A. J. Siris Products Corp. of Virginia

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 7, 1950

90 N.L.R.B. 132 (N.L.R.B. 1950)

In the Matter of A. J. SIRIS PRODUCTS CORPORATION OF VIRGINIA and
INTERNATIONAL LADIES' GARMENT WORKERS UNIONS A: F. OF L.
Case No. 5-CA-198.-Decided June 7, 1950
DECISION AND ORDER
On January 25, 1950, Trial Exaiiner David London issued his
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the
Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor
practices; and recommending That it cease and desist therefrom and
take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the Inter-
mediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the Respondent filed
exceptions to the Intermediate Report.
The Board 1 has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made at
.the hearing and finds that no_prejudicial error was committed.2 The
rulings, are hereby affirmed. The. Board has considered the Inter-
mediate Report, the exceptions, and the entire record in the case, and
hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the
Trial Examiner. '
ORDER
Upon the entire record. in the case, and pursuant to Section 10 (c)
of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National, Labor
Relations Board hereby orders that the Respondent, A. J: "Siris
' Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) o the National Labor Relations Act, the
Board has delegated its powers in connection with this proceeding to a three-member panel
[Chairman Herzog and Members Houston and Styles].
2 We find no merit in the Respondent's contention that the Trial Examiner's refusal to
postpone the hearing in this case until after March 1, 1950, constituted prejudicial error.
The Respondent was represented at the hearing by Mr. Selig- Port. Although Mr. Port
noted his appearance as being limited to a request for a "postponement of the case," he
remained at the hearing until the taking of all testimony was completed. Indeed, during
the course of the hearing he entered an objection to a motion by the General Counsel for
an overnight continuance. ' Moreover, the only reason advanced by the Respondent for a
continuance was the fact that of the two officers of the Respondent familiar with the case,
one had just rettirned from a business trip, and one was preparing for such a trip. It was
urged that these individuals had had insufficient time to prepare for this cage. We note,
however. that both individuals were in town at the time and that the complaint in this
proceeding had issued about 2 months earlier. In these circumstances, we, like the Trial
Examiner, find that there existed insufficient justification for a postponement. Cf. Mission
Oil Company, 88 NLRB 743.
90 NLRB No. 33.
132
,:A.. J.- SIR I$ PRODUCTS CORPORATION OF VIRGINIA 133
Products Corporation of Virginia, Newport News, Virginia, and its
officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall :
1. Cease and desist frolil :
(a) Interrogating its employees concerning their union affiliations,
activities, or sympathies; or those.of their coworkers; threatening to
close, or to move the operations of the plant should the employees
join- or retain membership in a labor organization or be successful
in organizing the plant; and
(b) In any manner, interfering with, restraining, or coercing its
employees in the exercise of, the right to self-organization, to form
labor organizations, to join or assist International Ladies' Garment
Workers Union, A. F. of L.,- or any other labor organization, to bar-
gain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, to
engage in concerted activities for the purposes of collective bargaining
or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any or all such,
activities except to the extent that such right may be affected'by an
agreement requiring membership in a labor organization, as authorized
in Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Post at its plant in Newport News; Virginia, copies of the no-
tice attached to the Intermediate Report and marked Appendix.'
Copies of the notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for the
Fifth Region, shall, after being duly signed by the Respondent's repre-
sentative, be posted by the Respondent immediately upon receipt
thereof, and maintained by it for at least sixty (60) consecutive days
thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices
to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken
by the Respondent to insure that saic;s notices are not altered, defaced,
or covered by any other material; and
(b) Notify the Regional Director for the Fifth Region (Baltimore,
Maryland), in writing, within ten (10) days from the date of this
Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply therewith.
INTERMEDIATE REPORT
Mr. Harold G. Bierinann, for the General Counsel.
Schlesinger'& Krinsky, of New York, N. Y., and Mr. Sclig Port, of New York,
N. Y., for the Respondent.'
ilfr. A. H. Safer, of Baltimore, Md., for the Union.
' Said notice , however , shall be and it hereby is, amended by striking from the first para-
graph thereof the words "Recommendations of a Trial Examiner ," and substituting in lieu
thereof the words "A Decision and Order." In the event that this Order is enforced by a
decree of a United States Court of Appeals, there shall be inserted before the words, "A
Decision and Order," the words, "A Decree of the United States Court of Appeals enforcing."
' Schlesinger & Kirby appeared for Respondent on its answer , but did not appear at
the hearing.
134 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon an amended charge filed on June 10, 1949, by International Ladies' Gar-
ment Workers Union, A. F. of L., herein called the Union, the General Counsel for
the National Labor Relations Board,' by the Regional Director for the Fifth
Region (Baltimore, Maryland), issued a complaint dated November 14, 1949,
against A. J. Siris Products Corporation of Virginia, herein called the Respond-
ent. The complaint alleged that the Respondent had engaged in and was en-
gaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of
Section 8, subsection (a) (1), and Section 2, subsections (6) and (7) of the
National Labor Relations Act, 61 Stat. 136, herein called the Act.
Copies of the complaint, amended charge, and notice of hearing were duly
served.
With respect to the unfair labor practices, the complaint alleged, in substance,
that during the period from or about November 19, 1948, and continuously there-
after to and including the date of the issuance of the complaint above described,
the Respondent interfered with , restrained , and coerced its employees in the
exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act by: (a) Urging, per-
suading, and warning its employees by threats of reprisal or force or promise of
benefit to refrain from assisting , becoming or remaining members of the Union
or engaging iii concerted activities for the purposes of collective bargaining or
other mutual aid or protection ; (b) questioning its -employees concerning their
membership in and activities on behalf of the Union '; ( c) keeping under sur-
veillance the organizational activities of its employees and of the Union; (d)
threatening to close down its plant should the Union succeed in its effort to
organize the employees ; ( e) threatening its employees with loss of employment
should they assist, become , or remain members of the Union ; ( f) urging and
assisting its employees to withdraw from membership in the Union ; ( g) threat-
ening to move its plant to a different location should the Union succeed in
organizing its employees ; (h) threatening to close its plant before it would deal
with a union ; (i) threatening to close down its-, plant -should the Union win a
scheduled Board election ; (j) directing supervisory employees to attend union
meetings and inform the Company as to employees in attendance there. Re-
spondent ' s answer denied that it had committed the unfair labor practices
alleged in the complaint.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held on January 4, 1950, at Norfolk, Virginia,
before the undersigned Trial Examiner duly designated by the Chief Trial
Examiner . The General Counsel was represented by counsel , the Respondent
by Selig Port, its vice president and comptroller, and the Union by its representa-
tive. Though Port noted his appearance as being limited to a request for a
"postponement of the case ," he remained at the hearing until the taking of
all testimony was completed and during the course thereof entered an objection
to a motion for an overnight continuance by the General Counsel . Respond-
ent's motion for a postponement of the hearing until "some time after March
first" was predicated on Port's statement "that the two individuals who are
familiar with the proceeding" were not present for the following reasons :
Burt J. Siris ( one of Respondent 's officials) "returned unexpectedly a few days"
prior to the hearing from a trip to Europe and "had not had a chance to review"
the pending proceeding. Abner J. Siris, Respondent's president,' though in
2 The General Counsel and the attorney representing him at the hearing are referred to
as the General Counsel. The National Labor Relations Board is referred to as the Board.
3 As appears from the verification of Respondent 's answer.
A. J. SIRIS PRODUCTS CORPORATION OF VIRGINIA 135
New York at the time of the hearing, was then making preparation for a trip
"absolutely-essential for the business." Inquiry of the General Counsel dis-
closed that there would be no evidence offered by him involving Burt J. Siris,
but that the conduct of Abner J. Siris would be the subject of testimony to be
offered in support of some of the allegations of the complaint. There being, in
my opinion, no proper showing why the hearing should be postponed, Respond-
ent's motion for a continuance until after March 1, 1950, was denied. Full
opportunity to be heard, to examine' and cross-examine witnesses, and to intro-
duce evidence bearing on the issues was afforded all parties. No evidence was
introduced on behalf of Respondent, nor have briefs been received from any
of the parties.
Upon the entire record in the case, I make the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
Respondent , a Viriginia corporation , is engaged in the city of Newport News,
Virginia, in the manufacture of powder puffs. It receives all of its raw mate-
rials from the A. J. Siris Corporation of New York, New York. After Respond-
ent has processed the raw materials into finished products, the goods are shipped
from Respondent's Virginia plant direct to the customers of the A. J. Siris
Corporation of New York, throughout the United States. During 1948, Re-
spondent received and processed raw material, consisting chiefly of cotton
goods, thread, and paste valued in excess of $500,000, virtually all of which
came from outside the Commonwealth of Virginia. During the same period
Respondent manufactured and shipped finished products with a sales value in
excess of $1,000,000, virtually all of which was shipped to points outside the
Commonwealth of Virginia.' Respondent's answer did not deny, and I find that
it is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act.
II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
International Ladies' Garment Workers Union, A. F. of L., is a labor organiza-
tion admitting to membership employees of the Respondent.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Background
The Union began its campaign to organize Respondent's employees in the
latter part of 1948. On January 21, 1949, claiming it represented a majority of
Respondent's production employees, the Union filed a petition with the Board
requesting that it be certified as representative of such employees for the pur-
pose of collective bargaining under the Act. Pursuant thereto, the Regional
Director on February 11 ordered that a hearing be held on said petition on
February 24 at Baltimore, Maryland. The hearing was held as scheduled.
Thereafter, the Board, on April 25 directed that an election be held to determine
whether Respondent's production employees desired to be represented by the
4 The foregoing information was stipulated by Respondent in a representation proceeding,
5-RC-257 , involving this Respondent, at a hearing conducted in Baltimore , Maryland, on
February 24, 1949, of which I have taken judicial notice at the request of the General
Counsel.
136 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Union . On May 16, the Union filed a charge with the Board , charging that Re-
spondent had violated Section 8 (a) (1) and (5) of the Act. At an election on
June 29, participated in by Respondent ' s production employees,, a majority of the
votes cast therein were against representation by the Union.
During all times relevant , Abner J. Siris was the president of Respondent,
Hyman Markowitz was its plant manager at Newport News, and Elva- Barbera
was a supervisor in said plant , having authority to responsibly direct other
employees.
B. Restraint, coercion, and interference s
In the latter part of the fall of 1948, shortly after Vera Ti. Steele, while em=
ployed by Respondent, signed a union application blank, Barbera asked her if
she had signed such an application, if she knew whether "any of the girls had
signed" similar applications, and was instructed by Barbera, in the event Steele
had signed such an application, to secure its return. On the day before the
hearing in Baltimore, Barbera asked Steele and Pauline Ray, also employed by
Respondent, if they were going to the hearing.
On or about February. 27, after the hearing in Baltimore, Barbera told
Steele that she, Barbera, "wished the girls would withdraw from the union
because [they] would be hurt." At the same time, Barbera told her "that
Mr. Siris would spend thousands of dollars before he would let the union
come into the plant" and that "if the union came in . . . there would be pad-
locks put on the doors."
In early January 1.949, Barbera asked Hiazel L. Howell, a packer employed
by Respondent , if "she went to the [union] meeting the night before."
On or about February 25, 1.949, Barbera asked Lugenia -Spikes, employed in
Respondent's pasting department, whether she belonged to the Union and told
her if she did, "to get out of it," that "Mr. Siris would pay thousands of dollars
to keep the union out [and] would close the plant before he would have the
union in there.". Later, Barbera told her that if they had an election "the plant
would be closed and [the employees] wouldn't have a job." At about the same
time, Barbera- told Howell that Mr. Siris would give a raise if, lie could get back
their union application blanks and that Mr. Markowitz "would make arrange-
ments for [them] to go to a notary and recall [their] cards."
In January 1949, A. J. Siris called a meeting attended by representatives of
each of the seven departments. Working conditions were discussed pro and con
and Siris promised the employees a "half-cent raise" per gross. On the following
day, Markowitz- called a meeting and advised the employees that he had heard
from Mr. Siris and that the employees "could forget about the raise, that. [Siris]
had thought he was dealing with friends, but when he got back to New York
he found out he wasn't, and that if this union talk wasn't shut up . . . that he
was going to close the plant down."
On May 1.2 at about 2: 45 p. in., Siris addressed all of the employees and told
then "he would close the plant down before he would tolerate the union, that lie
had had troubles with the union in New York and he didn't intend to have the
same troubles [there], that he would move his plant back to New York."
, The facts found in this subsection are based on the uncontradicted , composite testimony
of Hazel L. Howell, Vera L. Steele, Lugenia Spikes, and Pauline Ray.
A. J. SIR-IS PRODUCTS CORPORATION OF VIRGINIA 137
Concluding Findings
On the facts above found, I conclude that by the following conduct Respond-
ent interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of thlo
rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act:
(1) Barbera's interrogation of Steele and Spikes concerning their union mem-
bership and that of other employees ;
(2) Barbera's questioning of Howell as to whether the latter attended.a union
meeting in -January 1949;
(3) Barbera's warning to Steele and Spikes, respectively, (a) that "the
girls . . . would be hurt" unless they withdrew their union applications, and
that "if the union came in . . . there would be padlocks put on the doors," and
(b) that Siris would close the plant if the employees "had an election," and
similarly, that he would close the plant rather than "have the union in there" ;
(4) Barbera's statement to Howell that Siris would grant a raise if he could
get the employee's union application blanks back and that Markowitz would make
arrangements for' doing so;
(5) Markowitz' repetition of Siris' message that the employees "could forget,
about the raise" promised them the day before ;
(6) Markowitz' threat that "if this union talk was not shut up that [Siris]
was going to close this plant down" ;
(7) Siris' threat to the employees on May 12 that "lie would close the plant
down . . . and move [it] back to New York . . . before he would tolerate the
union."
At this stage of our experience under the Act, I deem it unnecessary to cite
Board or court authority to sustain the foregoing conclusions. The conduct last
above found, in my opinion, clearly constitutes interference with, restraint, and
coercion of Respondent's employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed them by
Section 7 of the Act.
There remains for consideration Barbera's interrogation of Steele and Ray as
to whether they were going to the hearing in Baltimore on February 24. Stand-
ing alone, one might well conclude that such an inquiry was posed for the legiti-
mate purpose of enabling Barbera to plan her workload during the absence of
Steele and Ray.' However, Barbera's other violative conduct above found, oc-
curring both before and after her interrogation of Steele and May, convinces me
that her intent on the occasion in question was for the purpose of securing in-
formation concerning an activity of Respondent's employees for which Section 7
of the Act guarantees complete privacy.' Accordingly, I find that by Barbera's
questioning of Steele and Ray, under the circumstances found above, Respondent
violated Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent set forth in_Section III, above, occurring in
connection with the operations of the Respondent described in Section I, above,
6 Respondent, however, chose not to make Barbera available as a witness to shed light on
the purpose of her question.
' Standard-Coosa-Thatcher Company, 85 NLRB 1358.
138 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
have a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce
among the several States, and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and ob-
structing commerce and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor prac-
tices, I will recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and that it take cer-
tain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. Because of
the Respondent's unlawful conduct and its underlying purpose and tendency, I
find that the unfair labor practices found are persuasively related to the other
unfair labor practices proscribed and that danger of their commission in the
future is to be anticipated from the course of the Respondent's conduct in the
past .8 The preventive purpose of the Act will be thwarted unless my recom-
mendations are consistent with the threat. In order, therefore, to make effec-
tive the interdependent guarantees of Section 7, to prevent a recurrence of
unfair labor practices, and thereby to minimize industrial strife which burdens
and obstructs commerce, and thus effectuate the policies of the Act, I will recom-
mend that the Respondent cease and desist from in any manner infringing the
rights guaranteed. in Section 7 of the. ActB
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and upon the entire record in
the case, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. International Ladies' Garment Workers Union, A. F. of L., is a labor or-
ganization within the meaning of the Act.
2. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise
of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the Respondent has engaged in
and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1)
of the Act.
3. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting
commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and conclusions of law, I hereby
recommend that the Respondent, A. J. Siris Products Corporation of Virginia, its.
officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Interrogating -its employees, concern ing- their union,afliations, activities,
or sympathies, or those of their coworkers; threatening to close, or to move the
operations of the plant should the employees join or retain membership in a
labor organization or be successful in organizing the plant; and
(b) In any other manner, interfering with, restraining, or coercing its em-
ployees in the exercise of the right to self-organization, to form labor organiza-
tions, to join or assist International Ladies' Garment Workers Union, A. F. of L.,
or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively through representatives
of their own choosing, or to engage in concerted activities for the purposes of
8 N. L. R. B. V. Express Publishing Co., 312 U. S. 426, 61 S. Ct. 693.
William Spencer, d/b/a. Alliance Rubber Company, 76 NLRB 514, footnote 4.
A. J. SIRIS PRODUCTS CORPORATION OF VIRGINIA 139
collective bargaining or other mutual air or protection, or to refrain from any or
all such activities except to the extent that such right may be affected by an
agreement requiring membership in a labor organization, as authorized in Sec-
tion 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which I find will effectuate the policies
of the Act:
(a) Post at its plant in Newport News, Virginia, copies of the notice attached
hereto and marked "Appendix." Copies of the notice, to be furnished by the
Regional Director for the Fifth Region shall, after being duly signed by the
Respondent's representative, be posted by the Respondent immediately upon re-
ceipt thereof, and maintained by it for at least sixty (60) consecutive days there-
after, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are
customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to insure
that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered 13y any other material; and
(b) File with the Regional Director for the Fifth Region within twenty (20)
days from the receipt of this Intermediate Report, a report in writing, setting
forth in detail the manner and form in which the Respondent will comply with
the foregoing recommendations.
It is further recommended that, unless the Respondent shall within twenty
(20) days from the receipt of this Intermediate Report notify said Regional Di-
rector in writing that it will comply with the foregoing recommendations, the
National Labor Relations Board issue an order requiring the Respondent to take
the action aforesaid.
As provided in Section 203.46 of the Rules and Regulations of the National
Labor Relations Board any party may, within twenty (20) days from the date
of service of the order transferring the case to the Board, pursuant to Section
203.45 of said Rules and Regulations, file with the Board, Washington 25, D. C.,
an original and six copies of a statement in writing setting forth such exceptions
to the Intermediate Report or to any other part of the record or proceeding
(including rulings upon all motions or objections) as is relied upon, together
with the original and six copies of a brief in support thereof ; and any party
may, within the same period, file an original and six copies of a brief in support
of the Intermediate Report. Immediately upon the filing of such statement of
exceptions and/or briefs, the party filing the same shall serve a copy thereof
upon each of the other parties. Statements of exceptions and briefs shall
designate by precise citation the portions of the record relied upon and shall
be legibly printed or mimeographed, and if mimeographed shall be double spaced.
Proof of service on the other parties of all papers filed with the Board shall be
promptly made, as required by Section 203.55. As further provided in said
Section 203.46, should any party desire permission to argue orally before the
Bard, request therefor must be made in writing to the Board within ten (10)
days from the (late of service of the order transferring the case to the Board.
In the event no Statement of Exceptions is filed as provided by the aforesaid
Rules and Regulations, the findings, conclusions, recommendations, and recom-
mended order herein contained shall, as provided in Section 203.48 of said Rules
and Regulations, .be adopted by the Board and become its findings, conclusions,
and order, and all objections thereto shall be deemed waived for all purposes.
Dated at Washington, D. C., this 25th day of January 1950.
DAVID LONDON,
Trial Examiner.
140 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the recommendations of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor
.Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, we hereby notify our employees that:
WE WILL NOT interrogate our employees' concerning their union affilia-
tions, activities, or sympathies, or those of their coworkers; nor will we
threaten to close or to move the operations of the plant should our employees
join or retain membership in a labor organization, or be successful in
organizing the plant.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our
employees in the exercise of the right to self-organization, to form labor
organizations, to join or assist INTERNATIONAL LADIES' GARMENT WORKERS
UNION, A. F. of L., or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively
through representatives of their own choosing, or to engage in concerted
activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or
protection, or to refrain from any or all of such activities except to the
extent that such right may be affected by an agreement requiring member-
ship in a labor organization as a condition of employment, as authorized in
Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
A. J. SIRIS PRODUCTS CORPORATION OF VIRGINIA,
Employer.
By ----'---------------------------------------------
Dated ---------------------
le)
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof , and must not
be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.