The James Textile Corp.

650 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD The James Textile Corp . and Local 148-162, Inter- national Ladies' Garment Workers' Union, AFL-CIO. Case 22-CA-3530 July 28, 1970 DECISION AND ORDER BY MEMBERS FANNING, BROWN, AND JENKINS On February 26, 1969 , Trial Examiner John M. Dyer issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding , finding that the Respondent had en- gaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices, and recommending that it cease and de- sist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner 's Deci- sion . He also found that the Respondent had not engaged in other unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint and recommended that such allega- tions be dismissed . Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision and a supporting brief. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended , the Na- tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three- member panel. 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 Examiner 's Decision , the exceptions and brief, ,and the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the findings , conclusions , and recommenda- tions of the Trial Examiner , except as modified herein. While we concur in the Trial Examiner 's findings of violations with respect to allegations embracing violations of Section 8(a)(1) and ( 3) of the Act, we conclude for the reasons discussed hereafter, that neither a finding of an unlawful refusal to bargain nor a bargaining order is warranted here. BACKGROUND The Respondent formerly operated its business in New York City, where it was engaged under its present name and under the name of Spun-Jee in basically the same business ; i.e., manufacture , sales, and distribution of ladies' garments , knitwear, and related products . From around 1955 to 1963, the Respondent was a member of the Allied Underwear ' N.L.R.B. v Spun-!ee Corporation, et al., 385 F.2d 379 (C A 2), as amended , December 7, 1967 Association , a multiemployer bargaining group, which had successive contracts with the Undergar- ment and Negligee Workers Union, Local 62 of the International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union, AFL-CIO. In 1963, the Respondent resigned from the Association , declined to bargain further with New York Local 62, and moved to its present plant in New Jersey. After litigation of a refusal -to-bargain charge in- itiated by Local 62, the Board issued a decision (152 NLRB 943) finding that the Employer's withdrawal from multiemployer bargaining was un- timely and ordered the Employer to bargain separately with Local 62 about the resumption of the unilaterally subcontracted and removed opera- tions . The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit declined to enforce the Order, noting that while the withdrawal may have been untimely , special cir- cumstances existed and remanded the case to the Board for reconsideration.' On May 20, 1968, the Board issued a Supple- mental Decision (171 NLRB 557) and concluded that, in light of the Employer's economic hardships in continuing to do business in the New York area, its withdrawal from the Association was justifiable and it was not bound by the Association 's contract subsequently reached . The Board then concluded that Respondent had not refused to bargain unlaw- fully and the complaint against the Employer was dismissed. THE CURRENT DISPUTE In February or March 1968 , the same Interna- tional Union, ILGWU, but a different local, Local 148-162, initiated an organizational cam- paign among Respondent 's employees at its New Jersey plant. A lunchtime union meeting was held at the Mayflower Restaurant on May 7 with ap- proximately 14 employees in attendance and a peti- tion was drawn up to present to the Employer con- taining the signatures of 17 employees. The petition stated that the signatories were a "committee representing the majority of the Miss Ingenue [James Textile] workers and are formally requesting recognition based on a card count which we are prepared to show you at this time." Following the luncheon, some 14 employees ac- companied by Union Representatives DeYoung and Scotti entered the plant's premises, and were met by Davis Pillet, secretary-treasurer, and one of the owners. DeYoung read the petition to Pillet, of- fered to show him signed authorization cards from 184 NLRB No. 70 THE JAMES TEXTILE CORP. 651 the employees, and requested recognition and bar- gaining . Pillet responded that he did not believe the Union represented a majority of the employees, refused to look at the cards, told the employees to return to work, and advised DeYoung that he would not meet with him until later in the after- noon after consulting his attorney. Whereupon DeYoung, who wanted an immediate meeting, de- parted and the employees returned to work. The following day, May 8, there was a written demand for recognition by the Union and Respondent's written refusal to recognize on the same grounds; namely, that the Union did not represent a majori- ty. About noon of the same day, May 8, four em- ployees who had signed union authorization cards were terminated , presumably for nondiscriminatory reasons . 2 In responding that it had a good-faith doubt that the Union represented a majority, the Respondent suggested that the Union request a Board-conducted election . On May 20, the Union filed a petition for an election and on June 10, 1968, the parties agreed to a stipulation for a con- sent election to be held on July 15 following the Company's vacation period. Following the discharge of employee Gutirrez (also identified as King ) on or about June 14, the Union withdrew from the stipulation and filed these unfair labor practice charges. The Trial Examiner found that as the initial date of the demand for recognition, May 7, 1968, the Union represented 29 of the 54 employees he found were properly included in the unit on the basis of validly executed authorization cards.' He thereafter found that Respondent's denial of recognition was not made in good faith but was made to allow time to undermine and destroy the Union's majority and was violative of Section 8(a)(5) of the Act. In so concluding, the Trial Ex- aminer did not go into the question of the Union's majority status on May 8 or thereafter.4 With respect to Respondent's contention that it could not bargain with this Union because it was still under a Board Order requiring it to bargain with New York Local 62, the Trial Examiner concluded that this was an afterthought because this reason was never given to the Union when the demand was made and, secondly, that the Board on further con- sideration decided that there was no legal impedi- ment extant at that time. As the Trial Examiner noted, it appears that Respondent did not rely on the fact that a Board Order requiring the Respondent to bargain with Local 62 was outstanding at the time it rejected a new demand for recognition by Local 148-162. We conclude, however, that at least in the present cir- cumstances, Respondent cannot be found to have refused to bargain with one union while awaiting the Board's decision on whether Respondent was required to continue to bargain with still another union. To hold otherwise would obviously be in derogation of our own processes. Since Local 148-162's demand for recognition occurred on May 7, 1968, some 13 days before the Board's Sup- plemental Decision issued on May 20 relieving the Respondent of any obligation to bargain with New York Local 62, the Respondent was not under any obligation to recognize or bargain with another union prior to May 20. Furthermore, on the facts previously set forth, the Union did not possess a clear majority on and after May 8, 1968, the day 4 employees who had signed authorization cards were terminated, leaving the Union as the representative of 25 of 50 em- ployees remaining in the unit. The loss of majority was not attributable to discriminatory or unlawful conduct by the Employer. Inasmuch as Local 148-162 failed to establish a clear majority on or after May 20, after the legal impediment to recog- nition was removed, we need not reach the question of whether the conduct found violative of the Act here would otherwise warrant the issuance of a bargaining order. Accordingly, we conclude that Respondent did not refuse to bargain in viola- tion of Section 8(a)(5) of the Act. ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board hereby adopts as its Order the Recommended Order of the Trial Examiner as modified below and hereby orders that Respondent, ' Two of the four employees terminated, Lemon and Kleber, filed charges with the Board 's regional office alleging that their termination was discriminatory After investigation , the Regional Director refused to issue a complaint on their behalf. ' In finding that the unit consisted of 54 employees as of May 7, 1968, the date of the demand , the Trial Examiner excluded 5 employees He found that Anna Thomas, Sylvia Sanchez , and Alida Cappelluti were office clerical employees ; that Kevin McCarthy held a quasi-supervisory position, was salaried , and was allied with management, that Andrew Pillet, the son of one of the principal owners of the Company, worked as an irregular part- time employee while in school and had no community of interest with em- ployees in the unit We agree that the unit was composed of 54 employees on May 7, 1968 4 In explanation of the narrow basis upon which this case was litigated by the General Counsel and thereafter decided by the Trial Examiner, it should be noted that the case was tried on a Joy Silk Mill theory, namely, that a refusal to recognize a union was not made in good faith if accom- panied by contemporaneous unfair labor practices by the employer The Board has since modified its standards, particularly its reliance on good or bad faith of an employer, and now follows the standards set out in Gissel v NLRB,395US 575 652 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL The James Textile Corp., North Bergen, New Jer- sey, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the Trial Ex- aminer 's Recommended Order as so modified: 1. Delete paragraphs 1(a) and 2 ( a) and reletter the following paragraphs accordingly. 2. Delete the first indented paragraph of the notice together with the description of the unit as therein contained. TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE JOHN M. DYER, Trial Examiner: The charge in this matter was filed on July 9, 1968 ,' alleging that the James Textile Corp., herein called Respondent or Company , had violated Section 8 (a)(5) of the Act by refusing to recognize and bargain with the Charging Party, Local 148-162, International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union , AFL-CIO, herein called the Union , and in violation of Section 8(a)(3) had discharged four employees and com- mitted various violations of Section 8(a)(1). The Regional Director for Region 22 of the Na- tional Labor Relations Board , herein called the Board , issued a complaint on August 21, alleging that Respondent engaged in various acts violative of Section 8(a)(1) and discharged Joaquin Gutirrez in violation of Section 8(a)(3), all of which activity was intended to undermine the Union 's majority status and further Respondent had rejected the prinicple of collective bargaining and had violated Section 8 (a)(5) of the Act by its refusal to recog- nize and negotiate with the Union. Respondent admitted it was engaged in com- merce within the meaning of the Act and acknowledged the status of the Union as a labor or- ganization and agreed that the unit as set forth in the complaint was the appropriate unit. Respondent al- leged that the parties had entered into a stipulation for certification upon a consent election and the agreement had been abrogated by the Union and the Region improperly and such was the only proper way to resolve any question concerning representation . Respondent denied that it had com- mitted any unfair labor practices. All parties were afforded full opportunity to par- ticipate and to examine and cross-examine wit- nesses in the hearing held on October 22, 23, 24, 30, and 31 at Newark, New Jersey, and all parties have filed extensive briefs which have been care- fully considered. Upon the complete record in this case including certain undenied evidence and on my evaluation of the reliability of the witnesses based both on the evidence received and my observation of their demeanor I make the following: LABOR RELATIONS BOARD FINDINGS OF FACT I. THE BUSINESS INVOLVED AND THE LABOR ORGANIZATION Respondent, a New York corporation, has its principal office and plant in North Bergen, New Jersey, where it is engaged in the manufacture, sale, and distribution of ladies' garments, knitwear, and related products. During the prior 12-month period Respondent sold and shipped from its plant goods and products valued in excess of $50,000 in in- terstate commerce directly to customers in other States. Respondent concedes and I find that it is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. Respondent concedes and I find that the Union herein is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. II. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Background and Undisputed Facts Respondent formerly operated its business in New York City, where it was engaged under its present name and under the name of Spun-Jee in basically the same business . From around 1955 to 1963 Respondent was a member of the Allied Underwear Association, a multiemployer bargain- ing group, which had successive contracts with the Undergarment and Negligee Workers Union, Local 62 of the International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union, AFL-CIO. In 1963 Respondent resigned from the Association, declined to bargain further with New York Local 62 and moved to its present plant in New Jersey. Apparently the sewing opera- tions were performed by Spun-Jee and were thereafter subcontracted and the Spun -Jee name was not used. Respondent's resignation from the New York As- sociation and cessation of its bargaining relation- ship with New York Local 62 was the subject of Board case 152 NLRB 953. The U.S. Court of Ap- peals for the Second Circuit declined to enforce the Board's Order, finding that although Respondent's withdrawal from the employer association appeared to be untimely, Respondent was under no duty to bargain with New York Local 62 regarding its deci- sion to withdraw from business in New York and move to New Jersey. The court remanded to the Board the question of whether Respondent was bound by the Association's contract with New York Local 62. In its Decision, 171 NLRB 557, the Board determined , in the light of the court 's conclusions and in view of the economic hardships which were inherent in Respondent's continuance of business in ' Unless specifically stated otherwise all dates herein occurred in 1968 THE JAMES TEXTILE CORP. the New York area, that unusual circumstances ex- isted which justified Respondent's withdrawal from the Association and its removal to New Jersey, so that it was not bound by the contract negotiated by New York Local 62 and the Association. Respondent is owned by two brothers, James and Davis Pillet, and their sister Frances Menken. They have divided the responsibilities of the Company with James Pillet as Respondent 's president exercis- ing overall control and taking care of sales and the showroom . Davis Pillet is the secretary-treasurer and oversees the plant and the work in the shop. Frances Menken is vice president and oversees the office and acts as Respondent 's controller. Under Mrs.Menken is assistant controller, Jacob Baurer, and the office staff. The plant supervisory staff under Davis Pillet is headed by Production Manager Nicholas DeLeo who oversees the work of Cutting Room Foreman Samuel Colon. The Employer's plant and facilities are located on the second floor of a building in North Bergen, New Jersey . On entering the premises one goes up steps to a door controlled by an electric lock which is opened by the switchboard operator . There was testimony that in the hall which serves as a passageway between the offices and the production and packing area there is a timeclock , which ac- cording to one witness is visible from the cutting room across the main floor of the facility. The appropriate unit as agreed to by all parties consists of all production , maintenance , shipping, receiving and cutting department employees, ex- cluding office clerical employees , professional em- ployees, salesmen , porters, guards, and all super- visors as defined in the Act. Respondent 's normal plant hours for the produc- tion and maintenance employees , from the testimony, appear to be from 8:45 or 9 a.m. until 5:30 or 6 p .m. with a half-hour lunch period from 12 to 12 :30 p.m . on a 5-day week. During the rush season , normally March to mid-June, employees may work a half day on Saturday . In keeping em- ployees' time they are paid for 15-minute segments and punching in after a quarter hour period may mean the loss of that period for pay purposes unless it is a matter of a minute or so which might be ex- cused in the office when the time was checked for the week 's work. There is no dispute that on May 7, Respondent had 59 employees on its payroll . General Counsel and the Union contend that 3 of the 59 were office clerical employees and a fourth a salaried employee aligned with managment, if he was not a supervisor, and that these 4 should not be included in the unit. They further contend that Andrew Pillet, the son of Davis Pillet and consequently the nephew of the other two principal owners of the Company, should not be included in the unit since he is a son of one of the principals , enjoyed special privileges, at- tended high school , and was not a regular em- ployee . Respondent contended that 1 of the 59 was 653 not a regular employee in that she had been em- ployed under a Government program of assistance granted to the Employer in the nature of a partial payment of supervisors ' salaries for the training of people over 45 years of age. Respondent 's other contention concerning the group of employees has reference to four employees who left Respondent on May 8, and is only relevant if Respondent 's posi- tion as to the date of the union demand is accepted. There is no disagreement that the employees in the plant were hourly paid, punched a timeclock, and that their duties were solely in the plant area. There is also no dispute that the employees alleged by General Counsel and the Union as office cleri- cals, namely, Anna Thomas, Sylvia Sanchez, and Alida Cappelluti, were salaried personnel none of whom punched the timeclock and whose normal duties were in the office. Kevin McCarthy the fourth employee objected to by General Counsel and the Union was hired , according to his testimony, as the assistant production manager, was salaried , and did not punch a timeclock. Assistant Controller Baurer with the assistance of Supervisor Dot Brown and other employees took care of the plant orders. Under this direct supervi- sion and generally under the supervision of Frances Menken were Sylvia Sanchez, who ran a Friden Computyper, which machine prepared and typed invoices and shipping labels . This machine is in the last of the offices and the office physically projects into the working area . In running the machine Sanchez gets the information from finished goods in the production area. Anna Thomas has general of- fice clerical duties but in the "rush season" when the work was too much for Sanchez, she assisted by hand preparing invoices and shipping labels, per- forming this work in the shop area . Alida Cappellu- ti, who during normal times is the telephone opera- tor, during rush times worked in the shop approxi- mately 6 hours a day, pulling orders for packing and shipping of garments . In the shop she assisted Louis Signore who was in charge of the order-pul- lers, by instructing new order-pullers on where to go and what to do, particularly in a second room where Signore could not be present. In Cappelluti's absence from the office, Supervisor Dot Brown, Anna Thomas, and Assistant Controller Jacob Baurer assisted in taking care of the switchboard. Andrew Pillet worked in the production area at various jobs during school vacations and holidays. Only one timecard for him was offered and that showed that his working hours were written in rather than the card being punched . Respondent's explanation that the timeclock was not available for punching on holidays or after regular hours does not bear out here since the date is May 11, 1968, a Saturday and the hours are 9 a.m. to 3 p.m. A com- parison with General Counsel's Exhibit 11, a timecard for Joaquin Gutirrez, shows his card was punched on a Saturday . Further Andrew Pillet rode with his father to and from work , was there before 654 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD and after the regular production and maintenance employees , took his breaks in the office , and ap- pears from the testimony to be an irregular em- ployee, who worked when his high school vacations and holidays permitted. McCarthy described his duties as keeping track of production and keeping Production Manager DeLeo informed of what was going on in the plant. To this end he would inspect the cutting room, determine what had been done on a particular day, and note the assignments for the following day. He would also secure information from the shop as to shipments , orders, receipt of goods, etc. He occa- sionally performed some physical labor after hours or in an emergency . He left Respondent when, after the rush season , Nick DeLeo said he was not completely pleased with his work and offered to train him as a cutter at a reduction in pay, which McCarthy refused. Carolyn Ward, who was hired under the OASI program ( referred to above as the Government pro- gram ), was a production employee who was hourly paid and punched a timecard . The only distinction between her and the other employees was that she was hired in conjunction with the OASI program of providing job opportunities for persons over 45 years old . Baurer testified that in all regards she performed as a regular production and main- tenance employee , the sole distinction being that Respondent received some $300 from the govern- ment as partial payment for the wages of the super- visor who trained her. As to the unit placement of these six employees, I find that Carolyn Ward is a regular production and maintenance employee, who works under the same conditions as the other unit employees and that she was employed under a program which seeks to have persons over 45 employed in such a regular manner . I find that she does not come under any exclusion as a pensioner and should be included in the unit . Andrew Pillet is the son of one of the prin- cipals of the Company and works as an irregular part-time employee while going to high school. I find he has no community of interest with the em- ployees in the unit and should be excluded from the unit . I find that Anna Thomas, Sylvia Sanchez, and Alida Cappelluti are office clerical employees who during the rush season assist in the plant but whose main duties are those of office clericals . They are paid on a different basis and have no clear commu- nity of interest with the employees in the unit and should be excluded as office clericals . Kevin Mc- Carthy, similarly a salaried employee, was essen- tially an office clerical employee whose duties took him into the plant and while he had no clear status as a supervisor, was in a quasi-supervisory position, had a desk in the office, and acted as an arm of management. In this capacity I conclude and find that he should be excluded from the unit. Therefore , I find and conclude that there were 54 employees in the unit on May 7, 1968, and with the above exclusions are those employees named in General Counsel 's Exhibit 2. From the uncontradicted testimony it was the beginning of March when union representatives ap- peared outside Respondent 's plant seeking to in- terest employees in the Union. Employees Wend- ell Moyd and Joaquin Gutirrez, who is known as King, were among the first employees contacted. The union representatives contacted other em- ployees on the street and ate lunch with employees at the Mayflower Restaurant several blocks from the plant. Moyd testified he signed a union authorization card and received blank cards from organizers which he passed out to employees. King also signed a card and solicited signatures of other employees, principally among the Spanish-speaking employees . The union campaign continued into May and on May 7, following a lunchtime meeting at the Mayflower Restaurant , Union Representa- tives Walter De Young and Fred Scotti with a group of employees met with Davis Pillet at the plant. There are a number of questions as to what oc- curred on and after May 7, in the series of events of this case. The answers depend mostly on credibility determinations and the inferences to be drawn therefrom and whether assertions made are backed up with competent evidence . I have made these determinations, relying not only on demeanor but also on the series of events considered as a whole, together with the positions taken and claims made and the weight of proof or lack thereof. Setting the events chronologically seems to best illustrate the pattern of events and demonstrates why I have reached the findings and conclusions made herein. A number of the witnesses and employees are from Puerto Rico and some of them had sufficient difficulty with English that the services of an in- terpreter were necessary . Some of such testimony appeared to be repetitive in an apparent effort that it be understood and I have set forth where ap- propriate what appears to be the essence of this testimony. In this connection we may note that some of the authorization cards were in Spanish and that in other instances there was testimony that the solicitations were in Spanish and that the cards printed in English were translated into Spanish for the benefit of those solicited. B. The Events Beginning With May 7 1. A lunchtime union meeting was held at the Mayflower Restaurant on May 7, with some 14 or more employees in attendance besides Union Representatives De Young and Scotti. At this meet- ing a typed document, hereafter called the petition, was signed by 14 or more employees as members of the union organizing committee . Some two or three other names were added of those not present but who had authorized their names to be included. This petition on union stationary read as follows: THE JAMES TEXTILE CORP. 655 Attention: Owners of Miss Ingenue (James Textile) 2031 42nd Street, North Bergen, N.J. We are a committee representing the majority of the Miss Ingenue workers and are formally requesting recognition based on a card count which we are prepared to show you at this time. The petition was dated in ink May 7 and con- tained the purported signatures of 17 employees. Apparently most of the employees at this meeting agreed to seek a meeting with Respondent follow- ing the lunch period, and so around 12 :25 or 12:30 p.m. some 14 employees with Union Representa- tives De Young and Scotti entered Respondent's premises in a group. After entering the normally locked exterior door and the plant area , they were seen by Davis Pillet who walked over to the group and was presented by De Young with his business card. Employee Wendell Moyd, who favorably im- pressed me as trying to tell the truth without distor- tion , testified that De Young told Davis Pillet that he had a letter signed by the committee and read it to Pillet . De Young then handed him the petition and asked Pillet to recognize the Union . Pillet said he would talk to De Young but not with the em- ployees present. De Young said that he did not want to talk to him alone but if he could have two or three of the workers with him they would talk. Pillet said that he would not takl to any of the work- ers and told them that if they were going back to work to check in and if they were not, to leave. King, Silvano Rivera, and Allen Brown, Jr., together with Moyd , testified that the petition was handed to Davis Pillet . Pillet testified that the peti- tion was not handed to him until the close of the meeting when the employees were clocking in and Moyd and Scotti were leaving the premises. King and Allen Brown , Jr., testified that De Young had the authorization cards in his hand at the time and Brown testified that he showed the cards to Pillet but that Pillet did not look at them . The testimony of Allen Brown and Davis Pillet is in agreement that Pillet said the Union did not have a majority. Davis Pillet testified that on May 7, when 10 to 12 people in a group came in the plant, he walked over to see what was wrong . De Young handed him his business card and said he had a petition and that he had a majority of the workers and wanted to hold a meeting with Pillet right then. Pillet said they were on working time and if De Young wanted to talk, the people could punch in and go back to work and that after a few hours he would call his lawyer and De Young could come in and talk to him after that, later that afternoon . De Young in- sisted on a meeting and that they had a majority and Pillet told De Young he did not think they had a majority . According to Pillet , some of the workers started to punch in about that time , and the meet- ing ended with De Young handing him the petition. Pillet stated he did not recall everything that was said and to a question of whether De Young said anything about cards , Pillet replied that something was said about a majority of names or cards and that he said he doubted it. He said he did not think De Young had the cards in his hand , but did not deny that the petition had been read to him. Of the people in the group , King punched his timecard at 12:33 p.m.; four other employees punched in at 12 :37; five punched in at 12:38; one punched in at 12:39 ; and three punched in at 12:45. Thus 14 employees at a minimum were present at this meeting which the parties agree took some 5 to 7 minutes and they started checking in at approximately 12:33 indicating that the meeting started shortly before the lunch period ended and broke up around 12:35 or so. Respondent 's system of paying in quarter hour segments accounts for those who punched in at 12:45 p.m. I find that the petition was read to Davis Pillet at the beginning of this 5- to 7-minute meeting and that Pillet recognized and understood that the Union was asserting its majority status and requesting recognition and bargaining . Pillet recog- nized the Union's claim and answered he did not believe they represented a majority of the em- ployees, asserted he would not meet with em- ployees present and would not meet with the union representatives until late in the afternoon after con- sulting his attorney . Thus the demand and the refusal to bargain occurred on May 7. There was a subsequent written demand and written refusal couched mainly in the same language. Activities of Foreman Sam Colon 2. King testified that at breaktime on May 7, around 2 :50 p.m ., Cutting Room Foreman Sam Colon came to where he worked and told King they were foolish to join a union when they only had 10 on the list and that was all they had. Foreman Colon testified that around 2:50 p.m. on May 7, King came to him and said you see we have lots of people , and that he replied , he did not think they had more than 10. Colon stated he had no other conversations with King about the Union. Colon, after denying that he saw the petition or that he saw the group talking to Davis Pillet, was asked the source of his figure 10 and from his re- port of the conversation how he knew or un- derstood King was talking about the Union. After a number of answers , which appeared to be attempts at evading this issue , Colon testified that he and King had a conversation on May 6 in which, ac- cording to him, King talked about trying to bring a union into the plant. Colon said he presumed the Union had no more than 10 having assumed when none of the 8 people in his cutting department came back to work at 12: 30 p.m . on May 7, that the cutting department was the hotbed of unionism. Colon testified that when the eight employees did not return he did not go looking for them and did 656 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD not report this event to his superiors , but rather kept himself busy in the cutting room and did not see the group enter the building or talk to Davis Pil- let but finally saw them when they punched in around 12:45 p.m. and thereafter returned to work in the cutting room. 3. Allen Brown testified that on May 7, while in the cutting room , Sam Colon asked if he had signed a union card and that he did not answer Colon. Colon continued that if the Union came in he would lose hours and would not make any over- time. In his direct testimony Colon denied talking to Allen Brown about the Union and then said that around 4 p .m. on May 7, he asked Brown if he had signed a union card . He said he had no other con- versations with Brown regarding the Union. 4. Gregorio Rodriquez was not in the group which met with Pillet on May 7, having been absent that morning. He testified that following the May 7 meeting Sam Colon on one occasion asked him to explain why he was joining the Union and that he answered he was joining to get more benefits. Colon asked if they knew what they were doing and he replied that he did. Rodriquez testified that on a number of occasions Colon told him and others that if they joined the Union, the Company would cut out the overtime and they would lose their time-and-a-half pay and they would not receive the same considerations they presently got from the Company. Allen Brown confirmed this testimony stating that on a number of occasions Colon told him and the other employees in the cutting room that if the Union came in the plant they would lose their over- time. Colon denied having any conversation about the Union with Gregorio Rodriguez. 5. Eulogio Rodriquez further confirmed Colon's actions, testifying that for about 3 weeks after the May 7 meeting, Colon continually told the cutting room employees that if the Union came in there would be a reduction in overtime and they would lose their time-and-a-half pay . On at least three oc- casions during that time Colon told him that he would be fired and be thrown out of the plant because he was a union leader. Colon denied talking about the Union to Eulogio Rodriquez, stating that they were friendly having both come with the Company from New York. 6. King testified that a few days after the May 7 meeting , Colon came to his workplace and told him the Company had laid off two of the workers and now there were only eight names left on the list. Colon said the bosses were very smart and were going to lay off everybody on the list little by little. Colon on another occasion told King the bosses were very smart and would get rid of the Union and keep it from coming in. Colon denied any such conversations with King. On May 8, Eileen Kleber and Linda Lemmon, whose names are on the petition handed to Respon- dent on May 7, were laid off by Respondent. Allen Brown testified that several days after May 7, Sam Colon told him one girl was fired because she had signed a card for the Union. Colon denied having any conversations with Brown concerning the Union other than the one on May 7. He further testified that James Pillet held a supervisors' meeting on Friday, May 10, and told them not to talk to employees about the Union. Colon maintained that he had only two conver- sations about the Union and they were his May 7 talks with King and Brown. There is no testimony that Respondent informed its employees about the restrictions-issued to the supervisors or that it disapproved of or disavowed any of the actions taken by them before then. Conclusions as to Foreman Sam Colon Colon testified that when the cutting room em- ployees did not return to work at 12:30 p.m. on May 7, he stayed busy in the cutting room and did not report this mass work disruption to his superi- ors, nor seek to determine where the employees were and did not even stick his head out the cutting room door to look , maintaining he first saw them punching the timeclock when they came back to the cutting room as a group around 12 :45 p.m. Colon testified that the following day it appeared to him that the cutting room employees were slowing down their work and he reported this to Davis Pil- let. I find it impossible to believe that a supervisor apparently faced with a group of his employees refraining from work would not look for them or report the matter to his supervisors . Such behavior is incredible if he did not know of it in advance or learn of the meeting with Pillet while it was going on. He could have observed the meeting by walking out in the shop or to the timeclock or by even look- ing out the cutting room door. In any case Colon was not a truthful or forthright witness and I can not credit him. The stipulation regarding the times the employees punched in at noontime show they punched in as two groups not one as Colon testified . Similarly he was not truthful regarding his assumption of Eulogio Rodriguez ' union affiliations since he was not at work that morning nor with the group meeting with Pillet and Colon could have learned of his union affiliation only by seeing his name on the petition or by having prior knowledge of his union membership. I feel that Colon's testimony about a May 6 conversation with King was an invention to cover his other testimony of not seeing the group meeting or the petition to ex- plain why he knew King was talking about the Union. I credit King's version of his conversations with Colon as to where and when they took place and to what was said. THE JAMES TEXTILE CORP. 657 I conclude and find that Colon did make the statements testified to by King, Gregorio Rodriguez , Eulogio Rodriquez, and Allen Brown and that by the statements set forth above and credited, Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act in that Foreman Colon 's statements threatened the employees with discharge and other economic reprisals if the Union came in , indicated to employees that other employees had been discharged because of their union affiliation, and interrogated employees in a discriminatory fashion regarding their union sympathies and desires. 7. Silvano Rivera testified that on May 8, he had a conversation with the Nick who worked in the of- fice. Nick was identified by Colon as Nicholas DeLeo, the production superintendent , and from the testimony he appears to be the only Nick who worked in the office . The complaint in paragraph 14 alleged that Production Manager Nicholas DeLeo in violation of Section 8(a)(1) interrogated employees concerning their membership in, activi- ties on behalf of, and sympathy to the Union, on or about May 7 and 8, 1968 . I find this identity suffi- cient. Rivera testified that he was at work when Nick came by and asked if he wanted the Union. When he replied yes, DeLeo asked why, telling him to think it over, that the Company would give him better work , more salary, and eventually teach him how to be a cutter. Respondent did not produce or explain the non- production of Nick DeLeo and consequently Rivera's credible testimony stands uncontradicted. I credit Rivera and conclude and find that by De- Leo's questioning and promises of better working conditions and salary increases, Respondent en- gaged in coercive interrogation and thereby vio- lated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. 8. Union Organizer Fred Scotti testified that on May 22, while as usual he was sitting in his car in front of the plant prior to the employees' lunchtime, James Pillet came out of the plant just before the lunchbreak and stood beside Scotti's car, staring at him , his car, and the plant . As the em- ployees left the plant Scotti got out of his car and attempted to talk to the employees while Pillet was standing close to him , but the employees passed by and did not speak. Scotti got in his car and drove the three or four blocks to the Mayflower Restau- rant and after parking outside the restaurant and while waiting for the employees to come noticed Pillet standing on a corner on the same side of the street down from the restaurant . Scotti testified that when some of the employees came to the restaurant they told him they were afraid to speak to him because Pillet had been standing near him. Although James Pillet was present in the hearing room for most if not all of the hearing he did not testify . I credit Scotti's testimony concerning Pil- let's standing near him and his car and conclude that this unexplained juxtaposition could have no purpose other than as an attempt to inhibit the em- ployees in their right to contact or converse with the union representative and.thus constitutes an in- terference with their Section 7 rights . I do not be- lieve this constitutes surveillance in the normal sense of that word but that as a lesser offense it still constitutes an interference with employees ' rights and violates Section 8(a)(1) of the Act and I so find. However, Scotti's testimony in regard to Pillet appearing almost simultaneously with him several blocks away strains credulity , is ambiguous, and I cannot find a violation thereby. 9. Without objection, the following notice, which was posted on Respondent's bulletin board about the time it is dated , was received in evidence as General Counsel 's Exhibit 13. June 15, 1968 Dear Employees, James Textile Corp. is considering setting up one fully paid scholarship at New York's Fashion Institute of Technology. This would be a two year college level course in production management. Sons and daughters of employees would be given priority with graduates of North Bergen High School having secondary preference. If interested kindly contact Jack in the office. Sincerely /s/ Frances Menken Frances Menken Vice President Frances Menken testified that around the fall of 1967 she and her brothers decided to set up a scholarship fund to the Fashion Institute of Technology . Correspondence with the institute and telephone calls established that there were two kinds of endowments but as she testified no deci- sion was made as to which of the methods should be adopted and, as of the time of the hearing, no decision had been made and the scholarship had not been established . This scholarship program had been under consideration according to her for some 6 to 9 months without a determination as to its im- plementation. She further testified that nothing re- garding the scholarship had occurred at the time this notice to the employees was prepared and posted and offered no explanation as to the timing of this notice other than that she decided to do it. The only event nearly contemporaneous with this posting was that the parties about 1 week earlier had agreed to a consent election to be held in July. Considering the violative events prior thereto, in- cluding the threats regarding loss of hours and the promises of benefits made to employees, I can only determine that the purpose of publicizing this possi- ble grant of a college level scholarship to an em- ployee's child was an inducement of benefit held 658 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD out to the employees to influence them against the Union. No other rational explanation is extant or was offered. 10. On June 27, Respondent had a luncheon meeting of its employees at which James Pillet spoke. From the testimony it appears that Respon- dent annually held such a luncheon meeting prior to its vacation period. It further appears that Respondent annually distributed bonuses and vaca- tion checks to the employees at this time of the year and that such a distribution was a regular prac- tice. General Counsel alleged that James Pillet's speech on this occasion contained promises of benefit and threats violative of Section 8(a)(1) and offered the testimony of several witnesses in sup- port thereof. I have considered the testimony and find that Wendell Moyd's account of the event ap- pears to be the clearest. According to Moyd, Pillet told the employees that it was a pleasure to have lunch with them as he did every vacation time. He talked about the dif- ferent things that the Union did and that the Com- pany was not forced by the Union to do the things it did for the employees. Pillet said no one forced the Company to give the employees a dinner or-to- give them a holiday turkey, that the Company did this on their own. Pillet went on to enumerate other company benefits such as loan funds and having a medical plan stating that each of these was not forced on them by a union but that the Company did it for the employees . He added that the Union was not forcing them to air-condition the plant, that they were doing that for the people and would start first with the operations room and proceed through the rest of the plant, one area at a time . During this meeting Jack Baurer asked Pillet if he was going to let them have a union and Pillet replied that if the people were willing to pay $80 or $100 a year for union dues that it was up to them. Gregorio Rodriguez testified that Pillet said they had stopped their relations with the union in New York and moved to New Jersey and that they had problems with the Union and were trying to im- prove the factory. Allen Brown remembered Pillet said they had a union in New York which had made certain de- mands on him and that he was the one to make the decision and they came to New Jersey. The complaint allegations relative to James Pil- let's June 27 speech that employees were warned they would be discharged and suffer economic reprisals or suffer the shutdown of the plant if they became or remained union members or gave assistance or support to it and that they were of- fered, promised , and granted bonuses and extra va- cation pay and other employment benefits or im- provements if they would refrain from becoming or remaining union members or supporting it. I find that none of these allegations are sustained by the testimony offered by the General Counsel. The testimony regarding the air-conditioning does not show that this was a new benefit being offered for the first time and the testimony about union dues is at best ambiguous and not shown to be false. I recommend that these allegations as to James Pillet be dismissed. C. The Discharge of King (Joaquin Gutirrez) King was in the group which met with Davis Pil- let on May 7, and his name was on the petition. The evidence disclosed that King was one of the main employee solicitors for union cards and did most of the soliciting of the Spanish -speaking employees. During the last week in May, King was informed that his father who lived in Puerto Rico was seri- ously ill. On the day before Decoration Day (May 29) King asked Jack (Jacob) Baurer and Davis Pil- let separately for permission to go to Puerto Rico to see his father saying he would be gone about a week . He also asked for and got approval of a loan to buy his ticket. On Friday, May 31, he got permis- sion to extend his lunch period to buy his ticket. His timecard shows that he punched out at 12 :01 p.m. and returned to work at 1:16 p.m. King worked Saturday morning and left for Puerto Rico Sunday taking his 16-month old daughter with him . Mr. and Mrs. Gutirrez agrees that she was unhappy with King taking his trip with their daughter since they had been planning to all go at a later time. On Monday evening, June 3, Mrs. Gutirrez was at the home of her sister-in-law, King 's sister, when he called from Puerto Rico . He told her that his father's illness appeared to be very serious and he would have to be gone longer than I week and asked her to contact the Company and so inform them and get the balance of his paycheck . Mrs. Gu- tirrez said she would call the Company the next day and he should call back the following evening. Mrs. Gutirrez called the Company on Tuesday, June 4, and asked the switchboard operator for one of the bosses . She stated she was connected with somebody who called himself Dave and then said Davis and that she told him her husband was going to have to extend his stay in Puerto Rico and asked to have the balance of her husband 's paycheck sent to her . She was told her husband had been replaced and she could not have the paycheck because her husband would have to come in and sign the $40 loan check before the balance of his pay could be disbursed . She replied she would tell her husband what she had been told and that evening she talked with King and informed him of the conversation. King returned on June 13, and on the morning of June 14, around 10 a.m ., went to Respondent's plant and saw Jack Baurer . He told Baurer his wife reported he had been replaced and asked if this was true . Baurer said it was. King asked for the balance of his pay and was taken by Baurer to Fran Men- ken. She asked what had happened to him and he started to tell her he had to go to Puerto Rico and i THE JAMES TEXTILE CORP. 659 offered to show her his plane ticket when she said she was not interested in his explanation. King testified he had taken off a week from work once before when his wife had their last child in December 1967. Respondent's counsel stated the Company's posi- tion was that it did not discharge King-but that he left Respondent's employ voluntarily and without notice on June 1, because of a warrant against him charging him with neglect of a child's welfare by taking the child from its mother. Counsel stated, "We are also prepared to prove that his wife came to the plant at the beginning of the next week, told us the story." Respondent's counsel stated it was because of King's marital difficulties with his wife that he left the country. He reiterated that it was Respondent's contention that King was not fired, that his job was there but that "He voluntarily left and never came back to his job and he left because his wife came in the following week and told us, you know where he was. She had no money to live on and she needed the check and we refused it to her and that she was having him arrested on this warrant. This is all part of the 8(A). This is not an attempt to attack credibility. This is the basic reason why the respondent claims that we discharged this employee later on, but on June 1 he left this employ- ment and never returned2 and I submit that since his family life is the reason why he ran away from the job, it is material and relevant to the issues." In ex- tension of this statement Respondent's counsel claimed King had not requested leave and that Respondent expected him back to work on Mon- day, June 3, and that it is their position he left his job because of matrimonial difficulties. Respon- dent's counsel also contended that King never requested leave to go to Puerto Rico, stating that Respondent had no leave policy as such and that King did not ask for a loan to purchase his ticket but merely asked for a loan and that Respondent had been advancing him sums of money. Respon- dent's counsel stated it was Respondent's conten- tion that when King returned about 2 weeks later . .. he picked up his check and turned around and walked out, didn't say a thing about a job. Say I got this trouble with my wife, I need the money. That is all that happened on the day that he came back." Respondent's counsel stated in support of his request to question King concerning marital dif- ficulties he might have had with his wife that "I have a right to inquire on this whole matrimonial issue because we say this is the reason why he left the job." Further, counsel stated, "We submit the issue of whether he had matrimonial difficulty or not at that time is crucial to the issues which you have to decide. Did this man pick himself up and if you don't have the matrimonial difficulty, if I was sitting in your position in view of what he testified to about being the leader of the union and drawing inference as you do from evidence , you don't have the complete picture . There is no flesh around this bone and I submit , sir, that the matrimonial difficul- ty supports the respondent's contention that he left and didn't return because of that." Respondent was permitted to inquire of King as to whether he had any marital difficulties with his wife in early June . King testified that on Sunday morning before he left for Puerto Rico he told his wife he wanted to take his 16-month-old daughter with him because his father was critically ill and did not know her. He stated that initially his wife op- posed him and was angry because they had been planning to go to Puerto Rico together on a vaca- tion and she was upset at this change in their plans. A copy of a complaint and warrant was received in evidence . It appears to have been sworn out on June 5, 1968 , before a clerk of the Municipal Court of Jersey City by Mrs. Gutirez under the name of Julia Casanovas of the 245 Ogden Avenue address, charging Joaquin Gutirrez ( King) of another ad- dress ( his sister's) with being neglectful of the well- being of a 16-month-old child by taking it from the care and custody of the child 's mother. According to a part bf the document this report was made be- fore a judge of the municipal court on June 6, 1968. Mrs. Gutirrez testified that she swore out the warrant against her husband when she was angry and depressed because the child was away from her, and that the warrant was dismissed and she apologized to the judge for having sworn it out. She testified that she never told anybody at the Company about the warrant and had only talked to someone at the Company on the one occasion , Tuesday, June 4, prior to the issuance of the warrant. In further support of its allegations and conten- tions Respondent offered the testimony of Jack Baurer who stated that King did not ask him for leave to go to Puerto Rico nor did he hear King ask Davis Pillet for such leave . In regard to the $40 loan, Baurer stated King got the loan after telling him he needed the money for a doctor bill for his baby who had been born a month earlier. On Mon- day, June 3, when King did not report for work, Baurer waited until 9 :30 or so and then checked with Davis Pillet as to King's whereabouts , saying he wanted to put someone from the shipping de- partment in King's place . When King came in June 14, Baurer said he had no conversation with him but merely took King to Fran Menken to get his check . He confirmed that King told Fran Menken he had to go to Puerto Rico and offered to show her the ticket. Baurer testified he received two telephone calls from the same woman , one on June 4 and the other ' Emphasis supplied 427-835 0 - 74 - 43 660 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD on June 6, and the woman was looking for King, the second time stating that she had not heard from him and had a warrant for him because he had left with her child . Baurer testified he did not ask King to come back to work on June 14. Davis Pillet first testified he remembered no con- versations with King during the week of June 1, and specifically none concerning a leave, maintaining that the Company has no definite leave policy. He then testified that he might have had a talk with King regarding a $40 loan but did not recall King asking for time to go buy his ticket , nor was such request reported to him. Davis Pillet was asked why employee Silvano Rivera had been given a leave of 4 to 5 months to visit his family in Puerto Rico and then come back to work . Pillet said Rivera had not had leave for that length of time , but when Rivera came back to visit some friends in the plant , he saw Rivera and asked if he wanted to go to work. Rivera said he did and Pillet immediately put him to work. Fran Menken testified that on the Wednesday after King left (June 5) she was told King 's wife was on the telephone and she spoke to her concerning King's wife getting King 's paycheck and told her King would have to come in for it . She stated it was reported to her that King's daughter was on the telephone on another occasion asking where King was. She said no one was hired for King's job and she gave orders to have King come to her for his check when he returned. When King was brought to her on June 14, she asked where he had been. He said he had to go to Puerto Rico be- cause of his father and offered to show her his ticket. King's timecard for the week ending June 1 showed he had punched out for lunch only on Friday of that week and was gone an hour and 15. minutes or 45 minutes over the allowed lunch period. The card is initialed by H. A. (Harold An- derson, who worked in the office and took care of the timecards ), allowing King the 1 minute into the succeeding quarter of an hour instead of docking him 15 minutes because he punched in at 1:16 p.m. In assessing this conflicting testimony I have determined that Respondent has not proved its broad claims as to the reasons King left its employ. First, the warrant itself shows it was not issued until the 5th or 6th of June, which was long after King went to Puerto Rico, so that Respondent counsel's contention that King left because of the warrant clearly is false. Secondly, Respondent counsel's contention that King left the country because of problems with his wife is clearly not demonstrated by the evidence . The testimony indicates that some friction arose in the Gutirrez family because King felt he must go to his seriously ill father and wanted to take his 16-month old daughter so that her grandfather could see her. It appears that anger, disappointment, and despondency caused Mrs. Gu- tirrez to seek a measure of revenge on her husband by swearing out a warrant against him , which might cause him difficulty with the law. It further appears that this matter was settled by the dismissal or withdrawal of the complaint and her apology to the court . Thus, Respondent 's claims that marital dif- ficulties caused Gutirrez to leave his job were not substantiated and appear to be figments of Respon- dent's imagination as does the claim that King's wife came to the plant. I cannot believe Jacob Baurer 's testimony that King asked for a $40 loan to pay a doctor bill for a 1-month old baby, since certainly in Baurer 's posi- tion of knowing who was and who was not at work, Baurer would have known that King had been off for a week in December 1967 for the birth of their youngest baby. King's testimony regarding his leave at that time was uncontradicted . I further do not credit Baurer's testimony that he received two telephone calls from the same woman concerning King. Mrs. Gutirrez denied she made a second telephone call and there would have been no reason for her to inquire where her husband was since she knew he was in Puerto Rico. I do not credit Baurer's testimony that he said nothing to King when he came in the plant on June 14. I be- lieve King did talk to Baurer as he testified and that Baurer confirmed the message that King had been replaced . There was no reason why Baurer should not have spoken to King and certainly if it had not been Respondent 's intention to replace King, he would have been asked if he wanted to return to work as was Rivera after his 4 to 5 months' absence . Respondent admits it had not replaced King and his job was available at that time. Another statement made by Respondent counsel (noted and emphasized above ) that it was because of King's problems with his wife and the warrant that Respondent discharged him after June 1, was not mentioned thereafter by Respondent but the treatment afforded King on June 14 may be the subsequent discharge Respondent counsel contends was effected. Respondent's contentions that King 's daughter called for him, asking where he was, appears lu- dicrous since the evidence is that King had his 16- month-old daughter with him and his other child was a 1-month-old infant. There is yet another conflict regarding the events preceding King 's trip to Puerto Rico and that in- volves King's testimony that he talked to Davis Pil- let on May 31 . After denying that he talked to King during the week ending June 1, Davis Pillet ad- mitted one conversation with King but stated he was out of town on May 31 and June 1, making it impossible for him to have talked to King on May 31. It is not necessary for me to resolve this conflict between King and Davis Pillet, since King had authority for the loan and evidently had permission from someone in authority to extend his lunch period on Friday to purchase his airplane ticket. Certainly Harold Anderson in Respondent 's office knew of this extended lunch period when he in- THE JAMES TEXTILE CORP. 661 initiated the approval for not docking King for the 15-minute period. To summarize the positions , we have the fact that King was the main protagonist in securing union authorization cards from the employees and Respondent knew his prounion sentiments and leadership in the Union as evidenced by Foreman Colon 's conversation with him and his appearance at the May 7 meeting. I have determined and found that King having on a prior occasion been granted a week off, similarly sought and received permission to go to Puerto Rico and secured a loan for that purpose, and Respondent informed him through his wife that he had been replaced and confirmed this message on June 14 when he returned to the plant. Respondent 's contentions regarding King, which were set forth at length above, were not borne out by the evidence , and have to be adjudged false and appear to be nothing more than ill-founded suspi- cious imaginings urged as a cloak for Respondent's illegal discharge of King. I conclude and find that Joaquin Gutirrez (King) was informed that he had been replaced and was not rehired by Respondent because of his union ad- vocacy and predilections in violations of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act. This release of King ap- pears to have been an opportunistic event seized upon by Respondent to extend its antiunion cam- paign , begun on May 7, and continued with the purpose of discouraging union membership and support for the then impending union election. D. The Refusal To Bargain The parties agreed on the appropriateness of the unit which I have determined is appropriate here and contained 54 employees on May 7, when the Union made its demand and Davis Pillet refused recognition . Though Respondent 's counsel raised a question as to whether a sufficient legal demand for recognition was made on May 7, the petition and the actions of the Union are clear and Davis Pillet, from his testimony , understood the request and refused it. Additionally Respondent had dealt with another local of the International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union for a number of years and was not uninformed on the subject. The questions remain- ing are whether the Union had the support of a majority of the employees on that date and whether Respondent 's denial of the demand was made in good faith or was given to allow Respondent time to undermine and destroy the Union's majority. The union authorization cards offered in this proceeding were authenticated in one of three ways. Either the person who signed the card identified it, or the person who witnessed the signa- ture identified it, or the person who had given the card to the signatory testified that he had given the signatory a blank card and received a signed card back from the signatory. I held during the trial and again affirm my ruling that each of these methods of authentication was valid . Respondent contended that each card had to be authenticated by either of the first two methods . The Board and several courts have held that the third method of authentication , in circumstances less certain than those herein , is permissable and in effect is the same as witnessing the signature . See Sandy's Stores, 163 NLRB 728, enfd. in part 398 F.2d 268 (C.A. I ), and 1. Taitel & Son, 119 NLRB 910, enfd. 261 F.2d 1 (C.A. 7). This latter case also obviates Respondent's contentions about its suspicions as to when some of the authorization cards were dated , and as to the actual date of some cards which appear to have been dated erroneously and Respondent's noting that a phrase ("Strictly con- fidential") had been crossed out on the cards. Respondent's contentions were suspicions in most cases and were not supported . As to dates, General Counsel offered testimony , which Respondent, with one exceptions, did not attempt to contradict and concerning which it did not claim it was in no posi- tion to contradict, that the cards were signed prior to the date of the demand. Some of the cards appear to have been dated by someone other than the signatory but the available testimony is that the cards with one possible exception were all signed prior to May 7 by the signatories . This point was also covered in the Taitel case mentioned above. I find that Respondent 's argument that its questioning of the dates invalidated the cards and necessitated identity by the signatory is not persua- sive and that such does not vitiate the testimony by those witnessing the cards and identifying them that the cards were signed prior to the demand date. Further there is no evidence of a union campaign at Respondent 's New Jersey plant prior to March 1968 . There is then no evidence that the cards were undated from a previous campaign and thus "stale" so as to disqualify them under the Board 's R case rules . Similarly Respondent offered no testimony that the quoted phrase on a clearly unambiguous card had either not been crossed out before it was signed or that signatories were deluded thereby. The authorization cards were printed either in English or Spanish. Some of the Spanish-speaking employees who signed cards printed in English testified when asked that the card had been trans- lated for them by the solicitor. Respondent offered no testimony to show that those signing the cards did not understand them . Moreover the solicitors testifed without contradiction and were cor- roborated by several witnesses that they told em- ployees that the purpose of the card was for the employee to authorize the Union to represent him in the shop. The parties stipulated as to the authenticity of the cards of Linda Lemmon , Eileen Kleber, Michael Dispoto, Allen Brown, Wendell Moyd, and his sister Rebecca Moyd . Wendell Moyd addi- tionally testified as to the authenticity of his and his sister's cards, and Allen Brown identified and addi- tionally authenticated his card . The parties also 662 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD stipulated as to the genuineness of Michel Miller's signature . Her card is dated June 2 but contains a Board office stamp of May 20 showing that the written date was an error. Respondent contended that the date of June 2 governed the card and that it could not be counted for the union majority on May 7. Wendell Moyd tesfified that he gave the card to Michel Miller early in the union campaign and that she returned it to him signed and filled out long before May 7 and to his best memory in March. There was no contradictory testimony and I credit Moyd that the card was signed prior to May 7 and is authentic and a valid designation of the Union by Michel Miller prior to May 7. King solicited most of the Spanish-speaking em- ployees, translating English printed cards for them, explaining union benefits and telling them that by signing the card they were authorizing the Union to represent them in the shop. He denied telling any of those whose cards he identified that the purpose of the card was to have an election and no testimony counter to this assertion was offered. Besides his own card which he testified he signed early in the campaign , he authenticated other cards saying either that he saw the card signed or that he had given a blank card to the signatory who returned it to him signed. In this manner King identified the cards of Robert Aymar, Antonio Quintana, Eulogio Rosado, Miguellina Martin also known as Miguel- lina Rodriquez, Armanda Esquibel, Daniel B. Leone, Michael R. Allen, Richard Petrini, and Ed- ward Kohler . Miguellina Martin's card has a date of January 17 which was about the date she started her employment with Respondent . The evidence disclosed that the union campiaign did not start until around March and that all the cards were signed thereafter . King testified that this card was signed before May 7, and the inserted date is an er- ror. In addition to these cards, King identified the cards of other employees who themselves testified and further identified their cards. In this group are the cards of Vitelio Toledo, Gregorio Rodriguez, and Silvano Rivera. In each instance it was testified that these cards were signed prior to the date of de- mand. King testified he gave two blank cards to Vitelio Toledo to give to two employees in his work area. Toledo testified he gave blank cards to Candelaria Perez and Leopoldina Diaz and they returned the signed cards to him . Toledo testified although he did not know when they or he signed their cards, the cards were signed before May 7, because he thereafter signed the petition and added Can- dlelaria's , name to the petition having been authorized by her to do so. Eulogio Rodriguez identified his card and although he was uncertain as to when he dated it, he testified it had been signed prior to May 7. He had also authorized his signature to be affixed to the petition , testifying he was aware that the Union was planning to hold a meeting at lunchtime but he was absent from the plant until that afternoon. Margaret Fisher identified her card and the card of her husband , testifying that her husband does not read very well and that she read the card to him and told him the purpose of it and he authorized her to sign it for him. He confirmed her testimony. These two cards were signed prior to May 7. Wendell Moyd testified he explained the ad- vantages of the Union and gave blank authorization cards to some five employees who either signed the card as he watched them or that they personally returned the signed card to him . In this manner he identified the cards of Carolyn Ward , Peter Steller, Vangie Martin, Dorothy Hall, and Ada Shipman. Moyd testified he was pretty certain it was a few days before May 7, that Ada Shipman signed her card, stating he remembered her telling him that of- fice worker Alida Cappelluti had gone to Shipman and apparently sought to find fault with Shipman's work . He then advised Shipman to sign a union card to have someone to back her up. She did so and gave it to him and he told her to insert the date which was missing . It was stipulated that company records showed Ada Shipman was not at work on May 6 or 7 but returned about noontime on May 8. There is no affirmative evidence that Shipman was at work on May 6, and I feel I must here rely on Respondent 's records . Shipman 's authorization card contains her name and the information in red ink and her craft and the date in blue ink. The date has been traced over and there appears to have been an effort to change an 8, a 7, or a 1, to a 6, which would make it the day before the demand. I rely on Respondent's records that Shipman was not at work on May 6 and 7 and with Moyd's descrip- tion that she signed the card at work , and with this obvious irregularity , I will not include this card as a valid authorization made by Ada Shipman prior to May 7. This card will therefore not be counted in determining the Union 's majority status. General Counsel offered a card which was identified by King and received in evidence as General Counsel's Exhibit 6N. This card, dated April 4, 1968, bears a signature which seems to be Joseph Lyman. No such name , nor one which might be remotely similar appears on the list of employees in the unit (G.C. Exh. 2) and this card will not be considered. In summary I find that the cards of the employees listed above other than Shipman and Lyman were properly authenticated and received in evidence and were in each instance signed prior to May 7, 1968, and constituted evidence that the Union on that date represented 29 employees , a majority of the 54 employees then in the unit. The answer as to whether Respondent 's refusal to recognize the Union on May 7 was in good faith must be found by examining the circumstances and what Respondent did then and subsequently. Respondent offered no testimony as to prescisely THE JAMES TEXTILE CORP. 663 why it said it doubted the Union 's majority other than point out that the petition contained the names of only 17 employees and that there were 10 or 12 employees with De Young and Scotti at the May 7 meeting with Davis Pillet. The language of the peitition is clear that this group is a committee representing the employees and not a roster of those supporting the Union and further offers to show the authorization cards to Respondent. Two employees testified that De Young had the cards in his hands. Davis Pillet said he was not offered the authorization cards and that the petition was handed to him folded, but he did not deny that the petition was read to him and agrees that he said the Union did not have a majority. After the May 7 meeting a telegram and a letter both confirming the request for recognition and a meeting were sent to Respondent by the Union and Respondent by letter answered that it had a good -faith doubt that the Union represented a majority and suggested that the Union request the labor board to conduct an election . Thereafter the Union filed a petition with the Board's Regional office and on June 10 the parties agreed to a stipulation for a consent election to be held July 15 following the Company's vaca- tion period. Following the discharge of King the Union withdrew from the stipulation and filed the instant charge. In the light of the events and circumstances in this matter, herein set forth, I am persuaded that Respondent did not have a valid good-faith doubt of the Union's majority , but rather after receiving the Union 's demand on May 7, began , principally by its Supervisor Colon, to determine the extent of the Union's organization and then to undermine the Union 's strength . Cutting Room Supervisor Colon immediately began his extensive campaign of inter- rogation and threats as set forth above, concentrat- ing on the cutting room where the obvious strength of the Union rested , since the cutting room em- ployees were the majority of the union committee which met with Davis Pillet on May 7 . As noted above I did not believe Colon's denials of his ac- tions but I do agree with his view that the Union's center was in the cutting room, aside from King. Colon's remarks to King and Allen Brown that Respondent was smart and was getting rid of the Union by getting rid of those on the union commit- tee was a graphic example of how Respondent sought to undermine the Union . The discharge and refusal to reinstate King was an opportunity grasped by Respondent to further its antiunion campaign . James Pillet's standing by Union Or- ganizer Scotti's car and Fran Menken 's holding out of a benefit to employees in the establishment of a scholarship for which employees ' children would have precedence were two more maneuvers to discourage support for the Union. Respondent's campaign started when the Union 's demand was made and ran into June . The interrogation and threats were heaviest at the beginning , but King's release and the Menken notice maintained it. I cannot absolve Respondent from its responsi- bility for Colon's behavior on the basis that it held a conference with supervisors on the Friday after May 7, and therein told them not to talk with em- ployees concerning the Union . There is evidence that Colon continued to talk about the Union with employees following this meeting and no attempt was made to advise employees of the restrictions on supervisors nor did management disavow the state- ments and threats made by the supervisors prior to that time. It is reasonably clear that Respondent did not want a union in its plant. Secondly, Respondent's supervisors and in particular Colon immediately began to discourage and try to undermine the union strength by interrogating employees and threaten- ing that they could be discharged , warning them of discharges of other union committee members, and interfering with the union representative talking to employees on their own time outside the plant. The refusal to take King back after his Puerto Rican trip when his job was available and the holding out of a scholarship with precedence to employees ' children complete the picture painted illegally by Respon- dent to demonstrate to the employees that their best interests woluld be served by not supporting the Union. Responddent, with no expressed reasonable basis for doubting that the Union had a majority, embarked on a course of undermining the Union through its supervisors and continued this campaign after the stipulation for a union election was signed . When the Union withdrew from the stipulation and filed the charges herein it acknowledged it felt a fair election could not be held in the circumstances and charged that Respon- dent had been undermining its position as the majority representative of the employees. I cannot say that Respondent's campaign was widespread and flagrant but rather Respondent acted at a measured pace in a consistent pattern to undo what the Union had accomplished . Respon- dent was not unlearned in dealing with unions. I conclude and find that Respondent, as disclosed by its violative acts set forth above, did not have a good-faith doubt of the Union's majority and that by refusing to bargain with the Union on and after May 7, 1968, Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act. Respondent in its brief offers another reason as to why it could not have bargained with the Union when the request was made on May 7. Respondent states that at that time it was still under a Board Order requiring it to bargain with New York Local 62, although the Second Circuit court had denied enforcement of that Board Order and the case had been remanded to the Board for its further con- sideration of whether Respondent was bound by the contract. Respondent had contended it was not bound. This argument may be answered by stating that Respondent never offered this reason to the Union when the demand was made and, secondly, the 664 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Board on further consideration decided that Respondent was not bound by the contract and therefore there was no legal impediment extant at that time. This argument is clearly an afterthought and deserves no further consideration. III. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of Respondent set forth in section II, above, and therein found to constitute unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8(a)(5), (3), and (1 ), of the Act, occurring in connection with Respondent's business operations as set forth in section I , above, have a close, intimate , and sub- stantial relationship 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. IV. THE REMEDY Having found that Respondent engaged in unfair labor practices as set forth above , I recommend that they cease and desist therefrom and take cer- tain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act as follows: Respondent , since on or about May 7, 1968, has at all times since then refused and still refuses to bargain with the Union in good faith as the representative of its employees in an appropriate unit. Therefore I recommend that Respondent upon request bargain collectively with the Union in good faith and , in the event that an understanding is reached , embody such understanding in a signed agreement. Respondent having terminated Joaquin Gutirrez (King) on or about June 3, 1968, because of his union activities and not having thereafter offered him reinstatement, I recommend that Respondent offer him immediate and full reinstatement 3 to his former position, or if such position has been abolished through change in Respondent's opera- tion then to any substantially similar position, without prejudice to his seniority or other rights and privileges and that Respondent make him whole for any loss of pay he may have suffered by reason of Respondent 's discrimination against him by payment to him of a sum equal to that which he would have normally received as wages from June 3, the date of his termination, until the date Respondent offers him reinstatement , less any net earnings for the interim. Backpay is to be computed on a quarterly basis in the manner established by the Board in F.W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289, with interest at the rate of 6 percent per ' Respondent amended its answer to allege it made an offer of reinstate- ment to Joaquin Gutirrez ( King) on or about August 29, 1968 , and further stated during the hearing it was making a subsequent offer of reinstatement to him I will not at this point attempt to determine whether the offers of annum to be computed in the manner set forth in Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., NLRB 716. 1 further recommend that Respondent make availa- ble to the Board , upon request , payroll and other records in order to facilitate the checking of the amount of backpay due and the rights of Joaquin Gutirrez ( King). I have found that Respondent discriminated against Joaquin Gutirrez (King) for exercising his rights under the Act and Respondent thereby inter- fered with the rights of its other employees and further interfered with them by various threats and interrogations of employees . I am concerned that Respondent might commit further unfair labor practices ; however, as set forth above, I have deter- mined that Respondent 's antiunion campaign was not a wholesale broad-gauged campaign but rather was a select campaign engaged in to achieve a specific result. I note moreover that Respondent prior to this time had engaged in collective bargain- ing with another union . I am not convinced there- fore that a broad enjoinder prohibiting Respondent from any further unfair labor practices is necessary and therefore will recommend that Respondent be placed under an enjoinder to cease and desist from violating the Act in the same or a manner similar to the violations herein found. On the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and the entire record , I make the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. James Textile Corp ., is an employer 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. All production , maintenance , shipping, receiving and cutting department employees em- ployed at Respondent 's North Bergen plant , exclud- ing office clerical employees, professional em- ployees, salesmen , porters, guards, and all super- visors as defined in the Act, constitute a unit ap- propriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act. 4. At all times since May 7, 1968, the Union has been, and now is , the exclusive representative of the employees in the said unit for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(a) of the Act. 5. Respondent by refusing to bargain in good faith with the Union on and after May 7, 1968, as the exclusive representative of its employees in the appropriate unit, has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Sections 8(a)(5) and ( 1) and 2( 6) and (7) of the Act. reinstatement were proper under the circumstances current when made but will leave such determinations , if necessary , to any subsequent com- pliance proceedings THE JAMES TEXTILE CORP. 665 6. By discriminatorily terminating employee Joaquin Gutirrez (King) on June 3, 1968, and not thereafter having reinstated him because of his union activities and desires, Respondent engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Sections 8(a)(3) and (1) and 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 7. Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Sections 8(a)(1) and 2(6) and (7) of the Act by: (a) Interrogating employees concerning their membership in or support for the Union. (b) Threatening employees that others had been discharged and they might be discharged or suffer other economic reprisals if they became members of or supported the Union. (c) Interfering with employees contacting a union representative on their own time in front of the plant. (d) Promising benefits of possible scholarships for employees' children to dissuade support of the Union. RECOMMENDED ORDER On the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, and upon the entire record in this case considered as a whole, it is recommended that James Textile Corp . of North Bergen , New Jer- sey, its officers , agents, successors, and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Refusing to bargain collectively in good faith concering rates of pay , hours of employment, and other terms and conditions of employment with Local 148-162, International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union, AFL-CIO, as the exclusive representative of the employees in the appropriate unit described in the section entitled "Conclusions of Law" above. (b) Discouraging membership in and activities on behalf of Local 148- 162, International Ladies' Garment Workers ' Union , AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization , by discharging employees. (c) Interrogating its employees about their union membership or sympathies. (d) Threatening employees that they discharged other employees and would discharge them or would effect economic reprisals if the employees retained membership in or supported the Union. (e) Interfering with employees contacting a union representative on their own time in front of the company plant. (f) Promising employees benefits of possible scholarships for the employees' children to dissuade support of the Union. 2. Take the following affirmative action which is necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Upon request, bargain collectively in good faith with the above -named Union as the exclusive representative of all employees in the appropriate unit, and embody in a signed agreement any un- derstanding reached. (b) Offer to Joaquin Gutirrez (King ) reinstate- ment in accordance with the recommendations set forth in the section of this Decision entitled "The Remedy." (c) Make Joaquin Gutirrez ( King) whole for any loss of pay he may have suffered by reason of Respondent 's discrimination against him in ac- cordance with the recommendations set forth in the section of this Decision entitled "The Remedy." (d) Preserve and, 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 backpay due and the other rights and privileges accorded to Joaquin Gutirrez ( King) as set forth in the section of this Decision entitled "The Remedy." (e) Notify the above-named employees if presently serving in the Armed Forces of the United States of his right to full reinstatement upon appli- cation in accordance with the Selective Service Act and the Universal Military Training and Service Act, as amended , after discharge from the Armed Forces. (f) Post at its North Bergen , New Jersey, plant, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix."4 Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the Re- gional Director for Region 22, after being duly signed by Respondent 's representative , shall be posted by Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted . Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respon- dent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced , or covered by any other material . (g) Notify the Regional Director for Region 22, in writing, within 20 days from the receipt of this Decision, what steps have been taken to comply herewith.' Those parts of the complaint not found violative of the Act herein should be dismissed. 4 In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board, the and Order." words "a Decision and Order " shall be substituted for the words "the ° In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board, Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner " in the notice In the further this provision shall be modified to read "Notify the Regional OrDirector event that the Board 's Order is enforced by a decree of a United States for Region 22, in wirriting , within 10 days from the date of this Order, what Court of Appeals , the words "a Decree of the United States Court of Ap- steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith peals Enforcing an Order " shall be substituted for the words "a Decision 666 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL APPENDIX NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor Relations Board and in order to effectuate the policies of the Na- tional Labor Relations Act, as amended, we hereby notify our employees that: Following a trial in which the Company, the Union, and the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board participated and offered their evidence, it has been found that we violated the Act. We have been ordered to post this notice and to abide by what we say in this notice. WE WILL bargain collectively in good faith, upon request, with Local 148-162, Interna- tional Ladies' Garment Workers' Union, AFL-CIO, as the exclusive representative of all the employees in the bargaining unit described below with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment , and other terms and conditions of employment and, if an un- derstanding is reached, WE WILL sign a con- tract containing such understanding . The bar- gaining unit is: All production, maintenance, shipping, receiving and cutting department em- ployees employed in Respondent's North Bergen plant, excluding office clerical em- ployees, professional employees, salesmen, porters, guards, and all supervisors as defined in the Act. WE WILL offer Joaquin Gutirrez (King) his former job with all his rights and any backpay due him. LABOR RELATIONS BOARD WE WILL NOT ask our employees about their union membership, support, or sympathies. WE WILL NOT warn employees that other em- ployees have been discharged because of the Union or that employees may be discharged because of the Union or that we will take economic reprisals against them if the Union is successful in organizing the plant. WE WILL NOT interfere with employees who may wish to contact a union representative on their own time outside the plant. WE WILL NOT hold out the possibility of benefits for employees' children in order to discourage employees from supporting the Union. WE WILL notify the above-named employee if presently serving in the Armed Forces of the United States of his right to full reinstatement upon application in accordance with the Selec- tive Service Act and the Universal Military Training and Service Act, as amended, after discharge from the Armed Forces. All our employees are free to become or remain union members. THE JAMES TEXTILE CORP. (Employer) Dated By (Representative ) (Title) This notice must remain posted for 60 consecu- tive 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, Federal Building, 16th Floor, 970 Broad Street, Newark, New Jersey 07102, Telephone 201-645-3240.