Densmore. On September 23, the Union filed with the Regional Director a petition for certification of representa- tives. On September 24, the Regional Director wrote Densmore that the petition was incomplete in that the Union was not yet in compliance with Section 9 (f), (g), and (h) of the Act. On October 7, Densmore filed the original charge in this proceeding on behalf of the Union. 12 N. L. R. B. v. A. S. Abell Co., 97 F. (2d) 951. 238 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD The Regional Director on October 15 wrote The Solomon Company a letter in reply to a communication from it. The Regional Director noted that the Union was not in full compliance with Section 9 (f), (g), and (h) of the Act, but stated that there would be an investigation of charges filed against the Company. On November 3, Joseph Solomon wrote a letter to a field examiner attached to the Regional Office, maintaining that the union membership cards did not represent the true will and sentiment of the employees. He offered to cooperate in the holding•of an election. As previously stated, there were no direct negotiations between the Respondents and the Union after its letter of September 13 was sent. Contentions of the parties, conclusions The parties are in disagreement as to the effect of the letter of September 13. The General Counsel contends that it was a demand for recognition and that the failure to answer it constituted a refusal to bargain within the mean- ing of the Act. The Respondents contend that the Union offered a choice of alternatives, either to await the results of a Board-conducted election or to have a cross-check of union cards against the pay roll, and that there was no violation of the Act in the selection of one alternative as against another. Several points were made by Densmore in her letter. The first paragraph as- serted that the Union represented a majority of the employees in the plant. The next paragraph stated that the Union was filing a petition for an election with the Regional Director. The next two paragraphs dealt with the Union's proposal for a cross-check of its membership cards as against the pay roll. The letter, considered in its entirety, constituted a demand for recognition. In it, the Union claimed to represent a majority of the employees, gave notice that it was filing a petition for an election, and in the last paragraph, stated that the purpose of its proposals was to secure for the employees, "proper representa- tion without delay." Considered in the light of the organizing campaign then being conducted by the Union and management's knowledge of it, the letter could only reasonably be interpreted by its recipient as a demand for recog- nition as collective bargaining representative. However, the letter went further. It contained an offer by the Union to pro- duce proof of its majority in a cross-check arrangement. The last paragraph of the letter expressed the hope that the Respondent, Solomon, would enter into a cross-check agreement "enabling them [the employees] to have the proper representation without delay. Which will eliminate an election . . " This was a definite proposal, but no answer was made to it. It is true, as,tbe Respondents -point out, that an employer may in good faith insist upon a Board-conducted election to establish the status of a Union as collective bargaining representative.' This does not mean, though, that in every case an employer can disregard a demand for recognition simply because a peti- tion can be filed for an election. There are other ways of proving a majority, including the well-recognized method of a cross-check agreement. An employer is not bound to accept this method or any other specific method, but he must at least make a reply to a demand for recognition and a proposal to furnish proof of majority status or take other action which will furnish a basis for evaluating his good faith Nor does the fact that a union asserts that it is filing a petition with the Board excuse an employer from his duty to bargain with it. The pendency 13 Matter of Chamberlain Corporation, 75 N. L. R. B 1188. THE SOLOMON COMPANY 239 of a proceeding before 'the Board does not constitute a license to an employer to refuse to carry out his obligation to bargain collectively 14 The undersigned concludes that the failure of the Respondents to make any reply to the demand for recognition made by the Union and its request for an opportunity to establish its majority was violative of the Act. Independently of the conduct with respect to the Union's letter, there was a violation of Section 8 (a) (5) of the Act by the activities' of supervisory em- Voyees. An employer, after a demand for recognition, may not insist on proof thereof and yet engage in unfair labor practices undermining the status of the Union. The Board has summarized the law applicable to this case in Matter of Arteraft Hosiery Com-pwal, 78 N. L. R B 33, in the following language: We have held, and still hold, that an employer may in good faith insist on a Board election as proof of the union's majority but that an employer un- lawfully refuses to bargain if its insistence on such an election is motivated, not by any bona fide doubt as to the union's majority, but rather by a rejec- tion of the collective bargaining principle or by, a desire to gain time within which to undermine the Union.' The crucial issue in these cases is the Em- ployer's motive at the time of the refusal to bargain. Whether in a particular case an employer is acting in good or bad faith, is of course a question which of necessity must be determined in the light of all the relevant facts in the case. Among the factors pertinent to a determination- of the employer's motive at the time of the refusal to bargain are any unlawful conduct of the employer,' the sequence of events, and the lapse of time between the refusal and the unlawful conduct. - 2Matter of Chamberlain Corpor ation, 75 N L R B 1188, Matter of R J Lovvorn, 76 N L R B 84; Matter of Roanoke Public Warehouse, 72 N L R B 1281, 1284 3 Matter of R J. Lovvorn, supra. Matter of Prigg Boat Works, 69 N L R B 97, 123, Matter of Robeson Cutlery Company, Ine , 67 N L R B 481 ; Matter of Wilson it Co , Inc . 77 N. L R B. 959. The weight to be given this factor depends on the nature and scope of the unlawful conduct See Matter of Chamberlain Corporation, supra, and Matter of Roanoke Public Warehouse, supra. In the instant case, Superintendent Glenn and Forelady Weaver each ques- tioned an employee concerning their attitude towards the Union. The foreladies remained at the last two union meetings, although requested to leave. Glenn also refused to leave the last meeting and, in addition, took an active part therein. The activities of these supervisory employees were not only violative of the Act, but also they directly interfered with the organizational campaign and the right of the employees to decide whether or not to affiliate with a union free from management surveillance and interference. Furthermore , these acts occurred at the height of the organizational campaign. The fact that the Respondent, Solomon, offered to cooperate in an election after these events does not in any way temper the effect of the prior acts chargeable to him, since, otherwise, he would be reaping an advantage from the unfair labor practices. The Respondents further contend that the failure of the Union to comply with Section 9 (f), (g), and ( h) of the Act excused the employer herein from bargain- ing with it until the Union was in compliance . Section 9 (f), (g), and (h), by its terms bars action by-the Board unless there is compliance with that section. 0 14 N. L R. B. v. National Seal Corp., 127 F. ( 2d) 776; Matter of Ellis-Klatscher it Co., 40 N. L. R B. 1037, 1052 , afC'd 142 F . ( 2d) 356; Matter of Sheba Ann Frocks, Inc., 5 N L R B 12, 16 ; Matter of Rock City Paper Box Company, Inc., 64 N. L. It. B. 1527, 1539. 240 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD It does not change the obligation set forth in Section 8 (a) (5) that an employer is under a duty to bargain collectively with the collective bargaining repre- sentatives selected by his employees in an appropriate unit. The undersigned finds the contention of the Respondents as to the effect of noncompliance with Section 9 (f), (g), and (h) of the Act to be without merit 16 The undersigned concludes that by the failure to make any reply to the Union's letter of September 13, followed by unfair labor practices destructive of the Union's status as collective bargaining representative, there was a breach of the obligation to bargain collectively as prescribed in the Act. 2. The appropriate unit The amended complaint alleges that, "all employees of the respondents em- ployed at their Leeds, Alabama, plant, exclusive of office manager, stockroom supervisor, clerical employees, foreladies, machinists, head cutter, watchmen and guards, professional employees and supervisors as defined in the Act constitute a unit appropriate for the purpose of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act." During the hearing, the General Counsel was granted permission to further amend the complaint to exclude the category of maid from the appropriate unit. The parties were in disagreement as to the inclusion in the unit of the category of maid, but were otherwise in agreement as to the composition of the appropriate unit. One maid is employed at the plant. It was stipulated that in September 1947 she was responsible for the cleanliness of the ladies rest room and for cleaning the general offices of the company. She devoted two-thirds of her time to the rest room and the remainder to the office. Densmore testified that the Union did not admit maids to membership. The undersigned concludes that the maid performs work substantially different from those in the unit and that the category of maid should be excluded from the appropriate unit10 The parties also were in dispute as to whether Maxine Young, Jesker Weaver, Banks Holloway, and Dorothy Pickle were supervisory employees within the meaning of the Act. All had similar duties and responsibilities and their cases can be treated as a unit. Glenn testified that in September 1947 he had 40 machines and operators em- ployed on a single production line. Young, Weaver, and Holloway were assigned to sections of that line, and had the pay-roll title of "Forelady." Pickle was assigned to a unit of 5 machines where trimmings were made and was listed under the title of "Feeder." Glenn's testimony as to their background, duties, and responsibilities was as follows : They had worked for him at another plant as utility operators (operators who could fill in at different tasks, as required). He offered them positions at Leeds, he stated, because he wanted them to teach the new and inexperienced employees. These 4 had no power to hire, dis- charge, promote or demote, transfer, reward or discipline employees. As Glenn hired employees, he would turn them over to 1 of the 4 for instruction. He testified that the 4 also did sewing as utility operators. They were hourly paid with no minimum guaranteed. In short, Glenn claimed, they performed routine work and had no discretion over operations . He further testified that they would check for defective work and return it for repair to the operator 15 Cf. Hoover Co. v. Electrical Workers, 22 L. R R. M 2323 (not officially reported). Contra : Fulford v. Smith Cabinet Manufacturing Co., 77 N. E. 2d 755 (not yet officially reported). 16 Matter of Conro Manufacturing Company, 47 N. L. R. B. 456. THE SOLOMON COMPANY 241 responsible. Occasionally they would do the repairs themselves, if the operator was behind in her work. It further was part of their duties to see that proper thread was used and that stitching was done correctly. Glenn also testified that he did not ask any of the 4 employees for reports on individual employees, but depended on his own observation. He admitted that he had had discussions with the 4 with reference to seeing what could be done to increase production or prevent a high rate of returned goods. He also received a daily report of work in the units under each of the 4 but, he testified, had no discussion about the reports except to ask them to help increase production, and did not enter into a discussion of the capabilities of individual employees. The four received 75 cents an hour. Regular production employees received from 40 to 55 cents an hour. In addition, the four earned overtime compensa- tion several afternoons a week. Young's testimony as to her duties and responsibilities was to the same effect as Glenn's. She testified that in August she spent about 50 percent of her time sewing, but that that type of work has steadily decreased. Mattie Etheridge testified that she had worked under Holloway and Pickle, that they instructed the production workers in their duties, brought them work, and helped them catch up in their work. Lydia Boley and Elsie Baker gave similar testimony. It clearly appears from their testimony that Glenn told new employees that the four employees were foreladies and that employees so regarded them. None of them had a regularly assigned machine. The Respondents contend that except for ownership participation, Glenn,was the only supervisory employee at the production line. Their contention, in sum- mary, was that Glenn was able to observe and supervise the work of all the employees on the 40-machine production line, control the work of 35 to 40 other workers (some of whom worked under their own immediate supervisors) and carry on other duties as the chief operating official at the plant. The undersigned finds the Respondents, in their contention, present an un- realistic picture of the situation at the plant. Glenn did observe conditions on the production line from time to time and he did exercise general supervision over it as well as over other production units. However, it is clear from his own testimony that he could not give the production line the close supervision re- quired by the assembly line method used at the plant, particularly in view of the fact that the operators were generally inexperienced and required a good deal of help and instruction. The testimony of the employees shows that they looked for that guidance to the four employees whose status is in question. These four were considered by the employees as foreladies and management had also given them that designation , and as such they checked the work of the em- ployees at the machines, gave them instructions, and did what they could to maintain a continuous flow of work down the production line. The under- signed concludes that Young, Weaver, Holloway, and Pickle had authority to responsibly direct employees in their respective sections within the meaning of the Act and were supervisory employees. They will be excluded from the appropriate unit.14 • The case of Matter of Detrola Corporation, 43 N. L. R. B. 679, cited by the Respondents, dealt with the status of floorladies whose duties and responsibilities resembled those of the four employees in this case. However, the Board, in deciding to include them in a production and maintenance unit expressly relied on the fact that the floorladies were members of the Union involved, that it had 17 Matter of Conro Manufacturing Company, 47 N. L. R. B. 456, Matter of Salant t Salant, Inc , 69 N. L R B 84. 242 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD bargained in their behalf, and'had obtained terms and conditions of employ- ment in its contract specifically applicable to that class of employees. The situation in the instant case is entirely different and the undersigned concludes that the cited case is not binding herein. The undersigned finds that all employees of the Respondents employed at their plant at Leeds, Alabama, exclusive of the office manager, the stockroom supervisor, the maid, clerical employees, foreladies, machinists, the head cutter, watchmen, guards, professional employees, and supervisors as defined in the Act at all times material herein constituted and now constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act. 3. Representation of a majority in the appropriate unit A copy of the plant pay roll for September was received in evidence. Of the 96 names on the pay roll, the parties stipulated and agreed that 73 were in the appropriate unit (although the figure fluctuated during the period), 11 were not within it, e 7 had ceased to be employed before the Union's letter to the Company was sent concerning its claim of majority status," and 5 were in dispute as to their inclusion or exclusion. In accordance with the conclusions reached in the preceding section, the following employees will be excluded from the appropriate unit : Anne Lewis, the maid, and Foreladies Young, Weaver, Holloway, and Pickle. Union membership application cards, signed by employees, were submitted in substantiation of the Union's claim of a majority. Detailed testimony as to the authenticity of the signatures and the circumstances under which these cards were signed was given by union representatives and employees. The undersigned, after a study of, that testimony as well as contentions raised by the Respondents that the cards were not, in some cases, fully filled out and that some employees did not know the effect of the language on the cards, accepts the cards as authentic and as indicating that those signing had designated the Union as bargaining agent on the dates indicated on the cards. A comparison of the cards against the pay-roll data of employees in the unit shows that in the 2-week period from September 15 to September 26 the Union represented between 36 and 39 employees in the appropriate unit and that its majority fluctuated between 2 and 9, but that it had a majority all during the period. However, the Respondents contend that any computation of the Union's major- ity must take account of the fact that at the September 26 meeting a number of union adherents demanded the return of their membership cards. This conten- tion would be a correct one if the attempted withdrawals had not occurred after the commission of unfair labor practices and, in fact, while Glenn was interfering with the meeting. Under such circumstances: the Union's loss of majority, if it did occur, is attributable to the unfair labor practices and'the Respondents cannot take advantage of those activities by asserting a loss of majority as justification for their refusal to bargain 20 "The 11 are : J. E Horner, Ora Craft, Joe Wideman , Wesley Wideman , Ophelia McLaughlin , Albert S Williams , E. E McNess , Nathan Solomon , James L. Greer, Taylor Gee, and C F Glenn. 1" Mandie Hill, Lula Patterson , Helen Beasley, Ruby Boley , Mary Hutchins, Marie Patmon , and Geneva Holliday. 20 See Medo Photo Supply Corporation v N. L R B ., 321 U S 678 ; Matter of The Toledo Desk & Furniture Co, 75 N . L. R. B. 744 , Matter of Karp Metal Products Company, 51 N L R B 621. THE SOLOMON COMPANY 243, The offer to cooperate in an election likewise cannot affect the outcome herein since it was made after the commission of unfair labor practices. Finally, the Respondents contend that there has been such a change in the operations of the plant as to affect the relief to be directed. Witnesses for the Respondents testified that the Respondents planned to expand operations at the plant from the one production line and a section in operation in September 1947 to four production lines and that at the time of the hearing a second production line had been established and that total personnel had increased from 82 to 125. However, it clearly appears from the testimony of Dave Solomon and Glenn that, while orders for additional machinery had been placed, there was a shortage of that type of machinery and it was not certain when delivery could be made. It further appeared that production plans for the next season had been based on the continuance of the two production lines without expansion. The under- signed concludes that the changes in production at the plant are no bar to the granting of relief herein. Mere expansion, of a unit where no substantial change has occurred in the nature of the operations cannot be asserted as a justification for a refusal to bargain when collective bargaining should have been engaged in by a respondent months before the expansion took place.' The undersigned further finds that on September 15, 1947, and at all times thereafter, the Respondents failed and refused to bargain collectively with the Union as the exclusive representative of their employees in the aforesaid appro- priate unit, thereby interfering with, restraining, and coercing their employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of the Respondents set forth in Section III, above, occurring in connection with the operations described in Section I have a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States and such of them as have been found to be unfair labor practices tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce. V. THE REMEDY Since it has been found that the Respondent, Joseph Solomon, d/b/a The Solomon Company, has engaged in certain unfair labor practices it will be recommended that he cease and desist therefrom in order to effectuate the policies of the Act. Subsequent to the commission of the unfair labor practices the Respondent Corporation, The Solomon Company, took possession of all of the assets of the unincorporated Respondent including the Leeds plant and its equipment and is continuing business without any substantial change in the nature of the operations or the management personnel. Joseph Solomon is presi- dent and principal stock holder of the Respondent Corporation. The Respondent Corporation, as successor to Joseph Solomon d/b/a The Solomon Company, having full knowledge of the unfair labor practices is under, an obligation to remedy them. The undersigned finds that in order to fully remedy the unfair labor prac- tices it will be necessary that the Respondent Corporation also be required to cease and desist from certain conduct and that said Respondent take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act'2 Having found n Matter of Simmons Engineerinq Co , 65 N L H. B 1373. 21 N. L. R. B. v Cullen, 105 F. (2d) 179, 183, N L. R B. v. Adel Clay Products Com- pany, 134 F (2d) 342, 346; N L R B. v National Garment Co., 166 F. (2d) 233, cert. den. 334 U. S. 845, Matter of the Alexander Milburn Company, 78 N. L. R. B. 747. '244 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD that there has been a refusal to bargain collectively with the Union, the under- signed will recommend that the Respondent Corporation upon request bargain collectively with the Union as the representative of all. its employees at its plant at Leeds, Alabama, exclusive of the office manager, the stockroom supervisor, the maid, clerical employees, foreladies, machinists, the head cutter, watchmen, guards, professional employees, and supervisors as defined in the Act. It has also been found that the activities of certain supervisory employees in questioning production employees as to their union sympathies and the surveillance and interference with union meetings by supervisory employees was violative of the Act. The scope of the illegal conduct discloses a purpose to defeat self-organiza- tion among the employees. Such conduct reflects a determination generally to interfere with, restrain, and coerce the employees in the exercise of the right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain col- lectively through representatives of their own choosing and to engage in con- certed activities for the purposes of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection and presents a ready and effective means of destroying self- organization among the employees. The undersigned is convinced that if the Respondents are not restrained from committing such conduct the danger of their commission in the future is to be anticipated from the conduct in the past and the policies of the Act will be defeated. In order, therefore, to make effec- tive the interdependent guarantees of Section 7 of the Act, to prevent a recur- rence of unfair labor practices and thereby minimizing industrial strife, which burdens and obstructs commerce, and to thus effectuate the policies of the Act, the undersigned will recommend that the Respondents cease and desist from in any manner infringing upon 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 undersigned makes the following : CONCLUSIONS of LAW 1. United Garment Workers of America, affiliated with the American Federa- tion of Labor, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act. 2. All employees of the Respondents employed at their plant at Leeds, Alabama, exclusive of the office manager, the stockroom supervisor, the maid, clerical employees, foreladies, machinists, the head cutter, watchmen, guards, pro- -fessional employees, and supervisors as defined in the Act at all times material herein constituted and now constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act. 3. United Garment Workers of America, A. F. L., was, on September 15, 1947, and at all times thereafter has been and now is the exclusive representative of the employees in said unit for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (a) of the Act. 4. By refusing on September 15, 1947, and at all times thereafter to bargain collectively with United Garment Workers of America, A. F. L., as the exclusive representative of their employees in the appropriate unit, the Respondents have engaged in and are engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (5) of the Act. 5. By the above acts and by the activities of supervisory employees in question- ing production employees as to their union sympathies and attitude towards the Union, the surveillance and interference with union meetings, and by the failure 23 See May Department Stores Company, etc., v. N. L. R. B., 326 U. S. 376. THE SOLOMON COMPANY 245 to remedy these unfair labor practices, the Respondents have interfered with and are interfering with, restraining, and coercing their employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act and have thereby engaged in and are engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act. 6. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. RECOMMENDATIONS Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and conclusions of law, the under- signed recommends that the Respondent Corporation, The Solomon Company, Leeds, Alabama, its successors and assigns shall : 1 Cease and desist from : (a) Refusing to bargain collectively with United Garment Workers of Amer- ica, A. F. L., as the exclusive representative of its employees in the unit hereto- fore found appropriate with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, or other conditions of employment. (b) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its em- ployees in the exercise of their rights to self-organization, to form labor organi- zations, to join or assist United Garment Workers of America, A. F. L., to bar- gain collectively through representatives of their own choosing and to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection as guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action which the undersigned finds will effec- tuate the policies of the Act : (a) Upon request bargain collectively with United Garment Workers of America, A. F. L., as the exclusive representative of all employees employed at its plant at Leeds, Alabama, exclusive of the office manager, the stockroom supervisor, the maid, clerical employees, foreladies, machinists, the head cut- ter, watchmen, guards, professional employees, and supervisors as defined in the Act, in respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other condi- tions of employment, and if an understanding is reached embody such under- standing in a signed agreement. (b) Post at its plant at Leeds, Alabama, copies of the notice annexed hereto marked "Appendix A." Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for the Tenth Region, shall, after being duly signed by said Respondents' representative, be posted by said Respondents immediately upon receipt thereof and maintained by it for a period of sixty (60) consecutive days thereafter in conspicuous places including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by said Respondents to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced or covered by any other material. - As to the Respondent individual, Joseph Solomon, d/b/a The Solomon Com- pany, the undersigned recommends that he, his agents, successors, and assigns shall cease and desist from in any manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing his employees in the exercise of their rights to self-organization, to form labor organizations, to join or assist United Garment Workers of America, A. F. L., to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing and to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection as guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. It is also recemmended that the Respondents file with the Regional Director for the Tenth Region, as an agent for the Board, within twenty (20) days from 753396-50-vol. 84-17 246 DECISIONS Of' NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD the date of the service of this Intermediate Report, a report in writing setting forth in detail the manner and form in which they have complied with the fore- going recommendations. All parties are hereby advised that upon the filing of this Intermediate Report and the service of copies thereof upon the parties-as provided in Section 203.45 of the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board-Series 5, as amended, effective August 22, 1947-the Board will enter an order trans- ferring the case to itself, and will serve a copy of the order upon each of the parties, setting forth the date of the transfer aforesaid. If, within twenty (20) days from the date of service of this Intermediate Report, the Respondents shall satisfy the Regional Director, as the agent of the Board, that they have complied, or will comply, with the foregoing recommenda- tions, it is recommended that the National Labor Relations Board issue an order, or take other appropriate, action, to close the case on compliance. Unless the Respondents shall satisfy the Regional Director within twenty (20) days from the date of service of this Intermediate Report that they have complied, or will comply, with the foregoing recommendations, it is recommended that the National Labor Relations Board issue an order requiring the Respondents to take the action aforesaid. All parties are advised, however, that any party may, within twenty (20) days from the date of service of the order transferring the case to the Board, file with the Board, Rochambeau Building, Washington 25, D. C-pursuant to Section 203 46 of the aforesaid Rules and Regulations-an original and six copies of a statement in writing setting forth such exceptions to the Intermediate Report, or to any other part of the record or proceeding (including rulings upon all motions or objections) as he relies upon, together with the original and six copies of a brief in support thereof. Matters not included in the Statement of Exceptions may not thereafter be urged before the Board, or in any further proceeding under the Act. Any party also may, within the same period, file an original and six copies of a brief in support of the Intermediate Report. Imme- diately upon the filing of such a Statement of Exceptions and supporting brief, or brief in support of the Intermediate Report, the party filing the same shall serve a copy thereof upon each of the other parties. Proof of service on the other parties of all papers filed with the Board shall be properly made as re- quired by Section 203.85. Should any party desire permission to argue orally before the Board, request therefor must be made in writing to the Board, within ten (10) days from the date of service of the order transferring the case to the Board. The parties are further advised that, in the event no Statement of Exceptions is filed as provided by the aforesaid Rules and Regulations, and in the absence of compliance, all objections and exceptions to this Intermediate Report shall be deemed waived for all purposes-as provided in Section 203.48 of the aforesaid Rules and Regulations-and the findings, conclusions, and recommendations contained herein shall be adopted by the Board and become its findings, con- clusions and order. SIDNEY L. FEILER, Trial Examiner. Dated October 29, 1948. THE SOLOMON COMPANY APPENDIX A NorICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES 247 Pursuant to the recommendations of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Relations Act, we hereby notify our employees that : WE wiLL NOT in any manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our em- ployees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to form labor organizations, to join or assist UNITED GARMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA, A F. L. or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection. All our employees are free to become or remain members of this union, or any other labor organization. WE WILL BARGAIN collectively upon request with the above-named union 1 as the exclusive representative of all employees in the bargaining unit des- scribed herein with respect to rates of pay, hours of employment, or other conditions of employment, and if an understanding is reached, embody such understanding in a signed agreement. The bargaining unit is : All employees employed at the plant at Leeds, Alabama, exclusive of the office manager, the stockroom supervisor, the maid, clerical employees, foreladies, machinists, the head cutter, watchmen, guards, professional em- ployees, and supervisors as defined in the National Labor Relations Act. THE SOLOMON COMPANY, Employer. Dated------------------------------- By---------------------------------- (Representative ) (Title) This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof, and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.