Luxuray, Inc.

In the Matter of LUXURAY, INC. and INTERNATIONAL LADIES' GARMENT WORKERS UNION Case No. C-1000 ORDER September 19, 1940 The National Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board, is- .sued a Decision and Order 7 in the above-entitled case on October 17, 1939, and an amendment to the said Decision and Order on Decem- ber 27, 1939.2 On August 26, 1940, the Board issued a Notice, copies -of which were duly served upon the parties herein, to show cause on or before September 3, 1940, why the Board should not modify its Findings of Fact in the aforesaid Decision and Order in certain specified respects. On September 3, 1940, counsel for Luxuray, Inc. filed objections to the said modifications. The Board having con- sidered the aforesaid objections and the entire record herein, IT Is HEREBY ORDERED that the Findings of Fact be modified in the -following respects : 1. So that the sixth sentence of the second paragraph of the see- -tion of the • Findings headed " B. The Alleged Discharges" shall read as follows : On October 6, 1937, Weller was' warned by Hamilton, the pro- duction manager, to cease union activities during working hours. 2. So that the sixth paragraph of the section of the Findings -headed " B. The Alleged Dicharges" shall read as follows : When Weller came to work on February 4 she was told by Hamilton that she was being laid off because there was no ap- plique work nor any other work to which she could be trans- ferred, and that the applique department would be shortly re- duced to a personnel of four workers. When the reduction was effected, however, the five workers who formed the permanent 1 16 N. L. R. B 37. 2 18 N. L. R. B. 945. 27 N. L. R. B., No. 69. 322 LUXURAY, INC. 323 applique staff were retained at, that work.5 Two employees, only one of whom was described by the respondent as an expert, were transferred to take care of the small amount of polo shirt work still carried on by the respondent; 6 only Weller and one other applique worker, Mabel Snyder, were laid off and not re- called. °a Although between February 4 and the hearing no ad- ditional employees were added to the applique department, the respondent admitted that from time to time two or three other employees were called upon to help with the applique work. GA The record is not entirely clear as to what happened to Hazel Kretzer, the tenth applique w orker Hamilton testified that only Weller and Mabel Snyder were laid off and not recalled. We find , therefore, that Hazel Kretzer was either retained in respondent's employ or was laid off and subsequently recalled. The footnotes other than 6a which are referred to in the Findings as thus modified shall remain as they appear in the present Findings. D