Amalgamated Clothing Wkrs., Local 424

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 28, 1971

193 N.L.R.B. 390 (N.L.R.B. 1971)

390 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America , and its
Baltimore Regional Joint Board , and its Local
Union 424, AFL-CIO (Mt. Union Manufacturing
Company, L. Grief & Bros., Division of Genesco,
Inc.) and Elda C. Myers. Case 6-CB-2037
September 28, 1971
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS
FANNING AND JENKINS
On June 4, 1971, Trial Examiner Henry L. Jalette
issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding,
finding that Respondents had engaged in certain
unfair labor practices within the meaning of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, and
recommending that they cease and desist therefrom
and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the
attached Trial Examiner's Decision. Thereafter,
Respondents filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's
Decision and a supporting brief, and the General
Counsel filed an answering brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
powers in connection with this proceeding 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 briefs, and
the entire record in this proceeding, and hereby
adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommenda-
tions of the Trial Examiner.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board adopts as its Order the recommend-
ed Order of the Trial Examiner and hereby orders that
Respondents, Amalgamated Clothing Workers of
America, and its Baltimore Regional Joint Board, and
its Local Union 424, AFL-CIO, their officers, agents,
and representatives shall take the action set forth in
the Trial Examiner's recommended Order.
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
HENRY L. JALETTE, Trial Examiner: This proceeding was
initiated by a charge filed by Elda C. Myers, an individual,
against Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America,
AFL-CIO, on November 20, 1970. The charge was
amended on February 16, 1971, to include as Respondents
Baltimore Regional Joint Board and Local Union 424,
affiliates of Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America,
AFL-CIO. On February 23, 1971, a complaint was issued
against all the aforementioned Unions, alleging that they
had violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act by refusing to
permit Myers to be a candidate for union steward at her
place of employment, Mt. Union Manufacturing Company,
L. Grief & Bros., Division of Genesco, Inc. (hereinafter
referred to as the Employer), because she informed them
that she intended to seek the assistance of and have
recourse to the National Labor Relations Board.
On April 15, 1971, a hearing was held at Huntingdon,
Pennsylvania, at which time Respondent Amalgamated
Clothing Workers of America was removed from the
complaint pursuant to motion to amend by the General
Counsel made without objection by the Charging Party and
which I granted.
Upon the entire record,I including my observation of the
witnesses, and after consideration of the briefs filed by the
General Counsel and Respondents, I make the following
findings of fact, conclusions of law and recommendations:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. JURISDICTION
The Employer, a manufacturer of men's suit coats,
annually sells and ships goods valued in excess of $50,000
from its facility at Mt. Union, Pennsylvania, directly to
points outside the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
H. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The Facts
The Employer employs about 750 employees at its Mt.
Union plant. Regional Joint Board is the exclusive
bargaining representative of employees in a production and
maintenance unit and is party to a collective-bargaining
agreement with the Employer, Local 424 is a shop local
covering only the Mt. Union plant of the Employer. It is
affiliated with and under the supervision of the Regional
Joint Board, which is operated by Manager Sam Nocella,
and Assistant Manager Romeo Esposito, who are assisted
by business agents, including Business Agent Richard
Shockey who is assigned to the Mt. Union plant.
The plant is divided into several sections each of which
elects its own steward or stewards to represent employees of
the section respecting grievances.
On April 14, 1970, a meeting was held at the plant among
Cmployees of section 2, which numbers about 200
employees, to nominate a steward to fill a vacancy created
by a retirement. Several employees were nominated, but
only two, Elda Myers, the Charging Party, and Helen Getz,
agreed to serve, if elected. Richard Shockey was present at
the meeting and accepted the nominations.
Elda Myers has been employed since 1955. She is a lining
I General Counsel's motion to correct transcript, which is unopposed, is
hereby granted and the motion is hereby received in evidence as TX Exh
193 NLRB No. 59
AMALGAMATED CLOTHING WKRS ., LOCAL 424 391
baster and a member of Local 424. She has served in
various positions with Local 424, including member of the
executive board, a position from which she resigned in
February 1968.
On November 11, 1969, Myers had filed a written
grievance over the rates of pay of lining basters.
Dissatisfied with the progress of the grievance, on April 13,
1970, she mailed the following letter to Regional Joint
Board Manager Nocella, copy to an official of the
employer.
Mt. Union, Pa.
April 2, 19702
Dear Sir:
I bast linings at the plant here in Mt. Union and we
have had a problem for several years that neither
management nor union has corrected so far. I am not
making a threat, but simply a statement of facts when I
say the following:
The cost of everything has gone up and our wages,
basting linings, has steadily decreased.
I have had the information, with documented
evidence (not just figures, I have those also) ready to
present to the Labor Board after April 24, 1970.
I have had two suspensions (both were unfair) and
the situation went to the Board of Review in Harrisburg
as you all should be aware of now. I have seen my
averages dropped several times and we on this job have
been exceptionally patient.
I will present facts to the Labor Board to show
Violation of Article III, Section C of the current
agreement, also facts to show discrimination of
employees covered by the agreement between company
and union.
I am sure the material I furnish to the Labor Board
will merit attention and show them that the situation is
several years old and that we need help.
It has been my respect for the steady employment the
company has given to local residents and for what the
union has done through the years gone by to help labor
that kept me from seeking help from the Labor Board
before this. Just treat us fair.
Sincerely,
Elda C. Myers 3
Nocella sent the following reply to Myers.
Mrs. Elda C. Myers
111 W. Halley St.
Mount Union, Pa. 17066
April 17, 1970
Dear Mrs. Myers:
2 Myers testified that the letter was prepared April 2, but not mailed
until April 13 1 credit her
3 Six other employees signed an attachment to the letter concurring with
Myers' claim for backpay and better rates
4 Tne foregoing is Shockey 's version of his opening remarks which I
I have received your letter dated April 2, 1970
pertaining to the operation of lining basting. My
investigation has turned up that the business agent,
Dick Shockey, is taking it up and the matter has been
brought to the attention of the company and the matter
will be processed and you will get an answer.
There is no necessity of making threats or delivering
ultimatums of any kind to the representatives of your
union. Remember that you are talking to your
representatives who have to handle your case and you
need the utmost cooperation and solidarity on the part
of you and your fellow workers. If there is any
dissatisfaction with any decision that is made by a
business agent, the union provides channels where these
grievances can be heard. You have an executive board
and you have a regular monthly meeting and after these
channels are exhausted the matter can then be referred
to my office.
Please remember when you go to a labor board, the
labor board also has to listen to us and there is always
two sides to every story and it isn't always your side that
wins. I think you can spend more time in presenting
your case effectively where it counts rather than making
threats in letters to the manager. I hope that in the
future you will avail yourself first of all the channels
before you run to the writing of letters. I think that this
will make for a far better understanding all around.
Fraternally,
Sam Nocella, Manager
On April 21, Business Agent Shockey called a special
meeting of the executive board of Local 424 at the plant
and invited Myers to attend. Shockey opened the meeting
by stating that he had a very unpleasant job to do. He
reminded the members of the executive board of Myers'
pending grievance and explained that the reason Myers was
at this meeting was that while her grievance was "in the
process of being handled through channels ... she wrote a
letter to Mr. Nocella threatening to go to the Labor
Board." 4 Shockey proceeded to read the letter. After
reading it, Shockey asked Myers to verify that it was the
one she had sent and she agreed it was. Shockey then read
Nocella's reply and asked Myers to acknowledge it was the
reply she had received and she did. After the reading of the
letters, members of the executive board asked Myers
questions relating to the subject matter of her grievance,
and Myers' only reply was "no comment." Shockey told her
she could leave the meeting and she did.
After Myers left, Shockey asked for a motion to decide
whether Myers was fit to run for the position of shop
steward.5 A motion was made and several members voiced
opinions that Myers was not fit to be a shop steward. There
was no mention of the Labor Board. A vote was taken and
11 members voted to disqualify Myers, and 3 abstained.
Helen Getz, the only remaining nominee , and a member of
the executive board, then declined to serve under the
accept There was varying versions of his opening remarks, but there is no
substantial difference in any of the versions
5 This finding is based on the testimony of executive board member
Rebecca Beatty whom I credit.
392 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
circumstances of Myers' removal. Later that day, Shockey
advised Myers of the executive board's action.
No action was taken to nominate a steward until
September 30 when another meeting of section 2 was held .6
At the start of the meeting Shockey told the employees that
in view of the decision of the executive board Myers could
not run as shop steward and he would not accept her
nomination. Nevertheless, Myers was again duly nominat-
ed. Shockey refused to accept the nomination. There were
other nominations, but only one nominee, Helen Getz,
agreed to serve. Accordingly, she became steward without a
vote being taken.
B. Analysis and Conclusions
A preliminary question is presented about the timeliness
of the charge against Regional Joint Board and Local 424.7
As noted in the introduction, Regional Joint Board and
Local 424 were not charged with violating the Act until
February 16, 1971. Pursuant to this charge, the complaint
issued alleging that an unfair labor practice occurred on
September 30, 1970, when Shockey rejected the nomination
of Myers. If this rejection of Myers' nomination is an unfair
labor practice, the February 16 charge is timely. But
Respondents contend that if there was an unfair labor
practice, it occurred on April 21, 1970, when the executive
board declared Myers to be unfit to serve as a steward, or
on May 11, 1970, when members of Local 424 approved the
minutes of the executive board meeting of April 21 and
thereby ratified its action.
According to Respondents, the September 30 incident
was merely the effectuation of a pre-10(b) decision.
Respondents compare this case to cases of union discipline
by fine, where the unfair labor practice is deemed to occur
either at the time of the fine, or the expiration of the appeal
period without an appeal, or the final decision of the
highest tribunal if an appeal is taken, and not when a union
sues to collect. E.g., International Association of Machinists
and Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO (Union Carbide Corpora-
tion), 180 NLRB No. 135, reaffd. 186 NLRB No. 138;
Communications Workers of America, Local 9511 (Pacific
Telephone and Telegraph Company), 188 NLRB No. 63. I
find the cases distinguishable. In this case, the alleged
unfair labor practice is the rejection of Myers' nomination
within the 10(b) period; in the cited cases, all that occurred
within the 10(b) period were the threats to sue, and/or the
filing of suits to collect the fines, acts which were not
alleged to be unlawful in and of themselves.
In addition , Respondents assert that an essential element
6 According to Shockey, the matter was held in abeyance pending
resolution of Myers' grievance The Employer rejected the grievance at a
meeting on June 25 which was attended by Myers At that meeting, an
employee asked Nocella if they could not go to the Labor Board and the
sense of his reply was that they should use other channels first, including
aibitration In my judgment , this incident neither adds to nor detracts from
the issue about Respondents ' reason for disqualifying Myers from
candidacy on September 30
r Sec 10(b) of the Act reads in pertinent part.
no complaint shall issue based upon any unfair labor practice
occurring more than six months prior to the filing of the charge with
the Board and the service of a copy thereof upon the person against
whom such charge is made.
9 Respondents sought to adduce testimony that Myers was discharged
in 1965 and 1968 because of her attitude and constant complaining and
of the General Counsel 's case is missing which can only be
supplied by reference to pre-10(b) conduct and that Bryan
Manufacturing Co., 362 U.S. 411 (1960) interdicts reliance
on an earlier unfair labor practice to establish that conduct
within the 10(b) period is unlawful . I do not agree . In Bryan,
the Supreme Court acknowledged the existence of two
situations : one, "where occurrences within the 6-month
limitations period in and of themselves may constitute as a
substantive matter , unfair labor practices . . . [and] . . .
earlier events . . . [are ] . . . utilized to shed light on the
true character of matters occurring within the limitation
period," and another situation in which "conduct occurring
within the limitations period can be charged to be an unfair
labor practice only through reliance on an earlier unfair
labor practice ." In my judgment, this case involves the
former situation , and the events in April 1970 may be
utilized to shed light on Respondent 's motive in rejecting
Myers' nomination on September 30. As indicated earlier,
when Shockey stated that he would not accept a
nomination of Myers on September 30, he indicated that
the reason was the executive board 's decision in April. In
the circumstances , it is appropriate to look to the events in
April to determine the reason for the executive board's
decision . See Paramount Cap Mfg. Co. v. N.L.R.B., 260 F.2d
109 (C.A. 8, 1952).
That is what this case reduces itself to, the reason for the
executive board's rejection of Myers ' nomination . Accord-
ing to Respondents , the nomination was rejected because
Myers was not the kind of person to serve the employees as
shop steward because of a history of complaints by her
about both management and the Union generally with
regard to her rate of pay. The only specific past conduct of
Myers litigated was her resignation from the executive
board in February 1968, because of the refusal of Local 424
to adopt a resolution she offered for a timestudy for the
purpose of adjusting rates of pay.8 At that time, Myers
wrote to the Regional Joint Board stating that:
I am resigning as of this date from both boards of
Local 424 . I also request my name be omitted from the
ballot for the forthcoming election.
I still believe in unions but I don't believe in lies and
dishonesty and I never heard such a performance as last
night at the union meeting . Terrible lies.
I have all the proof I need regardless of what happens
to show I had only the best interest of union members at
heart.
that she was reinstated through the intervention of Respondents This was
allegedly part of a history of bickering with management and Respondents
which Respondents assert was the reason for refusing to permit her to run
as shop steward. I refused to hear testimony described in Respondents'
offer of proof for two reasons . part of the profferred testimony related to
events remote in time and before Myers was an executive board member
and none of Myers' past conduct had been relied on to remove her from
office ; in any event , the issue was not whether Myers was in fact fit to be a
shop steward , but why she was disqualified by the executive board.
Determination of this issue depended on what the members of the
executive board said at the meeting of April 21 about their reasons for
disqualifying her As will appear below , except for testimony about the
discussion of Myers' resignation in 1968, no evidence was adduced of the
discussion of any other past conduct . In the circumstances, the profferred
testimony was properly rejected.
AMALGAMATED CLOTHING WKRS., LOCAL 424 393
I put my trust and faith in God .9
According to Shockey, Julia Yocum, president of Local
424, Helen Getz, who later became shop steward of section
2 and was secretary-treasurer of Local 424, and executive
board member Minnick, Myers' letter of resignation was
also read at the April 21 meeting after Myers left the room.
Rebecca Beatty, a member of the executive board who
testified on behalf of General Counsel and who abstained
from voting against Myers, testified the letter of resignation
was not read. I credit Beatty, who appeared to me to be
very truthful and who had no reason to lie. On the other
hand, Respondents' witnesses all displayed a great deal of
hostility to Myers. Despite the fact that the reading of
Myers' letter of resignation would have been a significant
detail in a meeting such as the one in question, executive
board member Renninger could not recall its having been
read; Copenhaver referred to Myers' letter of resignation
but she did not state that Shockey read it; Betty Minnick
erroneously asserted that Myers' letter of resignation had
stated she didn't want any part of any office in the union
ever; and while Helen Getz testified Shockey read the letter
of resignation, the minutes of the meeting which she wrote
do not support her. Finally, since the meeting was clearly
called to pass on Myers' fitness to hold office, and Myers
was asked to be present to hear the charges against her, I
don't understand why Shockey would wait until Myers left
the meeting to read her letter of resignation. For all these
reasons , I conclude he did not read the letter of resignation.
In the final analysis, whether or not the letter of
resignation was read at the meeting is not dispositive of the
issue of the reason for the executive board's vote to
disqualify Myers. What is important is the fact that
Shockey was present on April 14 when Myers was
nominated and nothing was said about either her 1968
resignation or her continual griping about rates of pay.10
Nothing was said or done until April 21, the day after
Shockey received a copy of Myers' letter to Nocella, and
when Shockey convened the executive board and expressed
his distaste for the task before him he did not start with a
reference to Myers' past conduct; rather, he began by
referring to her "threatening letter"-these were Shockey's
words-and proceeded to read the letter. From every
description of the meeting, be it from General Counsel's
witnesses or Respondents', it is clear that the predicate for
questioning Myers' fitness to hold office was her letter to
Nocella. Her letter was the only circumstance intervening
between her nomination and the special meeting of the
executive board called by Shockey. His testimony that after
the nomination he went through records he had inherited
from the business agent he had replaced and discovered
that Myers had resigned in 1968, and that he discussed this
with Assistant Manager Esposito on April 14 and they
decided to bring this matter to the attention of the executive
board is not credited. Shockey had received the files in
question in mid-1969 and admittedly had "glanced" at
them then, and I cannot believe that he did not learn until
after April 14 about Myers' resignation. Significantly, when
he convened the April 21 meeting, his opening remarks
related to Myers' threatening letter of April 13. In these
circumstances, I can credit neither Shockey nor Esposito
about the reason for calling a special meeting of the
executive board.
After Myers left the meeting, remarks were made about
Myers' fitness to hold office, such as, "anyone that couldn't
get along with the union or company was not fit to
represent 150 to 200 girls" (Copenhaver); "I wouldn't want
Mrs. Myers representing me if I had a claims. . . ."
(Minnick); and, according to Getz, Yocum remarked that,
"we had been having trouble with her for years and that this
wasn't the first time something like this happened." Yocum
did not, however, say she made any such remarks, and
Getz' minutes of the meeting attribute to Yocum the
statement that Myers "has condemned Sam [Nocella] and
the Union."
Rebecca Beatty did not view the foregoing remarks as a
discussion. As she understood the situation, Shockey "read
the letters and I thought he meant we were to take from
those letters what we were to do, what our decisions would
be." Beatty's understanding was not incorrect. It is evident
from Respondent's own witnesses why they rejected Myers.
In her letter to Nocella, Myers had threatened to go to the
Labor Board. Nocella had replied that the Union provides
channels for hearing grievances and in explaining her vote
against Myers, Renninger stated that she was opposed to
anyone who undermined the Union and Myers had
undermined the Union, because,
In the first place, she didn't go through all the channels
she should have in our union . When you go through all
channels in our union and then you don't get anything,
then take it higher but you use all channels first. To me
that is undermining our union.
Q. By going to the labor board?
A. That's right.
Betty Minnick explained that "we are supposed to go
through channels. You dust don't by-pass everything else
because someone didn't want to work with you. You follow
it step by step." In explaining the procedure she believes
should be followed, Minmck pointed out "most people
don't dust go from the shop steward and if they don't do
anything-I've had a claim in for two years and I'm not
going to the Labor Board. I'm waiting for my union to settle
It.,,
Helen Copenhaver said she didn't think Myers was
eligible to hold office, "because she should have went
through the channels. That is what the executive board is
there for. That was why we were elected to office.
Q. How did she indicate she [Myers] wasn't going
to use channels?
A. Apparently she didn't. She just went to the
Labor Board.
From the foregoing, and the record as a whole, whatever
opinions the members of the executive board may have had
about Myers' fitness to hold office because of her past
conduct and temperament, the conclusion is inescapable
9 Actually, Myers wrote two letters The one above was mailed to
Regional Joint Board and a copy given to Local 424 with another letter
which stated . "This is a notice of resignation from both boards of Local
424 and I request my name be omitted from the ballot . I cannot stand lies
and dishonesty "
io It should be noted that the fitness of a nominee for steward had never
previously been questioned by any executive board There is some question
whether the executive board even had authority to act as it did; it was not
asserted that they acted pursuant to any provisions of the constitution or
bylaws of either the Regional Joint Board or Local 424.
394 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
that, in declaring her to be unfit to hold office on April 21,
they were motivated in substantial part by the fact that she
had threatened to go to the Labor Board to seek redress of a
grievance over her rate of pay. And, as stated earlier, when
Shockey refused to accept Myers' nomination on Septem-
ber 30, he relied on the decision of the executive board on
April 21 thereby revitalizing the decision.
There is testimony by Myers that at a union meeting on
May 12, 1970, Esposito commended the executive board for
its action on April 21 and he described Myers as unfit to be
an officer and adverted to her threatening letter to Nocella.
There is also testimony by Myers that at the nomination
meeting on September 30, Shockey referred not just to her
letter of resignation, but also to the letters she had written
to Baltimore. Evelyn White testified Shockey said he had
letters to prove Myers was unfit for shop steward. I credit
this testimony. As with the April 21 meeting, Respondents'
witnesses contended that any references to Myers' letters
were references to her letter of resignation only. I do not
credit this testimony. In any event, as Respondents concede
in their brief, such testimony was merely cumulative if it is
found that on April 21 the executive board based its
decision on her April 13 letter. I have found that it did.
The only remaining question is whether the removal of
Myers from candidacy for the office of shop steward
because of her threat to go to the Labor Board to redress a
grievance about rates of pay constitutes restraint and
coercion of employees within the meaning of Section
8(b)(1)(A) of the Act, notwithstanding the terms of the first
proviso to 8(b)(l)(A),11 and the fact that Respondents'
conduct herein related to Myers' rights in her relationship
to Respondents and did not affect her status as an
employee. Respondent does not contend that its conduct
was protected by the proviso and the cases clearly indicate
that the conduct of Respondents herein was violative of
Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act because of the public policy
considerations which dictate that employees be afforded
unimpeded access to the Board. N.L.R.B. v. Industrial
Union of Marine and Shipbuilding Workers of America,
AFL-CIO, 391 U.S. 418; Amalgamated Meat Cutters and
Butcher Workmen of North America, Amalgamated Food
Employees Union Local 590, AFL-CIO (National Tea
Company), 181 NLRB No. 116.
111. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
UPON COMMERCE
IV. THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondents engaged in certain
unfair labor practices it will be recommended that they be
ordered to cease and desist therefrom and that they take
certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies
of the Act.
In order to remedy the unfair labor practices herein
found it is necessary to restore the situation to its status quo
ante.
This will require Respondents to rescind the election of
Helen Getz as shop steward and to conduct a new election
for shop steward in section 2 in which Elda Myers is to be
permitted to be a candidate pursuant to the nomination she
received on September 30, and, if she is elected, to be
permitted to serve.
The record indicates that shop stewards are paid $6 a
month, and General Counsel urges that Respondents be
required to reimburse Myers the amount of steward's wages
she would have been paid had she been permitted to be
elected to office on September 30, if, at the new election to
be held pursuant to the recommendations herein, Myers
should be elected shop steward. In my judgment, such a
remedy is inappropriate. If Myers is elected in a new
election, it does not necessarily mean that she would have
been elected on September 30 if her nomination had not
been rejected, and a finding to that effect could only be
based on speculation. Accordingly, I shall not recommend
reimbursement as requested.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Mt. Union Manufacturing Company, L. Grief &
Bros ., Division of Genesco, Inc., is an employer engaged in
commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the
Act.
2. Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America,
AFL-CIO, and its affiliates Baltimore Regional Joint
Board and Local Union 424, and each of them, are labor
organizations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. By refusing to permit Elda Myers to be a nominee for
shop steward in section 2 of the Employer's plant because
she threatened to go to the Board to obtain redress of her
grievance over rates of pay, Respondents Regional Joint
Board and Local 424 have engaged in and are engaging in
unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section
8(b)(1)(A) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law,
and the entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the
Act, I hereby issue the following recommended: 12
The activities of Respondent set forth in section II,
above, occurring in connection with the operations of the
Employer described in section I, above, have a close,
intimate, and substantial 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.
ORDER
Respondents, Baltimore Regional Joint Board and Local
424, affiliated with Amalgamated Clothing Workers of
America, AFL-CIO, their officers , agents , and representa-
tives, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
11 The proviso reads "Provided, That this paragraph shall not impair findings, conclusions, and recommended Order herein shall, as provided in
the right of a labor organization to prescribe its own rules with respect to Sec 102 48 of the Rules and Regulations , be adopted by the Board and
the acquisition or retention of membership therein , become its findings, conclusions , and Order, and all objections thereto
12 In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec 102 46 of the shall be deemed waived for all purposes
Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the
AMALGAMATED CLOTHING WKRS., LOCAL 424
(a) Rejecting the nomination of any employee for the
position of shop steward because the employee threatens to
go the Labor Board to seek redress of her grievance with
regard to rates of pay.
(b) In any like or related manner restraining or coercing
employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed
employees in Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action designed to
effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Rescind the election of Helen Getz as shop steward as
a result of the nomination meeting of September 30, 1970,
and hold another election among the employees in section 2
of the Employer's plant for the position of shop steward of
section 2, permitting Elda Myers to be a candidate pursuant
to her nomination on September 30, and permitting her to
serve, if elected.
(b) Post at its business offices, and at all other places
where notices to members are customarily posted, includ-
ing, if applicable, such bulletin boards as the Employer may
provide for use by Respondents, copies of the attached
notice marked "Appendix." 13 Copies of said notice, on
forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 6, after
being duly signed by Respondents' authorized representa-
tives, shall be posted by said Respondents immediately
upon receipt thereof and be maintained by Respondents for
60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places,
including all places where notices to members are
customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by
Respondents to insure that said notices are not altered,
defaced, or covered by any other material. In the event that
the Employer does not provide bulletin boards at its plants
for use by Respondents, Respondents shall sign and mail
sufficient copies of the aforesaid notice to the Regional
Director for Region 6 for posting by the Employer at its Mt.
Union plant, if the Employer is willing, in all places where it
customarily posts notices to its employees.
(c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 6, in writing,
within 20 days from the receipt of this Decision, what steps
have been taken to comply herewith.14
13 In the event that the Board's Order is enforced by a Judgment of the
United Stales Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by
Order of the National Labor Relations Board" shall be changed to read
"Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals
Enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations Board "
19 In the event that this recommended Order is adopted by the Board
after exceptions have been filed, this provision shall be modified to read
"Notify the Regional Director for Region 6 , in writing, within 20 days from
the date of this Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply
herewith
APPENDIX
395
NOTICE To MEMBERS
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
Notice to all members of Baltimore Regional Joint Board
and Local Union 424, affiliated with Amalgamated
Clothing Workers of America, AFL-CIO.
We hereby notify you that:
WE WILL NOT reject the nomination on any employee
for the office of shop steward because such employee
threatens to go to the National Labor Relations Board
to obtain action on a grievance which she has filed with
regard to rates of pay.
WE WILL rescind the election of a shop steward at the
nomination meeting held in section 2 on September 30,
1970, and hold another election in section 2 in which
Elda Myers shall be permitted to be a candidate and, if
she is elected, she shall be permitted to serve.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner restrain
or coerce employees in the exercise of their rights
guaranteed in Section 7 of the National Labor
Relations Act.
Dated By
Dated By
BALTIMORE REGIONAL JOINT
BOARD OF THE
AMALGAMATED CLOTHING
WORKERS OF AMERICA,
AFL-CIO
(Labor Organization)
(Representative) (Title)
LOCAL UNION 424 OF THE
AMALGAMATED CLOTHING
WORKERS OF AMERICA,
AFL-CIO
(Labor Organization)
(Representative) (Title)
This is an official notice and must not be defaced by
anyone.
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days
from the date of posting and must not be altered, defaced,
or covered by any other material.
Any questions concerning this notice or compliance with
its provisions may be directed to the Board's Office, 1536
Federal Building, 1000 Liberty Avenue, Pittsburgh, Penn-
sylvania 15222, Telephone 412-644-2977.