American Lace Mills, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 19, 1962

135 N.L.R.B. 1116 (N.L.R.B. 1962)

1116 DECISIONS-OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Group 2. All other employees , excluding the captain and the mate.
We shall place the names of the Engineers Association and the Fish-
ermen and Allied Workers on the ballot in the election among the
employees in Group 1 , and the names of the Fishermen and Allied
Workers and the Seafarer's Union on the ballot in Group 2.
If the majority of employees voting in Group 1 select the Engineers
Association , they will be taken to have indicated their desire to con-
stitute a separate unit, and the Regional Director conducting the elec-
tions directed herein is hereby instructed to issue a certification of rep-
resentatives to the Engineers Association for such unit , which the
Board , in such circumstances , finds appropriate for the purposes of col-
lective bargaining . However, if a majority of the employees in Group
1 do not vote for the Engineers Association , these employees will
appropriately be included with the employees in Group 2, and their
votes will be pooled with those in Group 2 s The Regional Director
is instructed to issue a certification of representatives to the Fishermen
and Allied Workers or to the Seafarer 's Union if either is selected by
the majority of the employees in Group 2 or in the pooled group, as the
case may be, which the Board , in such circumstances , finds to be a unit
appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining.
[Text of Direction of Elections omitted from publication.]
5If the votes are pooled , they are to be tallied in the following manner: The votes
for the labor organization seeking a separate unit in Group 1 shall be counted as valid
votes, but neither for nor against the labor organization which is seeking the more com-
prehensive unit. All other votes are to be accorded their face value, whether for repre-
sentation by the union seeking the more comprehensive group or for no union
American Lace Mills, Inc. and Local 222, International Ladies'
Garment Workers ' Union, AFL-CIO. Case No. 22-CA-848.
February 19, 1962
DECISION AND ORDER
On October 9, 1961, Trial Examiner George J. Bott issued his
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the
Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor
practices, and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and
take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the Intermediate Report
attached hereto. The Trial Examiner also found that the Respondent
had not engaged in other unfair labor practices alleged in the com-
plaint and recommended that such allegations be dismissed. There-
after, the General Counsel and the Union filed exceptions to the In-
termediate Report and supporting briefs.'
i Respondent filed a memorandum in support of the recommendations of the Trial
Examiner that certain allegations of the complaint be dismissed , and further requested
135 NLRB No. 109.
AMERICAN LACE MILLS, INC. 1117
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board
has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-
member panel [Chairman McCulloch and Members Rodgers and
Leedom].
The Board has considered the Intermediate Report, the exceptions
and briefs, and the entire record. The Board affirms the Trial Ex-
aminer's rulings and adopts his findings and conclusions.
ORDER
The Board adopts the Recommended Order of the Trial Examiner
with the modification of paragraph 2(e) to read : "Notify said
Regional Director, in writing, within 10 days from the date of this
Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith."'
The Board further orders that the complaint be dismissed to the ex-
tent recommended by the Trial Examiner.
either an opportunity to reply to any exceptions and brief which General Counsel might
file with respect to such allegations, or oral argument thereon As the record , excep-
tions , briefs, and memorandum adequately present the issues and positions of the parties,
these requests are denied.
2 In the notice attached to the Intermediate Report marked "Appendix ," the words
"Decision and Order" are hereby substituted for the words "The Recommendations of a
Trial Examiner." In the event that this Order is enforced by a decree of a United States
Court of Appeals , the words "Pursuant to a Decree of the United States Court of Appeals,
Enforcing an Order" shall be substituted for the words "Pursuant to a Decision and
Order."
INTERMEDIATE REPORT
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This proceeding , with all parties represented , was heard before Trial Examiner
George J . Bott in Newark , New Jersey , on May 22 and various dates thereafter up to
and including June 8 , 1961 , on the complaint of the General Counsel, as amended,
and the answer of American Lace Mills , Inc., the Respondent herein . The issues
litigated were whether Respondent engaged in unfair labor practices in violation of
Section 8 ( a)(1) and ( 3) of the National Labor Relations Act. The parties waived
oral .argument and only General Counsel submitted a brief which I have considered.,
Upon the entire record and from my observation of the witnesses I make the
following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. RESPONDENT'S BUSINESS
Respondent is a New Jersey corporation having its principal office and place of
business in Hackensack , New Jersey , where it is engaged in the manufacture and
distribution of lace products. During the year prior to the issuance of the com-
laint , Respondent manufactured and sold finished products valued in excess of
1,000 ,000 of which products valued in excess of $500,000 were shipped from said
plant to customers located outside the State of New Jersey . I find that Respondent is
engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Local 222, International Ladies ' Garment Workers" Union, AFL-CIO, herein
called the Union , is a labor organization within the meaning of the Act.
1Extensions of time within which to file briefs were - twice granted , once at the request
of the Charging Party and again at the request of Respondent. - • -
1118 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The setting and the issues
Although it was intimated at the hearing that the Union had made earlier attempts
to organize Respondent, and had again put on a union drive in late 1960, the exact
time of these efforts was not clearly fixed. It is clear, however, that some employees
signed applications for union membership in early November 1960. Subsequently,
on December 13, 1960, the Union filed a petition 2 for an election with the Board
and, after the usual proceedings, an election was held, pursuant to Board direction,
on March 7, 1961, among the approximately 60 production employees of Respondent.
The Union received a majority of the votes cast but at the time of the hearing had
not been certified by the Board because of Respondent's objections to the election
which were still pending.
The General Counsel contends that the Union's efforts to organize the employees
met with serious resistance from October 1960 up to the Board election and that
reprisals have continued since that time. The principal allegations of the complaint,
as amended at the hearing, are that Respondent interrogated its employees about their
union membership; warned employees about giving support to the Union and threat-
ened reprisals for such; promised economic benefits if the employees refrained from
supporting the Union; and engaged in other acts of interference and restraint and
coercion by, for example, making more stringent rules respecting employee conduct
and setting up a grievance committee.
The complaint also alleged acts of discrimination by Respondent in discharging
two employees because of their membership in the Union; reducing the pay of two
others and assigning them to less agreeable tasks and providing a third with less
,employment than he normally would have received; discontinuing a Christmas bonus
and closing the plant during 2 weeks in December 1960; reducing the workweek,
beginning in December 1960, from 6 to 5 days and subsequently reducing the work-
week of some employees to 4 days.
Respondent denied the general acts of interference and, with respect to discrimina-
tion in employment, claimed and offered evidence to show that the elimination of
the bonus and plant closings were caused by business conditions and that the dis-
charge or change in working conditions of specific employees were for cause.
B. The evidence as to alleged violations of Section 8(a) (1) of the Act;
findings and conclusions with respect thereto
1. General acts of interference, restraint, and coercion
James Atkinson, employed as a knitter by Respondent, joined the Union on Novem-
ber 11, 1960, and gave employee Nathaniel Perry a union card to sign. He testified
that a few days later while in the office of Albert Engleman, general manager of
Respondent, "I told Al that I heard rumors stating that I had asked Perry to sign a
union card. He said it was true, Perry did tell him that. And if I was giving out
cards, asking someone to sign, that I would lose my job." About 3 weeks later,
according to Atkinson, Engleman told him that if certain damage to material Atkin-
son had caused was shown to a union, if one were to organize Respondent, Atkinson
would be out of a job.
Atkinson also testified that, on March 8, 1961, the day after the Board election,
Charles Kassel, officer and part owner of Respondent, gave a talk to employees of
the second shift and told them that up to that time the plant had "been running like
a country club and from here on out it would be run like a place of work. There
would be no more calling out on .the phone, calling in bets." The witness explained
that bets meant "horse bets."
Vincent Ranieri, who was discharged by Respondent on May 9, 1961, allegedly for
union activities, joined the Union in November 1960 and was a member of an or-
ganizing committee. He testified that, in November 1960, he had four or five conver-
sations with his foreman, Mario Guarnaccia, about the Union. He states that the
foreman told him that he was making a mistake in signing a union card and that he
was competing against a millionaire. Guarnaccia, according to the witness, said that
Saul Rodgers (Respondent's president) would move the plant to Florida to avoid the
Union. Ranieri stated that the substance of his talks with Guarnaccia was essentially
the same each time and that, in addition, the foreman, during that period, showed
employees newspaper stories about strikes or labor troubles in which the International
Ladies' Garment Workers' Union had been or were involved and suggested to the
2 Case No . 22-RC-1072.
AMERICAN LACE MILLS, INC. 1119
employees that the same thing could happen at Respondent and cause Respondent
to move.
Ranieri also related two conversations with Charles Kassel held the day before
the Board election. In the first conversation Kassel told Ranieri that he was making
a mistake by voting for the Union and that the employees had everything to lose and
nothing to gain . Kassel added that the Respondent was working 6 days a week at
the time but could cut down to 5 if it wished. That afternoon Kassel repeated the
substance of his earlier remarks to Ranieri and added that if the Union did win the
election "then the fight is just begun."
Ranieri also testified about Kassel's talk to the employees the day after the election.
Kassel said, according to Ranieri, that "in the past this place had been run like a
country club" but "it seems to me as though you boys aren't satisfied with that" and
"therefore, it will have to cease." Kassell then announced that there was a list of
"rules and regulations" on the bulletin board and that employees must comply with
them.
Employee Elmo Sollivan testified that at a meeting of certain employees called by
Respondent sometime in November 1960 employee Barkley asked Charles Kassel,
an official of Respondent, if the employees would receive a Christmas bonus that
year and that Kassel responded that they would "unless something provokes us" or
"we get stabbed in the back or something."
Sollivan also related a conversation with Engleman, plant manager, in November
1960, in which Engleman asked Sollivan if he knew anything about the Union and
stated that the employees were foolish for, if the Union were successful, the employ-
ees would have to run more machines and layoffs would occur.
Sollivan testified about conversations with Foreman Guarnaccia in November in
which the foreman told him that the Respondent would not work with a union but
would close its doors and move south. In these conversations Guarnaccia told the
employee that if business kept up a 10-cent raise would be forthcoming.
Employee Richard Barkley testified and corroborated Sollivan about Kassel's
remark at the employee meeting in November that there would be a Christmas bonus
if nothing "provoked" him. Barkley also stated that Engleman, who also was present
at the meeting, promised the employees a wage increase after the first of the year if
production was maintained.
On December 13, 1960, Respondent posted a notice announcing a shutdown until
January 3, 1961. According to Barkley, Foreman Guarnaccia, after viewing the
notice, angrily attributed the shutdown and the loss of a Christmas bonus to the
employees' union activities.
Barkley also testified that Engleman interrogated him about the Union and that
Foreman Guarnaccia told him the Respondent was moving south. Barkley de-
scribed Kassel's talk to employees after the Board election and corroborated em-
ployee Ranieri's testimony about the "country club" remark. He added that Kassel
said, after announcing the posting of certain rules and regulations to guide em-
ployees, "You guys asked for this and now you have got it."
Employee Thomas Isom related a conversation with Kassel in November 1960 in
which Kassel, after asking him about the Union, told him that if the Union "came
in," "half the men would be laid off" since the Union would demand higher skills.
According to Isom, Kassel told him to keep his brothers "in line" because "proba-
bly they would be laid off." Isom also testified that -one Marvin Weinberg, ad-
mittedly a supervisor, called him into his office in November and asked him how
many employees had attended a union meeting on the previous day.
When employee Axel Limonta, on December 14, 1960, asked his foreman, Mario
Guarnaccia, about a general increase in wages, Guarnaccia, according to Limonta,
implied by his answer that the Company would not give an increase but would shut
the plant down for 2 weeks and withhold the usual employee bonus because the
employees had filed a petition with the Board for an election.
Roosevelt Isom, brother of Thomas Isom and an employee of Respondent, testi-
fied that he asked Supervisor Weinberg about a promotion in December 1960 and
Weinberg replied, "Speak to your friend, your union friend."
An example of interrogation was related by Bobby Isom, brother of Roosevelt
and Thomas. He testified that Engleman asked him in November 1960 if the
Union had been bothering him. Also, according to the witness, Engleman threat-
ened that the employees would lose out if the "Union got in the shop." Isom added
that Engleman , in the same conversation, stated that "because of the union activity
there would probably be no Christmas bonus and they would probably close the
plant down and move."
Bertha Lane, an employee in the warping department, recounted an incident where
Marvin Weinberg, after announcing an increase in Lane's workload , stated, "Well,
1120 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
you wanted the Union so you are getting the Union." ' This statement , she said,
was made to her 2 days after the Labor Board election.
Dora Penna testified that Engleman told her on May 5, 1961, that it would be good
if employees quit so that the Company "could get some new faces in and vote the
Union out." When, on another occasion, she asked Engleman why layoffs were
occurring he stated, according to the witness, "Before we had a heart for the people,
but now we don't have any heart for the people."
Supervisor Terranova, in earthy language, told employee Salvatore Annese, so
Annese testified , to put the pressure on Axel Limonta, who Annese said was the only
employee on the third shift interested in the Union. Annese also stated that
Engleman told him in May 1961 that the men would be working 6 days instead of 5
if it were not for the Union.
Richard Guida corroborated Annese in respect to "pressure " on Limonta. He
testified that Foreman Terranova told him that if he had any kind of work to do to
call Limonta for help.
Except in the cases of Marvin Weinberg and Terranova, who did not testify,
Respondent denied or attempted to explain and qualify all remarks attributed to it
in the testimony set forth above thereby creating serious problems of credibility.
Respondent's principal witnesses in this phase of the case were Foreman Guarnaccia,
Plant Manager Engleman, and Charles Kassel, officer of Respondent, and I am not
satisfied that they told the truth in most cases. As will appear in greater detail
below, with one exception, I discredit Guarnaccia where he differs with General
Counsel 's witnesses . Regarding Kassel and Engleman I discredit them in most
instances but not in all. On the other hand, not all of General Counsel's witnesses
were models of virtue, or completely disinterested and unbiased. Those factors have
been taken into consideration in attempting to unravel the evidence and find the
facts?
Vincent Ranieri impressed me as an honest, intelligent, forthright, and careful
witness. His story of his conversation with Guarnaccia appeared to be related with-
out exaggeration and as casually as people normally talk. He was subject to
vigorous cross-examination and, in my opinion , came out well. Guarnaccia ad-
mitted certain conversations with Ranieri in November 1960 but these, according
to him, amounted only to telling Ranieri that ". . . I personally didn't care for the
Union.. . Guarnaccia admitted that he showed Ranieri a newspaper clipping
indicating that some company , which he could not remember , lost "man hours
because of the union in the shop." All other conversations with Ranieri related
to Ranieri 's work-so Guarnaccia testified on direct . I do not believe Guarnaccia's
account of his talks with Ranieri . In the first place Guarnaccia impressed me as
deliberately trying to convey an impression that the union organizational campaign
interested him casually and only in his personal capacity . His testimony was in my
view deliberately falsely pitched on a note of mere personal antipathy toward the
Union. Secondly, Guarnaccia clearly tried to conceal his knowledge of Ranieri's
union activity. At one point he testified he knew Ranieri was active "When we came
back from our Christmas layoff" but that his activity was a secret prior to that.
Earlier, however, he testified that he had reprimanded Ranieri in November 1960
for talking about the Union instead of watching his machine . Guarnaccia's testi-
mony about the news clipping was incredible. In direct examination he admitted
he showed Ranieri a clipping but denied that he coupled the demonstration with a
remark that the Respondent would move out of Hackensack, and he could not re-
member the name of the employer named in the story. Under cross-examination
by General Counsel, Guarnaccia could not remember whether the clipping was
from a trade journal, a magazine , or a newspaper, nor could he recall the name of
the union or company involved. He testified that he could not remember the date
of the incident and said that he "happened to show it to one man " and "maybe it
was Vinnie (Ranieri)." He denied that he ever showed Ranieri anything else in
"black and white." This testimony, read in the light of his testimony about a
company by the name of Liberty Mills which moved after it was organized, demon-
strates that Guarnaccia was concealing his active role in attempting to convince
employees that union organization of the Respondent would mean that Respondent
would move its plant from Hackensack. Guarnaccia first stated under cross-
examination that he had told employees that Liberty Mills "had moved South after
s With few exceptions, the employee witnesses for the General Counsel had borrowed
$50 from the Union, in December 1960, and had not returned it at the time of the hear-
ing,. I have taken the payments into consideration is evaluating the witnesses ' interest
in the proceeding, and find that ; regardless of whether they were_ loans or;gifts, it adds
very little or nothing to the case.
AMERICAN LACE MILLS, INC. 1121
they became organized." He stated that such information was common knowledge.
in the plant and that he received his knowledge of it "from the boys in the place."
He reiterated that he had no prior knowledge of that situation but that "I first heard
about it trom the boys in the plant." Later, when confronted with an affidavit he
had given the General Counsel's office, Guarnaccia admitted that he had read that
Liberty Mills had opened a new mill in Virginia and that he told some of the em-
ployees about it. According to him the fact that he had read about it and told
the men had "slipped his mind." Guarnaccia then tried to leave the impression in
the record that by telling "some of the men" about Liberty he meant supervisors,
but when pressed by General Counsel admitted that he could also have told rank-
and-file employees, including Ranieri, about it. The witness admitted that he told
the employees that "1 hoped that the same thing didn't happen to us."
I conclude that Ranieri's account of his conversations with Guarnaccia is the truth-
ful one and that Guarnaccia is not to be credited.
Although Elmo Sollivan made certain false statements in a sworn affidavit given
to an attorney for the Charging Party, and although Sollivan's memory did not
appear to be clear about certain events, I credit his testimony that Guarnaccia told
him, on a number of occasions, that Respondent would not work with a union but
would move south. I also believe that Guarnaccia told him in the same conver-
sations that a 10-cent raise was planned. Although Guarnaccia, in effect, denied
the threats to move, he did not specifically deny the conversation with Sollivan and
his memory was generally poor about conversations with the employee. About the
talk about moving south, Guarnaccia again minimized his role by testifying that
it was a standard joke in the shop." I do not believe his testimony on that
score and find that he was a conscious articulate purveyor of coercive propaganda
that management might move south if it were unionized.
Guarnaccia also denied Barkley's testimony that he told him the Company was
moving south. Again, although Barkley made two false statements in an affidavit
given to the Charging Party and transmitted to the General Counsel for use in
investigation of the charges, and one of the false statements was identical with the
one made by Sollivan, I credit Barkley against Guarnaccia in this particular instance.
Barkley, as did Sollivan, corrected the original affidavit given to the Union, in
essential respects, when he gave an affidavit to a representative of the General
Counsel. In addition, overall, he impressed me as trying to give an honest account
of the events which happened in this case. Guarnaccia did not. I also discredit
Guarnaccia's explanation of his remark to Barkley made when the notice of the
Christmas shutdown was posted, that he was angry because the men caused the
shutdown, as well as the nonpayment of the bonus, by causing the Company to lose
orders through defective work. Guarnaccia's explanation was glib and inherently
improbable. As a responsible management representative he must have known
before the notice was posted that a shutdown was contemplated, and his asserted
sudden anger appeared to me a cloak to conceal his deliberate attempt to connect
the loss of time and the bonus with employee union activity in order to discourage
further union activity.
Guarnaccia denied that he told Limonta that employees would not get a promised
wage increase or a bonus and would, in addition, lose 2 weeks' work because the
Union had filed a petition for an election with the Board. In this instance I am
unable to find that Guarnaccia made such a statement because, in my view, as will
appear below in the discussion of discrimination against employee Sanchez, Limonta
was unworthy of belief.
Albert Engleman, Respondent's general manager, also denied most of the coercive
statements attributed to him by the employees. In evaluating Engleman's credibility
I have taken into consideration the fact that he was Respondent's principal operating
official who spends all of his working time in the mill and who is familiar with all
operations and all employees. Engleman is conscientiously concerned with the
efficient and economical operation of the factory, and appeared to be an efficient and
competent manager. It was also apparent that he held strong views about his own
importance in the scheme of things 4 and the need for his personal attention to
detail.5 I think a man of his unusual drive and attention to detail would have been
more interested in the formation of the Union than he would like to have us believe
Engleman's remark to Penna, while not an unfair labor practice, reveals-his attitude
about outside interference. He told her, ". .'. I don't care if I end up'in jail, but I'm
going to run this place my way " ' I '
5 Engleman keeps detailed records in his own handwriting of the work records of each
employee including such abstract traits as "attitude " '
634449-62-vol. 135-72
1122 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
from his testimony. I also think it was apparent from some of the evidence and
from Engleman's demeanor that he resented the coming of the Union and made
efforts to let employees know that things would not be as good for them with a
union as under Engleman's personal care. How much of this resentment was carried
over into unfair labor practices is a serious question. I do not discredit Engleman
entirely, but I am convinced he was inclined to shade his testimony to justify his
position in most instances where he discussed the Union with employees.
Engleman denied that he asked Elmo Sollivan about his union activities in
November 1960 but admitted that he might have told the employees and "a number
of other people" that, with a union, employees would have to operate more ma-
chines. He also admitted that he opened the talk with Sollivan by asking, "What's
doing?" I credit Sollivan and find that his account is more plausible and that the
interview and statements occurred as described by him.
Engleman also admitted that he had a conversation with Dora Penna in April
1961 in which he said that the Company ". . . before the . election . . . had
a heart" for the employees but that it no longer had. He explained, however, that
this was in a context of a discussion of the "harrassement" that was going on in the
plant such as damage to equipment. I do not credit his explanation. No specific
evidence of harassment or sabotage was offered by Respondent.6
I also credit Bobby Isom's account of his conversation with Engleman, in Novem-
ber 1960, primarily on the basis of my observation of the witnesses. On the other
hand, I credit Engleman's version of his meeting with employee Barkley in Engle-
man's office. Barkley was called into Engleman's office because he had been away
from the job and questioned about it. He told Engleman that he was trying to get
a union in the plant and was told to do it on his own time. I think Engleman's
recollection of the details of this encounter was better than Barkley's in this in-
stance. However, I credit employee Atkinson and find that Engleman threatened
him with discharge because he had been distributing union cards.
Charles Kassel is Saul Rodgers' brother-in-law and a part owner and officer of
Respondent, a family corporation. He denied, or gave a different version of, the
events in the testimony set forth above purporting to show acts of interference,
restraint, and coecion on his part. Kassel was an intelligent and articulate witness
but, in my opinion, was inclined to rationalize certain of his actions after the event.
Kassel, for example, admitted that he called meetings of the first and second shift
on March 8, 1961, the day after the Board election, and addressed the employees. He
conceded that he told the employees that the business "had been running like a
country club," that in the future it would be run on a more businesslike basis, and
that rules would be posted on the bulletin board to regulate employee conduct He
conceded that he informed the men he was going to run the Company more like a
business "because this is what they apparently wanted." Kassel, however, explained
his remarks as follows: He testified that Engleman, who normally ran the shop,
was away for,about a week before the election, and that, contrary to his usual prac-
tice, he was in the plant and had an opportunity to observe the men. He stated
that there were all "kinds of damages" and employees did not watch their machines.
He concluded that his references were not to union activities but to the men's
attitude toward their work. I do not credit Kassel on this point. In November 1960
Kassel also addressed the employees and reprimanded them for bad work. Guar-
naccia testified that, as early as November, employees were neglecting their work
because of the Union and turning out defective merchandise. Despite this knowl-
edge and concern on management's part as early as November 1960, even though
the situation, according to Kassel, got progressively worse, no action was taken, no
employee rules were posted, until the day after the Union won the election. I
find that the remarks made by Kassel on March 8, 1961, relating to the employees'
choice in the election, were an indication of management's resentment toward them
for their action in choosing the Union and were a reprisal.
Kassel admitted that he might have told more than one employee "On a number
of occasions" that they might have to run more machines if the plant were organized
but denied that he told Thomas Isom that half the employees would be laid off if the
Union won. Kassel denied telling Isom to "keep his brothers in line" but admitted
to conversations about Isom's family. Clearly there was a conversation with Isom
about the effects of unionism and I find that Isom's version is the more accurate one.
e Penna was overcome with embarrassment on the witness stand and was temporarily
unable to recall the conversations with Engleman I have taken this into consideration
in evaluating her credibility but, on the basis of her general demeanor , I consider her to
have been a credible witness.
AMERICAN LACE MILLS, INC. 1123
Kassel agreed that he had a conversation with Vincent Ranieri about the Union
the day before the election but, here again, stated that the conversation was not
specifically as Ranieri related it. Kassel admitted that he told Ranieri that if he
voted for the Union he would be making a mistake and that he believed "unions
were parasites." He denied that he told the employees that if the Union won the
Company could reduce hours. He did not deny that he said, as Ranieri testified,
that if the Union won the "fight is just begun." Previously I have credited Ranieri
generally and I find here that his recollection of the conversation is closed to the
truth.
I accept Kassel's version of his remarks made at the so-called "grievance meeting"
of employees held sometime in November 1960. He testified that, in answer to
questions, he stated that there would be a bonus if business conditions warranted it.
His remark about being "stabbed in the back," I find, referred to rejected mer-
chandise and not to the Union as Barkley and Sollivan maintained.?
Terranova, supervisor on the third shift, did not testify. I credit employee An-
nese's testimony that Terranova told him to make things difficult for Axel Limonta,
an active umonman.
I also find that Weinberg, who did not testify, interrogated Thomas Isom about
the Union; that he implied to Roosevelt Isom that he would not consider him for
promotion because of his union activities by his remark "Speak to your friend,
your union friend"; and that he implied to Bertha Lane that the increase in em-
ployees' workload was because they had chosen the Union.
2. The "grievance committee" meeting
The complaint alleged that the Respondent committed an unfair labor practice by
meeting in November 1960, with a "company grievance committee consisting of em-
ployees and supervisors . . . to discuss wages, hours and conditions of employment."
Considerable testimony was taken about a meeting called by all witnesses a
"grievance committee meeting." I have found previously that Respondent did not
make a threat or promise at this meeting and I find here, in short, that the record
in the case is too vague and confused to support a finding that the actual holding
of the meeting was an interference with employees' rights under the Act. It may be
that the meetings were designed to be an outlet for employee grievances at a time
when the Union was organizing, but this is mere speculation. None of the wit-
nesses was certain about the exact date of the meeting in question and its origin is
uncertain. Kassel said Engleman originated it but Guarnaccia said it was his idea.
It also appears that other similar meetings were held, but whether these were super-
visor meetings or not is uncertain. To compound the confusion, it appears that
the meeting in question was attended primarily by actual supervisors and two em-
ployees who attended had titles of assistant foreman. The content of the meeting
is also uncertain. The employees emphasized alleged remarks about a raise or a
'bonus if the Respondent were not "stabbed in the back" and Respondent's wit-
nesses stressed their discussions of business conditions, defects in production, and
the like. It is clear from employee admissions under cross-examination that such
subjects were actually discussed. No one stated that the Union or a union campaign
was mentioned by anyone. I find insufficient evidence to support an allegation of
interference with respect to this meeting.
With respect to the general acts of interference, restraint, and coercion, therefore,
on the basis of the above discussion and findings, I find further, and conclude, in
accordance with the allegations of the complaint, that Respondent by (a) interrogat-
ing employees about their union activities and the activities ,of other employees;
(b) threatening employees with loss of employment or other reprisals if they con-
tinued in their union activities; (c) promising employees benefits if they would dis-
continue their union activities; and (d) making and threatening to make more
stringent rules and regulations governing employee conduct because employees en-
gaged in union activities, has interfered with, restrained, and coerced employees in
the exercise of rights guaranteed them under the provisions of Section 7 of the Act
.and has thus engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the mean-
ing of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
I also conclude on the basis of the above discussion and findings that Respondent
did not violate Section 8(a)(1) of the Act in its conduct of the "grievance com-
mittee" as alleged in the complaint.
'Barkley admitted under cross-examination that Kassel said a bonus would be paid
"if business conditions warranted it."
1124 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
C. The evidence as to alleged violations of Section 8(a) (3) of the Act;
findings and conclusions with respect thereto
1. The discharge of Jesus Sanchez
Sanchez , formerly employed as a knitter by Respondent , testified as follows: He
received some application cards from the Union on October 31, 1960, and gave
them to employees . He was on the union organizing committee and also attended,
two meetings at the Board relating to the union petition for an election . Company
officials were present at these meetings . On Saturday , February 25, 1961, he did
not report for work because he was ill and stayed out until March 9 because of his
health. He went to the plant to vote in the Board election on March 7 because he
had received a letter sent to all employees by Respondent's president urging them
to vote in the election . Sanchez voted and left the plant because he was having
"trouble with his stomach ." He was not yet ready to work but returned to the
plant on March 9 because a "friend " told him he had been discharged. That day
he saw Plant Manager Engleman and tried to explain to him that he was sick and'
that he had an appointment at the Union Health Center for an examination.
Engleman brushed away his explanation with the statement , "You don't come to,
work, and you come to vote. A guy who is able to come to vote is able to come to
work ." Engleman told Sanchez that he did not want to see him around the plant
again . Sanchez thanked him, walked out, and has not returned.
Under cross-examination Sanchez added some facts about his illness. He testified
that on the day he was fired he had confirmation of an appointment at the Union,
Health Center and was subsequently examined there . He explained further that on,
the day of the election he was not feeling well but a friend came to pick him up
and, although he was fearful of being fired if he showed up at the plant , he went
anyway relying, as a defense , on the Company 's letter urging employees to vote.
Sanchez stated that he had his wife call the plant on February 25 and tell the
foreman he was sick. According to him, his wife told him she made the call but
she did not know to whom she spoke . His foreman at the time was Reuben Liss
but Sanchez merely told his wife to "call the foreman ." On Monday , February 27,
Sanchez, according to him, sent a message to his foreman through one Axel Limonta
again informing the foreman of his illness. Sanchez made no other reports to the
plant before March 9 , he said, because , since he had reported off ill, he felt it would
be unnecessary . He volunteered , however, that during his illness Saul Rodgers,
Respondent's president , asked employee Limonta if Sanchez was sick and when he
was coming back to work . Sanchez had a few visitors at his home during his illness
including two union representatives . Asked if he left the house at all during that
time, he admitted that he did, stating , "You see, the trouble with my stomach is
I got pains , they come and go. Sometimes I did not have the pain , I take my car
and go for a ride around , you know."
Axel Limonta , an employee on the third shift, who lived at the time of Sanchez'
discharge in the same house as Sanchez , corroborated Sanchez' testimony about
company knowledge of his illness . He testified that, on February 27, at Sanchez'
request , who at the time was in bed , he called Foreman Liss, told him Sanchez was
sick, and Liss said, "Okay ." He also related a conversation with Saul Rodgers about
Sanchez. Rodgers, who owns the property in which Sanchez and Limonta lived at
the time, inquired about Sanchez' health . Limonta told him that Sanchez was ill,
had an appointment for X-rays and was suffering pain. In response to a question
from Rodgers , Limonta stated he did not know when Sanchez could return to work.
Limonta, with more attention to detail than Sanchez, corroborated Sanchez about
his visit to Engleman . 'He testified that Sanchez tried to pull the medical appoint-
ment paper out of his pocket to establish his illness but Engleman would have none
of it.
Reuben Liss , Sanchez' foreman , testified that Limonta called him on February 2T
and told him that Sanchez had gone to Philadelphia and had left a message with
Limonta to call Liss if he did not return by 3 p.m. and tell him Sanchez would not
be in to work. Nothing was said about Sanchez being ill and he made an entry in
the foreman 's log about Limonta's call. He did not hear from Sanchez on February
25, or at any other time prior - to Sanchez ' discharge , with the exception of Limonta's
call about the trip to Philadelphia.
Saul Rodgers denied that he had any conversation with Limonta about Sanchez'
illness or absence from work.
Engleman, denied that he told Sanchez that if he were well enough ' to vote in the
election be was well enough to work, but testified that , since he Chad not heard front
Sanchez, he considered him to have quit and to no longer have a job at Respondent.
AMERICAN LACE MILLS, INC. 1125
If Sanchez and Limonta are to be believed , General Counsel made out a prima
facie case that Respondent, in violation of the Act, abruptly discharged an active
unionman, who was known to have reported off sick , because he had voted in the
Board elections . Even here , however, a nice question of Respondent's motive would
appear-was Sanchez fired because he voted or was he fired because Respondent
honestly believed he had faked an illness for 10 days ? This question , however,
need not be reached for Sanchez' and Limonta 's credibility was, in my opinion,
utterly destroyed by the testimony of Augusta Cohen , a bookkeeper for another
employer in Hackensack , New Jersey.
The whole tenor of Sanchez' and Limonta 's testimony was that Sanchez was too
sick to work . Sanchez, for example , stated that he had some visitors during his ill-
ness but adroitly admitted to leaving his home during that period to go "for a ride
around , you know," when the pain left him. Limonta talked about Sanchez being
in bed and having pains in the chest and stomach . The record shows, however,
that during the period of Sanchez ' asserted painful illness he worked the midnight
to 8:30 a.m . shift at another company; that , on the day he claimed his wife re-
ported him ill to Respondent , he worked the midnight shift at that company, and on
March 7, the day of the Board election , when he voted , according to him , despite
his illness only on Respondent 's invitation by mail to do so, he worked 8 hours for
the other employer . Augusta Cohen , bookkeeper for Placon , Incorporated , so testi-
fied from timecards in her possession . Sanchez worked for Placon on the third
shift from sometime in April 1960 to April 1961.
When called in rebuttal Sanchez admitted that he had worked for Placon for
about a year and was asked why during the crucial period here involved, he worked
at Placon and not at American Lace. He answered , in substance , that he was in
pain and the pain was aggravated by "the boss on my back , you know, asking me
questions , telling me about the ILG, the union was no good , you know, I was going
like crazy , you know too many questions . . . At the other employer , however,
the foreman was more understanding , so he said . The fatal defect in this testimony.
however, is that not once in Sanchez ' earlier testimony did he refer to any question-
ing or remarks about the Union addressed to him by supervision . Sanchez also
explained that when counsel for the General Counsel asked him earlier about "going
to work one place or the other" he understood him to be talking only about Amer-
ican Lace . In my view, Sanchez' testimony in rebuttal is as unworthy of belief
as his earlier testimony about his illness , the calls to the plant, and the other sur-
rounding circumstances . I am unable to credit him in any material respect. The
only fair interpretation of the record is that Sanchez abandoned his job. I also find
that Axel Limonta , Sanchez' friend and neighbor , who sat through Sanchez ' entire
testimony , knew Sanchez was distorting and concealing material facts.°
I find that General Counsel has not established by a preponderance of the evi-
dence that Sanchez was discharged in violation of the Act.
2. Discrimination against Thomas Isom
The three Isom brothers were members of the Union and Thomas was on the
shop committee . He was interrogated by Weinberg about the Union and I have
previously found that Kassel told him to keep his brothers "in line" and had made
a coercive remark to him. When, in December 1960 , Roosevelt Isom asked Wein-
berg for a promotion Weinberg replied , "Speak to . . . your union friend." Re-
spondent knew the Isoms were interested in the Union and clearly disapproved
of and resented it.
Thomas Isom was a spot beam operator and, from March 9 to sometime in
April 1961 , was reduced to a floorman with a reduction in rate. Engleman testified
credibly that during that period operational changes were being made and there
was no work for Isom on days in his regular job . There were men with less seniority
doing identical work on the later shift, however , but Engleman stated that Isom
had in the past refused nightwork and so did not offer him nightwork . Isom ad-
mitted that about a year before he had refused to work nights. I find that Engleman's
failure to offer Isom nightwork as a spot beam operator was because of the Isom
brothers ' activity in the Union and that Respondent thereby discriminated against
Thomas Isom in violation of Section 8 (a) (3) and ( 1) of the Act.
8It is evident from the record that Augusta Cohen's evidence came as a complete sur-
prise to General Counsel and counsel for the Charging Party.
1126 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
3. Discrimination against Richard Barkley
Barkley was demoted from a second assistant foreman ,9 a nonsupervisory job,
to a knitter on March 1 , 1961 . On March 8 his demotion was made permanent and
his rate reduced 10 cents an hour. Barkley was a member of the shop committee and
the Company was aware of his union activities . He was questioned by Engleman
about his activities in January 1961 but I have earlier found this questioning not
to be improper in that it related to Barkley being away from his job.10 It appears
that no one was hired in Barkley's place. Although the case is not free from doubt,
and the Respondent's explanation of the demotion is not clear, I do not think that
General Counsel has established by a preponderance of the evidence that Barkley
was demoted because of his activities in the Union.
4. Discrimination against Elmo Sollivan
The complaint alleged that on or about March 9, 10, 16 and 17, 1961, Respondent
discriminated against Elmo Sollivan by providing him with less employment than
he normally would have received.
Sollivan joined the Union and was a member of the shop committee. As set
forth above, Engleman questioned him about the Union and Guarnaccia also dis-
cussed the Union with him. He testified that on March 9, 1961, about 10 a.m., he
asked his foreman, Guarnaccia, for permission to leave at noon on personal busi-
ness. The foreman spoke to Engleman and reported back to Sollivan that Engle-
man said he should take the rest of the day off. Later Engleman told the employee
that "there is no rush on the chains (Sollivan's work), take the rest of the week
off." Despite this instruction Sollivan appeared for work that Friday, March 10.
Engleman saw him and told him there was no rush on Sollivan's job and that he
did not want him to do knitting which Sollivan had done in the past when work
was slow on his job. During the following week Sollivan worked only 3 days at his
regular job and was not offered work as a knitter. Sollivan's assistant, Lopez, did
not work during the period of Sollivan's alleged discrimination.
Engleman testified that there was no work for Sollivan at the time but he expected
additional work the following week for Sollivan and did not want him absent then
on personal business . No one did Sollivan's work in his absence and the expected
orders for the following week did not materialize." Again, as in Barkley's case, I
do not feel that the evidence establishes Sollivan' s loss of work resulted from dis-
crimination as alleged.
5. The discharge of Vincent Ranieri
Ranieri worked for Respondent from August 1956 to May 9, 1961 , when he
was discharged by Engleman . He was employed as a knitter and worked directly
under Foreman Guarnaccia . He joined the Union in November 1960 and was a
member of a committee to organize the other employees . Ranieri's union activities
were well known to Respondent. As described above in greater detail in section III,
B, 1, Guarnaccia disapproved of Ranieri 's union affiliation on numerous occasions
and Kassel told him, on March 6, 1961, that he was making a mistake by voting
for the Union.
Ranieri testified that, on March 8 , he reported for work a few minutes late and
saw Engleman and Kassel standing a short distance from the timeclock. When
Ranieri attempted to punch his card Kassel told him not to clock in until 8:30 a.m.,
thereby causing the employee to lose a half-hour's pay. At 9 a.m. Engleman gave
Ranieri a warning in writing about lateness. About a half-hour later Guarnaccia
told Ranieri that he had orders from Engleman that if Ranieri were "as much as one
minute late" he was not to be permitted to work. Ranieri testified without contra-
diction that the past practice was that if employees punched in before 8:06 a.m. they
received a full day's pay but if they arrived after that time they had to punch in at
8:30, forfeiting a half-hour 's pay for their tardiness.
On March 14 , according to Rainieri, he was responsible for some defective pro-
duction and, according to instructions , called the foreman to make the necessary
adjustment to his machine. While Guarnaccia was adjusting the machine he told
Ranieri ". .. this is just what Al (Engleman ) has been waiting for. Al has you
9 A second assistant assists other employees when needed
10 Barkley admitted that he had been warned by supervisors about spending too much
time walking about the shop.
n Employee witnesses admitted that inventory was accumulating in February and March
of 1961.
AMERICAN LACE MILLS , INC. 1127
right where he wants you now . If he wants to let you go , he can let you go with this
kind of damage ." Ranieri asked Guarnaccia what he meant and Guarnaccia replied,
"Well, you are a strong member on the committee and all that . If Al wants.to let
you go, he can let you go without any trouble , with damages like this."
On May 9, 1961 , serious damage was again found on Ranieri 's machine caused
by a "spot beam " running into the knitting machine. Ranieri claimed that this was
not caused by his carelessness but by an oversight in another department . Engle-
man and Guarnaccia testified that it was extreme carelessness on Ranieri 's part.
When Engleman arrived on the scene Ranieri attempted to explain that the re-
sponsibility was not his but Engleman insisted that it was . At 3:30 p.m. Engleman
suspended Ranieri "until further notice" and he has not been recalled to work.
Engleman testified that he had warned Ranieri in the past about the quality of his
work and tardiness . The specific reason for Ranieri's discharge , according to Engle-
man, was his carelessness in permitting the beam to run out, but he added that in
making his decision to fire Ranieri, he took into consideration Ranieri's entire work
record including his tardiness . Engleman admitted that despite Ranieri's defective
performance he did not decide to permanently sever Ranieri from employment on
May 9 , 1961 , but did so decide the next day . On that day, according to Engleman,
Ranieri returned to the plant and told Engleman that he had another job, cleaned out
his locker , and returned the locker key to Engleman . He denied that union activi-
ties entered into his decision to discharge the employee, Ranieri denied that he
saw Engleman the next day or turned in his locker key . He stated that he returned
only for his check which he received from Weinberg and has not been back to the
plant since then.
It is clear , and I so find, that Ranieri had produced defective material many
times in the past and had frequently been late. It is also clear that this had been
going on for a long time and , although the employee had been given penalties, he
had never acutally been given a final warning that his next lapse would lead to dis-
charge. The only clear warning he had been given was Guarnaccia 's statement to
him in March 1960 when the foreman warned the employee that , in view of certain
damage he had caused, Engleman had the employee where he wanted him and, al-
though Ranieri was an active union adherent, Engleman could , if he wished, dis-
charge him using his poor work as an excuse.
Ranieri was also warned about lateness , but here too the significant warning was
on March 8, 1961, after the Board election, when Guarnaccia told him that he had
strict orders from Engleman that if Ranieri were "as much as one minute late" he
would not be permitted to work. Ranieri had frequently been late in the past and
had testified without denial that the practice was to permit an employee to be a few
minutes late without penalty . This warning and tightening of company rules re-
garding tardiness was a reprisal for employees ' selection of the Union in the elec-
tion as I have found.12
Respondent 's casual treatment of Ranieri 's derelictions over the years of itself
makes its sudden discharge of him suspect . This, taken with other facts, leads me
to conclude that Ranieri was fired because of his continued union activities and that
the damage he caused on the day of his discharge was used as a pretext to conceal
the real reason . Earlier I have credited Ranieri as against Guarnaccia and found that
the foreman warned the employee about his activities indicating to him that Engle-
man was looking for an excuse to let him go. Kassel also told Ranieri he was
making a mistake by adhering to the Union and that even if the employees chose the
Union in the election "the fight was just begun ." In addition, Engleman's account
of his final decision to sever Ranieri is incredible . I do not believe Engleman's
story of the returned locker key , or that Ranieri said he had another job and in
effect "quit." There was no evidence that Ranieri had obtained another job and it
was very unlikely that he could have in a period of 1 day. Ranieri also had in his
possession the key which Engleman said he returned to him . Moreover, the New
Jersey Division of Unemployment Security form dated May 12, 1961 , filed by Re-
spondent , states that Ranieri was suspended until further notice , not that he
quit. The entire story of the last contact between Engleman 'and Ranieri as related
by Engleman and Engleman 's general demeanor when relating it impressed me as
contrived by him to conceal his illegal motivation in discharging Ranieri. I find'
that Ranieri was fired because of his union activities in violation of Section 8(a)(3)
and (1 ) of the Act.
6. Deduction of delinquent loans
The Respondent has a practice of lending small sums of money to employees, with-
out interest, for emergencies , with the understanding that the sum was to be paid
12 Kassel's warnings to employees after the election.
1128 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
back in small weekly payments. On the first payday after the Board election Re-
spondent deducted the total amount due on loans from the pay of certain employees,
and this is alleged as a reprisal for their union activities. The Company contended
that the employees in question had not been making regular payments as agreed
:and, as a result, after a request for payment, the deductions were made. General
Counsel countered with evidence that one employee who had an outstanding loan
on which he had never made a payment had no deduction made from his pay.
There was also some evidence that other employees had loans outstanding and had
no deductions made. It was suggested that these employees worked on the third
shift where union activity was at a minimum and that they, therefore, were being
favored and the first-shift union borrowers discriminated against.
I find that the General Counsel has not shown by a fair preponderance of the
evidence that the Company was discriminatorily motivated in calling its loans. It is
-uncontroverted that those who had deductions made were delinquent and had not
made regular payments. Elmo Sollivan admitted that he made no payments on a
$35 loan between November and March and Barkley paid $10 in 3 months on a
$25 loan. Sollivan, Bobby Isom, and Barkley admitted that Rodgers had asked
them for repayment and it is significant that, in Barkley's case, the request was made
before the Board election which is obviously no way to win friends and influence
votes.
In addition, certain employees whose union activities, or lack of them, do not
appear in the record had loans deducted at the same time as the alleged discrimi-
natees and, contrary to General Counsel, there is no probative evidence in the record
about the union sympathies of employees on the third shift.
Considerable testimony was taken about the Annese loan. He claimed he had
borrowed $50 and the Company denied it. It has been difficult to resolve this con-
flict, but, assuming Annese had a loan which was not called, I do not think that it
-supplies enough weight to General Counsel's case to establish discrimination, par-
ticularly in the light of the fact that Bobby Isom and Barkley who had loans de-
'ducted on March 14, 1961, had loans outstanding as of the date of the hearing. In
Isom's case the loan was made to him only 1 week after the alleged discrimination
against him.
7. The Christmas shutdown, Saturday closing, reduction of the employees'
workweek, elimination of the Christmas bonus
The Respondent defended its elimination of the Christmas bonus in 1960, the clos-
ing of the plant during the Christmas season of that year, and the elimination of
-certain Saturday work during March, April, and May of 1961 on purely economic
:grounds.
The Company's principal witness in this phase of the case was Saul Rodgers, presi-
dent of Respondent. Rodgers testified that, although a bonus was paid to employees
in the 4 years prior to 1960, he decided, in consultation with Kassel, in late Novem-
ber, to discontinue the bonus in 1960 because of poor business conditions. He
stated that he and Kassel are the only officers of the corporation and that they act
as salesmen as well as managers for Respondent. Based on their observations it
appeared to them that 1960 would not be a profitable year since customers were not
ordering as in the past and "business was getting worse and worse." As a result it
was decided not to pay a bonus because the Company could not afford it. He
-testified that sales were falling off about 20 percent, the profit margin on sales was
-down, inventories were too high, and, based on general business conditions, the
-general prognosis was bad in that the Company and the industry was becoming
-more and more competitive. Rodgers added that style changes in the industry had
complicated his problem in that rapid style changes made it too risky to pile up
-inventory and customers were not placing advance orders for any substantial period
,of time. Prices for merchandise fell gradually in 1960 and the size of particular
orders were smaller . A partial effect of the latter was an additional cut in prices
in order to meet competition caused by other companies attempting to get rid of
their inventory. Rodgers said that business conditions in the industry generally
were bad and that also entered into his decision about the bonus. Respondent's
sales for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1961, were down substantially as com-
pared to prior years, as well as Respondent's margin of net profit before taxes,
according to Rodgers, which he maintained supported his business judgment in
November 1960.
Concerning the shutdown during the Christmas season, Rodgers testified that the
same business considerations motivated him there. Business was bad, customers
were not ordering, prices were falling, and there was no point in making inventory.
Be discussed the matter with Kassel and Engleman and decided tc, shut down. A
AMERICAN LACE MILLS, INC. 1129
notice advising the employees of a shutdown beginning December 16, 1960, was
posted and the plant closed until January 3, 1961 . In prior years the plant had also,
been closed for as much as 9 days around Christmas but not for such an extended
period of time as in 1960.
Respondent worked on Saturdays during 1960. Toward the end of 1960, accord-
ing to Rodgers , the same economic considerations described above which caused
him to decide to eliminate the bonus and shut down at Christmas required him to
start thinking about cutting the workweek to 5 days. He discussed the matter with
Engleman and Kassel and decided to work on Saturdays until the Christmas shut-
down and begin a 5-day week on reopening . He changed his plan , he testified, and
continued to work Saturdays in January and February 1961 on advice of his attorney
who told him not to change the "status quo" in working conditions because a peti-
tion for an election had been filed by the Union on December 13, 1960. Rodgers
retained another attorney who also advised him to keep the plant in full operation
until the Board election but to operate only as needed after that. After the election,
Respondent went on a 5-day week because, as Rodgers stated, it did not need the
production. It was still on a 5-day week at the time of the hearing in this case and
Rodgers said he foresaw no need for Saturday production in the immediate future.
Roland N. DuCoffe, an official of Liberty Textile Corporation, testified about the
conditions in the lace industry generally and their effect on his company and Re-
spondent in the period from about June 1960 to the time of the hearing in this
case. DuCoffe stated that about one-third of his Company's work is subcontracted
and Respondent, American Lace, does about three-quarters of the work contracted
out. According to him, in the last 12 months the lace industry had been adversely
affected by market conditions and was at its worst state in his experience. In June
of 1960 the business of his company was poor and got seriously bad in October of
that year and was accompanied by canceled orders. This had an effect on its sub-
contractor, American Lace, in that Liberty Textile renegotiated prices with Respond-
ent and cut back on the number of pieces of equipment Respondent operated for
Liberty Textile. Liberty reduced the prices paid to American Lace, cut its orders,
and asked American Lace to hold back shipments. Liberty Textile's own inventory
backed up as well. In addition, in October or November of 1960, Liberty Textile
reduced its workweek from 6 to 5 days and, early in 1961, to a shorter week. At
the time of the hearing, according to him, his company was operating at only 20 per-
cent of capacity. Liberty Textile is under contract with the Union.
Joseph Meyers , a competitor of Respondent , testified about business conditions in,
the industry generally and its effect on his company . According to him , business
has been extraordinarily bad and his inventory has backed up. Prices have dropped
and he too has cut his workweek.
General Counsel established a prima facie case requiring the Respondent to go
forward with evidence to rebut the allegations that the elimination of the bonus, the
Christmas shutdown, and the reduction in the workweek were discriminatorily moti-
vated. It will be recalled, for example, that Foreman Guarnaccia attributed the loss
of the bonus and the Christmas shutdown to the employees ' union activities; that
Kassel told Ranieri that employees had everything to lose by their union activity
and nothing to gain since Respondent could cut the workweek from 6 days to 5 if
it wished ; that Engleman uttered similar threats and that Respondent showed its.
antiunion animus by other threats of reprisal and acts of interference.
General Counsel contends, in effect, that not only was the burden of going forward'
on these issues shifted to Respondent but that Rodgers was not a credible witness.
Like General Counsel, I do not believe that Rodgers was completely candid in some
of his testimony . He attempted , as did Engleman , to conceal his knowledge of the
inception of the union campaign . His testimony about a warehouse rented by the
Company to store inventory-which was later clarified to show that only unfinished
yarn was stored-was an early attempt , in my view , to inflate the Respondent's
economic defense. Moreover, his testimony about plant closings in prior years and
other memory lapses, such as when exactly he, Kassel , and Engleman discussed their
economic difficulties , shows, at the least , an uncooperative attitude in developing the
facts fully at the hearing or a deliberate attempt to confuse the record.
In addition , General Counsel takes certain schedules and balance sheets in evidence
and ingeniously demonstrates that, from one point of view, the Respondent's profit
position was not as bad as Respondent would have it appear and that, by combining
certain incomes, the family owners might actually have had a greater net profit
before taxes in 1961 than in 1960.
Despite these two principal points, namely, Rodgers ' credibility and economic
arguments from his records, which are also, in a sense, related to credibility, I have
concluded that Respondent has successfully rebutted General Counsel's case. In the
1130 DECISIONS OF, NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
first place , because Rodgers was untruthful about his knowledge of union activity
and unclear , halting, and vague about certain dates and records does not make the
rest of his testimony about his business unbelievable . If Rogers stood alone, and
the evidence in the record related to the edonomics of his company solely, the case
might go the other way , but Rodgers was clearly and positively corroborated by
DuCoffe and Meyers whose testimony remains uncontradicted in the record and
which I credit. DuCoffe established , not only that conditions in the industry gen-
erally were poor at material times, but that specifically there was a direct impact on
Respondent's business caused by Liberty Textile cutting prices, reducing orders, and
having Respondent hold back inventory . Moreover , secondly, General Counsel's
arguments and interpretations based on company records show , at best, in my
opinion , that reasonable men might differ as to how bad Respondent 's business was
in 1960. No one can suggest, after inspecting the records , that Respondent's business
was improving . An analysis of the appropriate records convinces me that what is
involved is a matter of business judgment and that nothing in the schedules and
balance sheets reflects on Respondent 's good faith but indeed also corroborates
Rodgers' oral testimony.13
I find on the basis of the entire record that General Counsel has not established
by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent eliminated the bonus, shut
down its plant during the Christmas season, and reduced its workweek for discrimina-
tory reasons.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent set forth in section III, above , occurring in con-
nection with the operations of Respondent described in section I, have a close, inti-
mate, 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 Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor practices, I
will recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action
designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
Having found that Vincent Ranieri was discriminatorily discharged in violation
of Section 8(a),(3) and ( 1) of the Act , I will recommend that Respondent be ordered
to offer him immediate and full reinstatement to his former or substantially equiva-
lent position , without prejudice to his seniority and other rights and privileges, and
make him whole for any loss of earnings he may have suffered because of the dis-
crimination against him by payment to him of a sum of money equal to the amount
he normally would have earned as wages from the date of his discharge to the date
of Respondent 's offer of reinstatement , less his net earnings during said period, with
.backpay to be computed on a quarterly basis in the manner established by the Board
in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289, 291-294.
Having found that Respondent discriminated against Thomas Isom in not trans-
ferring him to a different shift in March 1961, I will recommend that Respondent
make him whole for the losses he suffered by reason of Respondent 's discrimination
against him.
It will also be recommended that the Respondent preserve and make available to
the Board , upon request , payroll and other records to facilitate the computation of
backpay.
It will also be recommended , in view of the nature of the unfair labor practices
the Respondent has engaged in, that it cease and desist from infringing in any manner
upon the rights guaranteed employees by Section 7 of the Act.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record in the
.case, the Trial Examiner makes the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Respondent is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6)
.and (7 ) of the Act
2. Local 222, International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union, AFL-CIO, is a
labor organization within the meaning of Section 2 ( 5) of the Act.
'- Respondent made its records available to General Counsel and the Charging Party
-during the hearing and there was ample opportunity for inspection . There is no sug-
gestion that the records are not accurate.
AMERICAN LACE MILLS, INC. 1131
3. By discriminating in regard to. the hire and tenure of employment of Vincent
Ranieri and Thomas Isom, .thereby, discouraging membership in the Union, the
Respondent has engaged in unfair labor' practices within the meaning of Section
8(a)-(3) of the Act.
4. By engaging in the conduct set forth under section III, B, 1, Respondent inter-
fered with, restrained, and coerced its employees and has engaged in and is engaging
in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
5. Respondent has- not violated Section 8(a)(3) of the Act with respect to
Jesus Sanchez, Richard Barkley, and Elmo Sollivan nor with respect to the discon-
tinuance of the bonus, the Christmas shutdown, the Saturday closings, and the opera-
tion of the loan fund as alleged in the complaint.
6. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law and upon the entire
record in the case, I recommend that Respondent, American Lace Mills, Inc., its
'officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Interrogating its employees about their union activities and the activities
of other employees in a manner constituting interference, restraint, and coercion
in violation of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.
- (b) Threatening reprisals against its employees because of their union activities
and promising benefits to the employees if they discontinued their union activities.
(c) Making and threatening to make more stringent rules and regulations gov-
erning employee conduct because employees engage in union activities.
(d) Discouraging membership in the Union or any other labor organization of
its employees, by discharging or refusing to reinstate any of its employees, or in
any other manner discriminating in regard to their hire or tenure of employment
or any terms or conditions of employment. - -
(e) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees
in the exercise of their rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which I find will effectuate the policies
of the Act:
(a) Offer to Vincent Ranieri immediate and full reinstatement to his former or
a substantially equivalent position, without prejudice to his seniority or other
rights and privileges, and make him whole for any loss of pay he may have suf-
fered by reason of the Respondent's discrimination, in the manner set forth in "The
Remedy" section of this report.
(b) Make Thomas Isom whole for pay losses , suffered because of Respondent's
discrimination against him.
(c) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the Board and its agents, for
examination and copying, all payroll records, social security payment records,
timecards, personnel records and reports, and all other records necessary and useful
to determine the amount of backpay due to the rights of reinstatement under the
terms of this recommended order.
(d) Post at its plant at Hackensack, New Jersey, copies of the notice hereto at-
tached marked "Appendix." Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional
Director for the Twenty-second Region, shall, after being duly signed by Respondent
or its representatives, be posted by Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof
and be maintained by it for 60 days thereafter in conspicuous places, including all
places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall
be taken by Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or cov-
ered by any other material.
(e) Notify the Regional Director for the Twenty-second Region , in writing,
within 20 days from the date of receipt of this Intermediate Report and Recom-
mended Order, what steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
It is further recommended that unless Respondent on or before 20 days from the
date of receipt of this Intermediate Report and Recommended Order notifies the
said Regional Director in writing that it will comply with the foregoing recommenda-
tions, the National Labor Relations Board issue an order requiring Respondent to
take the action aforesaid.
It is further recommended that the Board dismiss those allegations of the com-
plaint which allege discrimination with respect to Jesus Sanchez, Richard Barkley,
and Elmo Sollivan and in the discontinuance of the bonus, the Christmas shutdown,
the Saturday closings, and the operation of the loan fund.
1132 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the recommendations of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor Re-
lations Board , and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Relations
Act, as amended, we hereby notify our employees that:
WE WILL make Thomas Isom whole for pay lost because of the discrimination
against him.
WE WILL offer to Vincent Ranieri immediate and full reinstatement to his
former or substantially equivalent position without prejudice to his seniority
or other rights and privileges and make him whole for any loss of pay suffered
as a result of the discrimination against him.
WE WILL NOT discourage membership in Local 222, International Ladies'
Garment Workers ' Union , AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization, by dis-
criminating in respect to the hire , tenure, or other conditions of employment of
any employee.
WE WILL NOT interrogate our employees as to their membership in, or activi-
ties on behalf of, Local 222, International Ladies ' Garment Workers' Union,
AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization , in a manner constituting inter-
fertnce, restraint , or coercion in violation of Section 8(a) (1) of the Act.
WE WILL NOT threaten our employees with reprisals because of their union
activities or promise benefits if they will abandon the Union.
WE WILL NOT make or threaten to make more stringent rules and regula-
tions governing employee conduct because employees engage in union activities.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with , restrain , or coerce our em-
ployees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them by the National Labor
Relations Act.
AMERICAN LACE MILLS, INC.,
Employer.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------
(Representative ) ( Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof, and must not be
altered, defaced , or covered by any other material.
Los Angeles Mailers Union No. 9, I .T.U. and Hillbro Newspaper
Printing Company, Division of Hearst Publishing Company,
Inc. Case No . 21-CC-386. February 00, 1962
DECISION AND ORDER
On January 17, 1961, Trial Examiner Martin S. Bennett issued his
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that
the Respondent had not engaged in the unfair labor practices alleged
and recommending that the complaint be dismissed in its entirety, as
set forth in the Intermediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter,
the General Counsel and the Respondent filed exceptions to the Inter-
mediate Report and briefs in support thereof.
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 In-
termediate Report, the exceptions and briefs, and the entire record
in this case, and finds merit in the exceptions of the General Counsel.
We therefore adopt the findings, conclusions, and recommendations
135 NLRB No. 107.