Jer Marai Lingerie Co.

6 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD below with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment , and other terms. and conditions of employment, and, if an understanding is reached , embody such, understanding in a signed agreement. The bargaining unit is: All lithographic production employees at our Hicksville, New York, plant, excluding office and clerical employees , cutters, watchmen, and all other employees , guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act. LITHO-GRAPHIC PRESS, INC., Employer. Dated------------------- By------------------------------------------- (Representat.ve) (Title) This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting, and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. If employees have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its, provisions, they may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office, 16 Court Street, Fourth Floor, Brooklyn, New York, 11201, 'Telephone 596-5386. Jer Marai Lingerie Co. and Los Angeles Dress and Sportswear Joint Board, International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union,. AFL-CIO. Case 21-CA-6828. June 10, 1966 DECISION AND ORDER On March 23, 1966, Trial Examiner James R. Hemingway issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Re- spondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Decision. The Trial Examiner further found that the Respondent had not engaged in certain other unfair labor practices alleged in the com- plaint. Thereafter, the Respondent and the Charging Party each filed exceptions and supporting briefs. The General Counsel did not file- exceptions or a brief. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member- panel [Members Fanning, Brown, and Jenkins]. The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial Ex- aminer's Decision, the exceptions and briefs, and the entire record in this case, and hereby adopts the Trial Examiner's findings,' conclu- sions, and recommendations, as modified herein.' i In the absence of exceptions thereto, we adopt pro forma the Trial Examiner's finding that Respondent did not otherwise violate Section 8(a) (1) of the Act as alleged In the complaint. 2 It appears from the record that some of Respondent's employees do not speak nor have a complete command of English . Therefore , we shall require that the notice be printed in both English and Spanish. 159 NLRB No. 6. JER MARA.I LINGERIE CO. 7 [The Board adopted the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order with the following modification : [Insert the following sentence between the first and second sentences of paragraph 2, (a) : ["The notice shall be printed in both English and Spanish."] [The Board further ordered the complaint be dismissed insofar as it alleges unfair labor practices not found in the Trial Examiner's Decision.] TRIAL EXAMINER 'S DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE Los Angeles Dress and Sportswear Joint Board, International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union, AFL-CIO, herein called the Union , filed a charge on July 9, 1965, against Jer Marai Lingerie Co., herein called the Respondent , and on July 12, 1965, the Union filed an amended charge against the Respondent . Upon such charge and amended charge, the Regional Director for Region 21, of the National Labor Rela- tions Board, herein called the Board , on behalf of the General Counsel of the Board, issued a complaint on August 19, 1965, alleging that the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, 29 U.S.C. sec. 151, et seq., herein called the Act . Respondent denied the unfair labor practices. Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held in Los Angeles , California, on November 2, 1965, before Trial Examiner James R. Hemingway. The Respondent rested at the conclusion of the General Counsel's case without presenting any evidence. At the close of the hearing, the parties argued orally on the record and chose not to file briefs From my observation of the witnesses, and upon the entire record in the case, I make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT I. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT The Respondent, a California corporation , has been engaged at all times material hereto at its plant in Industry, California, in the business of manufacturing and sell- ing lingerie. During the 12-month period preceding issuance of the complaint, the Respondent, in the normal course of its business operations , performed services or sold products valued in excess of $500,000 to customers within the State of California and received materials and supplies valued in excess of $50,000 shipped directly to its Industry, California, plant from points located outside the State of California. Jurisdiction of the Board is not contested , and I find that the Board has jurisdiction and that it will effectuate the policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction in this case. II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED The Union is a labor organization admitting to membership employees of the Respondent. III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES Interference , restraint , and coercion On June 14, 1965, the Union , in starting an organizational drive at the Respond- ent's plant, passed out leaflets on a street leading from the plant. This activity was observed by Gerald Lundahl, Respondent's president, and by George Steed, Respond- ent's vice president, known to the employees as the plant superintendent. In the latter part of June, the Respondent called two meetings of employees in the plant. The witnesses who testified for the General Counsel were somewhat vague as to the dates of these meetings or as to which meeting preceded the other . From all the evidence, however, I find that the first meeting took place within a week after the distribution of literature by the Union near the plant. At this meeting Lundahl told the employees that the Union was passing out pamphlets . He then showed them on a blackboard a breakdown of the cost of production . He said that he got only DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD S cents out of every '$10 'of lingerie sold, and that the rest went back into the plant itself and for the employees' benefits. Nora •Becnel, ,at that time-an employee, testi- fied: "He said that it couldn't come out of there because that was only 5 cents. So, it would have to come out of the profit that he spent on us which he said if the Union came in, there couldn't be any more Disneylands, no more birthday cakes, no more birthday cards, and no more flu shots for the whole family . . Becnel did not testify to what "it" referred, and she was not asked to clarify this by the General Counsel. From the entire context of her testimony, however, I infer that "it" referred to an increase in compensation. I infer, therefore, that Lundahl was saying that he could not increase the pay of the employees without depriving them of certain of the benefits which they were then receiving. At this same meeting, the Respondent distributed leaflets written in both English and Spanish. Although the subject matter was the same in each language, I note that the Spanish was not a literal translation of the English. The English portion was headed Holiday Program and read as follows: As we have discussed in the past, when economically feasible, the Company will pay for holidays.' We now feel that we can start the program by paying a half-day pay for each of the following holidays: Memorial Day July 4th Labor Day Thanksgiving Day We will add to this program as time and finances progress. The only thing we ask, in order to make it fair for everyone, is that in order to qualify for the holiday pay, you must work the full day preceding the holiday and the full day following the holiday. To begin the program, we will pay the Memorial Day one-half pay retroactively. We want to express our appreciation for your past cooperation and are looking forward to the same close relationship in the future. In the latter part of June 1965, Elena Leyba testified, Marilyn Schneider, a super- visor, told employee Cindy Frousto, "If the Union takes over, the boss isn't going to give you no more letters so you can bring your relatives from Mexico." Toward the end of June 1965, Schneider asked employee Lupe Gonzalez when the union meeting was going to be. Gonzalez said that she did not know about any meeting. Schneider said that there was going to be one (Gonzalez later received a letter from the Union notifying her of the meeting). Schneider told Gonzalez, "We teach you to operate the machines and we pay you, we pay a little, but we do pay you. If you go to school to learn to operate the machines, you will have to pay $300. If you go to that meeting, we will fire you." Another supervisor, Evelyn McKew, was quoted by employee Stella Sackett as asking her, on one occasion, if she had ever "worked union." Sackett replied that she had in three different places. Sackett also quoted McKew as saying, in her presence and in the presence of two other employees, that she could not discharge them for union activity but could discharge them "for mistagging a bag, burning, or mismarking." The Union scheduled a meeting of Respondent's employees for June 29, 1965, after work, in El Monte, California, a town about 5 or 6 miles northeast of Industry. Employee Stella Sackett was the only one to enter the meeting hall, others leaving without entering. Anita Castro, union organizer, observed a large car across the street from the meeting place in which two women were sitting. Castro asked Sackett if she knew who they were. Sackett looked and recognized one as Supervisor Evelyn McKew. Castro went across the street and, asked McKew and the other woman (identified only as Shirley) if they worked for the Respondent. They said they did. Castro asked what they were doing there. McKew said, "We are waiting here for some girls from the shop to see who is coming."' Castro asked them to come in, saying that they could then see better who was coming. McKew declined, saying, "No, we will stay here for a while." IIn the Spanish , this read , according to my translation , "'At last the proprietor has agreed to comply with the requests you have made during the past year, and the following list of payments has been formulated . .. There followed the same list of holidays and the explanation of the prerequisites to earning the half day's'pay as was given in English. JER MARAI LINGERIE CO. 9' On the basis of the testimony of witnesses for the General Counsel, which testi- mony was not denied by the Respondent because it did not call any witnesses at all, I find that the Respondent, by questioning Gonzalez as to when a union meeting was going to be held, by threatening Gonzalez with discharge if she went to the meeting, by granting the Respondent's employees, at a meeting during working time while the Respondent was discussing the Union, paid half-holidays at a time when the Union was seeking to interest the employees in joining,3 and by the open surveillance of employees attending the union meeting by Respondent's agent, McKew, has inter- fered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaran- teed in Section 7 of the Act and that the aforesaid unfair labor practices have not been remedied. Without further evidence it is impossible to conclude that either McKew's question of Sackett about working union or McKew's statement about causes for discharge constituted coercion. It is possible that, by the latter statement, McKew was intimat- ing that she could discharge employees for union activity but, if so, she would explain the discharge on the ground of some minor misconduct. However, it could mean literally what she said, that she could discharge only for mistakes and not for union activity. In the absence of evidence that would make the former the more reason- able inference, I find no violation of the Act on this testimony. The question about whether or not Sackett had ever worked in a shop that had a union does not, stand- ing by itself, appear coercive. It could have been asked merely in the sense of con- trasting working at a union shop and a nonunion shop. If the question were to be given any other significance, more evidence would be needed. I find no unfair labor practices based on McKew's question asked of Sackett or on McKew's statement about causes for discharge. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The Respondent is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 2. The Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 3. By granting employees paid half-holidays to dissuade them from their interest in the Union, by questioning employees concerning the holding of a union meeting coupled with a threat of discharge for attending such meeting, and by surveillance of employees attending such meeting, Respondent has interfered with, restrained, and coerced employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, in violation of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act. 4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting com- merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. RECOMMENDED ORDER I recommend that Respondent, Jer Marai Lingerie Co., Industry, California, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall 1. Cease and desist from granting benefits to employees to induce them to refrain from the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, from interrogating employees concerning union activities, from threatening its employees with discharge if they attend a union meeting, from engaging in surveillance of employees to see who attends a union meeting, or engaging in any like or related conduct. 2. Take the following affirmative action which it is found will effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Post at its plant in Industry, California, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix." 3 Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for Region 21, shall, after having been duly signed by Respondent, be posted by Re- 2 Tinley Park Dairy Co., d/b/a Country Lane Food Store, 142 NLRB 683. Respondent offered no evidence to show that It had, at any earlier time, given Its em- ployees any reason to believe that the Respondent was formulating a holiday pay plan. The notice of the granting of paid half-holidays intimates the contrary See Arta Crafts Distributors, Inc, 132 NLRB 166; Russell-Newman Ufg. Co , Inc, 153 NLRB 1312. 3In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board, the words "a Decision and Order" shall be substituted for the words "the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner" In the notice In the further event that the Board's Order is enforced by a decree of a United States Court of Appeals, the words "a Decree of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order" shall be substituted for the words "a Decision and Order " 10 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD spondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to em- ployees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to assure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (b) Notify the said Regional Director, in writing, within 20 days from the date of receipt of this Decision, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith.4 4 In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board, this provision shall be modified to read: "Notify said Regional Director, in writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith." APPENDIX NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor Relations Board, and in order. to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Rela- tions Act, as amended, we hereby notify our employees that: WE WILL NOT offer inducements to employees to refrain from becoming or remaining members of Los Angeles Dress and Sportswear Joint Board, Interna- tional Ladies' Garment Workers' Union, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization. WE WILL NOT threaten to discharge any employee or employees for engaging in any union or concerted activities. WE WILL NOT question any employee about his union activities. WE WILL NOT engage in surveillance of employees attending or wishing to attend union meetings. WE WILL in no other like or related manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist Los Angeles Dress and Sportswear Joint Board, International Ladies' Gar- ment Workers' Union, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organizatoin, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, or to engage in other 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 the right so to refrain 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 National Labor Relations Act, as amended. All our employees are free to become or remain, or to refrain from becoming or remaining, members of Los Angeles Dress and Sportswear Joint Board, Interna- tional Ladies' Garment Workers' Union, AFL-CIO. JER MARAI LINGERIE CO., Employer. Dated------------------- By------------------------------------------- (Representative) (Title) This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting, and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. If employees have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its pro- visions, they may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office, Eastern Columbia Building, 849 South Broadway, Los Angeles, California 90014, Telephone 688-5229. Dunclick, Inc. and Teamsters Union Local No. 551, affiliated with International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Ware- housemen and Helpers of America, Independent. Case No. 19- C9.-3145. June 10, 1966 DECISION AND ORDER On March 28, 1966, Trial Examiner Henry S. Salim issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent 159 NLRB No. 13.