American Cloak Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 5, 1938

5 N.L.R.B. 819 (N.L.R.B. 1938)

In the Matter of AMERICAN CLOAK COMPANY, LIBERTY CLOAK COM-
PANY, and ANNETTE SPORT COMPANY, BODIES CORPORATE, and INTER-
NATIONAL LADIES GARMENT WORKERS UNION OF AMERICA, BALTIMORE
JOINT BOARD
Case No. C-343.-Decided March 5, 1938
Women's and Children's Coat Manufacturing Industry-Interference, Re-
straint, or Coercion: expressed opposition to labor organization ; threats of
retaliatory action ; engendering fear of loss of employment for union member-
ship and activity ; formation of list of union members for purpose of discrimina-
tion ; surveillance of union meetings-Discrimination: discharge of seven
employees for union membership and activity-Reinstatement Ordered-Back
Pay: awarded.
Mr. Owsley Vose, for the Board.
Mr. Jacob Kart man and Mr. Gersh I. Moss, of Baltimore, Md., for
the respondents.
Mr. Jacob E. Eddelman, of Baltimore, Md., for the Union.
Mr. Harry Cooper, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
On July 27, 1937, Angela Bambace, representing the International
Ladies Garment Workers Union of America, Baltimore Joint Board,
herein called the Union, filed a charge with the Regional Director
for the Fifth Region (Baltimore, Maryland), alleging that the Amer-
ican Cloak Company, Liberty Cloak Company, and Annette Sport
Company, bodies corporate, Baltimore, Maryland, and Westminster,
Maryland, herein called the respondents, had engaged in and were
engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the
meaning of Section 8 (1) and (3), and Section 2 (6) and (7), of the
National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein called the Act. On
August 17, 1937, the National Labor Relations Board, herein called
the Board, issued its complaint against the respondents, signed by the
Regional Director for the Fifth Region. The complaint in sub-
stance alleged that the respondents had interlocking directorates, that
they were engaged in interstate commerce, and that the respondent
819
820 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Annette Sport Company, between July 19, 1937, and July 22, 1937,
discharged and refuses to reinstate nine named employees for the
reason that they joined and assisted the Union. The complaint also,
alleged that the respondent Annette Sport Company threatened and
intimidated its employees for the purpose of discouraging member-
ship in the Union. The complaint and accompanying notice of hear-
ing were duly served upon the respondents and the Union.
On August 23, 1937, the American Cloak Company, herein called
the American, filed a special appearance for the purpose of question-
ing the jurisdiction of the Board, and an answer. In its answer it
alleged that the complaint did not show that the employees therein
named or the acts therein complained of were the employees or the
acts of the American, and that the American was a corporate body
whose officers, stockholders, and directors were not officers, stockhold-
ers, and directors of the Liberty Cloak Company, herein called the
Liberty. The American admitted that in the course of its business it
caused a substantial part of its raw materials used in manufacture to,
be purchased and transported in interstate commerce, and that it
caused a substantial portion of its manufactured products to be sold
and transported in interstate commerce.
Likewise on August 23, 1937, the Liberty filed a special appearance
and answer to the complaint, denying that it was engaged in inter-
state commerce and alleging that it was a corporate body, that its.
stockholders had no financial interest in the American, and that its-
officers, directors, and stockholders were not officers, directors, or
stockholders of the American. The Liberty admitted that it operated'
a plant at Westminster, Maryland, under the trade name, Annette-
Sport Company. In its answer the Liberty also admitted that it
discharged the nine employees named in the complaint, but alleged'
that it had done so for cause.
Pursuant to notice a hearing was held at Westminster, Maryland,
on August 30, 1937, before Robert Al. Gates, the Trial Examiner duly
designated by the Board. The respondents, the Union, and the-
Board were represented by counsel. Full opportunity to be heard, to-
examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence bear-
ing upon the issues was afforded all parties. During the course of
the hearing counsel for the respondents moved several times that the
complaint be dismissed with respect to the American on the ground'
that the American and the Liberty were separate and distinct corpo-
rations. The Trial Examiner reserved ruling on the motion at the
hearing, but denied the motion in his Intermediate Report subse-
quently filed with the Board. At the end of the Board's case, counsel
for the Board made a formal motion that the pleadings be conformed
to the proof, which motion was later granted without objection by
counsel, for the respondents; the motion was specifically restricted,.
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 821
however, to cover merely a variance between the complaint and the
evidence adduced, with respect to names and dates. During the
course of the hearing , exceptions were taken by-the parties to various
rulings of the Trial Examiner on objections to the admission of evi-
dence. The Board has reviewed all the rulings of the Trial Exam-
iner and finds no prejudicial errors were committed . The rulings
are hereby affirmed.
On December 23, 1937, the Trial Examiner filed an Intermediate
Report in which he found that the respondents by discharging the
nine employees named in the complaint had discouraged membership
in the Union and had thereby and by other acts committed unfair
labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 ( 1) and ( 3), and
Section 2 ( 6) and (7) of the Act. On January 12, 1938, the respond-
ents filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and requested an
opportunity for oral argument before the Board. Pursuant to notice,
a hearing was held before the Board on February 2, 1938, in Wash-
ington, District of Columbia , for the purpose of such oral argument.
The respondents and the Union participated.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENTS
The American Cloak Company is a Maryland corporation or-
ganized in 1932 with its office and place of business in Baltimore,
Maryland. Its capitalization consists of 430 shares of preferred stock
with a par value of $100 per share and 100 shares of common stock
with no par value. Leon Hirschman is president and treasurer of the
corporation , and Nathan Wiener is secretary. The board of directors
is composed of Hirschman , Wiener, and Jacob Kartman , who ap-
peared as attorney for the respondents in this proceeding . The stock-
holders are Leon Hirschman, Nathan Wiener , and Anna Wiener.
The American is a manufacturer of ladies ' and children's coats. The
principal manufacturing operation carried on by the American is
the cutting of raw material. It has a cutting rpom and a stock-
room at its plant in Baltimore . The material , upon being cut, is
tied in bundles and sent by truck to the plants of the Liberty Cloak
Company for further processing. At the time of the unfair labor
practices complained of, all the labor for the American upon raw
material after cutting was performed by the Liberty at its plants
in Baltimore and Westminster , Maryland. Practically all the raw
materials purchased by the American come from outside the State
of Maryland . Garments manufactured and finished at the plants
of the Liberty are sent back to the American for sale and shipment
by the latter corporation . Merchandise in solid lots is shipped di-
822
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
rectly from the Liberty's plant at Westminster to customers of the
American. The secretary of the American testified that about 5 per
cent of its shipments were made direct from the Westminster plant.
Ninety per cent of its manufactured product is shipped by the Ameri-
can out of Maryland. The American maintains an office in New
York City and salesmen "on the road." The American admits in
its answer that in the course of its business it causes a substantial
part of its raw materials used in manufacture to be purchased and
transported in interstate commerce, and that it causes a substantial
portion of its manufactured products td be sold and transported in
interstate commerce.
The Liberty Cloak Company is a Maryland corporation, organized
in 1932, with plants at Baltimore and Westminster, Maryland. The
Liberty maintains an office at 113 West Redwood Street, Baltimore.
The office of the American is also at this address. The capitalization
of the Liberty consists of 30 shares of common stock with a par value
of $100. Nathan Block is president, Samuel Cohen is vice president,
and I. Greenfield is secretary and treasurer. The same individuals
compose the board of directors and are the only stockholders in the
corporation. The Liberty is a contractor for the manufacture of
ladies' and children's garments. The operations at its plants in
Baltimore and Westminster consist of machine-sewing and pressing.
The Westminster plant is operated under the trade name, Annette
Sport Company.l For some months prior to June 1937, the Liberty
had operated a plant at Texas, Maryland. In June 1937, this plant
was closed and the machinery moved to Westminster, where opera-
tions were resumed about June 22, 1937. Since the removal of its
Texas plant to Westminster, and at the time of the unfair labor
practices herein complained of, the Liberty has done work exclusively
for the American. It is clear from the record that the work per-
formed for the American at the Liberty's plant in Westminster is
done under the detailed supervision of Pete Plaskovitz, a designer,
in the employ of the American, and of Nathan Wiener, an officer
of the American, as well as under the supervision of Mike Dubick,
foreman at the Westminster plant, and officers of the Liberty.' At
the time of the hearing, three cutters in the employ of the American
were engaged in work at the Westminster plant of the Liberty. The
Liberty purchases between $6,000 and $7,000 worth of seam bindings
'Although the answers of the respondents use the name as contained in the complaint,
the record indicates that Nathan Block referred to this enterprise as the Annette Sport
Wear Company
2 Plaskovitz has been at the Westminster plant continuously from July 6, 1937. He
testified that he "showed" employees there how to perform operations on raw material.
Upon discovering poor workmanship at the plant, he recommended to the foreman there
that he "change" some employees at once. Wiener testified that one, of his jobs was to
"contact and supervise" the production of work for the American at the Westminster plant.
He visited there "every couple of days."
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 823
and cotton thread annually, some of which comes from outside the
State of Maryland. Materials, which are cut by the American, are
received at the plants of the Liberty at Westminster and Baltimore,
and sewed into garments by employees of the Liberty. These gar-
ments are pressed by other employees of the Liberty and then shipped
to the American, whence they are shipped outside the State of
Maryland. Some of the shipments are made direct from the West-
minster plant, as above indicated.
II. THE UNION
International Ladies Garment Workers Union, Baltimore Joint
Board, is a labor organization composed of the various locals of
the International Ladies Garment Workers Union in the areas of
Maryland and Pennsylvania.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Background
Before the Liberty started its plant at Westminster , Maryland,
the Union attempted to negotiate a collective bargaining agreement
for the employees of the Liberty at its Baltimore plant. Negotiations
were carried on by representatives of the Union with Nathan Wiener,
officer of the American , although the proposed agreement concerned
the employees of the Liberty only . Wiener admitted that he carried
on such negotiations but testified that he told the representatives
^of the Union that the problem with regard to which he was negotiat-
ing was that of the Liberty. Before the plant at Westminster was
opened, the Union contended that the proposed agreement would
have to cover such a plant. When the plant at Westminster was
opened, about June 21 , 1937, negotiations between Wiener and Kart-
man, attorney and a director for the American , and the Union, with
respect to the employees of the Liberty at its Baltimore plant, were
pending. Kartman refused to include the employees at the West-
minster plant in the agreement , in view of the fact that none of
the employees at that plant were members of the Union . Thereupon
the Union sent a representative , Kremer, to organize the employees
.at the Westminster plant. A number of employees at that plant
became members of the Union during the middle of July 1937 , includ-
ing those named in the complaint. Thereafter an agreement cover-
ing both plants of the Liberty was presented to Wiener and Kartman.
Wiener and Kartman indicated their willingness to negotiate a con-
tract with respect to the employees of the Baltimore plant of the
-Liberty, but refused to include the employees in the Westminster
plant in the agreement.
80535-38-53
824 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
About three weeks before the hearing (two weeks after the dis-
charges at Westminster herein complained, of) the employees of
the Liberty at its Baltimore plant went out on strike for the pur-
pose of persuading Wiener, Kartman, and the Liberty to agree to
an agreement covering the employees of the Liberty at both its plants.
At all conferences negotiations were carried on solely with Wiener
and Kartman. Miss Angela Bambace, local representative of the
Union, testified that the first time she came to negotiate with Kart-
man he claimed that the American and the Liberty were distinct
corporations but that he agreed to waive any such distinction for the
purpose of the negotiations.
B. The discharges
Kremer, organizer of the Union, first came to Westminster for
the purpose of organizing the employees of the Liberty at its West-
minster plant about June 24, 1937. He approached Dubick, fore-
man at the Westminster plant, during the first week in July 1937,
either on the street or in the City Restaurant in Westminster, the
record not being clear on this point. Dubick at that time told
Bremer that he was not against a union for the employees in the
plant. It is, apparent from the record that Dubick knew the pur-
pose of Kremer's presence in Westminster.
Since the unfair labor practices of the Liberty appear most
clearly from the circumstances surrounding the discharge of the in-
dividnal employees with whom we are here concerned, we will first
discuss such discharges individually. Between July 20, 1937, and
July 22, 1937, Dubick discharged the following sewing-machine
operators: '
Nettie Stonesi fer. The plant of the Liberty in 'Westminster is on
the north side of Main Street near John Street, in the middle of
the block. The home of Nettie Stonesifer is at 2 John Street on
the east side of that street. From the first week in Jnly 1937,
Kremer frequented the home of Nettie Stonesifer every day for a
period of several weeks for the purpose of meeting employees of
the Westminster plant there, and soliciting members for the Union.
Thus Mrs. Stonesifer's house was the center of union organization in
the Westminster plant. Kremer testified that within a two-week
period from July 5, 1937 to July 18, 1937, Dubick followed him
four times to Mrs. Stonesifer's house, and that at other times he
had frequently seen Dubick standing on the corner of John and Main
St Teets observing the employees, who entered Mrs. Stonesifer's house.
Airs. Stonesifer was employed at the Annette shop as a sewing-
machine operator on June 21, 1937, and worked there for one month.
She (lid all kinds of work at the plant. She had previously been
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 825
employed at a men's garment factory and also in a shoe factory..
She joined the Union on July 9, 1937, and thereafter openly invited
employees to her house to meet Kremer. She testified that before
she knew about Kremer's coming to Westminster, she talked to an
employee in the plant concerning the need for organization there,
and Dubick was standing behind her within hearing distance. The
next day, about a week before her discharge, Dubick said to her
"Anybody joins this, outside union won't work in here. . . . I
have got no good for it. We ain't running no union shop."
Mrs. Stonesifer testified that no criticism had ever been made of
her work, with one exception. Once linings with which she was work-
ing would not fit, and Dubick came over and tried to make them fit
but was unable to do so. Dubick did not deny this incident. She testi-
fied that Dubick had always praised her for her work. She was dis-
charged on July 21, 1937. Dubick said that he could not use her any
longer.
At the time of her discharge, Mrs. Stonesifer was earning $7 per
week. Since her discharge, she has not been employed, and at the
hearing stated that she desired to be reinstated to her former position-
Mrs. Stonesifer is 51 years of age. Dubick testified that the reason
for her discharge was that her eyesight was poor, and that she could
not see to stitch. It is significant that this was not given as a reason
for her discharge at the time the discharge occurred. It is also sig-
nificant that Dubick did not deny that he had complimented Mrs_
Stonesifer about her work. From the record as a whole, including the,
considerations set forth hereinafter, we are persuaded that the reason
for her discharge was not the one given by Dubick but was due to her-
activity with the Union.
Marian Eckenrode. Marian Eckenrode was employed by th&
Liberty about June 21, 1937, as a tapesewer and worked for one month.
She joined the Union on July 17, 1937, was active in soliciting members-
for the Union, and made no attempt to conceal her membership. She
frequented Mrs. Stonesifer's house where she met Kremer. She testi-
fied that on July 21, 1937, the day before her discharge, she saw Wiener
walking up and down John Street in front of Mrs. Stonesifer's house.
She "bumped into" him at the foot of the steps of the house. Dubick
discharged her the next day and gave as a reason that her work was
unsatisfactory.
Prior to her employment bye the Liberty, Mrs. Eckenrode had
worked as a tapesewer on men's garments for a period of two years.
She testified that Wiener had, complimented her for her work, and>
Dubick had asked her to look over the work of other girls in the plant.
Her work had never been criticized.
On July 15, 1937, Dubick asked her to stay after working hours to.^
talk to Wiener about forming an "inside club" for the Company. He:
826 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
told her she should not join an^ outside union, and that if employees
in the factory did join, the plant would be moved out overnight.
Dubick also stated that if he found out any of the employees who
joined the "outside" union, he would fire them "without any reason."
Dubick told her that the purpose of the "inside" union would be to
keep the "outside" union out. He also told her "that if I would
form a union, to tell the girls the Company would give us a picnic
and we were to pay half of it and the Company would pay the other
half."
Mrs. Eckenrode further testified that Lena Ruby, an office em-
ployee of the Liberty at its Westminster plant, told her two days
before her discharge that she (Lena Ruby) had a list of all the
union members in the plant, that Perry Kidd, a presser in the plant,
had taken it from her and had torn it up, but that Dubick had a
copy of the list.
Since her discharge, Mrs. Eckenrode had not found other employ-
ment. She stated that she desired to be reinstated. At the time of
her discharge she earned $8 per week.
Dubick testified that the reason for the discharge of Mrs. Ecken-
rode was that she mismatched shades of cloth. It is significant that
this was-not specified as the reason for her discharge at the time it
occurred. Dubick denied having spoken to Mrs. Eckenrode about
the "inside union," or having threatened her. However, Mrs.
Eckenrode's testimony with respect to those conversations is most
convincing. In view of Dubick's conduct as a whole, we can give
little credence to his denials. Dubick did not deny that he had
ordered Mrs. Eckenrode to supervise the work of other employees.
Nor was it denied by the Liberty that Mrs. Eckenrode had been com-
plimented on her work.
Plaskovitz, designer for the American at the plant of the Liberty,
testified that he had seen Mrs. Eckenrode "pull tape bad." From the
whole record, however, including the considerations set forth here-
inafter, we are convinced that the faults advanced by Dubick and
Plaskovitz as the reasons for her discharge were not the real reasons,
and that,she was discharged for union activity.
Lillian Nullinix. Lillian Mullinix was employed by the Liberty
as a lining operator on June 22, 1937. She worked fo_r approxi-
mately one month. Although she had had no previous ekperience
in a factory, she was experienced as a sewing-machine operator at
home. Within two weeks after she was employed by the Liberty
she received a raise in, salary. She testified that her work had been
.criticized the first two or three days of her employment, but never
thereafter. She also testified that linings defectively made,by other
employees were brought to her to fix. The day before her discharge
she talked to other employees during the noon hour about joining
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 827
the Union, which she had joined on July 12, 1937, at Mrs. Stonesifer's
house. Dubick discharged her on July 20, 1937, telling her that her
work was unsatisfactory. Miss Mullinix stated that she had not
found other employment since her discharge, and that she desired
reinstatement to her former position.
Dubick admitted givinMiss Mullinix a raise in salary, but attrib-
uted her discharge to tile-fact that she was slow and also to the fact
that she put pleats in the linings and the pressers complained. The
latter reason appears hardly credible in view of Miss Mullinix's con-
vincing testimony that defective linings were brought to her to fix.
Dubick admitted that he thought well enough of Miss Mullinix to
keep her a month. In view of the whole record, including the con-
siderations set forth hereinafter, we find that Miss Mullinix was
discharged because of her membership in the Union.
Fern Blizzard. Fern Blizzard was employed by the Liberty on
June 21, 1937, as a sewing-machine operator and worked on belts,
sleeves, and pockets. She worked for one month. She had had two
months' previous experience in a men's garment factory. She joined
the Union on July 19, 1937. She, however, did not visit Mrs. Stone-
sifer's house until after her discharge. She was laid off by Dubick
a few days after she was hired because of a mistake she had made
in a bundle, but was taken back the same day after intervention
on her behalf with Dubick by her mother. Since that time her work
had not been criticized. On July 21, 1937, she was told her work
was unsatisfactory and was discharged by Dubick. At the time of
her discharge she earned $6 per week. At the time of the hearing
she had found no other employment.
Dubick testified that when she was first employed he "showed her
how" and that when he came back, everything was '•upside down" and
he had to "rip the whole business." He discharged her soon after.
Upon reemploying her, he further testified her work did not improve.
It is significant, however, that her employment continued for a three-
week period, despite her alleged failure to improve. In view of the
whole record, including the considerations set forth hereinafter, we
find that Fern Blizzard was discharged because of her membership
in the Union.
Doris Sentz. Doris Sentz was employed by the Liberty on July 16,
1937. Her work consisted of "sewing backs."" She worked for five
days, during which she earned $5.39. She joined the Union on July
19, 1937, and attended meetings at Mrs. Stonesifer's house. It does
not appear that she had previous experience in the work in which
she was engaged. She testified that on the fourth day of her em-
ployment Dubick gave her "four bundles and he said I should sew
the seam straight down, and he didn't tell me . . . I didn't hear him
say I was only supposed to sew one bundle and started to sew the
828 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
other again, and he told me that was wrong; and, of course, I didn't
know, because I was just a beginner." She was discharged the next
day upon being told she had made bad mistakes.
Dubick testified that he left Miss Sentz with a bundle and "it was
fixed up so bad it couldn't even be fixed, and she knows herself, she
wouldn't say she fixed up any bundle I give her." Upon the basis
of the foregoing facts, and for the reasons hereafter set forth, we do
not believe that Miss Sentz was discharged for union activity.
On July 21, 1937, and July 22, 1937, Dubick discharged the follow-
ing pressers :
Donald Eckenrode. Donald Eckenrode, husband of Marian Ecken-
rode, was employed at the Westminster plant as a presser about June
28, 1937, and worked approximately 22 days. He was the first presser
hired at the Westminster plant. Before his employment with the
.company he had worked elsewhere as a presser for a "couple of
years." At the Westminster plant he instructed other pressers. He
received $10 per week to start and later received a raise of one dollar,
and was promised more money. He joined the Union on July 17,
1937, and thereafter solicited employees to become members during
the lunch hour. Dubick discharged him on July 21, 1937, and told
him at that time that "we haven't got a whole lot of work." He asked
Dubick whether there was anything the matter with his work and
Dubick said "No." Eckenrode told him that it was unusual that the
first presser hired should be the first one to be laid off. He also testi-
fied that the "place was piled with work." Eckenrode has not been
able to find other employment since his discharge. Mrs. Eckenrode
testified that Dubick had told her that her husband was a "very good
presser."
Dubick did not deny that Eckenrode had received a raise, nor did
he deny that he had been promised still more money. • Dubick testi-
fied on direct examination that Eckenrode pressed sleeves unevenly
and that his work when completed was wet. On cross-examination
another reason for his discharge was that he did not produce enough
work. Cohen, an officer of the Liberty, had also observed Eckenrode's
work and according to him, Eckenrode did not even know "how to
light the iron." Cohen admitted that "there was plenty of work to
press." In view of the whole record, we are convinced that the causes
for his discharge set forth by Cohen and Dubick are not honest an-
swers to the charge of discrimination.
Charles Yeager. Charles Yeager was employed by the Liberty on
-July 1, 1937, as a presser and worked there for approximately 20
days. He had two years' previous experience as a presser. On the
-day of his discharge, Plaskovitz, the designer, told him and a few
.other pressers that their work was good. He joined the Union on
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 829
July 15, 1937, and thereafter visited at Mrs. Stonesifer's house. On
the day of his discharge, during the noon hour, he distributed appli-
cation cards for membership in the Union among some employees
in the plant. He testified that Cohen "was standing right behind
him." Dubick discharged him that night, July 21, 1937. Dabick
told him his work was all right but that he "got orders from the
boss." He also testified that on July 17, 1937, Dubick had asked him
not to join an "outside" union, since "they would have a nice one
of their own later on; and he said they moved from Texas on account
of the union, and they could move from Westminster." Yeager
earned $14 per week at the time of his discharge, and has earned
nothing since. He stated that he desired to be reinstated to his
former position.
Dubick admitted that Yeager's work was "all right." He testi-
fied, however, that Yeager talked while working, drank beer and
did not produce enough work. It does not appear that either Du-
bick or Cohen, who was directly in charge of the pressing, ever
told Yeager not to bring beer into the plant. Cohen would not ad-
mit that Yeager's work was "all right," but insisted it was merely
"passable," and testified that Yeager and Perry Kidd always talked
and did not "produce." In view of the circumstances of his dis-
charge as convincingly testified to by him, and in view of the whole
record, including the considerations hereinafter set forth, we are
of the opinion that Yeager was discharged because of his member-
ship in the Union.
Perry Kidd. Perry Kidd was employed as a presser at the An-
nette shop about June 30, 1937, and worked there about 22 days. He
had worked in a men's garmet factory for two years, several years
before his employment in Westminster. He testified that Plaskovitz
always told him that his work was satisfactory. He joined the
Union on July 15, 1937, and thereafter solicited members and visited
at Mrs. Stonesifer's house. Kidd also observed Dubick and Cohen
standing around outside the plant at the corner of John and Main
Streets and elsewhere in clear view of Mrs. Stonesifer's house. He
was discharged by Dubick on July 22, 1937; and told at that time
that his work was satisfactory but that "we can't have no union help
work here."
Kidd was a friend of Lena Ruby who worked in the office of the
plant. He testified that she showed him a list of all union members,
which another employee in the plant had turned in to the office.
Kidd's name headed the list. Lena Ruby told him that Dabick
and Cohen had asked her to find out all about the union members.
Kidd testified that he tore up the list. Kidd's testimony with respect
to the "union list" is substantially confirmed by the testimony of
Mrs. Eckenrode.
830 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Kidd also testified that after his discharge he met Cohen on the
street and Cohen offered to take him back if he "forgot the union."
At that time Cohen is reported to have said, "This shop will never
go union . . . There is plenty of other small towns we can move
to." Kidd and Yeager went back to the plant shortly after their
discharge and were met by Dubick who said he "wouldn't need them."
Kidd earned $15 at the time of his discharge and at the time of the
hearing had not found other employment. He stated that he desired
to be reinstated to his former position.
Dubick admitted that both Yeager's and Kidd's work was satis-
factory, but alleged that they talked too much, drank beer, and did
not produce enough work. Our conclusion with respect to his dis-
charge is similar to that in the case of Yeager.
Benson Warner. Benson Warner was hired as a presser about
July 12, 1937. He had had no previous experience as a presser and
worked only eight or nine days. He joined the Union on July 12 and
afterwards solicited members. He received no complaints about his
work, according to his testimony. He was discharged by Dubick on
July 22, 1937. He was paid at the rate of $6 per week for the first
few days of work but on the day of his discharge was paid $8 for
the previous week.
Dubick testified that Warner knew nothing about pressing when
he started, that he complained about the wage of $6 per week, and
that he therefore paid him $8 for his last week's work and discharged
him, since "they could not pay him any more than $6." Cohen
testified that Warner couldn't "even hold an iron." Upon these
facts, and in view of the considerations hereafter discussed, we do
not believe Warner was discharged for union activity.
C. Conclusions with respect to the unfair labor practices
From the facts set forth above, it is plain that the respondent, the
Liberty Cloak Company, was antagonistic toward the self-organiza-
tion of its employees at its Westminster plant. We are also per-
suaded from the testimony that this respondent, through its foreman
Dubick and its vice president Cohen, attempted to intimidate and
did intimidate its employees in regard to their membership in the
Union, by threatening them with discharge if they joined. It is
also clear that this respondent caused to be drawn up a list of its
employees at its Westminster plant who were members of the Union
for the purpose of intimidation and discharge of such members.
Furthermore, the Liberty attempted to persuade some of its em-
ployees to form a company-dominated union.
3It is significant that Lena Ruby, who participated in the formation of the above list
did not testify for the Liberty at the hearing.
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 831
It is contended that the presence of Dubick and Wiener in the
vicinity of Mrs. Stonesifer's house at times when employees, at the
plant met there for purposes of self-organization and other concerted
action was due merely to the proximity of the house to the plant and
to the small size of the town of Westminster. It may be true that the
presence of Dubick and Wiener at some of the times testified to was
merely accidental. We are convinced, however, from the record as a
whole, that Wiener and Dubick were certainly in a position at times
to observe who entered and who did not enter Mrs. Stonesifer's house,
and did deliberately so observe. It is clear that all the activities
enumerated above discouraged membership in the Union.
The Liberty contends that from the time it opened its plant at West-
minster, through the week ending August 4, 1937, there was a large
labor turn-over at the plant due to the incompetence and inexperience
of many employees hired at that time. The Liberty claims that be-
tween 38 and 45 of its employees were discharged at its Westminster
plant during that period, including those named in the complaint.
In support of this contention, it introduced in evidence the names of
employees other than those named in the complaint, who, it is con-
tended, were discharged at that time. An analysis of the list of
these employees reveals that the following numbers are claimed to
have been discharged during the weeks ending on the following
dates :
June 30-2
July 7-2
July 14-6
July 21-7
July 28-6
August 4-6
The list also reveals that out of these 29 employees, 18 were dis-
charged after working from a few hours up to five days. Five others
were discharged within ten days from the date they were hired. One
was discharged after working 11 days; one after 111/z i two after 12;
one after 17. Only two worked for 20 days or more before their
discharge.
Of those employees named in the complaint, however, Lillian
Mullinix, Nettie Stonesifer, Fern Blizzard, and Marian Eckenrode
worked one month before they were discharged. Donald Eckenrode,
Charles Yeager, and Perry Kidd worked 20 days or more before their
discharge. It is thus apparent that seven of the nine named in the
complaint were employed for a comparatively longer period than other
employees claimed to have been discharged during that period.
Further, Lillian Mullinix, Nettie Stonesifer, Marian Eckenrode,
Donald Eckenrode, Charles Yeager, and Perry Kidd, all frequented
832 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Mrs. Stonesifer's house before their discharge, and all were active
members in the Union. All were discharged within a three-day
period between July 20, 1937, and July 22, 1937, without being ap-
prised in any manner beforehand of the reasons attributed by the
Liberty for their discharge.
Again, at the time of their employment at the Westminster plant,
Nettie Stonesifer, Fern Blizzard, and Marian Eckenrode were experi-
enced sewing-machine operators, having sewed as such in a men's
garment factory. Lillian Mullinix was an experienced operator, al-
though she had never worked in a factory before. Donald Ecken-
rode, Charles Yeager, and Perry Kidd were experienced garment
pressers. Lillian Mullinix was given defective linings to fix and re-
ceived a raise during her employment. Nettie Stonesifer, Marian
Eckenrode, Donald Eckenrode, Charles Yeager, and Perry Kidd were
complimented on their work. Marian Eckenrode and Donald Ecken-
rode were told to instruct others in their line of work. The latter
received a raise in pay.
We find that Lillian Mullinix, Nettie Stonesifer, Fern Blizzard,
Marian Eckenrode, Donald Eckenrode, Charles Yeager, and Perry
Kidd were discharged by the Liberty because of their membership
in and activity for the Union. We find that by all of the acts'enumer-
ated above, the Liberty interfered with, restrained, and coerced its
employees at its Westminster plant in the exercise of their rights
guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act.
In view of the shortness of the tenure of their employment, their
inexperience, and other circumstances surrounding their discharge, we
do not find from the record that Doris Sentz and Benson Warner
were discharged because of membership in the Union.
We are also unable to find from the record that the American en-
gaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of the, Act.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Liberty set forth in Section III above, occur-
ring in connection with the operations of the American and the Lib-
erty described in Section I above, have a close, intimate, and substan-
tial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States,
and have led and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and ob-
structing commerce and the free flow of commerce.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire
record in the case, the Board makes the following :
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. International Ladies Garment Workers Union, Baltimore Joint
Board, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5)
of the Act.
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 833;
2. The respondent, the Liberty Cloak Company, by discriminating
against Lillian Mullinix, Nettie Stonesifer, Marian Eckenrode, Fern
Blizzard, Donald Eckenrode, Charles Yeager, and Perry Kidd, in
regard to hire and tenure of employment, thereby discouraging mem-
bership in the Union,"has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 8 (3) of the Act.
3. The respondent, the Liberty Cloak Company, by interfering with,
restraining, and coercing its employees at its plant in Westminster,
Maryland, in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the
Act, has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within
the meaning of Section 8 (1) of the Act.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices
affecting commerce, within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and- (7) of
the Act.
5. The respondent, the American Cloak Company, has not engaged
in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (1) and (3}
of the Act.
6. The respondent, the Liberty Cloak Company, by discharging
Doris Sentz and Benson Warner has not thereby discriminated in
regard to hire and tenure of employment to discourage membership
in a labor organization within the meaning of Section 8 (3) of the
Act.
ORDER
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and conclusions of
law and pursuant to Section 10 (c) of the National Labor Relations
Act, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the
respondent, Liberty Cloak Company, their officers, agents, successors,
and assigns shall:
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) In any manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its.
employees in the exercise of their rights to self-organization, to form,
join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through
representatives of their own choosing, or to engage in concerted ac-
tivities for the purpose of collective bargaining and other mutual aid
and protection, as guaranteed in Section 7 of the National Labor
Relations Act;
(b) In any manner discouraging membership in the International
Ladies Garment Workers Union, or in any other labor organization
of its employees, by discriminating in regard to hire or tenure of
employment or any term or condition of employment.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Offer Lillian Mullinix, Nettie Stonesifer, Fern Blizzard,
Marian Eckenrode, Donald Eckenrode, Charles Yeager, and Perry
834 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Kidd immediate and full reinstatement to their former positions
without prejudice to their seniority and other rights and privileges;
(b) Make whole Lillian Mullinix, Nettie Stonesifer, Fern Blizzard,
Marian Eckenrode, Donald Eckenrode, Charles Yeager, and Perry
Kidd, for any loss of pay they have suffered by reason of their dis-
charge, by payment to each of them, respectively, of a sum of money
equal to that which each would normally have earned as wages during
the period from the date of such discrimination to the date of the
offer of reinstatement, less the amount earned by each of them, respec-
tively, during such period;
(c) Post immediately in a conspicuous place at its Westminster,
Maryland, plant, notices stating that the Liberty Cloak Company
will cease and desist in the manner aforesaid, and maintain said
notices for a period of thirty (30) consecutive days from the date of
posting;
(d) Notify the Regional Director for the Fifth Region in writing
within ten (10) days from the date of this order what steps the
respondent has taken to comply herewith.
It is further ordered that the allegations of the complaint that the
Liberty Cloak Company has engaged in and is engaging in unfair
labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (1) and (3) of the
Act by discharging Doris Sentz, and Benson Warner be, and they
hereby are, dismissed; and that the allegations of the complaint, in
so far as they allege that the American Cloak Company is engaging
in and has engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of
Section 8 (1) and (3) of the Act be, and they hereby are, dismissed.