Milco Undergarment Co., Inc.

MILCO UNDERGARMENT CO., INC 767 ber of employees in the packingsheds are employed , and that a 30-day eligibility period immediately preceding the issuance of the notice of election by the Regional Director be selected. [The Board dismissed the petitions filed in Cases Nos. 20- RC-2270 and 20 -RC-2281,] [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.] MILCO UNDERGARMENT CO., INC. and INTERNATIONAL LADIES' GARMENT WORKERS' UNION, LOCAL 225, AFL and BLOOMSBURG INDEPENDENT GARMENT WORKERS' ASSOCIATION, Party to the Contract BLOOMSBURG BRAIDING CORPORATION and INTERNA- TIONAL LADIES' GARMENT WORKERS' UNION, LOCAL 225, AFL and BLOOMSBURG INDEPENDENT GARMENT WORKERS' ASSOCIATION, Party to the Contract. Cases Nos. 4-CA-591 and 4-CA-605. August 18, 1953 DECISION AND ORDER On May 11, 1953, Trial Examiner C. W. Whittemore issued his Intermediate Report in this proceeding, finding that the Respondents had engaged in and were engaging in certain unfair 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 Respondent Milco had not engaged in certain other unfair labor practices and recommended dismissal as to them . Thereafter , both Respond- ents filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and supporting briefs. The Board 1 has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed.2 The rulings are hereby affirmed. I Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three- member panel[Members Houston, Styles, and Peter- son]. 2On June 18, 1953, the Respondents filed a motion to reopen the record on the basis of newly discovered evidence, and also because of the Trial Examiner's refusal to permit cer- tain other pertinent evidence to be admitted The movants assert that they have evidence that the incident of the paycheck and Blanche Gross' altercation with Marco Mitrani, president of Respondent Milco, took place before July 13, 1951, in the testimony which Blanch6 Gross gave under oath at a hearing before another governmental agency, and that such direct con- tradiction of testimony by the same witness, under oath, at two different hearings, destroys the probative value of any testimony given by her. They further assert that a refusal to grant this motion would deprive the Respondent of "constitutional rights under the rules of civil procedure, adopted by the Supreme Court of the United States pursuant to the Act of June 19. 1934, as amended, and would constitute reversible error " The Trial Examiner sustained the General Counsel's objection to the following question which company counsel sought to ask 106 NLRB No. 125. 768 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD The Board has considered the Intermediate Report, the exceptions and briefs, and the entire record in the case,3 and hereby adopts the findings, 4 conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner, with the following additions, exceptions, and modifications: 1. The Trial Examiner found, and we agree, that Respondent Milco violated Section 8 (a) (2) by domination, interference, and support of the administration of the Bloomsburg Inde- pendent Garment Workers' Association, herein called the Association. We find no merit in the defense of the Respondent based on the fact that the Board certified the Association as the em- ployees' bargaining representative on June 4, 1951. Such administrative action was not an adjudication of the matters now in controversy.5 However, we do agree that conduct con- sistent with honoring the certification cannot, without more, furnish a basis for finding an 8 (a ) (2) violation. Consistent with this position, we shall base our finding on conduct occurring between January 25, 1951 (the date 6 months before Blanche Gross: "And after you terminated your employment with the Regal Shirt Company, did you make application for unemployment compensation9" The General Counsel apparently based his objection on the ground that questions relating to back pay are properly left to compliance. The Respondent, however, clearly intended to question the credibility of the witness. The general rules as to credibility of witnesses, and their impeachment and corroboration, are not affected by the Federal statutes andRules of Civil Procedure, except the rule relating to impeachment of an adverse party, his officer or agent, called as a witness, i.e., rule 43 (b). The extent and scope of cross-examination of witnesses for the purpose of discrediting or impeaching them is, therefore, largely discretionary with the trier of facts. See Cochran v. United States, 157 U S. 286. However, questions should be allowed on cross-examination of a witness as to any matter which fairly and reasonably goes to his credibility, irrespective of the trier's own opinion thereof, even though they relate to collateral issues. And one who has previously given testimony before another tribunal may properly be cross-examined as to such testimony. Miller v. United States, 137 F. 2d 592 (referring to testimony given before board of viewers). We accordingly find that the Trial Examiner erred in refusing to permit company counsel to develop this line of inquiry. As we herein rely upon the testimony of Blanche Gross only to the extent that it is either corroborated or uncontradicted and internally credible, we find that the error is not prejudicial. Accordingly, the motion to reopen the hearing is hereby denied. See Gulf Shipside Storage Corporation, 91 NLRB 181, 206 at footnote 40. 3The Respondents requested oral argument on one aspect of the remedy recommended by the Trial Examiner, which we are not adopting. The request for oral argument is, therefore, denied. 4 We correct in the respects noted hereinafter misstatements in the intermediate Report which were not material to the Trial Examiner's ultimate findings, and which do not affect our concurrence therein: The "100" which refers to the braiding plant is the number of feet it is from the Milco plant, not the number of employees which number between 35 and 40. A committee of employees, rather than Mitrani, arranged to see Berninger, technically their attorney. Blanche Gross testified that Berninger had told her that he had talked with Mitrani but there is no evidence that he told others so. Employee Weatherill asked Victor Mitrani, Marco's son, to get some association buttons for him; there is no evidence that Victor dis- tributed any other buttons to employees. Solomon Mitrani, Marco's deceased brother, did order and pay for an undetermined number of buttons for the Association, but he did so at the request of the officers of the Association. 5See Wallace Corporation, 50 NLRB 138, enfd. 141 F. 2d 87, 91 (C. A. 4), affd. 323 U. S. 248: Utah Cooper Co., 47 NLRB 757, enfd. 139 F. 2d 788, 791 (C. A. 10), cert. denied 322 U. S. 731; Gibbs Corporation, 74 NLRB 1182. MILCO UNDERGARMENT CO., INC. 769 the filing of the original charge ), and June 4, 1951, the date of the certification . Accordingly, in finding a violation, we rely only on the following conduct: a. The granting of recognition to the Association during 1951, as from the outset, without request for proof of majority status, while requiring the International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union, Local 225, AFL, herein called the ILGWU, to prove its claim to majority representation b. Immediately granting to the Association of checkoff privileges, which continued through the period in question, without any contract or other bargaining.7 c. Permission granted to the Association, and refusal to the ILGWU, to use company time and property for union purposes.8 d. Permitting the Association to use the company car that its officers might, on company time, visit other plants to learn how they fared with and without outside unions.9 e. So identifying the Association with management as to in- dicate that the Respondent was its sponsor by (1) Supervisor Enda Gould's wearing an association button, and (2) Mitrani's instruction to employees to visit the homes of others before the election to gain support of the Association.10 f. Indicating that it regarded the Association to be its domain by (1) threatening Blanche Gross with discharge if she resigned as treasurer of the Association, and (2) repri- manding officials for permitting ILGWU representatives to attend their meetings.u 2. Like the Trial Examiner , we find that the Respondents engaged in surveillance of employees engaged in union activities. We, however, rely solely on the Mott incidents, considering the Hassen and Solomon Mitrani episodes too ambiguous to warrant an inference of illegal motive.11 6 Clark Phonograph Record Company, 78 NLRB 34, enfd. as modified on other grounds 176 F. 2d 341 (C. A. 3). 7John B. Shriver Company, 103 NLRB 23; Jack Smith Beverages, Inc , 94 NLRB 1401, 1402; United Steel Fabricators, Inc., 50 NLRB 752, 754. 8 American Thread Company, 84 NLRB 593, enfd. 188 F. 2d 161 (C. A. 5). The disparity in treatment of the Association and the ILGWU nullifies the Respondents' contention that in according the Association such privileges it merely demonstrated its willingness to give its employees, considering the facilities of the town, full opportunity to engage in concerted activities on their own behalf. 9 Fogel Refrigerator Company, 82 NLRB 1302, 1327. iORay Randall Manufacturing Company, 88 NLRB 140. iiSee Fogel Refrigerator Company, supra a Although the record establishes that Hassen and S. Mitrani were seen riding by the Res- cue Fire Hall on FifthStreetand parked across the street from the Hall during a union meeting in the Fire Hall, it also discloses that both lived within a few hundred feet of the Hall and that Fifth Street is one of the principal thoroughfares in Bloomsburg. If they were to go uptown, they would pass the Fire Hall. Although the record establishes that Hassen was following a car from near the Rescue Fire Hall to the Legion Hall, it also discloses that he was a Legionaire who went frequently to the Hall for a drink and that he had done so the night in question, when there was a union meeting which transferred from the Fire Hall to the Legion Hall. 770 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 3. In agreement with the Trial Examiner, we find that the Respondents violated Section 8 (a) (3) and 8 (a) (1) of the Act by discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure and terms of employment of John and Blanche Gross, Laverno Perko, Norma White, Mary Rupert, Ruth Shultz, Goldie Bennett, Dorothy Hock, Harriet Robbins, and Nola Hilliard. The cir- cumstances and considerations on which this conclusion is based are fully detailed in the Intermediate Report. To what is stated there, we add only the following: a. With respect to John Gross, the record establishes and the Trial Examiner found that although there was admitted criticism of his work after the ILGWU began campaigning intensively, it does not appear that Gross' conduct was far different from that of the others, even if one credits Simpson and Harper. Although Simpson disparaged the work done by Gross, he admitted that rubber was out on all machines for a period of time. Furthermore, though Gross was supposedly a poor worker, no disciplinary action was ever taken until the height of the ILGWU activity, and then without warning. In view of Marco Mitrani's conversations with Gross concerning Blanche Gross' ILGWU activities, the other factors indicative of discriminatory discharge of Blanche Gross, we find that the evidence preponderates in favor of the conclusion that John Gross was not recalled on May 7, 1951, and thereby effectively discharged, because his wife was the leader of the ILGWU organizing campaign, and to discourage membership in that organization. is b. In regard to Blanche Gross, the record shows that she was the leading spirit of the employees in affiliating with the ILGWU. Although Marco Mitrani threatened to dicharge her if she resigned as treasurer of the Association, she persisted in openly campaigning for the ILGWU and was, in the end, asked by the Association's President Kennedy to resign from office because of her well-known dual unionism. She was discharged on August 10, 1951, allegedly because she had failed to apologize, although admittedly she had never been asked to do so, for asserted insubordination toward Marco Mitrani more than 30 days earlier.14 This reason, in light of the earlier threat, seems patently specious. Like the Trial Examiner, we think the key to Respondent 's real reason for firing Blanche Gross is seen in the conversation between her husband and Marco Mitrani on March 28, 1951. Mitrani told John Gross that his wife was foolish to get hooked up with the ILGWU. 's How foolish appears from the Respondent's dis- criminatory failure to recall her to report to work on July 9, 1951. 13See Union Asbestos and Rubber Company, 98 NLRB 1055. 14 Accordingly, we need not determine the precise date on which the altercation occurred, although Marco Mitrani himself testified during the course of the hearing that it happened on July 13, not July 11, as the Respondent now contends. See footnote 2, supra. 15 Here, as elsewhere, Mitrani does not deny the conversation but testified that he did not know if he had had such a conversation. MILCO UNDERGARMENT CO., INC. 771 c. Harriet Robbins did not testify . The Respondents moved to dismiss the complaint as to those alleged discriminatees who did not appear or testify , namely Harriet Robbins and Andrew Yetko. The record clearly establishes that Robbins was transferred for the factors operative in inducing the discriminatory transfer of Goldie Bennett and Dorothy Hock, and that Yetko was no more discriminated against than Hilliard with whom he was, correspondingly , classified. The motion is therefore denied.16 4. We do not adopt the Trial Examiner ' s recommended order to the extent that it orders the Respondent to reimburse its employees for any dues deducted from their wages pursuant to the checkoff provision of the Respondent ' s contract with the Association , dated September 1, 1951. There is no evidence in the record that the Respondent enforced an involuntary checkoff, or otherwise , within the 6-month period involved , unlawfully coerced its employees into paying dues . We therefore do not order reimbursement to the employees of dues deducted under the checkoff provision of the contract. 17 ORDER Upon the entire record in these cases , and pursuant to Section 10 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the Respondents , Milco Undergarment Co., Inc ., and Bloomsburg Braiding Corporation , Bloomsburg , Pennsylvania , their offi- cers, agents, successors , and assigns , shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Discouraging membership in International Ladies' Gar- ment Workers ' Union, Local 225, AFL, or any other labor organization of their employees , by discriminating in regard to their hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment. (b) Engaging in surveillance of employees attending meetings of any labor organization. (c) Threatening reprisals against employees to cause them to remain in or refrain from joining any labor organization. (d) Dominating and interfering with the formation or admin- istration of the Independent or any other labor organization of their employees and from contributing support to it or to any labor organization of their employees. (e) Giving effect to any and all contracts , or to any extension, renewal, modification , or supplement thereof, with the Inde- pendent. (f) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing their employees in the exercise of the right to self- organization , to form labor organizations, to join or assist mNew York & Puerto Rico Steamship Company , 34 NLRB 1028 ; Atlanta Flour and Grain Company, Inc., 41 NLRB 409. 17 The Standard Transformer Company, 97 NLRB 669 , and cases cited in footnote 3. 322615 0 - 54 - 50 772 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union, Local 225, AFL, 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 , or to refrain from any or all such activities, except to the extent that such right may be affected by an agreement 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) Offer John Gross and Blanche Gross immediate and full reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent positions , without prejudice to their seniority and other rights and privileges , and make them and the employees named below whole in the manner set forth in the section of the Intermediate Report entitled "The Remedy." Laverno Perko Norma White Mary Rupert Ruth Shultz Goldie Bennett Dorothy Hock Harriet Robbins Nola Hilliard (b) Upon request make available to the Board or its agents, for examination and copying , all payroll records , social- security payment records, timecards , personnel records and reports , and all other records necessary to analyze the amount of back pay due. (c) Withdraw all recognition from Bloomsburg Independent Garment Workers' Association as a representative of any of their employees for the purposes of dealing with the Respondents concerning grievances, labor disputes , wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, or other conditions of employment, and completely disestablish said organization as such represen- tative. (e) Post at their plants in Bloomsburg, Pennsylvania, copies of the notice attached to the Intermediate Report and marked "Appendix A." 18 Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for the Fourth Region, shall , after being duly signed by the Respondents, be posted by them immedi- ately upon receipt thereof, and maintained by them for sixty (60) consecutive days thereafter , in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are custom- arily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respond- is This notice shall be amended by substituting the words "A Decision and Order " for "The Recommendations of a Trial Examiner" and by deleting the following sentence from paragraph 3 of the insert: "We will reimburse our employees for any dues to said organization since January 25, 1951, deducted from their wages." In the event that this Order is enforced by a decree of a United States Court of Appeals, there shall be substituted for the words "Pursuant to a Decision and Order" the words "Pursuant to a Decree of the United States Court of Ap- peals, Enforcing an Order." MILCO UNDERGARMENT CO., INC. 773 ents to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (f) Notify the Regional Director for the Fourth Region, in writing, within ten (10) days from the date of this Order, what steps the Respondents have taken to comply herewith. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint be, and it hereby is, dismissed as to Oscar Breech, George Hilliard, and Andrew Yetko. Intermediate Report STATEMENT OF THE CASE Charges having been duly filed and served, an order consolidating cases, a complaint and notice of hearing thereon having been issued and served by the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board, and answers having been filed by the Respondent Companies and the Independent, a hearing involving allegations of unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8 (a) (1), (2), and (3) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, 61 Stat. 136, herein called the Act, was held in Bloomsburg, Pennsylvania, on February 24, 25, 26, 27, and March 2, 1953, before the undersigned Trial Examiner. In substance the complaint, as amended, and the answers, as amended, deny that: (1) On various dates between April and July 1951, the Respondents discriminated as to the tenure, nature, and conditions of employment of 13 named employees to discourage membership and activity in the charging Union, the ILGWU; (2) since January 1951 the Respondents have dominated, interfered with, and supported the administration of the Independent and in September 1951, entered into a contract with that organization requiring membership as a condition of employment; (3) officials and agents of the Respondents have engaged in surveil- lance of employees attending ILGWU meetings, interrogated them as to their union affiliation, and both threatened reprisals and promised benefits to discourage ILGWU membership; and (4) by such conduct the Respondents have interfered with, restrained, and coerced their employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act. At the hearing all parties were represented, were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, to introduce evidence pertinent to the issues, to argue orally upon the record, and to file briefs and proposed findings of fact and conclusions. A brief has been received from the Respondents and General Counsel. Disposition of motions to dismiss, urged at the close of the hearing, is made by the fol- lowing findings, conclusions, and recommendations. After the hearing communications were received which are, in effect, a stipulation for corrections in the transcript. The corrections are hereby made and the communications made a part of the record in the case. Upon the entire record in the case and from his observation of the witnesses, the Trial Examiner makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENTS Milco Undergarment Co., Inc., is a New York corporation maintaining and operating plants in Bloomsburg and Berwick, Pennsylvania, where it is engaged in the manufacture of ladies' undergarments. During 1952 it purchased raw materials and supplies valued at more than $1,000,000, of which about 35 percent was shipped to its places of business from outside the State of Pennsylvania. Also in 1952 it sold finished products valued at more than $2,000,000, of which about 85 percent was shipped to points outside the State of Pennsylvania. Bloomsburg Braiding Corporation is a Pennsylvania corporation having its principal place of business in Bloomsburg, Pennsylvania, where it is engaged in the processing and manu- facture of braiding elastic. During 1952, on a commission basis, Bloomsburg Braiding Corporation produced for Milco Undergarment Co., Inc., braiding valued at about $100,000. The complaint alleges that the Respondents constitute a single employer within the meaning of Section 2 (2) of the Act. Facts sustain the allegation. Together, they plainly form a single, 774 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD family enterprise. Marco Mitrani is president and treasurer of Milco, while his son, Victor, is president of Bloomsburg Braiding. All officers and stockholders of Milco are members of the Mitrani family; there are no stockholders in Bloomsburg Braiding. Lou Collen is general manager of both concerns, maintaining a single office at Milco. The plants are within a short distance of each other. Bloomsburg Braiding has no office, all telephone calls for it are received by Milco, and at the latter's office all payroll and other records for both are maintained by the same personnel. Although each company leases the property it occupies, such property is leased from the M. & M. Corporation, of which Marco Mitrani is also the head. Milco purchases all raw materials processed, on commission, by Bloomsburg Braiding. A single labor policy is maintained by both. It is concluded and found that each corporation is engaged in commerce and that together, for the purposes of this proceeding, they constitute a single employer within the meaning of the Act. II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union, Local 225, AFL, and Bloomsburg Inde- pendent Garment Workers' Association, unaffiliated, are labor organizations within the meaning of the Act. III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Background and major issues Only the 2 Bloomsburg plants are here involved. About 200 workers are employed at the garment factory, about 100 at the braiding plant. Credible evidence establishes that the Independent, claimed by General Counsel to have been company dominated in 1951 and at all times since then, was created and formed at the Milco plant by direction of Marco Mitrani in 1937, at the time when the CIO was trying to organize his employees. It functioned briefly and then became dormant until the fall of 1950 when it was revived, also at Mitrani's direction and this time with the aid of a local attorney. The Respondents' domination and support of, and interference with, the administration of the Independent during the period from a date 6 months before the filing of the original charge to the time of the hearing is in issue. In the early spring of 1951 representatives of the charging Union, the ILGWU, began organizing employees at the Milco plant. Beginning in April and during the next several weeks, 13 leaders, or relatives of leaders, of the ILGWU campaign were discharged, laid off, or transferred to other jobs. The Respondents' action as to these employees is in issue as claimed discrimination to discourage membership in a labor organization. Other conduct of management officials and agents, during the same period, is also in issue, including that of surveillance and threats of reprisal. B. The Independent' In the fall of 1950 Marco Mitrani told employee Elmer Weatherill, whom he had assigned in 1937 to help organize the Independent, that he thought he would "open" it up again. Mitrani made an appointment for a local attorney, Howard Berninger, to consult with a number of employees. Among the group of employees attending the resultant meeting were Blanche Gross and Ruth Shultz, both of whom are among those allegedly discriminated against in 195L Berninger told the employees that he had talked with Mitrani, had examined the charter of the Independent issued in 1937, and had found that the original organization would be revived. Thereafter, with Mitrani's permission, employees met in the company cafeteria, on company 'The findings in this section rest upon the preponderance of credible testimony of several witnesses as to some matters, and upon documents placed in evidence. As to some events there is no disputed testimony, as to others Marco Mitrani denied their occurrence or merely said he did not remember them. It appears unnecessary here to recite and review all evidence and resolve by such recitation conflicting testimony. Such resolution has been made by weighing testimony in conflict, by observation of witnesses, and by considering inherent probabilities MILCO UNDERGARMENT CO., INC. 775 time, and officers were elected . Blanche Gross was elected treasurer , Ruth Shultz was on the "shop committee." Mitrani spoke at this meeting and said that the Independent would be insurance for them as well as for the Company against "outside interference." On October 16 another meeting was held in the cafeteria on company time to vote on amendments to the bylaws of the Independent. There has been no membership , in the usual sense, or application for membership in the Independent from 1950 up to the time of the hearing . According to its president, Harry Kennedy , he simply "considered " every employee at Milco, except supervisors , to be "in it." Without asking for, or receiving , any proof of representation, Mitrani promptly agreed not only to recognize the Independent but also to check off dues of 50 cents a month from the pay of each employee who signed an authorization slip for such deduction . These authoriza- tion slips were solicited and obtained not only by members of the office force but also by at least one foreman, Luke Shutt. Since October 1950, the Respondent Milco has checked from the pay of its employees dues for the Independent , and has turned such funds over to this organization once each month. In November the officers and committeemen of the Independent met with Mitrani and endeavored to get him to negotiate an agreement as to working conditions. Mitrani declined and told them to wait until the end of the year. At about this time Mitrani came to the machine being operated by Blanche Gross. She asked him when he would negotiate a contract. He asked why. She pointed out that for their 50 cents a month the employees should be given something . Mitrani replied, "I am not going to give you anything. This is just a form of insurance... insurance against outside inter- ference." The ILGWU began organizing in March 1951. While still retaining office in the Independent, Blanche Gross actively participated in the ILGWU campaign. At an early stage of this campaign , representatives of the ILGWU were permitted to attend an Independent meeting, which was held outside the plant. Mitrani, upon learning of this, called the officers of the Independent into his office and demanded to know why the ILGWU representatives had been let in. Kennedy told him the employees had wanted to hear what they had to say . At this time the committee again asked Mitrani to negotiate a contract and Mitrani again refused , where- upon Blanche Gross remarked that she was going to resign as treasurer. Mitrani said, "Well, Blanche , you wouldn 't do anything to jeopardize your income , would you? " On March 27 , Mitrani summoned the Independent shop committee to his office. Among others Gross and Shultz attended . Mitrani instructed them to sign a joint application to the Wage Stabilization Board to permit 5 paid holidays . Both Mitrani and Berninger said they were going to try to get the holidays to "keep the ILG out." At about this time , apparently , 2 General Manager Lou Collen , fully advised of their pur- pose , permitted Kennedy and another officer of the Independent , on company time and in the company station wagon with company driver provided , to visit plants in a neighboring com- munity to learn of comparative working conditions. Also at about this time Solomon Mitrani , Marco's brother who died before these proceed- ings opened , ordered and paid for an undetermined number of buttons for the Independent, buttons which were thereafter distributed among the employees by Marco's son, Victor, and worn openly by at least one forelady. The Independent has maintained no office of its own but has been freely permitted, from 1950, the use of the cafeteria for its employee meetings and Mitrani 's office for meetings of its officers. In May 1951 a Board-conducted election was held at the Milco plant, both the Independent and the ILGWU being on the ballot. A week before the election a committee of the latter organization asked Marco Mitrani for the same privilege it claimed was being granted to the Independent to pass out leaflets during working hours. Mitrani dismissed them with the reply, "Go to the NLRB to get permission." At about the same time Marco Mitrani instructed an officer of the Independent and another employee to visit employees at their homes over a weekend and "persuade them to side with" the Independent. The Independent won the election and on June 4 was certified by the Regional Director. In September the Respondent Milco and the Independent entered into a written agreement, due to expire in August 1953 , which requires membership in the Independent as a condition of employment for all employees except those in supervisory and certain other groups. ZKennedy did not place the precise date. 776 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD The foregoing facts establish, and the Trial Examiner concludes and finds , that the Respondent Milco since January 25, 1951 (the date 6 months before the filing of the original charge), has dominated and interfered with the administration of the Independent and has contributed support to it. The conclusion is based upon the following conduct: (1) The continuing permission granted the Independent to hold meetings on company premises and time; (2) the continuing checkoff of dues; (3) Mitrani's demand to know why officers of the Independent permitted ILGWU representatives to attend their meeting; (4) Mitrani's summon- ing the Independent officers to his office to sign the application to the Wage Stabilization Board; (5) his threat of economic reprisal to Blanche Gross when she voiced her intent to resign as an officer of the Independent; (6) Collen's permission granted to Kennedy, at com- pany expense, to conduct Independent business; (7) the contribution and distribution of Inde- pendent buttons by company officials and the wearing of such a button in the plant by a fore- lady; (8) Mitrani's instruction to employees to visit others to gain support for the Independent before the election; (9) the execution and maintenance of an agreement with the Independent; and (10) the inclusion in such contract of a provision requiring membership in the Inde- pendent as a condition of employment. By such domination, 3 interference , and support of the administration of the Independent the Respondent Milco has interfered with, restrained , and coerced employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act. C. Interference , restraint , and coercion 1. Surveillance Employee James Mott attended two early meetings of the ILGWU held in nearby Berwick. Shortly after the second meeting Marco Mitrani asked Mott where his "brains were" and if he was going on "the side of the ILGWU." Mott said he was on his side. Mitram then told him to go to the meetings and report . Mott obeyed. After the next three meetings Mott reported to Victor Mitrani, Assistant General Manager Hassen, and General Manager Collen. Hassen asked him who attended, and specifically inquired as to whether three individuals, including Blanche Gross and Mrs . Oscar Breech, were present. In April, Solomon and Victor Mitrani and Hassen sat in a parked car across the street from an ILGWU meeting at the local fire hall, watching employees enter. A week later, in a car, Hassen and two officers of the Independent followed employees from the same fire hall, from which a scheduled meeting was transferred , to the local American Legion Hall. It is concluded and found that Hassen and the Mitrams , all management officials , engaged in surveillance of employees engaged in union activities. 2. Threats of economic reprisals In March, at a meeting of employees in the cafeteria , Marco Mitrani told them that he would never recognize an outside union and before he would negotiate with one he would close down the mill. By the foregoing threat, by instructing Mott to inform upon his fellow employees, and by the surveillance engaged in by Solomon and Victor Mitrani and Hassen , the Respondents have interfered with, restrained , and coerced employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed by the Act. D. Issues of discrimination 1. George Hilliard , Andrew Yetko , and Oscar Breech It is the practice at Milco, before material for garments is cut for later sewing and other operations , to spread such material in layers upon 100 -foot tables. Until April 1951, and for an undetermined period before then , 2 "teams" of 2 spreaders each performed this task, 1 employee on each side of a table. Since April 1951 only 1 such team has been employed. According to Marco Mitrani , reduction in the number of teams was made because during the preceding year the width of the cutting tables was increased from about 4 feet to 10 feet and the type of garments gradually shifted from larger to smaller --undisputed facts which 3Items ( 3), (4), (5), and (8) plainly constitute domination. MILCO UNDERGARMENT CO., INC. 777 permit the reasonable conclusion that from a greater area of material spread, a greater number of pieces can be cut. General Counsel does not claim and it cannot be found that the alteration in the spreading operation was caused other than by a management decision based upon judgment and in no way connected with the ILGWU organizing campaign. It developed from experiment and change begun long before any such activity. Until April 1951, the 4 spreaders were Oscar Breech and Andrew Yetko as 1 team; George Hilliard and Roy Johnson as the other. On or about April 20, Yetko4 and Hilliard were laid off, and thereafter Breech and Johnson worked as the only team until June 15, when Breech was laid off. One Learn, employed in the stockroom, who had been a spreader early in his employment many years before, was transferred to take Breech's place. At the time of the hearing Johnson and Learn still comprised the sole team of spreaders. As to the layoff of Hilliard and Yetko, the evidence is insufficient to support a finding of discrimination to discourage activity or membership in the ILGWU. Hilliard, by his own testimony, took no part in the organizational campaign. While the Trial Examiner believes, contrary to Marco Mitrani's denial, that before the layoff and during a discussion about unions with this employee Mitrani said, "I don't understand the actions of your wife" (Nola Hilliard, whose case is discussed below), there is no claim by Hilliard that Mitrani sought, through him, to induce her withdrawal from the ILGWU, and the spreader's own version of the conversation implies that at its close both he and Mitrani were in accord in disapproving certain ILGWU tactics. To infer that Mitrani fired George Hilliard who, he had reason to believe, had no real sympathy for the ILGWU and yet retained his wife, continuing active in the ILGWU, on the payroll is inconsistent with reason or with later, direct action taken by Mitrani, as described below. When Hilliard was laid off his foreman told him that there was no work for him then, and that the older men were to be given what there was. The evidence is clear that Hilliard had the least seniority on the job. Yetko was not called as a witness. While other employees said that he served on the ILGWU committee, there is insufficient evidence to show that management was aware of this fact or of his other activity, if any, on behalf of the ILGWU. The record does not reveal the precise date of his layoff, what he was told, or his seniority standing, although it would appear that he left the plant at about the same time as Hilliard. Nor is the evidence as to Breech sufficient to support the allegation that his layoff in June was discriminatory or for the purpose of discouraging membership in the ILGWU. There is no persuasive evidence that Breech had any part in the ILGWU campaign other than to sign an authorization card. He wore no button in the plant; there is no evidence that he attended union meetings or that any foreman or supervisor ever mentioned the ILGWU, or his wife's connection with it, to him during his employment. After his layoff, when he returned for his final paycheck, he said that upon asking Mitrani why he had been laid off, the latter replied, "You know deep in your heart why you was laid off." Accepting his version as accurate, it still is weak foundation for a reasonable inference that the layoff was illegal discrimination.5 It will be recommended that the complaint be dismissed as to George Hilliard, Andrew Yetko, and Oscar Breech. 2. John Gross Mitrani began operation of the braiding plant early in 1951. In February John Gross, husband of Blanche Gross, was hired as the first of the braiding machine operators. Gross, a painter by trade, had been ill and was given the opportunity to work inside and learn the 4 The Trial Examiner must infer that Yetko was laid off on this date, mainly from payroll records. Yetko was not a witness, Mitrani was not certain what happened specifically to him or when, and the foreman who laid the employees off was not called as a witness. It is clear from records read into evidence that Breech's testimony, to the effect that he and Yetko worked as a team until June, was in error. 5 The Trial Examiner does not ignore the fact that Breech's wife was 1 of the 3 individuals whose attendance at ILGWU meetings was the subject of specific inquiry by management. The fact creates reasonable suspicion. But reasonable suspicion does not lead inevitably to a reasonable inference. The case is distinguishable from that of the treatment accorded John Gross and his wife Blanche, described hereinafter. There is no evidence that any official tried to discourage Mrs. Breech's activity by appealing to him, and there is no evidence as to what happened to Mrs. Breech, if anything. 778 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD braiding operation by Mitrani, upon the request of Blanche Gross, at a time when she was an officer of the Independent and before she became active in the ILGWU. That his work was satisfactory is established by the credible testimony of Blanche Gross, to the effect that in March or April Mitram told her that he was one of the best operators. Late in March Mitrani came to Gross at his machines and remarked that he had heard his wife had "done all the talking" at an ILGWU meeting. Mitrani further said that he considered her "very foolish" to get "hooked up with" this Union, and suggested that Gross have her come to his office and be proven wrong. Gross said he was not interested and had nothing to do with it. Mitrani asked, "Don't you control your wife? " Gross countered, "Do you control yours? " Mitrani shrugged and walked away. In mid-April Solomon Mitrani, while talking with Gross at his machines, said, "You get your wife and bring her over in the cafeteria and I will show her the union card that she signed." Gross said he knew nothing about it. Later in April, on a Saturday morning when Mrs. Gross was not working, Marco Mitrani called Gross into the back room at the braiding plant and asked him to go home and bring his wife to the office, where he would prove to her that she was "a very foolish woman to get hooked up with the union." Gross replied that if he wanted to see her he had better go to her home, or wait until she came in the following week. On April 27 the braiding plant was shut down for about a week, due to lack of materials. When operations resumed, on or about May 7, all others were called back except Gross. When he came to the plant to find out when he would be recalled, he was simply told by Foreman Diltz that they would let him know. He has never been recalled. The Respondents' answer, signed by both Marco and Victor Mitrani--contrary to the testimony not only of Gross but also that of Simpson, assistant to Diltz, 6 claims that Gross was discharged for "good cause" on April 27. The answer claims that the "good cause" con- sisted of Gross' neglect of his job, his interference with machinists assembling new machin- ery, and his refusal to abide by "rules of employment relative to eating and drinking." No witness testified that Gross was discharged on April 27. Simpson said that Diltz just "omitted" calling Gross back after the "complete lay off." No witness testified to the effect that Gross was told he was discharged, or why, upon being laid off with the others on April 27. Simpson was the only supervisor to testify as to Gross ' neglect of work or other derelic- tions claimed in the answer. If only a small percentage of Simpson's testimony were to be believed, it would still be difficult to understand why Gross was permitted to remain on the payroll until April 27. According to Simpson , who was hired soon after Gross, he was "always" at Gross' machine, helping him "keep the machine going.... in the interest of the Company." Gross himself, Simpson declared, "most times" was "wandering around giving advice," and "was smoking far more than any other man in the place, and constantly drinking coffee." This strange scene, depicted by Simpson , of Gross wandering around the plant "always." and "constantly" drinking coffee, while he or someone else ran Gross' machines, clashes somewhat in details with that described by another witness of the Respondents, employee Harper. According to Harper, "the biggest part of the day" Gross was following him around while he dutifully tended his machines, while "no one" was tending Gross' machines. Although at first Harper denied that he "ever" went over to Gross' machines, he later claimed that "twice a day" he went over to help Gross. No evidence was introduced to show that the Respondents had any "rules of employment relative to eating and drinking while at his work position," which in its answer it claims Gross violated. Simpson said there was a rule posted to the effect that "only one man should leave the machine at a time for any reason." No such rule was produced, however, and the Trial Examiner doubts that any rule of this nature was ever posted. In any event, not even the exaggerated testimony of either Simpson or Harner shows that Gross left his machine after one of them had left theirs, thereby violating the alleged rule. If they are to be believed. Gross was never at his machine, and they violated the rule by leaving their machines to run his. No evidence was offered to show that Gross prevented or interfered with machinists installing intricate machinery. The Trial Examiner is unable to rely upon the extravagant and untrustworthy testimony of Simpson and Harper. It is specifically found that Gross was not discharged, or "omitted" 6Diltz died before the hearing. MILCO UNDERGARMENT CO., INC. 779 from recall, because of violation of any rule, or because of unsatisfactory performance of his duties. The Mitranis, on three different occasions , tried through Gross to discourage his wife's ILGWU activity. He failed to cooperate with them. Marco Mitrani plainly resented her small rebellion against his Independent --as indicated by his direct threat to her, noted above. It is reasonable to believe , and it is concluded and found, that Mitrani , who felt he had done her a favor by hiring her husband in February, decided that in reprisal for her ILGWU activities, thereafter he would deprive him of employment after the layoff. Further support for this conclusion will be found in a later subsection, dealing with the discharge of Blanche Gross, before which it is undisputed that Mitrani refused to give her son her paycheck. The Trial Examiner concludes and finds that John Gross was not recalled on May 7, 1951, and thereby effectively discharged , because his wife was the leader of the ILGWU organizing campaign and to discourage membership in that organization. 3. Laverno Perko, Norma White, and Mary Rupert These three employees were summarily laid off on June 8, 1951, without previous warning. All three were sent letters of recall early in September 1951, after the Respondents had received charges in these proceedings. All three were active on behalf of the ILGWU and served on its organizing committee. All attended union meetings which, as found above , were spied upon by the Respondents ' officials. Perko was on a union committee which, in April, met briefly with Collen in a futile attempt to reach Mitrani and obtain recognition. The Trial Examiner is convinced, and finds, that management was well aware by June 8, 1951, of the fact that all three, and each of them, were active ILGWU adherents. White and Rupert were laid off by Forelady E. Welkom. Although both had been working for the Respondent Milco for several years --Rupert since 1937 and White since 1948, neither had been laid off for any extended period until June 1951. Upon her layoff, White was told by Welkom that she had been informed by her supervisor , Stanley Ginger, that Marco Mitrani had been instructed that she be "laid off for a week." On two occasions , thereafter , she went back to the plant but was given no work. Rupert was told by Welkom, when being laid off, that "Mr. Mitrani wants you to have a week's vacation." When Rupert asked Welkom why Ginger did not "come over and tell me," the forelady replied, "Well, he is going to quit the first of the month and he don't want to get mixed up in this mess ." A few days later Rupert met Welkom in town and asked her who was doing her work. Welkom said they were sending it to the Berwick plant. It is unchallenged that Rupert had ample work awaiting her for performance on June 8. Perko was laid off the same day by Forelady Gould. Employed first in 1941, for the year before her layoff she had been the "utility" girl, filling in on various jobs wherever tem- porary absence of a regular operator required --a fact plainly establishing her competence and versatility. She wa s merely told by Gould to go home and she would be called when they wanted her. No supervisor or management representative was called to testify as to why White and Rupert were laid off on June 8, or why they were denied employment until September. Gould testified as to Perko and claimed the job of "utility" girl was abandoned. If this was so, then the record is barren of any credible reason why she was offered reinstatement in September--an offer which she declined. No records were produced to support Gould's statement. The Trial Examiner can place no reliance upon Gould 's testimony. As the record reveals, it was confused, evasive, and in many respects contradictory. Finally, apparently trapped by her own inconsistencies , Gould sought escape in vituperation. She declared that other girls had "complained" about Perko "from thestartofher work. " "She was never a good worker," she said. No one was called to support her claim of "complaints." The fact that she had been working at the plant for so many years , and for at least a year had been a "utility" girl, capable of filling vacancies In several operations , refutes the claim that she was "never a good worker." 780 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD The Trial Examiner concludes and finds that White. Perko , and Rupert were not laid off on June 8 for good cause but discriminatorily to discourage membership and activity in the ILGWU. 7 4. Ruth Shultz Shultz began working for Milco in 1944 and was laid off by Gould on June 22, 1951. Like Blanche Gross, Shultz was on the selected committee which helped Mitrani and Berninger revive the Independent in 1950 and, after Mitrani had declined to accord his creation the opportunity to function as a genuine labor organization , helped to organize the ILGWU. She wore an ILGWU button openly in the plant. It is clear, and is found, that manage- ment was well aware of her ILGWU activity and adherence For the production of certain garments Milco used a "unit" system, whereby a group of about 20 girls performed all necessary operations There were, in 1951, 4 such groups or units. In each unit several operations were performed, more than 1 girl doing, in some cases, 1 operation Shultz worked in unit 4 as a "first and second closer." Sometime in March 1951, due to a decline in business, the units began working alternately That is, 1 week units 1 and 4 would work, and the next week units 2 and 3 would work. Unit 4 completed the week ending June 22 and was due to return on July 9, since the first week in July was vacation week for all. When laid off on June 22, Shultz was told by Gould that she would be notified by mail when to come back. During the first week of July, Shultz learned that other girls in her unit had received such notification while she had not. At noon, July 9, she telephoned to Gould, who merely said there was no work for her and would not further explain over the telephone. A few days later Shultz went to the plant to get her final paycheck. At this time Shultz asked Gould if there was any chance of her being called back. Gould re- plied, "Definitely not," and added that she could expect nothing else. Mitrani had told her, she informed Shultz, that he was laying off "all the girls that had anything to do with the ILGWU whatsoever, except for a few who were too stupid to realize what they were doing." Sbultz was not recalled until September At that time she declined reinstatement. As in other cases, Gould's testimony is so confused and contradictory as to defy the attempt to discern in it what claim the Respondents would rest upon to explain Shultz' layoff and failure to recall until September. Gould said that when Shultz called early in July about work, she expressed herself as "dubious, because I didn't know myself." Later she said she told Shultz on this occasion that "we dispensed with that particular operation she was doing." Still later she said, "I don't remember the exact nature of the conversation." Even if there were some element of truth in her claim that after the vacation they decided to have but 4 "closers" in the unit instead of 5, no reasonable explanation was adduced as to why Shultz was not recalled on July 9. The credible testimony of employee Dorothy Hock establishes that Pauline Hower, another of the closers in the same unit with Shultz, quit voluntarily the week before the vacation, and that during the summer several different girls were called to fill the vacancy The Trial Examiner finds no merit in the Respondents' claim, in its answer, that Shultz was laid off "temporarily" for lack of work. The preponderance of credible evidence establishes that she was discriminatorily refused employment on July 9, 1951, because of her activity on behalf of the ILGWU. 5 Blanche Gross Gross has previously been identified as one who aided Mitrani and Bernmger in revival of the company-dominated Independent. And as noted above, when she threatened to withdraw from it because it was useless as a labor organization, Mitrani cautioned her about jeopard- izing her job It has been found that after Mitrani's futile attempts to get her husband to dis- courage her activities on behalf of the ILGWU, he was not permitted to return to work after a normal layoff. She continued, however, her leadership in the ILGWU 7 The Trial Examiner considers the evidence insufficient to find that, as alleged by General Counsel, White was further discriminated against in September by not permitmg her to return to the same job she had been performing. She admitted that she had not asked to do the work of trimming, which before the layoff she had done, but that she had asked to be put "on a machine" and her request was granted. MILCO UNDERGARMENT CO., INC. 781 Gross was 1 of 4 girls in the first operation of unit 1--a group conceded by management to be the most efficient in the plant Together with others in the unit, Gross was laid off on June 22, with normal expectation of returning, after the vacation, on July 9. On or about June 27 Gross and the other three girls in her operation were informed by mail that they were being transferred to unit 3 and would be further notified when to report back. It is undisputed that all except Gross were sent notification by management on July 11 to return the following Monday, July 16 Thus the evidence is clear and uncontradicted that the Respondent failed and refused to recall Gross discriminatorily after the normal layoff of June 22. On July 12 Gross called Forelady Welkom and asked if it would be all right to send her son, age 10, to the plant to pick up her paycheck. Welkom agreed, and it is unchallenged that management had permitted the same arrangement before. The boy went to the plant and was met by Mitrani, who refused to give him the check because he was "too little to be trusted " The next day Mrs. Gross went to the plant and informed Mitrani that she considered him very "small" to humiliate the boy, and that she believed he was making a "personal issue" out of another problem. Mitrani, according to his own testimony, merely thanked her. About a month later Mitrani sent her a letter, stating that he had been waiting for an apology and since it had not been forthcoming, she was discharged Although the sequence of events and dates were carefully pointed out to Mitrani, as a witness, he blandly insisted that Blanche Gross was not recalled on July 11 because she in- sulted him on July 13. Gross has not been recalled The Trial Examiner is convinced and finds, from the preponderance of credible evidence, that management had no intention of recalling Gross on and after June 22, and that she was, in effect, discharged on July 11, when others of her group were notified to return. As noted in the section below, however, the transfer of her group to another unit , which was dis- criminatory, delayed by 1 week their return to work. For purposes of remedy, therefore the date of discrimination is found to have been July 9 when, absent any discrimination, Gross would normally have returned to work 6. Goldie Bennett, Dorothy Hock, and Harriet Robbins These three girls served with Blanche Gross in performing the first operation in unit 1. Each was active in the ILGWU, attended meetings under management surveillance, and wore the button of that organization openly in the plant. Hassen, it is undisputed, told Hock he was "surprised" to see her wear it. It is found that management well knew of their adherence to the ILGWU On or about June 27, during a period of normal layoff, each of these girls was informed of her transfer to unit 3. This transfer caused them to return to work on July 16 instead of July 9, as scheduled, and resulted in their loss of 1 week's pay. No credible reason for this transfer was advanced by the Respondents. Gould's testimony is so extravagantly confused as to be wholly unreliable She said they were transferred because (1) they did not produce; (2) they did not produce as much as girls in the third unit; (3) they did not produce as much as they were capable of producing; and (4) other girls com- plained about them, and finally admitted that she had nothing to do with the transfer. No other management representative offered any credible reason for the transfer. It is concluded and found that the transfer of these three (and also of Blanche Gross) to another unit was for the discriminatory purpose of causing them to lose a week's pay and to discourage activity in the ILGWU It will be recommended, however, in order not to upset unduly whatever working schedules may now be observed, that the Respondents only make them whole for the pay they would normally have earned during the week beginning July 9, 1951, since the nature of work appears to be the same in both units. 7. Nola Hilliard Nola Hilliard was active in the ILGWU, being on its organizing committee and wearing a button openly in the plant . She worked in the third unit, which was laid off on June 29, due to return on July 16, 1951. No management representative testified as to why Hilliard was not recalled when others of her group returned . No explanation was offered as to why her written request , after July 16, was ignored Gould, her supervisor , said she had nothing to do with her layoff 782 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD The Trial Examiner concludes and finds that Hilliard was discriminatorily denied employ- ment from July 16, 1951, until September 10, 1951, when she was reinstated, in order to dis- courage activity on behalf of the ILGWU. 8. Summary conclusions By the discriminatory discharges, layoffs, and transfers described above, for the purpose of discouraging membership and activity in a labor organization, the Respondents Milco and Bloomsburg have interfered with, restrained, and coerced employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act. IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The unfair labor practices of the Respondents described in section III, above, occurring in connection with the Respondents' operations 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 It has been found that the Respondents have engaged in certain unfair labor practices. It will be recommended that they cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action in order to effectuate the policies of the Act It has been found that the Respondents have discriminated in regard to the hire and tenure and nature of employment of John Gross, Laverno Perko, Norma White, Mary Rupert, Ruth Shultz, Blanche Gross, Goldie Bennett, Dorothy Hock, Harriet Robbins, and Nola Hilliard. Full reinstatement has been offered to all of the foregoing except John Gross and Blanche Gross It will be recommended that the Respondents offer John and Blanche Gross immediate and full reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent positions, without prejudice to their seniority or other rights and privileges, and that all named above in this paragraph be made whole for any loss of pay they may have suffered by reason of the discrimination against them, by payment to each of them of a sum of money equal to that which he or she would normally have earned as wages from the date of the discrimination to the date of offer of reinstatement, less net earnings during such period. Back pay shall be computed in the manner established by the Board in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289, and the Re- spondents shall make available to the Board appropriate records to facilitate the amount of back pay due. It has also been found that the Respondent Milco has dominated and interfered with the administration of and has contributed support to the Independent. The effects and conse- quences of this interference with and support of the Independent, as well as of entering into an agreement with it, are to frustrate self- organization and defeat genuine collective bargaining by employees of both Respondents since, as found in section I, above, both are controlled by Marco Mitrani and in effect constitute a single employer. It will therefore be recommended that the Respondents withdraw all recognition from the Independent as the representative of any of their employees for the purposes of dealing with the Respondents concerning grievances , labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, or other conditions of employment, and completely disestablish it as such representative. It will also be recommended that the Respondents cease and desist from giving effect to the contract with the Independent, or to any extension, renewal, modification, or supplement thereof, or any superceding agreement which may now be in force. Nothing in this recommendation, however, should be taken to require the Respondents to vary the wages, hours, or other substantive features of the agreement . It will be also recommended that the Respondents reimburse their employees for any independent dues since January 25, 1951. which have been deducted from their wages and paid to, or are being retained for, the Independent The preventive purposes of the Act will be thwarted unless the recommendations are co- extensive with the threat contained in violations of the Act herein found. It will therefore be recommended that the Respondents cease and desist from infringing in any manner upon the employees' rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act Upon the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record in the case, the Trial Ex- atmner makes the following MILCO UNDERGARMENT CO., INC. 783 CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union, Local 225, AFL, and Bloomsburg Inde- pendent Garment Workers' Association, are labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act. 2. By dominating and interfering with, and contributing support to, the administration of Bloomsburg Independent Garment Workers' Association , the Respondents have engaged in and are engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (2) of the Act. 3. By discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure and terms of employment of John and Blanche Gross, Laverno Perko , Norma White, Mary Rupert , Ruth Shultz, Goldie Bennett, Dorothy Hock, Harriet Robbins , and Nola Hilliard , the Respondents have engaged in and are engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act. 4. By interfering with, restraining , and coercing employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the Respondents have engaged in and are engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act. 5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act 6. The Respondents have engaged in no unfair labor practices within the meaning of the Act in the layoffs of George Hilliard, Andrew Yetko, and Oscar Breech. [Recommendations omitted frdm publication.] APPENDIX A NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES 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 employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to form labor organizations, to join or assist International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union, Local 225, AFL, or any other labor or- ganization, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in other concerted activities for the purposes of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any or all such activities, except to the ex- tent that such right may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of employment, as authorized in Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act. WE WILL NOT dominate or interfere with the formation or administration of any labor organization or contribute financial or other support to it. WE hereby disestablish Bloomsburg Independent Garment Workers' Association as the representative of any of our employees for the purposes of dealing with us concerning grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, or other conditions of employment, and we will not recognize it or any successors thereto for any of the above purposes. We will reimburse our employees for any dues to said organization since January 25, 1951, deducted from their wages. WE WILL offer to John Gross and Blanche Gross immediate and full reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent positions without prejudice to any seniority or other rights and privileges previously enjoyed, and make them and the employees named below whole for any loss of pay suffered as the result of discrimination: Laverno Perko Norma White Mary Rupert Ruth Shultz Goldie Bennett Dorothy Hock Harriet Robbins Nola Hilliard All our employees are free to become or remain members of International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union, Local 225, AFL, or any labor organization We will not discriminate in re- 784 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Bard to hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment against any em- ployee because of membership in or activity on behalf of any such labor organization. MILCO UNDERGARMENT CO., INC., Employer. BLOOMSBURG BRAIDING CORPORATION, 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. FORT WORTH SAND AND GRAVEL CO., INC. and INTER- NATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, CHAUF- FEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN AND HELPERS OF AMERICA, AFL, LOCAL 47 and AN EMPLOYEES'. COMMITTEE, Party to the Contract. Case No. 16-CA-565. August 18, 1953 DECISION AND ORDER On June 15, 1953, Trial Examiner Louis Plost issued his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in cer- tain unfair labor practices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the Intermediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the Respondent filed, exceptions to the Intermediate Report. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel [Members Houston, Styles, and Peterson]. The Board has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Intermediate Report, the Respondent's exceptions, and the entire record in this case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions,' and recommendations of the Trial Examiner, with the following modification: We agree with the Trial Examiner that the Respondent independently violated Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act. However, we do not rely upon the remarks made by the Respondent's vice president, Randol, in his speech to employees on Septem- ber 19. 'For reasons stated in Fort Worth Sand and Gravel Co., Inc., Case No. 16-RC-1120 (not reported in printed volumes of Board decisions ), we find that the Respondent is engaged in commerce and that it will effectuate the policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction in this case. 106 NLRB No. 129.