A. Kravitz & Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 18, 1950

89 N.L.R.B. 1415 (N.L.R.B. 1950)

In the Matter of ABRAHAM KRAVITZ AND SIDNEY KRAVITZ, PARTNERS,
TRADING AS A. KRAVITZ OR- COMPANY and UNITED BEDDING S-,, GLIDER
WORKERS UNION, LOCAL No. 404, UPHOLSTERERS' INTERNATIONAL
UNION of NORTH AMERICA, AFL
Case No. 4-CA-55. Decided May 18, 1950
DECISION
AND
ORDER
On Marcll 3, 1950, Trial Examiner Sydney S. Asher, Jr., issued his
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the
Respondents had engaged in and were engaging in certain unfair
labor practices and recommending that they cease and desist there-
from and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of
the Intermediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the Respondents
filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and a supporting brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with
this case to a three-member panel [Chairman Herzog and Members
Reynolds and Styles].
The Board has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner
at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The
rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Inter-
mediate Report, the Respondents' exceptions and brief, 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 Respondents, Abraham
Kravitz and Sidney Kravitz, Partners, trading as A. Kravitz & Com-
pany, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and their agents, successors, and
assigns, shall:
89 NLRB No. 192.
1415
1416 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Interrogating their employees concerning their union affilia-
tions, activities, or sympathies;
(b) Theatening to close their plant should the employees join or
retain membership in a labor organization or be successful in organizes
ing the plant ; and
(c) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing
their. employees in the exercise of the rights to self-organization, to.
form labor organizations, to join or assist United Bedding & Glider
Workers Union, Local No. 404, Upholsterers' International Union of
North America, AFL, or any other labor organization, to bargain col-
lectively 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 such activities,
except to the extent that such right may be affected by all agreement
requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of em-
ployment, as authorized in Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
2. Take the following aflifrmative action, which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Post at its plant in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, copies of the
notice attached to the Intermediate Report and marked Appendix A
Copies of the notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for the
Fourth Region, shall, after being duly signed by the Respondents"
representative, be posted by the Respondents immediately upon re-
ceipt thereof, and maintained by them for at least sixty (60) conse-
cutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places,
where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps
shall be taken by the Respondents to insure that said notices are not
altered, defaced, or covered by any other material ;
(b) Notify the Regional Director for the Fourth Region in writing,,
within ten (10) days from the date of this Order, what steps the
Respondents have taken to comply herewith.
INTERMEDIATE REPORT
Mr. John H. Wood, Jr., for the General Counsel.
Mr. Envi, l F. Goldhabe 'r, of Philadelphia , Pa., for the Respondent.
Mr. Paul A . Gahan, of Philadelphia , Pa., for the Union.
I This notice, however, shall he and hereby is amended by striking from the first para-
graph thereof the words, "The recommendations of a Trial Examiner," and substituting.
in lieu thereof the words. "A Decision and Order." In the event this Order is enforced
by 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."
A. KRAVITZ & COMPANY
STATEMENT OF TIME CASE
1417
Upon an amended charge filed on December 5, 1949; by United Bedding &
Glider Workers Union, Local No. 404, Upholsterers' International Union of North
America, AFL, herein called the Union, the General Counsel for the National
Labor Relations Board,' by the Regional Director for the Fourth Region
(Philadelphia, Pennsylvania), issued a complaint dated January 13, 1950,
against Abraham Kravitz and Sidney Kravitz, partners, trading as A. Kravitz &
Company, herein called the Respondents. The complaint alleged that the Re-
spondents had engaged in and were engaging in unfair labor practices affecting
commerce within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1), and Section 2 (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 from April 7, 1949, to and including the date of the issuance of the complaint
above described, the Respondents interfered with, restrained, and coerced their
employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act by :
(a) Interrogating their employees concerning their affiliation with and interest
in the Union; and (b) threatening their employees with loss of employment if
the efforts to organize a union continued or were successful. The Respondents
thereafter duly tiled their answer, admitting the allegations of the complaint
with respect to their business operations, but denying the commission of any
unfair labor practices.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held on February 1, 1950, at Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania, before Sydney S. Asher, Jr., the undersigned Trial Examiner duly
designated by the Chief Trial Examiner. The General Counsel and the Re-
spondents were represented by counsel, and the Union by its representative.
Full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to
introduce evidence hearing upon the issues was afforded all parties. During
the General Counsel's case-in-chief, the Respondents moved to exclude witnesses
from the hearing room until they were called to testify. The motion was
granted' At the close of the hearing, the General Counsel moved to conform
the pleadings to the proof relative to names, dates, and places. The motion
was granted without objection.
At the conclusion of the hearing, all parties were advised that they might
argue orally before the undersigned concerning their respective positions, and
were also advised as to their right to file proposed findings of fact and conclu-
sions of law with briefs in support thereof. None availed themselves of this
opportunity.
1 The original charge was filed April 12, 1949, and served on the Respondents on April
18, 1949.
2 The General Counsel and the attorney representing him at the hearing are referred to
herein as the General Counsel. The National Labor Relations Board is referred to as the
Board.
3 During direct examination of General Counsel's witness Lenora Laudenslager, who
appeared in response to a subpoena, the Respondents ' attorney moved that the General
Counsel's questions intended to refresh the witness' recollection be first offered at side
bar, in order to permit him, to make objections beyond the witness' hearing, on the ground
that, despite the fact that the objections might be sustained because of the questions' lead-
ing nature, they would recall to the witness' mind matters which she would not otherwise
have recalled. The motion was denied.
1418 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Upon the entire record in the case, and from my observation of witnesses
at the hearing, I make the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENTS
The Respondents are partners engaged in the manufacture of lamp shades,
with their office and principal place of business at Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
The Respondents in the course and conduct of their business use raw materials
consisting principally of standard steel frames, rayon fabric, and velon, a
plastic material, The Respondents annually use such materials valued at ap-
proximately $38,000, 75 percent of which they cause to be transported in inter-
state commerce from and through States of the United States other than the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. The Respondents manufacture lamp shades
annually valued at approximately $87,000, 50 percent of which they cause to
be transported in interstate commerce to and through States of the United
States other than the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
Upon the foregoing facts, I find that the Respondents are engaged in commerce
within the meaning of the Act.
II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
United Bedding & Glider `Yorkers Union, Local No. 404, Upholsterers' Inter-
national Union of North America, AFL, is a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Background'
The Respondents carry on their operations on one floor. At all times relevant,
Abraham Kravitz, one partner, was the Respondents' general manager, and his
son, Sidney Kravitz, the other partner, was his assistant.
Some time prior to the events discussed below, Paul A. Gahan, a representa-
tive of the Union, informed General Manager Abraham Kravitz that some of the
Respondents' employees desired the Union to represent them. Kravitz replied
that if they wanted a union, they could have one. Apparently, the matter was
dropped, as the record does not disclose any further communication between the
Respondents and the Union prior to the issuance of the original charge herein.
The Union attempted to interest the Respondents' employees in unionization
during the first week of April 1949. At that time, the Respondents employed
between 36 and 40 employees. During this week, some unnamed employees
approached General Manager Abraham Kravitz, complained of the tension among
the employees which they attributed to the Union's attempts to organize the
plant,' and suggested that Kravitz speak to the employees on the subject.
On April 8, 1949, shortly after lunch, Kravitz called the employees together
and spoke to them on the floor of the plant. Substantially all of the employees
4 The findings contained in this subsection are based principally upon the uncontradicted
testimony of Abraham Kravitz.
6 Kravitz testified that he bad noticed the tension , and that he , too, attributed it to the
Union's organizational efforts.
A. KRAVITZ & COMPANY 1419
were present , as was also Kravitz ' son and assistant , Sidney Kravitz . The con-
tents of this speech will be discussed in detail below . The meeting lasted between
10 and 30 minutes , and the employees then returned to work. At the end of that
business day, the Respondents laid off between 12 and 18 employees .' These
layoffs are not in issue , as the complaint does not allege that they were violative
of the Act.
B. Restraint, coercion, and interference
1. The questioning of employee Proctor
Lena Proctor was employed by the Respondents to do pasting and other work
for a period of about 5 years. She was among those laid off on April 8, 1949,
and had not been recalled to work by the Respondents at the time of the hear-
ing. Proctor testified in substance that on April 7, 1949, shortly after the close
of the workday, General Manager Abraham Kravitz spoke to her in the plant.
According to Proctor's testimony, Kravitz asked her if she had spoken to the
union representative and she admitted that she had. Kravitz inquired what the
union representative had said. Proctor responded that he had given her a card,
with instructions to sign it and turn it in to him if she was interested in the
Union; Kravitz then asked Proctor if she had signed the card, and she replied
that she had not. Kravitz twice asked if Proctor were sure, and Proctor twice
assured him that she had not signed the card. Proctor then left the plant.
Kravitz denied generally that lie had ever talked to any employees individually
with respect to the Union, except those who "come to me and told me what is
going on."
Proctor appeared to be a forthright witness whose testimony is deemed worthy
of belief. In view of her candor and the limited nature of Kravitz' denial, I
find that the incident discussed above occurred substantially as related by
Proctor. Such questioning of employees with respect to their union activities
or membership, without more, has been consistently condemned by the Board
as violative of the Act.' It is therefore found that on April 7, 1949, the Re-
spondents, through General Manager Abraham Kravitz, interfered with, re-
strained, and coerced their employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed
in Section 7 of the Act, by interrogating employee Lena Proctor with respect to
her union activities and membership.
2. The meeting of April 8_1949
As previously mentioned, General Manager Abraham Kravitz spoke to the
assembled employees on April 8, 1949. As the contents of this speech are
directly in issue, the testimony of each witness will be briefly set forth.
Lenora Laudenslager, a former cellophaner who was among those laid off on
April 8, 1949,8 testified in substance that Kravitz started the meeting by asking
the employees generally who the girls were who had started the Union. There
was no answer. Kravitz then asked what the Union could give the workers
'Kravitz testified that April is a slack season in the lamp shade industry, and that
employment is at a low ebb from April until the lamp show in July. This was corrobo-
rated by the testimony of Lena Proctor.
I Standard-Coosa-Thatcher Company, 85 NLRB 1358; Empire Pencil Company, Division
of Hassenfeld Bros., Inc., 86 NLRB 1187.
8 Laudenslager had worked for the Respondents about 2 months before her layoff. She
had not been recalled to work by the Respondents at the time of the hearing.
1420 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
that they weren't already getting, reminded them that he had given them a $2:5
war bond at. Christmas, asserted that, "you are not even allowed to be sick when
you are in the Union," and stated that he would rather shut down the plant than
have the Union come in and tell him what to do. Finally, Kravitz announced
that there was not sufficient work for all the cellophaners, and that some of
them would have to be paid off. Sidney Kravitz followed his father with another
talk, but Laudenslager was unable to recall what Sidney Kravitz had said.
Lena Proctor testified in substance that Kravitz commenced by asking: "What
about this union? Who went and got the man? What about it?" When there
was no response, Sidney Kravitz said : "Go ahead and answer. You heard what
he said." Abraham Kravitz repeated the question and employee Freda Gunther
Cliett answered. Proctor could not recall what Cliett had replied. Abraham
Kravitz then said: "What about the union? You girls are a fool. I have been
belonging to a union for several years. They are no good. They just take your
money. I have been hearing this going on for weeks about a union. Now I am
going to find out what it is." Proctor then asked Abraham Kravitz why he
didn't let the union representative speak to the employees. Abraham Kravitz
replied: "Who the hell is he that I should let him come in and tell me what
to do?" Another employee asked Abraham Kravitz if he didn't want a union,
and he angrily replied that before he would have a union , he would close down
the plant for 3 months. Kravitz then stated that there was going to be a layoff.
Alice Montgomery, a cellophaner who was laid off with the others on April 8,
1949,° testified in substance that Kravitz first asked the employees who had
called the union representative in, then asked them why, if they were not satisfied,
they had not talked to him before calling in the union representative. He stated
that anyone wanting a raise should see him about it, that he had always been
reasonable. Then he said he would close down the plant before he would let a
union come in, that he did not want to take orders from a union and that he
would have to do so if the Union came in. Finally, Kravitz indicated that
there was not enough work on hand to keep all the cellophaners busy. Sidney
Kravitz spoke next, agreeing generally with what his father had said. Mont-
gomery described the general atmosphere of the meeting as follows : "Well, it
wasn't harmonious, but I don't think there was any outright arguments."
Freda Gunther Cliett, a sewing machine operator who was laid off sometime
after the meeting of April 8, 1949,1° testified in substance that Kravitz opened
the meeting by asking: "What's all this I hear about a union? Who started it?
All of you have been talking behind my back about a union. Why can't you tell
me what it's all about?" Cliett replied that some of the employees had met the
union representative outside the plant and had been invited to attend a union
meeting. Kravitz then asked what a union could give the employees that he
couldn't give them, and stated that he didn't want the Union in the plant because
it would run his business. He further said that the employees could not stay away
from work because of sickness if they had a union. He asked : "Aren't you satis-
° Montgomery had not been recalled to work by the Respondents at the time of the
hearing. She-had been employed by the Respondents 4 clays before her layoff.
10 Cliett was laid off as a result of an argument with Sidney Kravitz. She testified that
her layoff took place at quitting time, either on April 8, 1949, or oil so ae later date.
Kravitz set the time of Cliett's layoff as a week or 10 days after April 8, 1949. It is
deemed unnecessary to determine the exact date of Cliett's layoff. She had noa been re-
called to work by the Respondents at the time of the hearing , and had been employed by
the Respondents about a year before her layoff.
A. KRAVITZ & COMPANY 1421
fled;?" Cliett answered: "Well, if I can make a thousand dollars a week, I am
going to make it." Kravitz then asked what the employees wanted. When there
was no response, Kravitz said : "Well, we are not going to have a union in here.
I am not going to have a union. I will close up the shop for three months and I
will live."
Abraham Kravitz testified in substance that he had made the speech in
response to the request of some of his employees described above, because he
was curious to know what caused the tension and whether or not his employees
wanted a union, and in order that his employees should not be afraid of one an-
other. He testified that he had opened the meeting by asking : "What is this
about that union idea? There is all commotion in the place; nobody is working;
everybody is nervous. Why don't you girls come talk to me? Is there anything
you want that a union can give you and I can't?" He also asked them whether
or not they wanted the Union. Cliett answered, but Kravitz could not remember
the nature of her reply. An employee asked Kravitz what objection he had to
the union. He (lid not testify to his reply. Kravitz also stated : "Right now we
are low and we can close up for about three months." He told the employees that
business was slow and that some of then would be laid off." Finally, Kravitz
testified that the meeting had the effect of easing the tension among the
employees.'
Kravitz denied that, in the course ofthe speech, he had asked the employees
who had called in the union representative, or that he had stated that unions are
no good, they just take your money, or that if the Union came in he would no
longer be boss. He further denied that he had said that he would close the plant
if the Union came in. It is significant, however, that Kravitz admitted men-
tioning the Union and the possibility of closing the plant for 3 months in the same
speech. His denials in these respects were not convincing and are not credited."
Although Laudenslager, Proctor, Montgomery, and Cliett did not completely
agree in some minor respects, they agreed generally, and each related a con-
vincing account of the meeting of April 8, 1949. Moreover, much that these wit-
nesses said was corroborated by Kravitz' admissions. Accordingly, it is found
that General Manager Kravitz, on April 8, 1949, asked the assembled employees
who was responsible for bringing the union representative into the plant, asked
them whether or not they desired to have a union, stated that the Respondents
would close their plant for 3 months if the Union succeeded in its organizational
efforts, and announced a layoff.14
Kravitz' question concerning the union representative was clearly designed to
elicit information with respect to the identity of the employee or employees re-
sponsible for the Union's advent. As such, it was interrogation proscribed by the
Act." The same holds true of his questioning the assembled employees as to
whether or not they desired a union. Moreover, his statement with respect to
closing the Respondents' plant was a clear and unmistakable threat of economic
n Kravitz testified : "We have our plans .mode a couple of weeks ahead of time" but that
no announcement of the impending layoff was made before the meeting of April 8, 1949.
" Sidney Kravitz did not testify.
is Kravitz also denied that he had threatened any of the employees with loss of employ-
ment if they continued their efforts to organize the Union or if the Union came into the
plant . It is found that lie did not threaten any employees with outright discharge if the
Union came in.
"Although the record shows that Sidney Kravitz also spoke to the employees at this
meeting , the contents of his speech are not clear . Accordingly , no finding is based on any
speech made by Sidney Kravitz.
15Standard -Coosa-Thatcher Company , supra.
1422 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
reprisal for protected concerted activities, violative of the employees' statutory
rights." Neither the interrogation nor the threat described above fall within
the protection of Section 8 (c) of the Act. Accordingly, it is found that the
Respondents on April 8, 1949, through General Manager Abraham Kravitz, inter-
fered with, restrained, and coerced their employees in the exercise of the rights
guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, in violation of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act,
by interrogating their employees with respect to their union activities, and by
threatening economic reprisal if the Union succeeded in organizing the plant."
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
` The activities of the Respondents set forth in Section III, above, occurring in
connection with the operations of the Respondents described in Section I, above,
Have a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce
among the several States, and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and
obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondents have engaged in certain unfair labor prac-
tices, I will recommend that they cease and desist therefrom and that they take
certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. Because
of the Respondents' 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 Respondents' conduct in the
past.18 The preventive purpose of the Act will be thwarted unless the order is
coextensive with the threat. In order, therefore, to make effective the interde-
pendent guarantees of Section 7, to prevent a recurrence of unfair labor prac-
tices, and thereby to minimize industrial strife which burdens and obstructs com-
merce, and thus effectuate the policies of the Act, I will recommend that the
Respondents cease and desist from in any manner infringing upon the rights
guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act's
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. United Bedding & Glider Workers Union, Local No. 404, Upholsterers' Inter-
national Union of North America, AFL, is a labor organization within the mean-
ing of Section 2 (5) 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 Respondents have engaged
in and are engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8
(a) (1) of the Act.
'('As the court stated in The Atlas Underwear Company v. N. L. R. B., 116 F. 2d 1020
(C. A. 6), at page 1023: "A statement to the employees of the petitioner that it might
be necessary to close the plant, made during a period when unionization of its employees
11was sought to be effected , must be regarded as coercive. . . .
"No finding of unfair labor practice is based upon the layoffs of April 8, 1949, nor
upon Kravitz' statements that unions are no good, they just take your money, nor that if
the Union came into the plant he would no longer be boss , nor that the Union could not
do any more for the employees than he could do.
18 N. L. R. B. v. Express Publishing Co., 312 U. S. 426.
19 Wi lliam Spencer, d/b/a Alliance Rubber Company , 76 NLRB 514.
A, KRAVITZ & COMPANY 1423
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 Respondents, Abraham Kravitz and Sidney Kravitz, part-
ners , trading as A. Kravitz & Company, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and their
agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Interrogating their employees concerning their union affiliations, activities,
or sympathies ;
(b) Threatening to close their plant should the employees join or retain mem-
bership in a labor organization or be successful in organizing the plant; and
(c) In any other manner, interfering with, restraining, or coercing their
employees in the exercise of the rights to self-organization, to form labor organ-
izations, to join or assist United Bedding & Glider Workers Union, Local No. 404,
Upholsterers' International Union of North America, AFL, or any other labor
organization, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choos-
ing, 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 such activities,
except to the extent that such right may be affected by an agreement requiring
membership in a labor organization as a condition of employment, as authorized
in Section S (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 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, copies of the notice
attached hereto and marked Appendix A. Copies of the notice, to be furnished
by the Regional Director for the Fourth Region, shall, after being duly signed
by the Respondents' representative, be posted by the Respondents immediately
upon receipt thereof, and maintained by them 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
Respondents to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by
any other material ; and
(b) Notify the Regional Director for the Fourth Region in writing, within
twenty (20) days from the receipt of this Intermediate Report, what steps the
Respondents have taken to comply herewith.
It is further recommended that, unless the Respondents shall within twenty
(20) days from the receipt of this Intermediate Report notify said Regional
Director in writing that they will comply with the foregoing recommendations,
the National Labor Relations Board issue an order requiring the Respondents
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 (in-
cluding 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
1424 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the Intermediate Report 2° 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 desig-
nate 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 203.85. As further provided in said Section 203.46,
should any party desire permission to argue orally before the Board, request
therefor must ba made in writing to the Board within ten (10) days from the
date 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 3d day of March 1950.
SYDNEY S. ASHER, JR.,
Trial Examiner.
APPENDIX A
NOTICE To ALL E1rPI.oYEEs
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 affiliations,
activities, or sympathies.
WE WILL NOT threaten to close our 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 UNITED BEDDING & GLIDER WORKERS UNION,
LOCAL No. 404, UPHOLSTERERS' INTERNATIONAL UNION OF NORTH AMERICA,
AFL, or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively through rep-
resentatives 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 membership in a labor
organization as a condition of employment as authorized in Section 8 (a) (3)
of the Act.
ABRAHAM KRAVITZ AND SIDNEY KRAVITZ,
partners, trading as A. KRAVrrz & COMPANY,
Employer.
By --------------------------------------------
(Representative) (Title)
Dated----------------------------------
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof, and must
not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
20 Exceptions and briefs must be received by the Board at Washington, D. C., within the
specified period allowed. Western lVear of California, Inc., 87 NLRB 1363.