Winona Knitting Mills, Inc.

In the Matter Of WINONA KNITTING MILLS, INC. and INTERNATIONAL LADIES GARMENT WORKERS UNION, A. F. OF L. Case No. 18-C-1134.Decided April 4,19461 DECISION AND ORDER On September 25, 1945, the Trial Examiner issued his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair practices and recommending that the respondent cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the Inter- mediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the respondent filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and a supporting brief. No request for oral argument before the Board in Washington, D. C., was made and none was held. The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are here- by affirmed. The Board has considered the Intermediate Report, the iespondent's exceptions and brief, and the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner with the following modifications : 1. In adopting the Trial Examiner's finding that the respondent's conduct with respect to the Independent is violative of Section 8 (1) of the Act, we do not rely upon the conduct of Assistant Foreladies Loretta Sieler and Maude Scheets in entering the lunch room on April 16 when a certain meeting was in progress, as set forth in Sec- tion III, C, of the Intermediate Report. 2. We agree with the Trial Examiner that the respondent engaged in a coercive course of conduct to discourage the employees' self- organizational activities. In such a setting, and more specifically in the light of the respondent's threats of and actual economic reprisals against its employees for engaging in union activities, as disclosed in the Intermediate Report, Secretary-Treasurer Woodworth's speech to the employees on February 14, 1945, at the beginning of the Union's organizational campaign, and the respondent's letter to the employees, dated May 3, 1945, became an inseparable part of the respondent's ' On April 18, 1946, the Board vacated and set aside this Decision and Order, and, on 1ugust 26, 1946, reissued its Decision and Order. See 70 N. L it. B, No. 44. 67 N. L. R. B., No. 1. 692148-46-vol 67-2 1 2 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD coercive course of conduct violative of Section 8 (1) of the Act. However, in concluding that Woolworth's speech fell outside the pro- tection of the privilege of free speech, the Trial Examiner, relied, in part, upon the fact that the speech was made to a compulsory audi- ence of employees. We need not, and do not, pass upon or adopt the Trial Examiner's rationale in this regard. ORDER Upon the entire record in the case, and pursuant to Section 10 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the respondent, Winona Knitting Mills, Inc., Winona, Minnesota, and its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall : 1. Cease and desist from : (a) Discouraging membership in International Ladies Garment Workers Union, A. F. of L., or any other labor organization of its employees, by discharging or refusing to reinstate any of its em- ployees, or by discriminating in any other manner in regard to their hire or tenure of employment, or any term or condition of employ- ment; (b) Recognizing the Independent Textile Workers Union as the representative of any of its employees 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; (c) 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 International Ladies Garment Workers Union, A. F. of L., or any other labor organization, to bar- gain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bar- gaining 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) Pay to those employees whose names are listed in Appendix B, attached to the Intermediate Report, a sum of money equal to the amount that each would have earned as wages from the date that he or she was discriminatorily laid off by the respondent to the date that he or she was recalled to work, less net earnings during said period; (b) Offer to Linda Nelsestuen full and immediate reinstatement to her former or a substantially equivalent position, without prejudice to her seniority or other rights and privileges, including reinstatement to full benefits under the respondent's Profit Sharing Plan; WINONA KNITTING MILLS, INC. 3 (c) Make whole Linda Nelsestuen for any loss of pay that she may have suffered as a result of the respondent 's discrimination against her, by payment to her of a suln of money equal to the amount which she normally would have earned as wages from the date of her dis- charge to the date of the respondent's offer of reinstatement, less her net earnings during said period; (d) Post at its plant at Winona, Minnesota, copies of the notice attached to the Intermediate Report, marked "Appendix E." 2 Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director of the Eighteenth Region, shall, after being duly signed by the respondent's representative, be posted by the respondent immediately upon the re- ceipt thereof, and maintained 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 to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material; (e) Notify the Regional Director for the Eighteenth Region in writing, within ten (10) days from the date of this Order, what steps respondent has taken to comply herewith. MR. GERARD D. REILLY took no part in the consideration of the above Decision and Order. INTERMEDIATE REPORT Mr. Stanley D. Kane, for the Board. George, Owen & Brekmer, by Mr. Morris Owen and Mrs. V. G Torgerson, of Winona, Minn, for the respondent. Mr. Thomas O. Kachelmacher, of Minneapolis, Minn., for the Union. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Upon a third amended charge duly filed May 29, 1945, by International Ladies Garment Workers Union, A. F. of L., herein called the Union, the National Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board, by its Regional Director for the Eighteenth Region ( Minneapolis , Minnesota ), issued its complaint, dated June 4, 1945, against Winona Knitting Mills, Inc., Winona, Minnesota, herein called the respondent, alleging that the respondent had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8 (1), (2), and (3) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein called the Act. Copies of the complaint were duly served upon the respondent, the Union, and Independent Textile Workers Union, herein called the Independent.' With respect to the unfair labor practices, the complaint alleged in substance (1) that on or about April 25, 1945, the respondent instigated, sponsored, inter- lered with, and dominated the formation of the Independent among its employees, and supported it financially and otherwise, (2) that on April 10, 1945, the This notice, however, shall be, and hereby is, amended by striking from the first paragraph thereof the words The Recommendations of a Trial Eraminei" and substi- tuting in lieu thereof the words , "A Decision and Order " 1 The Independent entered no appearance and did not participate in the hearing 4 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD respondent constructively discharged Linda Nelsestuen because of her member- ship in and activities on behalf of the Union; (3) that on or about March 28, 1945, the respondent laid off certain of its night shift employees because of their membership in and activities on behalf of the Union; (4) that on or about February 14, 1945, the respondent granted its employees a wage increase for the sole purpose of restraining them from joining or assisting the Union; (5) that from February 14, 1945, to the date of the issuance of the complaint the respond- ent warned and discouraged its employees against affiliation with or engaging in activities on behalf of the Union; questioned its employees regarding their union affiliation ; disparaged the Union and its leaders ; threatened to lay-off its employees, discontinue its bonus system, close its plant and decrease wages if the Union became the bargaining agent of its employees; and further did force and seek to force, by threat of reprisal, withdrawal of its employees from the Union; and (6) that by the foregoing conduct the respondent interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the At On June 13, 1945, the respondent filed its answer in which it admitted those allegations of the complaint pertaining to its corporate structure and to its being engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act ; admitted that it transferred Linda Nelsestuen, but denied that the transfer was a constructive and discriminatory discharge ; admitted that it laid off certain employees of the night shift, but averred that the lay-off was for valid reasons and not dis- criminatory; denied that it sponsored or supported the Independents, and denied that it had engaged in unfair labor practices. Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held from June 28 to July 3, 1945, inclusive, at Winona, Minnesota, before Louis Plost, the undersigned Trial Examiner duly designated by the Chief Trial Examiner. The Board, the respondent, and the Union were represented by counsel Full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence hearing upon the issues was afforded all parties At the close of the Board's case, the respondent moved to dismiss the complaint. The motion was denied The respondent then moved to dismiss separately those portions of the complaint dealing with unfair labor practices. Rulings on the latter motions were reserved. At the close of the hearing the respondent's at- torney renewed the above-mentioned motions. The undersigned's rulings on these motions were the same as previously made. The respondent's motions are hereby denied. Likewise, at the close of the hearing, counsel for the Board moved to conform the complaint to the proof with respect to names, dates. spelling, and other formal matters. The respondent made a similar motion with respect to the answer. Both motions were granted without objection Counsel for the Board and for the respondent argued orally on the record An opportunity was afforded all parties to file briefs with the undersigned. No briefs were received. Upon the entire record in the case and from his obser%ation of the witnesses, the undersigned makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT Winona Knitting Mills, Inc., is an Ohio corporation , having its principal place of business at Winona, Minnesota, where it is engaged in the manufacture of knit goods. It purchases each month for use in the manufacture of its product WINONA KNITTING MILLS, INC. 5 raw materials valued in excess of $75,000. Ninety-four per cent of these ma- terials is purchased by the respondent outside the State of Minnesota and reaches its Winona plant through the channels of interstate commerce. The value of the goods manufactured by the respondent at its Winona plant is approximately $150,000 monthly. Ninety-eight per cent of such products is shipped to points outside the State of Minnesota by the respondent. The respondent concedes that it is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED International Ladies Garment Workers Union, A. F. of L., and Independent Textile Workers Union are labor organizations admitting employees of the respondent to membership. III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Introduction The alleged unfair labor practices, hereinafter discussed in detail, occurred within the framework of these more general facts. Early in February 1945, the Union began an organizational drive among the respondent's employees by sending a letter inviting them to attend a meeting on February 15. William Brown, the respondent's plant superintendent, obtained a copy of the Union's letter, and forwarded it to the respondent's Cleveland, Ohio, offices On Feb- ruary 14, the respondent caused all of its employees to be assembled in its plant, where they were addressed by Walker Woodworth, the respondent' s secre- tary-treasurer. A few days after Woodworth's speech, two of the respondent' s employees began to circulate a petition against the Union. These two employees, Herbert Nichols and Cell Stanley' organized the Independent Textile 'Workers Union, alleged to be dominated by the respondent On March 28, the respondent laid off all of its night shift sewers. On April 14 the employment of Linda Nelsestuen was terminated. From February 14 until the date of the hearing the respondent allegedly engaged In unfair labor practices by anti-union statements and questioning by certain pf its supervisors, Ruth Blank, Maude Scheets, Cell Ludwig , and Raymond Walton, by the issuance of letters, and by posting a notice addressed to its employees. B. Interference, restraint, and coercion 1. Woodworth's speech By letter the Union invited the respondent's employees to attend a meeting for the purpose of self-organization. The meeting was announced for February 15, 1945. In its letter the Union stated : The International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union, has the following program lined up for the Winona Knitting Mill employees . . . PAID VACA- TIONS ... DECENT WORKING CONDITIONS ... SENIORITY RIGHTS ... MORE WAGES . . . NO FAVORITISM ... FIVE CENTS PER HOUR MORE FOR NIGHT WORK ... TIME AND ONE HALF PAID FOR WORK OVER EIGHT HOURS PER DAY . . . PAID HOLIDAYS .. . and many other things too numerous to mention herein. 9 The respondent's officers reside at Cleveland, Ohio. 3 Stanley is also referred to in the record as Ceil Stanislowski and as Sticks. 6 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD On February 14, at about 4. 30 p in, while the shifts were changing, all the respondent's employees, both day and night shifts, were assembled by their , supervisors Walker Woodworth, the respondent's secretary-treasurer, then addressed them.4 Woodworth told the employees that although it was disadvantageous for the respondent to operate in Winona, it was possible because of the lower wage scale obtaining there He then pointed out that the respondent had provided its employees with insurance and hospitalization and had paid them a Christmas bonus. He announced that in December, 1944, the respondent had established a Profit Sharing Plan for the benefit of its employees and had at that time deposited $44,990 54 in a local bank as a trust fund under the plan 6 Woodworth announced a paid vacation, a plan for recreational activities, and a five cents per hour increase for night workers ° Woodworth then stated that in Cleveland, Ohio, the Union charged a $6 50 initiation fee ; collected $1 35 monthly dues ; required contributions from its members ; fined members for not attending meet- ings and compelled members to put ten percent of their pay into War Bonds. Woodworth also told the employees, inter alga: What I have told you today about the things we have done, and what we intend doing will not be changed by any decision you may make as to bow you are to be represented, whether individually, by committee appointed by yourselves to deal dii ectly with management, or by a union to whom you pay initiation dues and assessments However, regardless of your decision, you are not compelled to sign any agreement of any kind with this company. The employees were paid for the time spent at the meeting The question of the legality of Woodworth's speech, evaluated in the light of all the evidence in the record, is disposed of hereinafter. 2. Later events Frances Lipinski testified that on or about February 15, Ceil Ludwig, the respondent's day '.lift foielady, asked her , while she ( Lipinski ) was at her work, whether sLc had attended the union meeting . Lipinski replied that she had not. Upon receiving Lipinski's reply Ludwig went on to say that union members were compelled to attend meetings, buy bonds , and make donations. Sometime between April 16 and 20 , Ruth Blank , respondent 's forelady in charge of the night shift sewers, asked employee Dolores Czaplewski what she knew about the Union , if she had seen the union organizer , and if she thought the Union "would get in " Czaplewski replied that she thought the Union would succeed in organizing the employees. On April 16 or 17, Maud Scheets , an assistant forelady , was asked by employee Czaplewski whether employees would be discharged in the event they joined the Union. Scheets did not answer the question but said that the employees were foolish to join and would be better off "to have it company union " Scheets 4 The parties stipulated the facts concerning the delivery of Woodworth's speech. A copy appears as "Appendix A " ° In brief, the plan calla for the distribution of $44,990 54 among the respondent's em- plovees over it five-rear period, beginning December 1949. The employees share according to their earnings . There are appioximately 260 individuals among whom the sum will be distributed in fife equal ins ailments beginning 1) cemher 1949 Additional money, from profits, is to be added veaily The trust is irrevocable Although established in December 1944, the first knowledge of the existence of the profit sharing plan came to the employees through Woodworth's speech ° There is evidence in the record that night workers were already being paid five cents per hour more than day workers No additional pay raise was therefore made, except in a few cases where hi error the five cents additional pay had not been granted on hiring. WINONA KNITTING MILLS, INC. 7 denied making the statement Czaplewski impressed the undersigned as being an honest and forthright witness Sheets on the other hand appeared evasive and was at times self-contradictory The undersigned credits the testimony of Czaplewski. Eileen Ogburn, employed as a knitter by the respondent, testified that on April 17, Raymond Walton, one of the respondent's foremen, entered into a conversation with her while she was at her work saying to her in part that it was 'funny" that the Union brought in organizers who could not even speak English, that the Union would do nothing but take the employees' moneylr and that if the Union came into the plant the respondent would take away the bonus. Ogburn further testified that on April 25, Walton again came to her at her work and handed her a clipping from a local newspaper. The clipping was a report of an anti-union speech delivered before a local club the preceding night. Ogburn testified that Walton stood beside her as she read the article and remarked that union men who were present at the meeting had failed to challenge the speaker. Walton denied that lie made any disparaging remarks concerning the Union to Ogburn or that he gave her the report of the speech Walton testified that he showed a clipping from a Boston paper to Superintendent Brown, not iii the presence of Ogburn, but in the same room where she worked. Ogburn im- pressed the undersigned as a truthful witness whereas Walton did not The undersigned credits Ogburn's version of the incidents. Employee Wilma Swenson testified, without contradiction, that on March 30, Walton came to her while she was at her work and said : "flow about doing a little bookkeeping for nie . . . 'lake a piece of paper What you are going 1o get from Company benefits and what you will benefit from the Union" Swenson made no reply. The undersigned credits Swenson On or about May 15, Blank, in a conversation with employee Bernice Thilmany, while the two were walking home together, asked Thilmany if she "was for the Union." Upon receiving an affil mative reply, she told Thilmany that she (Blank) knew that all the night shift girls "were for the Union " Thilmany's testimony was not denied and is credited. C. The Match 28, 194', lay-off 1. The discriminatory lay-off of the night shift sewers On Wednesday night , March 28, Ruth Blank , forelady over the night shift seers, acting under orders of M ke Ross , the respondent 's finishing foreman, and Forelady Ceil Ludwig , ordered the night shift seiieis not to return to work until the following Monday ( April 2) The night shift usually quits work at 11 : 30 p in At 11. 30 p in, -larch 28, Annie Lee Hewett, an organizer for the Union , was outside the respondent's plant distributing literature to the employees leasing the plant Ruth Blank came out of the plant , approached Hewett and asked her, according to Hewett's testimony, if the plant could "close down and leave because of the union com- ing in " Hewett replied "No- Blank then asked Hewett whether the night shift could be discontinued because the employees had joined the Union. Upon receiving a negative answer, Blank remarked, "Well, they have all been laid ofi. I don't see why they can't be " Blank testified that she asked Hewett what effect the Union would have on her (Blank's) job and further testified that the question regarding the night shift lay-off was asked by employee Jennie Wanihoff who was also present at the time Wamhoff was called as a witness by the respondent but was not asked to corroborate Blank 's statement 8 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD In view of the respondent's failure to seek corroboration of Blank's testi- mony through Wamhoff, the undersigned credits Hewett's testimony. The under- signed finds that Blank did ask Hewett whether the respondent's night shift could be laid off because of its union adherence, at the same time informing Hewett that the night shift had been laid off, and stating that she ( Blank) "couldn't see why they can't be," laid off because they joined the Union. Two days later, Michael Finkelstein, territorial business manager for the Union, and Art Wedge, vice president of the A F. of L. State Federation of *Labor, called at the respondent's office and met with Paul Ross, the respondent's plant manager, William Brown, the respondent's plant superintendent, and Buol, the office manager; Ross, Brown, and Buol all denied any knowledge of the lay-off and upon an investigation conducted in the presence of Finkelstein and Wedge learned that the lay-off had been ordered by Mike Ross, the respondent's finishing foreman.' Paul Ross, the plant manager, issued orders for the im- mediate recall of the night shift, although it was already too late to recall them for that night. Paul Ross and Brown both testified, and at their conference with Finkelstein and Wedge so informed them, that on March 2S, Ross, Brown, and Buol were all out of the city. These men, who are the respondent's re- sponsible officials, had never been simultaneously absent. They returned on March 30, Ross from a trip to Cleveland, Ohio, and Brown and Buol from a trip to the "Twin Cities."' Finkelstein testified, his testimony being corroborated by Wedge and also substantially by that of Paul Ross and Brown, that (luring the conference above referred to, be (Finkelstein) asked if the layoff had been caused by lack of material. He was told by Superintendent Ross that such was not the case and that the respondent was in fact so busy that it would like to work three shifts.' Finkelstein asked if the lay-off was an attempt to break the Union. Ross refused comment. Finkelstein also asked Ross for assurance that a rumor to the effect that the plant would move to Cleveland, Ohio, in the event the em- ployees were unionized, was without foundation. Ross also refused to comment on this. Finkelstein asked that the respondent post a bulletin assuring its em- ployees that the respondent would not shut down its plant or move from Winona in order to defeat unionization. This Ross refused to do Finkelstein then asked that Ross meet a committee of employees with Finkelstein present. Ross refused to do so, but did agree to meet a group of employees with no outside union representation present. Mike Ross, the respondent's finishing foreman, testified that he is in charge of cutting, sewing, and pressing. He works on the day shift, but lays out work for the night shift. He testified that on March 28 he learned from one of the telephone operators that Paul Ross and Brown were both out of town, and that he did not know where they were nor when they would return, and that he had not been told by Paul Ross or Brown that they would be away. Mike Ross further testified that on March 28 he decided that there would not be enough work for the night shift sewers and, at the close of the night shift, laid them off until the following Monday, April 2. As previously related, the night shift sewers were recalled on March 30. Apparently there was, thereafter, no shortage of work.i' 4 Mike Ross is not related to Paul Ross e.tpparently Minneapolis-St. Paul. B Ross testified "We were hiring people every day. It is ridiculous to lay-off people with the Government crying for the work and I knew it was there " 10 Following the meeting of the two union representatives, Finkelstein and Wedge, with the respondent's managers, a committee of employee members of the Union called on Ross at his office Ross told the committee that there was plenty of work and that the lay-off of the night shift had been "an error of judgment." WINONA KNITTING MILLS, INC. 9 Concluding findings on the lay-off of the night shift sewers The only explanation offered by the respondent to meet the allegation that the night shift sewers were laid off in order to hinder the Union's organiz- ing efforts is that Mike Ross, finishing foreman, after casually learning that all the respondent's responsible officials were out of town, and, without know- ing where they were or when they would return, assumed managerial authority and suspended the plant's operations. This transcends reality. The more reasonable belief would seem to be that the absence of Brown, Paul Ross, and Buol was a convenient setting for the action that followed. This is buttressed by the fact that Mike Ross acted in conjunction with Ceil Ludwig and Ruth Blank who had both previously expressed hostility toward the Union to some of the night shift workers, which group Blank knew to be solidly organized by the Union." The undersigned finds that on March 28, 1945, the respondent laid off the night shift sewers in its employ because of their membership in and activities on behalf of the Union and thereby discouraged membership in a labor organi- zation by discrimination in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of the night shift workers," and has thereby interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. 2. The discriminatory discharge of Linda Nelsestuen Linda Nelsestuen was employed by the respondent in February 1944. She worked as a sewer on the day shift until sometime in September 1944. In September, Nelsestuen, the wife of a soldier now overseas, asked her forelady, Ludwig, to transfer her to the night shift. She explained that she could not find anyone to take care of her baby during the day and that her mother, who was employed during the day, could care for the child at night. In ac- cordance with this request, she was transferred to the night shift and continued to work thereon until her employment with the respondent was terminated April 10, 1945.n Nelsestuen's work was complimented by both Ludwig and Scheets, her super- visors. Nelsestuen joined the Union in March 1945 and became active in its behalf She assisted in obtaining members. She was a member of the Union's negotiat- ing committee which was charged with the framing of a contract to be presented to the respondent. Nelsestuen worked under the supervision of Ruth Blank, in whose presence night shift sewers discussed union affairs. On April 6, Blank changed Nelsestuen's work an unusual number of times. These changes required working on different colored materials and meant that Nelsestuen was required to change the thread on her machine to conform to the color of the materials given her. Nelsestuen testified, without contradiction, "Hewett testified that 40 of the approximately 45 employees on the night shift had de;;ignated the Union u Names of the employees discriminatorily laid off, as found above, are listed in Appendix B, attached hereto is That the respondent had full knowledge of Nelsestuen's inability to work any other than a night shift is evidenced by a letter dated May 3 sent out by the respondent to its employees explaining Nelsestuen's lay-off In this letter the respondent states • "This worker was a sewer on the day shift and when she told us sometime ago she would have to quit because she bad to care for her child in the daytime, we arranged that she might stay on at work by transferring her to the night shift." 10 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD that her rate of pay was 45 cents per hour plus a bonus which depended on the amount of finished work , and that changing thread colors interfered with her production and decreased her earnings . After several changes Nelsestuen com- plained to Blank. Blank told her that if she wished to argue, she (Blank) would take her to Brown . Upon one occasion when a change of thread was necessary, Nelsestuen told Blank that she did not have a spool of thread of the required color and asked Blank to get one. Blank pointed to a partially used spool on Nelsestuen's rack and ordered her to use it Blank then walked away. After Blank was some 25 feet distant , Nelsestuen remarked to her fellow em- ployees, using an ordinary conversational tone of voice, "If she expects me to use that thread she can stick it . " Blank was told of the remark by some of the sewers. She then went up to Nelsestuen and according to Nelsestuen's testimony said to her "that she did not have to do that " Nelsestuen made no reply to Blank and nothing more was said regarding the incident that night There is ample evidence in the record to the effect that the use of vulgar lau- guage is common among the respondent's employees in the plant Other em- ployees using vulgar language directed toward supervisors were not disciplined The above-related incident occurred on Friday night The plant does not operate Saturday night, the Saturday night shift working Saturday afternoon. Nelsestuen testified that she never worked Saturday afternoons because of having to care for her child . On Saturday night , April 7, Nelsestuen, in her capacity of committee member , attended a union meeting at which a proposed contract to be presented to the respondent was drawn On Monday night , April 9, Nel- sestuen worked as usual. During the course of the night's work, Nelsestuen explained the proposed contract terms to her fellow employees at the table and the group in the presence of Blank discussed the various demands the Union proposed to make upon the respondent . On the night of April 9 Blank made no mention of the remark made by Nelsestuen the previous Friday. On Tuesday, April 10, when Nelsestuen arrived for work, she found her card out of the rack and was summoned to Brown's office by Ludwig . Present in the office were Brown, Scheets , Blank, and Ludwig. Brown told Nelsestuen that he saw "no sense" in Nelsestuen and Blank being together and stated that he would put Nelsestuen on the day shift . Nelsestuen stated to Brown that she could not go on the day shift. Brown made no reply. Nelsestuen then asked for her release, which was given her. No night job was offered her. The testimony regarding the facts immediately concerning Nelsestuen's termination is not denied by the respondent. Blank testified that on the night of April 6 , she was compelled to make changes in Nelsestueu s work which required several changes in thread colors ; that after some few changes had been made , Nelsestuen asked the reason for the changes ; that after having been given an explanation she said to Blank, "If you want we to do this work, please bring me some thread ." Blank further testified that she (Blank ) then left and upon her return was told of the remark made by Nelsestuen in her absence . Blank then repeated the remark to Nelsestuen and told her she would report it to Brown Blank 's version does not contradict Nelsestuen's testimony. Blank testified that on Saturday she reported the incident to Ludwig who told her to report to Mike Ross; that on Monday she spoke to Mike Ross" who advised her to report the affair to "the office"; that on Tuesday, Blank reported the matter to Brown who called Nelsestuen to his office before the shift started work. 14 The same Mike Ross who of tiered the lay-off of the night shift see ers. WINONA KNITTING MILLS, INC. 11 Bernice Thilmany, a sewer under Blank's supervision, testified that on May 3, Blank called her into the rest room and asked her to go to Brown and repeat to him the obscene remark made by Nelsestuen on April 6. Thilmany refused. The next day Blank again came to Thilmany and offered her a pay raise if she would repeat the statement to Brown. Thilmany again refused. A few days later Blank told Thilmany that it now made no difference whether or not the latter repeated Nelsestuen's language to Brown as the latter had said "that the Union was on the way out " Thilmany's testimony was not denied. Caroline Lassen testified, without contradiction : Q. It was the night you received this letter, Mrs. Lassen, you had a conversation with Ruth Blank with reference to Linda? A. Yes. Q. What was that conversation? A. She came over to my table or machine. I was hemming sleeves that night substituting for another girl, but at my own machine. She began cutting sleeves apart for me. She sat down and I started talking to her. Did you receive one of those letters today? "What letter," she said. I said "letter from the Company about Linda." She said, "yes, did you?" I said, "Yes." I said, I think they stink. She said, what do you mean? I said the reference they had about Linda wasn't true, it might have been par- tially true, but it wasn't the full truth, and you know it. She said, Well what is that to you? I said it is a lot to me, Ruth, because I think justice is a lot of peoples business, and especially what I get in my mail box is my business. I said I sat beside Linda and I know the whole , procedure. She said, "Caroline, you know Linda did tell me that " I said, she did not tell you that. She said I heard it. I said, You couldn't have heard it. She said, well, I was right up there on that end of the table I was on the north end of the table and she said she was on the south end of the table I said, Ruth, you were not, you know where you were You were back in the corner behind a post talking to Carl. She looked at me and she was just shaking She got up and walked away. On May 3, the respondent mailed a letter to all its employees The letter first recapitulates Woodworth's speech of February 14 and then explains the termi- nation of Nelsestuen's employment. In the letter the respondent gives its rea- sons for the termination of Nelsestuen's employment. In its explanation the respondent misstates the facts concerning the events of April 6 heretofore discussed.'5 Concluding findings on the discharge of Linda Nelsestuen As previously found herein, the respondent had shown its hostility toward the Union and had discriminatorily laid off the night shift sewers who were solidly organized by the Union. Nelsestuen was admittedly a good employee. Vulgar language such as used by Nelsestuen on the night of April 6 was common in the plant. The vulgar remark was not made to Blank. Blank did not hear it. The last remark made to Blank by Nelsestuen was "please bring me a spool of thread " Although Blank did not hear the vulgar language, she stated to Lassen, in an evident attempt to influence her, that she had done so, and that the remark was directed to her Blank, in addition, offered to obtain a raise in pay for Thilmany if she would repeat Nelsestuen's language to Brown 15 A copy of the letter is attached hereto as Appendix C 12 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD From Friday (April 6) until Tuesday (April 10) nothing was (lone to disci- pline Nelsestuen. The entire affair seemed forgotten. On Monday Nelsestuen discussed the terms of a proposed union contract on which she had collaborated with her fellow employees. The discussion was in Blank's presence. Blank testified that on Tuesday she finally contacted Brown. Brown acted promptly. When Nelsestuen arrived at the plant her card was already removed from the rack. Realistically, the undersigned can only believe that Nelsestuen's vulgar re- mark was passed off On Monday, following the discussion of the proposed contract, it was seized upon as a pretext for Nelsestuen's discharge. The dis- charge was the respondent's method of warning its employees that union activity was dangerous. The respondent was fully aware of the fact that Nelsestuen could not accept day time employment. It made the offer knowing that she could not accept the transfer. The offer was an empty gesture. By the offered transfer the respondent therefore constructively discharged Nelsestuen." The undersigned is convinced and finds that the respondent discharged Linda Nelsestuen because of her membership in and activities on behalf of the Union, thereby discriminating in her hire and tenure of employment and discouraging membership in the Union, and thereby interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. C. Alleged domination of and interference with the formation and administration of a labor organization Employee Dorothy Meier testified, without contradiction, that sometime in February Herbert Nichols, the respondent's shipping clerk, 7 asked her to sign a petition headed "We the undersigned do not want an outside union." Meier declined to sign. Gratian Pehler testified that in mid-February Nichols asked him to sign a paper which Nichols stated was a petition against the Union. Pehler refused.19 There is considerable evidence in the record which the undersigned credits that Nichols, whose place of employment is on the first floor of the respondent's plant, visited various employees on other floors, during working hours, and solicited their signatures to an anti-union petition and that he freely circulated about the respondent's plant obtaining signatures to membership cards for the Independent Textile Workers Union, which he later organized. Cell Stanley,' a sewing room employee, joined Nichols in his anti-union activities. Stanley, too, apparently roamed about the plant at will soliciting signatures to anti- union petitions and obtaining members for the Independent. Stanley carried on her activities in the presence of various of the respondent's supervisors who made no attempt to hinder these activities. 19 See Waples-Platter Company, 49 N. L. R. B. 1156, 140 F. ( 2d) 228 (C. C. A. 5) Chicago Apparatus Co., 12 N. L R. B., 1002, affd. 116 F. (2d) 753 (C. C. A. 7). 17 Counsel for the Board sought to show that Nichols was a foreman The respondent's plant superintendent and plant manager both testified that Nichols had no supervisory status Although the record is clear that Nichols was paid a wage and bonus considerably in excess of two fellow employees working with him, and that he had greater seniority than the other employees in the same department, the undersigned is not persuaded that Nichols was other than a rank and file employee. 18 Nichols was In attendance throughout the hearing, except for the final afternoon session. He was not called as a witness During the final afternoon session the undersigned issued a summons, at the request of the Board, for his appearance. The County Sheriff who attempted to serve Nichols made a return of "Not Found." The Board's attorney stated on the record that he would not ask for a continuance because of Nichols' absence. 29 See footnote 3, supra. WINONA KNITTING MILLS, INC. 13 On April 14, and continuing through April 18, signs lettered in black crayon on brown cardboard, and about 2 feet by 3 feet in size, were displayed throughout the plant. The legends on the signs were all directed against the Union. At least two employees saw Chauncey Kline, the respondent's janitor, putting up some of these signs. Kline testified in behalf of the respondent but was not asked to deny the testimony to the effect that he put up some of the signs. Kline testi- fied that he joined the Union and then withdrew. The signs above referred to read in part : Down with the Union. Can they give you a job if this place closes. * * * * * * 13 Don't believe you have to join any union. Will the Union pay your expenses if you are out of a job. * * * * * * * Down with Union. What can they give you that you have not allready got. You didn't pay dues to get either. * * * * * * * If you like your job don't join the Union. * * * * * * Why pay a grafter to stand in front of the plant door. * * * * * * The Union and its majority is on its way out. Some of these signs were left hanging for as long as two days. Some were removed after hanging part of a day. There is evidence that Brown removed at least one of the signs and ordered others removed. One of these signs hung in the lunch room for a period of two days. Forelady Ruth Blank ate in the lunch room during the time the sign was there, and did nothing toward having it removed. Mike Ross, the finishing foreman, testified that he saw one of these signs but did not remove it nor report it to his superiors because "it wasn't any of my business ..." Ross and other supervisors as well as Paul Ross and Brown testified that all supervisors had been instructed not to mix in union affairs and to remain neutral. Although the authorship and origin of the signs remained a mystery, Ceil Stanley, active against the Union, is shown by the record to have displayed interest in their remaining in the plant. Pehler testified that during the period these signs were in the plant Stanley came into the boiler room, where he was employed, and said to him, "I would like to know who the son-of-bitch was that took the sign out of the building last night." Catherine Michalowski testified, and the undersigned credits her testimony, that on April 16, at 4: 30 p. m. she observed a group of employees including Nichols and Stanley enter the lunch room. Foreladies Scheets and Loretta Sieler also went into the room. Michalowski testified that she could hear Nichols addressing the gathering and that she heard him in the course of his talk ask if the employees wanted a union and what the Union could give them that they did not already have. Nichols told the group "Remember we are going to fight and fight hard." Scheets denied being present at the above reported meeting. Sieler testified that as the employees were on the way to the lunch room for the meeting they invited her to attend. She entered, but upon discovering, from the talks made, that this was a "union meeting" she immediately left. She made no report of the incident. 14 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Caroline Lassen testified that on May 19, she arrived for work at about 4: 10 p. m. As she was waiting in the outer hall she observed Cell Stanley standing In the hall talking to Ross, the plant manager. While Ross and Stanley were engaged in conversation Nichols came out of the office and handed Stanley a package which she opened Stanley then went outside and later distributed hand- bills announcing a meeting of the Independent . The handbills were taken from the package Nichols handed to Stanley . Stanley and Nichols both work on the shift which ends a t 4: 30 p. in. Ross denied any recollection of this incident. The undersigned was favorably impressed by Lassen and credits her testimony Annie Lee Hewett , union organizer , testified that in mid -May she and other union adherents were distributing union handbills in front of the respondent's plant Plant Superintendent Brown came out of the building and ordered one of the distributors off the sidewalk , saying that the sidewalk was the respondent's property. Brown admitted the occurrence. Employee Fern Walchak testified that one day during the latter part of May, union adherents were outside the respondent's plant passing out handbills Coil Stanley, whose shift ended at 4 : 30 p m , left her work at about 4: 10 p in. and went outside the plant. She and some other employees, who were adherents of the Independent, then built a fire in a bucket immediately at the street line in front of the plant and then took leaflets the Union was distributing, from any employees who would surrender them, and burned them in the fire. Walchak testified that the next morning she examined Stanley's time card and noted that the card showed that Stanley had "punched out" at 6:36 p. in Stanley's regular quitting time, as above stated , was 4: 30 p m. Stanley did not testify nor was Walchak's testimony otherwise challenged. The undersigned credits Walchak. The record shows that on or about May 19, 1045, the Independent Textile Workers Union was organized with Stanley as president and Nichols as secretary. On or about May 30, the Independent requested recognition of the respondent. Recognition was refused. Concluding findings as to the Independent Although the independent was formed by two of the respondent's rank and file employees, it is quite evident from the entire record that the respondent's attitude toward the formation of the Independent was entirely different from its attitude toward the effort to organize the Union. Nichols and Stanley began the circulation of an anti-union petition within a few days after Woodworth's speech They enjoyed full freedom in their efforts. When the anti-union petition became an organizing effort they were allowed even greater freedom by the respondent. They solicited membership in the presence of supervisors, who, according to the respondent, had been warned to remain neutral in all matters affecting organiza- tion, and to "break up" union discussions among employees. Nichols and Stanley conducted an Independent organizational meeting on the respondent's time and property without reprimand They left their work to pass out the Independent's handbills, while at the same time the Union's handbill passer was ordered off the sidewalk. Large signs derogatory to the Union were permitted to hang in the plant and although removed by the respondent, such removal was delayed. All the above clearly shows favoritism and a pro-Independent attitude by the respondent. On the whole, however, the undersigned is not convinced that such pro-Independent favoritism constitutes domination or support of the Inde- pendent by the respondent within the meaning of Section 8 (2) of the Act and will therefore recommend that the complaint be dismissed insofar as it alleges WINONA KNITTING MILLS, INC. 15 that the respondent did instigate, sponsor, interfere with, and dominate the formation of the Independent Textile Workers Union. The undersigned is persuaded, nevertheless, viewing the respondent's acts in the light of the entire record, and evaluating the total effect of such acts in regard to the formation of the Independent, that the respondent's conduct does constitute such assistance to the Independent as to amount not only to an abridgement of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act but more specifically to constitute a violation of Section 8 (1) of the Act 22 The undersigned so finds. D. Concluding findings as to interference, rest)aint, and coercion Woodworth, the respondent's secretary-treasurer, addressed the employees on February 14 The Union had called its initial organizational meeting for Feb- ruary 15. In its letter, inviting the respondent's employees to its initial meeting, the Union announced a program of benefits to be gained through self-organization In his speech Woodworth granted many of these benefits and dwelt on other good things which would come without benefit of unionization. He derogated the Union and its officials. The speech quite clearly expressed the respondent's wish that its employees refrain from joining the Union Woodworth stated: -However, regardless of your decision, you are not compelled to sign any agree- ment of any kind with this company." This statement, which could be interpreted by employees to mean that organi- zation was futile was made by Woodworth to a compulsory audience. Following the speech, Nichols and Stanley began the circulation of an anti- union petition. Viewed in the light most favorable to the respondent, their action showed the meaning Nichols and Stanley found in Woodworth's speech. Shortly thereafter, the night shift seweis were discriminatorily laid off and Linda Nelsestuen was discriminatorily discharged. Following Nelsestuen's discharge the respondent issued a letter to its em- ployees The letter misstates the facts surrounding the discharge. It also re- capitulates Woodworth's speech Everything Woodworth told the einploy ees is repeated in the letter The statement "It is not necessary that any employee belong to any union as a condition of working for our company," appears in the letter, set out in capitals The date of hearing in the instant matter was set for June 28 On June 22 respondent posted a notice addressed to its employees.' In this notice it attempts to try its case. The notice closes with the statement : This company will, from time to time, in accordance with the First Amend- ment of the Constitution of the United States, report to its employees on the pi ogress of these proceedings, and comment fairly on many matters affecting the Company and its relations with you. The respondent contends that Woodworth's speech and its communications to its employees are protected under the privilege of free speech. The undersigned finds no merit in this contention The right of free speech, as all rights, must of necessity be confined to reason- able limits . It is impossible to set hard and fast rules regarding the exercise of the right of free speech but it is clear that the right can be abused in its exercise. A speech delivered to a compulsory audience, and a letter recapitulating it, both designed to cloak coercive statements under the guise of an employer's 10 Heather Handkerchief Works, Inc, 47 N L. R B 800 , Interstate Folding Box Co , 47 N L R B 1192: Wayne Works, 47 N. L. R B. 1437, Elastic Stop Nut Corp., 51 N 1. R B 694, enforced 142 F (2d) 371 (C C A 8) 21 Att,ieiie,l as P %hihit D 16 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD asserted paternalism are not privileged. An employer cannot couple statements otherwise protected with economic threats. In the instant case, the respondent went far beyond making threats. It discriminatorily laid off and discharged employees in violation of the Act. Likewise, the statements and conduct of the respondent's supervisors, Blank. Scheets, Ludwig, and Walton, as reported in Section III-A-2, above, were all directed against the Union. It is significant that such conduct began immediately after Woodworth's speech. Viewed in its totality, the respondent's conduct, as evidenced by Woodworth's speech, e letter, the notice, and the conduct of its supervisors, form a single pati_ , , designed to intimidate, restrain, and coerce its employees. The undersigned finds that by Woodworth's speech of February 14; by the letter of May 3; by the notice posted shortly before July 28, and by the conduct and statements of its supervisors set forth in Section III-A-2 above, the re- spondent has interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act." IV. THE EFFECT OF THY UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The undersigned finds that the activities of the respondent set forth in Section III, above, occurring in connection with the operations of the respondent described in Section I, above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce. V. THE REMEDY Having found that the respondent has engaged in and is engaging in certain unfair labor practices, the undersigned will recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. Having found that the respondent discriminated in the hire and tenure of the night shift sewers ' by laying them off on March 28, 1945, the undersigned will recommend the respondent make whole each employee of the night shift so laid off for any loss of pay he or she may have suffered by reason of his or her discriminatory lay off by the payment to each of a sum of money he or she would have normally earned as wages from the date of his or her lay-off until the date of his or her recall to work. Having found that the respondent discharged Linda Nelsestuen, on April 10, 1945, because of her membership in and activities on behalf of the Union thereby discriminating in her hire and tenure of employment, the undersigned will recommend that the respondent offer Linda Nelsestuen immediate and full reinstatement to her former or substantially equal employment, without preju- dice to her seniority or other rights and privileges she may have, including full reinstatement to benefits under the respondent's Profit Sharing Plan. The undersigned will further recommend that the respondent make whole Linda Nelsestuen for any loss of pay she may have suffered by reason of her discrim- inatory discharge by the payment to her of a sum of money equal to the amount she normally would have earned as wages from the date of her discharge to 2' The record does not show that the respondent granted a pay raise to its employees or forced its employees to withdraw from the Union in order to hinder the employees in their efforts at self organization ^ Named in Appendix B attached hereto. WINONA KNITTING MILLS, INC. 17 the date of the respondent's offer of reinstatement, less net earnings 24 during said period. 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 International Ladies Garment Workers Union, A F. of L, and Independent Textile Workers Union are labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act. 2. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its i 'nvees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the rest., ant has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices, within the meaning of Section 8 (1) of the Act 3. By discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of the night shift sewers,25 and by discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of Linda Nelsestuen, thereby discouraging membership in International Ladies Garment Workers Union, A. F. o% L., the respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices, within the meaning of Section 8 (3) of the Act. 4. The aforesaid labor piactices are unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act 5. The respondent has not engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (2) of the Act RECOMMENDATIONS Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and conclusions of law, the undersigned recommends that the respondent, Winona Knitting Mills, Inc, Winona, Minnesota, its officers, agents, representatives, and assigns shall: 1. Cease and desist from : (a) Discouraging membership in the International Ladies Garment Workers Union, A. F. of L. or any other labor organization of its employees by laying off or discharging any of its employees or in any other manner discriminating in regard to their hire or tenure of employment ; (b) In any 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 International Ladies Garment Workers Union, A F. of 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 any other aid and protection as guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. 2 Take the following affirmative action which the undersigned finds will effectuate the policies of the Act : (a) Pay to those employees whose names appear on Appendix B hereto, a sum of money equal to the amount each would have earned as wages from the date he or she was discriminatorily laid off by the respondent to the date he or she was recalled to work ; 24 By "net earnings " is meant earnings less expenses , such as for transportation, room, and board, incurred by an employee in connection with obtaining woik and working else- where than for the respondent, which would not have been incurred but for his unlawful discharge and the consequent necessity of his seeking employment elsewhere. See Matter of Crossett Lumber Company, S N. L R. B. 440 Monies received for work performed upon Federal, State, county, municipal , or other work -relief projects shall be considered as earnings See Republic Steel Coaporation v. N. L R B , 311 U. S. 7. 25 See footnote 23, supra 622148-46-vo l 6 7- -- 3 18 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD (b) Offer Linda Nelsestuen full and immediate reinstatement to her former or substantially equivalent position, without prejudice to her seniority or other rights and privileges, including reinstatement to full benefits under the respond- ent's Profit Sharing Plan ; (c) Make whole Linda Nelsestuen for any loss of pay she may have suffered by reason of the respondent's discrimination against her, by payment to her of a sum of money equal to the amount she would have normally earned as wages from the date of her discharge to the date of the respondent's offer of reinstate- ment, less her net earnings during said period; 20 (d) Withhold recognition from the Independent Textile Workers Union as the representative of any of its employees for the purposes of collective bargain- ing, until such time as it may be certified as their representative by the Board ; (e) Post at its plant at Winona, Minnesota, copies of the notice attached to the Intermediate Report herein, marked "Appendix E." Copies of the said notice to be furnished by the Regional Director of the Eighteenth Region, shall, after being duly signed by the respondent's representative, be posted by the respondent immediately upon the receipt thereof, and rtlaintained by it for sixty (60) con- secutive days thereafter in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted Reasonable steps shall be taken by the respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material; (f) Notify the Regional Director for the Eighteenth Region within ten (10) days from the receipt of this Intermediate Report, in writing, setting forth in detail the manner in which the respondent has complied with the foregoing recommendations. It is also recommended that unless on or before ten (10) days from the receipt of this Intermediate Report, the respondent notifies said Regional Director, in writing, that it will comply with the foregoing recommendations, the National Labor Relations Board issue an order requiring the respondent to take the action aforesaid. It is further recommended that the allegations of the complaint charging the respondent with violation of Section 8 (2) of the Act be dismissed. As provided in Section 33 of Article II of the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, Series 3, as amended, effective July 12, 1944, any party or counsel for the Board may within fifteen (15) days from the date of the entry of the order transferring the case to the Board, pursuant to Section 32 of Article II of said Rules and Regulations, file with the Board, Rochambeau Building, Washington 25, D C., an original and four 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 objec- tions) as lie relies upon together with the original and four copies of a brief in support thereof. Immediately upon the filing of such statement of exceptions and/or brief, the party or counsel for the Board filing the same shall serve a copy thereof upon each of the other parties and shall file a copy with the Regional Director. As further provided in said Section 33, should any party desire per- mission to argue orally before the Board, request therefor must be made in writing to the Board within ten (10) days from the date of the order transferring the case to the Board Louis PLOST, Trial Eaanminer. Dated September 25, 1945 "" See footnote 24, mpro WINONA KNITTING MILLS , INC. 19 APPENDIX A We had intended, within ten days, to furnish each employee with a booklet which explains the purposes and aims of our program for the future. This pamphlet has been in the making for several weeks and is now in print. In view of recent events, we thought it wise to place the facts before you now-as to our future intentions and our decisions already made. We came to Winona with the idea of operating a factory where we could produce under good-working conditions, in a clean, airy building, our fine fab- rics in pastels and whites without 10 to 15% spoilage. In fact, in Cleveland we don't take orders in white or yellow unless we are compelled to do so. Winona was chosen for two reasons : at one time a knitting mill operated here and we expected to locate a nucleus of experienced help. In this we were some- what disappointed, but this lack was made up by willingness and cooperation on your part. The other reason was that I wanted to see a factory located in a prom- ising community where I would love to live, and where, if my interests in Cleve- land could not be severed, one of my boys would take over. This enterprise was considered for two years, as there were many reasons against our going so far'froni our markets. The long hauls of yarns mean loss of time and extra inventory expenses. As you know, most of the cotton comes from North and South Carolina and Georgia, and the wool-while produced here-is shipped to the wool market in Boston and then back to us in the form of spun yarns. Then about 63% of our finished garments are shipped back East-and the extra time and expense involved naturally has to be made up in the price of the goods manufactured One reason we can do this is that the top wage rates in this district are less than the prevailing wage rates at Cleveland This is natural, for, as you know, the living costs are higher in the Eastern cities. There are costs of transporta- tion to and from work, with a lot of travel time for which no pay is given, and living conditions there are entirely different. We expected to perfect our organization in not less than three to five years- but we grew so rapidly that much was crowded into the first year. Many mis- takes of management were made Things happened which were not foreseen- and many of them were not corrected. In March, 1944, we put into effect an Insurance Plan including: $1,000 Life Insurance Policy $10 50 Weekly Disability Benefits $3.50 Daily Hospitalization Benefits $150 00 Maximum Surgical Benefits In less than one year, thirty people have been benefited. For instance, in one case of death, the total benefits paid were $1,366! This was to the family of Myrtle Smaglik. Another case, Mary Newman, had a claim of $266.00. Another, Alice Cierzan, received $182. Chauncey Kline received $30 on one case, and will receive more benefits for his last illness. Elizabeth Kistowski received $327.50. Dorothy Erpelding received $225.50. Selma Brown received $28850. Clara Torgerson has received $73.50, and still is in the hospital and still receiving benefits Elizabeth Eggers received $188 50. Helen Koeth received $22.50. These are ten cases out of thirty people, and the total paid out so far-in less than one year-is $4,178.80. I am sure that the people who did get help are grateful, and those fortunate enough not to have had to use it have had the satisfaction of knowing it was at hand If needed. In December we took stock of our situation and made some decisions which have been withheld until now, but can be verified as having taken place in December. 1944 We decided then to set up a PROFIT-SHARING PLAN, giv- 20 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD ing the employees 50% of the profits up to 15% of the total amount of our pay roll. That is as much as the Federal Government would allow us to give. So, in December, we placed in The Merchants National Bank of Winona- who is acting as trustee-an amount of $44,990.34. The booklet, which is now in print, and which I have already mentioned, explains how the Fund is to be handled in all its details. Another decision was made at the same Directors' Meeting : one week of paid vacation to all employees who have been with us a year or over, and after July 1 such a vacation will be given to all who have been in our employ continuously not for one year but for only 40 weeks. We also developed and you are working under a Wage Incentive Plan. You know what that has meant to you in your pay envelope. At Christmastime, we were notified by the War Labor Board that we would be allowed to pay a Christmas bonus. This we decided to do and it was given out at that time. We have bought about $100,000 in new machinery, which is now in the machinery builders' hands for delivery among the first machines to be made. This will give us the instruments for making the finest garments in America- fine worsted and imported blends in all the finest bright pastel shades. We are planning to make this the best sweater mill in the United States, and if we can do this with your cooperation and continue to make profits, we are all going to share. If in any year no profit is made, then, of course, there is no profit sharing. However, the company, in case of loss, will have to bear the loss alone. We know that after the war the machinery now running will be worthless. We could not run it before the war-and it can't be run profitably after the war. With an eye to the future, we started on cheap cotton sweaters, to train our employees so that we would be ready for higher quality merchandise when the proper machines would be available. We have the selling capacity. Mr. Stone has been in the business for 45 years and has contacts in selling all over the country. If it can be sold, he can sell it. We have also proved our ability to manufacture. I have been in this business over 40 years. So, here we are in your beautiful city, with experience and the know-how to run a successful business. We know that our people are our most important asset. We realize that new machinery is absolutely necessary, and the proper spirit of cooperation with our people is as necessary as the new machinery. We know that a proper, well-organized Personnel Department must be de- veloped, a place where we can solve our mutual problems. This department has been set up, and will be in operation very soon. We have already chosen our Personnel Director, who has been in Social Service work for many years. It so happens that the party holds a responsible position with a large City Administration. It will be but a short time before this Personnel Director can arrange to leave her present position and begin her duties This department will be in close contact with our mutual problems. The Personnel Director will meet with any person or persons in our employ and, where necessary, with the Management. The door will be open for discussion and suggestions for the desired end of making a success that we all can share in. Plans are being drawn up for an addition to our building which will house this new department, with larger coat and lunch rooms. We hope to install a cafeteria or at least facilities for preparing coffee, etc. We will also see to it that there are recreational activities in the yard this summer. We've had it levelled off, fenced, and it will be landscaped in the Spring. WINONA KNITTING MILLS, INC. 21 Knowing that a number of things needed correcting, we employed Mr. Bates and Mr Paul Ross from Cleveland to make a study and suggest changes relative to improving working conditions, to improve efficiency and with it the take-home pay of our employees. This work is now in progress, and it will soon be ready to put some of these improvements to work. We want you to know that the yare not here to cut rates of any kind. They are here to make sure that every employee will have a better opportunity to make more pay with less effort. For this you have my personal assurance. Starting with this pay period, all productive workers on night shift will be- paid 5¢ an hour extra over day rates. It is our desire always to keep one step ahead of most employers in this community, and to get for you all the benefits possible under the circumstances and in keeping with our earnings. In my hand I hold the Union President Dubinsky's story of why you should let him handle your affairs, citing the case of the farmer who put sawdust in the oats for his horse, until the horse died The best way for me to answer this is to ask questions. Do you think that the Winona Knitting Mills, or Harry J Stone or Walker Woodworth were trying to put sawdust in the oats when we started the Insur- ance Plan in March, 1944, started it when we didn't know how we would come out the first year? I say to Mr. Dubinsky and Mr. Katovsky-a big, loud NO. Do you think that the Winona Knitting Mills or Harry J. Stone or Walker Woodworth were putting sawdust in the oats when we handed out a Christmas Bonus? I will answer it for Mr Dubinsky and Mr. Katovsky-NO again ! Do you think that the Winona Knitting Mills or Harry J. Stone or Walker Woodworth were putting sawdust in the oats when we set up a PROFIT- SHARING PLAN, and placed in The Merchants National Bank of Winona a cum of $44,900 for the first year? I will answer Mr. Dubinsky, Mr. Katovsky, and the paid organizer, Mr. Slaughter-NO again ! It looks and tastes more like sugar Again, they talk of seniority rights-as if Mr Dubinsky and Mr. Katovsky and Mr Slaughter were the only ones who had ever heard of seniority rights Well, for forty years that has been the rule in any business in which I have engaged. Mr. Dubinsky brings up another case, decent working conditions. Well, I am at a loss on this one We took this building, which had stood practically empty for a number of years The roof leaked, the toilet system was gone, the heating system was mostly gone, an old leaky boiler and a few heating coils were all that was left The elevator was short, and it was a dirty mess. I don't have to recite to you what has been done. The building was cleaned up, painted inside. New boilers and a complete heating plant were installed. Large fans were placed over the presses and mangle, to carry off the hot steam. Insulation was put in the attic to make it warmer in the winter and cooler In the summer. The thought was brought out that in case of fire, there might be a panic, so an outside iron fire escape was put on the side of the building, An infirmary was put in a separate room, with a couch and the necessary drugs for emergency cases. We put screens on the windows. We had sidewalks put down to the building, and have done everything that anyone has suggested, vwhich would benefit our working conditions. I ask Mr. Dubinsky and Mr. Ks tovsky and Mr. Slaughter-have we put sawdust in the oats? I will answer for them-NO! 22 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Now, Mr. Dubinsky , Mr. Katovsky and Mr. Slaughter mention other benefits to be desired, too numerous to mention. Well, if Mr. Dubinsky can talk about the sawdust in the oats, perhaps we have an equal right to talk about the sawdust in their oats. Now, at Cleveland, the dues for this union who is contacting you, the fee formerly $1.00, is now $6 50 with additional dues of $1.35 every month. The employees who are in this union are called upon to contribute a day or half a day's pay from time to time for union relief. They are required to attend meet- ings, and if they fail to do so, are fined $1.00 or so for not coming. They also require the workers to take 10% of their pay in Government bonds, and while we believe in Government bonds and hope you buy as many as you can, this is a matter each employee should decide and there is no use in your being required to buy more than you can afford. What I have told you today about the things we have done, and what we intend doing will not be changed by any decision you may make as to how you are to be represented, whether individually, by committee appointed by your- selves to deal directly with management , or by a union to whom you pay initia- tion dues and assessments. However, regardless of your decision, you are not compelled to sign any agreement of any kind with this company. Mr. Stone and I are past 60 years of age and we are not in this business primarily to see how much money we can make . We are past that stage. We are more anxious to have the best mill in the United States for quality of workmanship and ideal working conditions , a plant we can bring out customers to and be proud of our organization. In conclusion, I am going to become personal . I have a son who is a IA. Com- mander in the Navy. He is a big boy, 6'3i/ ", with a handsome face and an infectious smile. He is on a big flat-top or airplane carrier in the Pacific. I have just received the ship's paper where it shows where they have been and what they have done. I am going to put this sheet on the bulletin board for you to examine. I received a telegram from him Saturday, in which he stated he was in Seattle. The ship is home for some major repairs , and Mrs. Woodworth and I are going there on Sunday. I am leaving this city , calm and satisfied that- you folks are going to do some thinking . That is all one can ask . When I return, in two or three weeks, perhaps we can get together again. Thank you. APPENDIX B LisT OF PERSONS LAID OFF THURSDAY , MARCH 28, 1945 Clock No. Name Clock No. Name 237 Lillian Kinowski 154 A. Revoir 238 B. Thilmany 144 A. Jumbeck 233 M. Baures 120 A. Glowacki 232 G. Lubinski 125 C. Lassen 222 W. Ledebuhr 134 P. Earle 208 F. F Vondrashek 102 A. Koeller 205 F. Lipinski 107 I. Zteman 115 C. Grochowski 141 R. Palmer 186 R. Hagan 223 J. Wamhoff 178 G. Brown 228 L. Nelsestuen 175 R. Thorne 200 A. Buse 166 F. Berger WINONA KNITTING MILLS, INC. 23 APPENDIX C THE WINONA KNITTING MILLS, INC. WINONA, MINNESOTA , May 3, 1945 To all Winona Knitting Mills employees : We feel it necessary in your interest as well as ours to call to your attention certain facts involving your rights and ours. National Labor Relations Board is an agency of the Government. The Act gives all employees the right to organize, that is, to join a Union or not to join a Union as they see fit, without let or hindrance by us as an Employer. The question as to whether an employee desires to join a Union is entirely one of their own decision It is, however, our intention to obey all orders of the Government, Labor Board or any other war time agency, at all times, as good Americans. IT IS NOT NECESSARY THAT ANY EMPLOYEE BELONG TO ANY UNION AS A CONDITION OF WORKING FOR OUR COMPANY. We intend, at all times, to upgrade, promote and increase employees on the basis of their contribution to our organization, regardless of Union affiliations Our plant is a relatively new industry in Winona. We came to Winona be- cause we had faith in the good sense of the people of the community. We had faith that among you would be skilled workers who would contribute greatly to our success in the manufacture of the finest knitgoods in the country. We have brought to Winona a modern plant with the finest facilities, safety devices and other physical factors that contribute to the health and well-being of our employees. The location of our plant in Winona and this business isn't based primarily on a profit motive. We surely indicated that when we voluntarily arranged for the benefit of our employees hospital and death benefit insurance, the premiums which we pay-also a profit sharing plan which will enable loyal employees to participate in a very substantial share of our profits and progress which our company makes through your loyalty and co-operation. We have been distressed by propaganda that has been circulated by out of town union organizers who have made statements which are untrue, in their zeal to obtain members among our employees. So that there can be no misunderstanding as to facts, we intend from time to time to uncover any lies or half truths said about our company or any member of our administrative staff. In line with this policy, we report to you the following: The National Labor Relations Board has received a complaint from the out of town union organizers that we have coerced, intimidated, and threatened our employees to prevent their joining this Union. This is an untruth. Have you ever been intimidated or coerced, or requested not to join a Union? Your answer to this question will prove the falseness of such a charge. In addition, the Union complained that we discharged one Linda Olga Nelse- stuen because of union activities. This is the true story about Linda : This worker ivas a sewer on the day shift and when she told us some time ago she would have to quit because she had to care for her child in the daytime, we arranged so that she might stay on at work by transfeiring her to the night shift.' A short time ago, while working on that shift, the forelady requested her to change the thread on her machine so that she might work the balance of the shift on a certain bundle. There was then thread of the proper color on Linda's ' Italics supplied. 24 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD table sufficient to last through the shift although the cone was a small one. The worker refused to make the change at all and said to the forelady " If that is the thread you want me to use you can stick it ". We think any fair minded employee will agree this is a condition which could not be permitted to continue. The forelady told the superintendent, then talked to the worker who admitted she had done and said the exact things the fore- lady had claimed and the superintendent then told the girl she could not con- tinue on the night shift but that he could transfer her to the day shift. The girl refused to do this and her employment was terminated. We did not know and we do not know now or care what union activities this girl had engaged in. We tell you the story of Linda, not because we wish to disparage or say disparaging things about her, but particularly to correct any wrong impressions. We have written to the National Labor Relations Board and have requested them to hold an election immediately in our plant so that the question of whether you employees want a Union or do not want a Union can be solved quickly and expeditiously. The unfair charges filed by the Union prevent this and as a condition we are now demanding that the unfair charges made against us by the union organizers be withdrawn by them. We are desirous of settling this issue immediately so that there will be a minimum of interference with our plans for the betterment of our working conditions. We want you to know that any employee has a right to come into the front office at any time for any purpose involving wages, hours or working conditions. We feel that our organization can grow with Winona, and with our postwar plans and under what we feel is liberal management, you and the company can prosper together. Sincerely yours, APPENDIX D NOTICE THE MANAGEMENT. Your Company has received a notice from the National Labor Relations Board that a hearing on certain charges made against the Company by the International Ladies Garment Workers Union will be held on June 28, 1945. This hearing was originally scheduled for June 18, but was delayed until the following week because of a term of United States District Court is to be held in Winona the week of June 18. In substance, their charges are as follows : 1. The union charges that Linda Nelsestuen was refused work on the night shift, transferred to the day shift, so as to cause termination of her employment, and that the reason therefor was because of her union activities. You already have been told all facts in this matter. It is too bad the union seems to feel it necessary to rehash this girl's conduct publicly. 2. STRANGE AS IT MAY SEEM, THE INTERNATIONAL LADIES GARMENT WORKERS UNION, THROUGH THE CHARGES FILED WITH THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, IS COMPLAIN- ING AND PROTESTING INCREASES IN WAGES VOLUNTARILY GIVEN TO EMPLOYEES ON FEBRUARY 14, 1945. There is here the unusual spectacle of the union desiring to help em- ployees, criticizing the management for giving certain employees the same wage increases given others and to which they were entitled in line with the Company's established policies and procedure. WINONA KNITTING MILLS, INC. 25 3. This union also charges that the Company did instigate, sponsor, inter- fere with and dominate the formation of the independent Textile Workers Union, and that it did financially assist the Independent. THIS THE COMPANY WILL PROVE TO BE FALSE AND UNTRUE In view of the above complaints , the management cannot now deal with any union until there is a final determination .that the charges made by this outside union are untrue . This will take a long time . In the meantime, your manage- ment will deal with any employee , any committee of employees without official recognition, as a union so that wages , hours, and working conditions can be improved and kept to a high standard at the plant. The International Ladies Garment Workers Union 's trumped-up and fantastic charges, similar to the type of statements made by it in circulars which have been distributed by their organizers , are the result, in the opinion of the manage- ment, of the lack of support received by that organization from the employees of our plant. This Company will, from time to time, in accordance with the First Amend- ment of the Constitution of the United States, report to its employees on the progress of these proceedings , and comment fairly on many matters affecting the Company and its relations with you. APPENDIX E NOTICE To ALL EMPLOYEES THE MANAGEMENT. 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 International Ladies Garment Workers Union, A. F. of 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 We will offer to the employee named below immediate and full reinstate- ment to her former or substantially equivalent position without prejudice to any seniority or other rights and privileges previously enjoyed, and make her whole for any loss of pay suffered as a result of the discrimina- tion, including full reinstatement to the Profit Sharing Plan. Linda Nelsestuen We will make whole the following named employees for any loss of pay they may have suffered by reason of their discriminatory lay-off on March 28, 1945. Lillian Kinowski A. Revoir B. Thilmany A. Jumbeck M Baures A. Glowacki G. Lubinski C. Lassen W. Ledebuhr P. Earle F. F. Vondrashek A. Koeller F. Lipinski I. Zieman C. Grochowski R. Palmer R Hagan J. Wamhoff G. Brown L. Nelsestuen R. Thorne A. Buse F. Berger 26 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD We will not recognize Independent Textile Workers Union as the rep- resentative of any of our employees for the purposes of collective bargain- ing until such time as it may be certified as their representative by the National Labor Relations Board. All our employees are free to become or remain members of the above- named union or any other labor organization. We will not discriminate in regard to hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of employ- ment against any employee because of membership in or activity on behalf of any such labor organization. WINONA KNITTING MILLS, INC., Employer. Dated------------------- By--------------------- --------------------- (Representative) (Title) NOTE.-Any of the above-named employees presently serving in the armed forces of the United States will be offered full reinstatement upon application in accordance with the Selective Service Act after discharge from the armed forces This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof, and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.