Arthur Winer, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 18, 1951

94 N.L.R.B. 651 (N.L.R.B. 1951)

ARTHUR WINER, INC. 651
partment,11 repair machinists in the foundry maintenance department,
and production machinists and tool and die makers in the past model
repair department, light machining department, and the automatics
department, excluding all guards and supervisors as defined in the
Act, may, if they so desire, constitute a separate appropriate unit.
However, they may also continue as a part of the over-all production
and maintenance unit represented by the Intervenor. We shall make
no final unit determination at this time, but shall be guided in part
:by the desires of these employees as expressed in the election directed
herein. If a majority vote for the Petitioner, they will be taken to
have indicated their desire to constitute a separate appropriate unit.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this
volume.]
"Including the parts control clerk. Great Lakes Spring Division of Standard Steel
' Ipring Company, footnote 5, supra (tool crib attendants included).
ARTHUR WINER, INC. and AMALGAMATED CLOTHING WORKERS OF
AMERICA . Case No. 13-CA-362. May 18, 1951
Decision and Order
On December 19, 1950, Trial Examiner Eugene E. Dixon issued
his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding,
that the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain
unfair labor practices and recommending that it cease and desist
therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy
of the Intermediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the Re-
spondent filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and a supporting
brief.
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 [Members Houston, Murdock, and Styles].
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 Inter-
mediate Report, the Respondent's exceptions and brief, and the entire
record in the case,l and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and
recommendations of the Trial Examiner with the additions and mod-
ifications set forth below.
1 The request by the Company for oral argument is denied because the record, the
exceptions , and briefs , in our opinion , adequately present the issues and the position
of the parties.
94 NLRB No. 97.
652 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
1. We agree with the Trial Examiner that the Respondent has
violated Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act by interrogating its employees
concerning their union activities.and by making promises of benefits
to the employees if they abstained from such activities. We also agree
with the Trial Examiner's finding that the Respondent by Supervisor
Winkler engaged in surveillance in violation of Section 8 (a) (1) of
the Act. The Respondent contends that information about the
Union's first organizing meeting was volunteered by employee Kus-
mierz, without any solicitation by Winkler. We accept the Trial
Examiner's finding, discrediting Winkler's testimony that Kusmierz'
report on the meeting was unsolicited. Furthermore, Winkler ad-
mitted that on receiving Kusmierz' report, she asked for further de-
tails as to who attended the meeting and what occurred there.
2. We do not agree with the Trial Examiner's finding that the Re-
spondent threatened its employees with the closing or removal of its
plant should the Union's organizational campaign be successful. This
finding is based on the testimony of Boris Taleff, the husband of one
of the Respondent's employees, to the effect that Winer, Respondent's
president, told him that he, Winer, would close the plant before he
would be dictated to by any union organizer. While we accept the
Trial Examiner's findings crediting Taleff and discrediting Winer
concerning this incident, we find that Taleff's testimony concerning
this incident is too vague to warrant basing a finding thereon 2
3. We agree with the Trial Examiner's finding that the Respondent
discharged Little for her activities on behalf of the Union, and thereby
violated Section 8 (a) (3) and (1) of the Act. We find no merit in
the Respondent's contention that Little was discharged because she
burned out the bearings on her machine. Trinkle, the Respondent's
repair mechanic, had charged Little with failing to oil her machine
and thereby causing it to burn out sometime in May or June 1949.
The Respondent at that time either did not consider the offense a
serious one or did not trust Trinkle's judgment 3 as to the cause of the
failure of Little's machine, for admittedly it did not confront Little
with Trinkle's complaint nor warn her to oil the machine. The day
after the union meeting and more than 2 months after Trinkle's
complaint, Winer took the machine to the Lawrence M. Stein Com-
pany, by whom he admittedly was informed that the failure of Little's.
machine was due to its being run too fast.4 As the speed of these
2 The Trial Examiner points out that Taleff 's testimony was "not explicit "
3 Winer testified that because of Trinkle 's temper, the girls were afraid to ask him to
fix their machines . Winer discharged Trinkle for absenteeism in November 1949.
4 The Respondent attempted to show that Stein's diagnosis of the trouble with the
machine might have been mistaken and that the letter stating the diagnosis was written
at the Respondent ' s suggestion : In any event, however , the record- shows that Stein
at no time attriliuted the failure of the machine to any failure to oil it.
ARTHUR WINER, INC. 653
machines is not within the control of the operator, but is set by the
Respondent, Little could not. be charged with this error. Neverthe-
less, on returning to the plant, Winer ordered that Little be discharged
for failure to oil her machine. Considering this sequence of events,
the Respondent's contention that it discharged Little for failure to oil
her machine is not credited.
Furthermore, the Respondent admitted that at the time of her dis-
charge Little, who was a serger, had a higher production rate than the
other serger, and that the quality of Little's work was above average.
Winkler admitted that she had asked Little whether she was planning
to attend the Union's organizing meeting, and Little credibly testified
that she told Winkler, "Absolutely, I am going to that meeting."
Kusmierz told Winkler about -Little's "attendance at 'and active par-
ticipation in the Union's organizing meeting. In view of these cir-
cumstances, and of the facts set forth in the Intermediate Report, we
find that the Respondent discharged Little for her participation in
union activities.
4. We agree with the Trial Examiner's finding that the Respondent
discharged Munyon for her activities on behalf of the Union and
thereby violated Section 8 (a) (3) and (1) of the Act.
Munyon had attended and participated in the Union's organizing
meeting, and Kusmierz had apprised Winkler of the fact. Munyon,
who was employed as a cloth spreader, was a satisfactory worker as
indicated by the fact that she had received several pay increases since
starting to work for the Respondent and had been given a 2-week
vacation although her seniority entitled her to 1 week-only. Accord-
ing to the Respondent, Reicher, foreman of the cutting department
where Munyon worked, had urged Winer in February 1949 to replace
Munyon with a man who could do some of the heavy lifting work which
Reicher had to do for Munyon, and the Respondent had-intermittently
advertised for such a man with no success. In May or June 1949,
Virgil Dawson, a qualified spreader and cutter, applied for employ-
ment. He was rejected by Winer, because Dawson was then employed
by a competitor and Winer stated that he did not wish to engage
in labor pirating. Significantly, Winer's scruples against such labor
pirating vanished on the day after the union meeting, when he got
in touch with Dawson, who was still employed by the same employer,
and hired him. The Respondent contends that it discharged Munyon
because of its desire to replace her with a male employee. However,
under all the circumstances, including those set forth in the Inter-
mediate Report, we find that the Respondent would not have replaced
_Munyon at the time it did so but for her activities on behalf of the
654 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Union.5 This conclusion is supported by the credited testimony of
Munyon that at the-time of her discharge she was not offered a job
elsewhere in the plant at that time or in the event- a vacancy occurred,
although, according to the Respondent, it could train an inexperienced
person to be a sewer in a relatively short time, and the turnover among
the sewing employees was high.
Order
Upon the entire record in this case, and pursuant to Section 10 (c)
of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board hereby orders that the Respondent, Arthur Winer,
Inc., Gary, Indiana, its officers, agents, 'successors, and assigns, shall :
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Discouraging membership in Amalgamated Clothing Workers
of America, or in any other labor organization, by discriminatorily
discharging any of its employees, or by discriminating in any other
manner in regard to their hire or tenure of employment, or any terms
or conditions of employment.
(b) By means of interrogation, surveillance, or in any other manner
interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees in the exercise
of the rights to self-organization, to form labor organizations, to join
or assist Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America, or any other
labor organization, to bargain collectively through representatives of
their own choosing, and to engage in concerted activities for the pur-
pose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to
refrain from any or all of such activities, as guaranteed in Section
7 of the Act, except to the extent that such rights may be affected by
an agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as a con-
dition of employment as authorized in Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action, which the Board finds
will effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Offer to Helen Little and Hazel Munyon immediate and full
reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent positions,
without prejudice to their seniority or other rights and privileges.
(b) Make whole Helen Little and Hazel Munyon for any loss of
pay each of them may have suffered as a result of the discrimination
against them in the manner set forth in the section of the Intermediate
Report entitled "The remedy."
(c) Upon request, make available to the Board or its agents for
examination and copying all payroll records, social security payment
records, time cards, personnel records and reports, and all other
records necessary to analyze the amounts of back pay due.
I As Reicher's statement that since hiring Dawson production in the cutting room
has increased 15 to 20 percent is uncontradicted , we have considered this factor in.
reaching our conclusion as to Munyon ' s discharge.
ARTHUR WINER, INC. 655
(d) Post at its plant in Gary, Indiana, copies of the notice attached
here to as Appendix A.6 Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the
Regional Director for the Thirteenth Region, shall, after being duly
signed by the Respondent's representative, be posted by the Respond-
ent immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for
sixty (60) consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, includ-
ing all places where notices to employees are customarily posted.
Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to insure that said
notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
(e) Notify the Regional Director for the Thirteenth Region, Chi-
cago, Illinois, in writing within ten (10) days from the date of this
Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
Appendix A
NOTICE To ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to a Decision and Order of the National Labor Relations
Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, we hereby notify our employees that :
WE WILL NOT discourage membership of our employees in
AMALGAMATED CLOTHING WORKERS OF AMERICA, or in any other
labor organization, by discriminatorily discharging any of our
employees, or by discriminating in any other manner in regard
to their hire or tenure of employment or any terms or conditions
of employment,
WE WILL OFFER to Helen Little and Hazel Munyon immediate
and full reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent
positions without prejudice to their seniority or other rights and
privileges, and make them whole for any loss of pay each of them
may have suffered as a result of the discrimination against them.
WE WILL NOT interrogate our employees concerning their union
affiliation or activity, engage in surveillance of their union activi-
ties, or in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce
our employees in the exercise of the right to self-organization, to
form labor organizations, to join or assist AMALGAMATED CLOTH-
ING WORKERS OF AMERICA, or any other labor organization, to bar-
gain collectively through representatives of their own choosing,
and to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective
bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from
any or all of such activities except to the extent that such rights
In the event that this Order is enforced by a decree of a United States Court of
Appeals, there shall be inserted before the words, "A Decision and Order ," the words, "A
Decree of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing."
656 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
may be affected by an agreement requiring membership as a con-
dition of employment as authorized in Section 8 (a) (3) of the
Act.
All our employees are free to become, remain, or refrain from be-
coming or remaining members of the above-named union or any other
labor organization except to the extent permitted by the provisions
of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act. We will not discriminate in regard
to hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of employ-
ment against any employees because of membership in or activity on
behalf of any such labor organization.
Dated--------------------
ARTHUR WINER, INC.,
Employer.
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.
Intermediate Report and Recommended Order
Mr. Albert Gore, for the General Counsel.
D'Ancona, Pflaum, Wyatt & Rtskind, by Mr. Donald J. Yellon and Mr.
Maurice A. Risktnd, of Chicago, Ill , for the Responde>t.
Mr. Murray H. Findley, Nelle Riddle, and Mr. Robert Hardy, of Chicago, Ill.,
for the Union.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon a charge duly filed by Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America, herein
called the Union, the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board,
herein called the General Counsel and the Board, respectively, by the Regional
Director of the Thirteenth Region (Chicago, Illinois), issued his complaint dated
June 13, 1950, against Arthur Winer, Inc, herein called the Respondent, alleging
that the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices
affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) and (3) and
Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, 61 Stat.
136, herein called the Act. Copies of the complaint and charge were duly served
upon the Respondent and the Union.
With respect to the unfair labor practices, the complaint as amended 1 alleges
in substance that the Respondent: (1) Since on or about July 1, 1949, inter-
fered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of rights
guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act by (a) questioning them regarding their
union activities, (b) threatening to close the plant if employees selected a
collective bargaining representative, (c) engaging in surveillance of union
activities, and (d) granting economic benefits and offering promises of benefit and
'At the beginning of the hearing and during its course amendments to the complaint
were allowed over objections alleging additional violations of Section 8 (a) (1) and
8 (a) (3) of the Act At the close of the oral argument the General Counsel offered
further amendments upon which rulings were reserved The motions to amend are hereby
granted.
ARTHUR WINER, INC. 657
threatening the removal of existing benefits to interfere with the organization
of the Union; (2) on or about September 9, 1949, discharged Helen Little and
on or about September 17, 1949, discliai ged Hazel Munyon and has since failed
and refused to employ them in the same or equivalent jobs because of their
union activities; and (3) because of the aforesaid acts and conduct engaged in
unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8 (a) (1) and (3) of the Act.
In its answer as amended 2 Respondent admitted certain allegations of the
complaint but denied that it had engaged in any of the unfair labor practices
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held from July 17 to 22, 1950, inclusive, at
Gary, Indiana, before Eugene E. Dixon, the undersigned Trial Examiner duly
designated by the Chief Trial Examiner. All parties were represented by coun-
sel, participated in the hearing, and were afforded full opportunity to be heard,
to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing upon
the issues. Only the General Counsel availed himself of the opportunity to argue
the issues orally on the record, but both the General Counsel and the Respondent
filed briefs with the undersigned.
Upon the entire record in the case, and from my observation of the witnesses,
1, the undersigned Trial Examiner, make the following :
FINDINGS Or FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
Arthur Winer, Ine, is and at all times material herein has been an Indiana
corporation with its principal office and place of business located at Gary, In-
diana, where it is engaged in the manufacture of men's trousers. At all times
material here the Respondent has used in its plant large quantities of raw mate-
rials valued annually in excess of $100,000, of which approximately 90 percent
was purchased from points outside the State of Indiana Respondent has an-
nually manufactured products valued in excess of $200,000, of which approxi-
mately 75 percent was sold and transported to points outside the State of
Indiana.
Respondent admits and I find that it is engaged in commerce within the mean-
ing of the Act.
II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America is a labor organization admitting
to membership employees of the Respondent
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Background and issues
Every summer since 1945 the Union had made unsuccessful attempts to organize
Respondent's plant In the "forepart of June" of 1949, Union Organizer Nelle
Riddle received orders to proceed to Gary and try again to interest Respondent's
employees in the Union. For about a week after initially contacting a few em-
ployees she compiled names and addresses and then began a series of telephone
calls to see if there was sufficient union interest to support an organizational
drive Determining that there was, she continued her telephone campaign and
2 Certain amendments to the answer were filed with the Trial Examiner after the close
of the hearing They are hereby accepted and incorporated in the record and physically
made pact of the exhibits as the Trial Examinei's Exhibit 1
9 5 3 841-5 2-vol 94-43
658 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
then began personal calls at the homes of the employees. This continued until
about the middle of August when illness' necessitated her replacement by Robert
Hardy, another organizer. Hardy continued Riddle's procedure, and on or about
September 1 mailed individual notices to the employees of a union meeting to be
held September 6. At this time there were approximately 75 employees on
Respondent's plant payroll, of whom about 15 attended the meeting Of these
Helen Little and Hazel llunyon, both alleged in the complaint as having been
discharged because of their union activities, attended the meeting and partici-
pated in the open discussion after listening to Hardy's initial remarks.
Detailed information about this meeting was given by employee Anne Kus-
mierz to Supervisor Anne Winkler. One of the issues is whether the circum-
stances of this disclosure amounted to surveillance on the part of Respondent.
Another issue is whether or not the liberalizing of the 1949 vacations given the
employees during the last week in June and the first week in July was for the
purpose of influencing the employees in their consideration of the Union as a
bargaining representative.
Three days after the union meeting Little was discharged A week later
Munyon's employment was also terminated. Respondent contends that Little
was discharged because she had burned out her sewing machine several times due
to her failure to oil it properly, and that Munyon was terminated in accordance
with her foreman's plea that one of the two girls in the cutting department be
replaced by a man so as to enable that department to increase its production as
desired by Respondent's president, Arthur Winer.
B. Interference, restraint , and coercion
On the basis of Winer's own testimony it appears that in the latter part of
July or the first part of August , Winer called into his office individually three
employees , Eva Van Meter, Helen Bardash, and Katherine Romansky from
different sections of the plant to interrogate them "about any dissatisfaction
that was taking place there ." As explained in his testimony , he "Just asked
them what was going on." In view of the fact that the union campaign was
not instigated by the employees themselves but originated solely by reason of
outside influence and since there is no evidence that there was any dissatisfaction
on the part of the employees in their relationship with Respondent ,' it is apparent
and I find that Winer ' s interrogation about dissatisfaction and about what was
going on constituted Illegal interference on his part with the rights of his
employees . As pointed out in Jasper National Mattress Company, 89 NLRB 75,
involving similar interrogation , "There is nothing in the record indicating any
concept of `trouble' on the part of the employees except events grounded in
the Union and the concerted activities of the employees . . . Respondent 's ques-
tioning of its employees about the `trouble' they were having in effect was
interrogation of its employees about their union activities , was so understood by
the employees and violated Section 8 ( 1) of the Act." 4
3 In spite of the anomalous situation in which the General Counsel ' s witness Van Meter
testified in part that matters involving the plant's production were discussed in her in-
terview, and in which Winer testified to the contrary, her testimony that ". . . there
wasn ' t any of us doing as much as we had been in the other place I knew something
was wrong ," obviously does not support a conclusion or finding that the employees were
dissatisfied.
' This was a Wagner Act case The provisions of Section 8 (1) of that Act, however,
were carried over into the Act as amended in Section 8 (a) (1).
ARTHUR WINER, INC. 659,
In addition, the evidence shows that in these interviews Winer asked Van
Meter how the girls felt about the Union and asked Romansky what the Union
had to offer. These questions were also violative of the Act 6 and further brand
Respondent's fundamental purpose in these interviews as illegal . Winer's state-
ment to Romansky that he was trying to make it better for the girls so they
could have 2 weeks' vacation,` I find, under the circumstances it was made, to
have been an offer of benefit for the purpose of influencing the employees' con-
certed activities and also violated Section S (a) (1) of the Act' I do not
interpret, under the circumstances herein, Winer's statement to Van Meter
that if the girls "wanted a union that is what they could have" as a sincere
statement on the part of Winer nor as an exculpation for his illegal interro-
gations e
Boris Taleff, husband of employee Josephine Taleff, testified that in the latter
part of August, Winer, in the course of a conversation about a painting contract
and the imminent strike in the steel industry, told him in substance that before
he would have a union in his plant he would either cease operations or move
to a new location-that he would not be dictated to by any union officials.9 Talef
related this information to his wife that day and 2 or 3 days later, according,
to Mrs. Taleff's credited testimony, she disclosed her information at lunch-
time to a group of employees among whom were Little, Louise Shephard, and!
three others identified by Mrs. Taleff only as Helen, Mary, and Nellie. Whilb'
admitting to having had a cone ersation with Taleff about a painting contract,
Winer, as an adverse witness under Rule 43 (b) of the Rules of Civil Procedure
for the District Courts of the United States, although otherwise quite vague
in his recollection, testified unequivocally that there was no union dis-
cussion at that time. Later in Respondent's case-in-chief Winer testified that
the subject of unionism did arise in this conversation but only in connection-
with the steel industry and not as a subject of organization in his own plant.
The vagueness and discrepancies in Winer's testimony about this incident as
compared to the straightforward quality of Taleff's compels we to credit the
latter.
Respondent apparently contends that assuming arguendo the statement was-
made, the question whether or not it is coercive turns on Taleff's agency or lack
of agency to repeat it. Taleff's agency is not the crux of the matter but rather-
the implications of its announcement and whether or not it was communicated
to the employees determine its character. Coming as it did a few weeks after
Respondent had demonstrated its inclination to interfere with and coerce its
employees in their protected activity and being made to a spouse of an employee;
the conclusion is compelling that the remark was calculated to reach the ears
of the employees as in fact it did. Under these circumstances I find that
Winer's remark to Taleff was coercive and violated Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.1O
About the end of August and just prior to the union meeting of September 6,
union discussion among the employees became quite prevalent in the plant.
5 Meier & Frank Company, Inc, 89 NLRB 1016, The Cuffman Lumber Company, Inc,
82 NLRB 296
6 Based on the credited testimony of Romansky. Winer denied that vacations were
mentioned in these interviews
7 Mission Oil Company, 88 NLRB 743; Mason & Hughes, Inc, 86 NLRB 848
8 Chicopee Manufacturing Corporation of Georgia, 85 NLRB 1439 : Colonial Life In-
surance Co , 76 NLRB 653; Birmingham Post Company v. N L. R. B, 140 F (2d) 638
(C. A 5).
0 Although, as indicated in Respondent' s brief , Taleff' s testimony on this point is not
explicit it is nevertheless clear enough so as to preclude any other finding
is Inter-City Advertising Company of Greensboro , N. C, Inc, 89 NLRB 1103; Andrews'
Company, 87 NLRB 379; N L R. B. v. A. Sartorius & Co., 140 F. 2d 203, 204.
660 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Anne Kusniierz, after informing Winkler that the Union was trying to get in
the plant, apparently made a practice of going to Winkler's desk during the
lunch period to chat-often about the Union. At noon on the day of the union
.meeting, Kusmierz took her notice of the meeting to Winkler and asked her
advice about attending the meeting Winkler told her, "Well, you are your own
boss. It is up to you. If you want to, you can go and find out what it is all
about " According to Kusmierz' testimony, at 4 p. in. that day when she went
to punch out she found that her card had been pulled and was informed by
the payroll clerk that Winkler wanted to see her When she saw Winkler the
latter asked if she was going to the meeting and told her, "If you go, find out
what is going on, what they are offering, things like that," and asked Kusmierz
to call her when she got home. Kusmierz called Winkler that evening after
the meeting and upon questions from Winkler, gave detailed information about
what took place and who attended. Among those named were Little and Munyon.
Kusmierz also testified that Winkler told her, "If you come to work tomorrow,
don't come by the desk because the girls will be sort of suspicious of what is
going on."
Winkler in her testimony although admitting the telephone conversation with
Kusmierz about the meeting that night, denied the remark about not coming
by her desk, denied that she had pulled or ordered Kusmierz' card pulled, but
could not recall and did not deny the conversation with Kusmierz that after-
noon. By her demeanor on the witness stand and in view of the numerous
self-contradictions in her testimony, Winkler did not impress me as a reliable
witness. Accordingly, I credit Kusmierz' version. Thus, notwithstanding
Kusmierz' previous offers of information and her request to Winkler for advice
about attending the meeting and her obvious willingness to be of service to
Respondent, I find that Winkler's request for and acceptance of a report on
the union meeting constituted surveillance of its employees' union activities
in violation of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act" In addition to this violation of
the Act of Winkler, who clearly was a supervisor under the Act, she, by her
own admission on the witness stand, disclosed that she interrogated several
of the employees as to their intentions regarding attendance at the union meet-
ing and that she also asked Romansky what the latter would get out of the
Union.'
All production employees' vacations in Respondent's plant are taken at the
same time during a period when the plant is not operating. In 1948 Respondent
had granted its employees a 1-week vacation or less with pay depending on the
length of service. In 1949, however, Respondent on or about June 1 posted
a notice that employees with 5 years or more of continuous service would receive
2 weeks' paid vacation. The vacation period in 1949 was during the last week
in June and the first week in July. Sometime before the end of the pay period
in which the last of the vacation pay was given to the employees, which ap-
parently was July 22, Respondent, unbeknown to most of the employees, changed
its announced vacation policy and decided to pay 2 weeks' vacation to em-
ployees with substantially 4 years of service In addition, it appears that all
employees in the cutting department received 2 weeks' paid vacation without
.regard to length of service. It also appears, however, that although the ma-
jority of Respondent's employees were paid on a piecework basis, the cutting
department employees were paid on an hourly basis
n Cleveland Veneer Company, 89 NLRB 617; The Post Printing and Publishing Com-
pany, 90 NLRB 1820
12 These interrogations also violated Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act. See Standard-
tfoosa-Thatcher Company, 85 NLRB 1,358
ARTHUR WINER, INC. 661
The General Counsel contends that the later liberalization of the vacation policy
was motivated by Respondent's desire and purpose to influence its employees
in their concerted activity thus coercing them in the exercise of rights guaran-
teed them in the Act. The Respondent denies this, contending that it had no
knowledge of its employees' union activities prior to the time the 1949 vacation
policy was ultimately disposed of. Aside from the inference that by virtue of
the smallness of the plant and the possible anticipation on the part of the
Respondent that the Union would engage in its annual campaign to organize
the plant, there is nothing in the record to refute Respondent's contention..
Indeed, what evidence there is on the matter tends to support Respondent.
Thus, it is quite apparent that Respondent's original intention to liberalize
its vacation policy arose even before the union organizer had been ordered
to commence the campaign. The testimony further shows that upon investiga-
tion by Fresh, it was discovered that under the original policy only five people
in the entire plant would receive 2 weeks' paid vacation. Accordingly, it is
reasonable enough to assume that Respondent, motivated by its -original good
faith, might have felt that further revision of the vacation policy was in order-
Since no union organizer ever made an appearance at the plant and since
the record is devoid of evidence of any discussion or union activity whatsoever
at the plant until about the latter part of July or the first of August, and inr
view of the fact that Winer did not make his personal attempt to find out "what
was going on" until about that time, plus the fact as shown by the testimony
of both Munyon and Fresh that the cutting department employees were notified
about a week or 10 days before vacations started that they were to get 2 weeks'
paid vacation, I find that the General Counsel has failed to establish by a pre-
ponderance of the evidence that Respondent had knowledge of the union activity
of its employees at the time the 1949 vacation policy was fully effectuated and
executed.
C. The discharge of Helen Little
Little had been employed by Respondent as a serger from 1939 to 1942 and
was rehired January 5, 1949, to fill a vacancy Serging is done on the second
floor of Respondent's plant where the rest of the sewing department is located.
There is no question about her competence and it appears that of the two sergers
employed at the time of her discharge, she was the better operator. She joined
the Union in July and during the month of August discussed the Union during,
lunch periods and at other times with employees virtually every day.
Just prior to the union meeting of September 6, according to Little's testimony
Winkler came up to her machine and asked her if she was going to attend
the meeting. Little replied, "Absolutely, I am going to that meeting," adding,
"I would like to know what the Union has to offer the girls." Winkler said,
"Yes, I would go if I was you," and told her that Winer had called several of
the girls into the office to talk about the Union and had told them "he didn't
care if the girls had a union in the shop." Little then asked why did Winer
"talk to a certain party and tell them that if the girls brought in a union into
the plant he was going to close shop"? Winkler shrugged her shoulders and
walked away. Of the foregoing, only the question about Winer was denied by
Winkler. I credit Little.
Little attended the meeting and took active part in the discussion asking about
possible rates for work on various types of materials as well as on specials-
and samples.
On September 9 when Little went to punch out at 4 p. in., she was told that
she was wanted in the office. In the office Fresh said to her, "Helen, we feet
662 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
that you are very dissatisfied with your work, and we don't like to keep people
here that are dissatisfied. We got a report from Chicago saying that you burned
out the bearings on your machine." Little questioned the reason given for her
discharge and suggested that it was motivated by her union activity. Fresh
replied, "What union? Tell me about it."
Respondent contends (1) that the sole reason for Little's discharge was its
`concern over the repair expense occasioned by failures in her machine" due,
in its belief, to Little's failure to properly oil it, and (2) that it had no knowledge
of Little's union activity prior to or at the time of her discharge On the record
herein it is obvious that the latter contention is without merit. The facts in
support of the first contention are as follows :
According to Winer's direct testimony, right after the vacation period in 1949
Winer and Winkler had occasion to investigate a defect that had developed
in the serging operation. At this time it was discovered that Little's machine
was not operating properly. When Henry Trinkle was called over to adjust
it he became angry and asked Winer if he wanted him to spend half his time on
one girl's machine. However, Trinkle worked on it and in 2 or 3 days got the
machine in perfect adjustment. About a week later, which date would have been
around July 18 or 19, Winer checked with Little about the operation of her
machine. Little complained that it did not run fast enough. Winer called
Trinkle over about the matter. Trinkle again became angry and asked Winer
to step over to his machine shop telling him he had something to show him.
In the shop Trinkle produced four sets of burned out bearings which he attributed
to Little. Winer requested an explanation and Trinkle told him they had been
burned out because Little had not oiled them." Winer then happened to notice
a Merrow serging machine covered with dust under Trinkle's work table and asked
what was wrong with it. Trinkle replied that it was burned out. Winer asked
whose it was and Trinkle informed him that it was Little's machine. According
to Winer's further testimony, Trinkle refused to repair the machine so Winer
told him he would take it to the Lawrence M. Stein Company, a repair concern
in Chicago. Thereafter nothing was done about the entire matter until, sig-
nificantly, the day of the union meeting some 6 weeks to 3 months later. Then
Winer took the machine to Stein's partially explaining his action on the basis
that he did not like "Trinkle's idea of saying that he doesn't know what is the
matter any more. . . . " In addition to the implausibility of Trinkle's having
"refused" to repair the machine, it is apparent that this statement is contrary to
Winer's prior testimony that Trinkle told him that the machine was burned out.
When Winer got to Stein's he did not leave the machine at the parts depart-
ment as is normally done, but took it directly to a Mr. Tinley whom he
described as "the head man" at Stein's. Winer told Tinley, "I've come here to
find out things. We have got a machine in here that I say to you is a machine
that has given me nothing but trouble. I have no other trouble with any other
operators that operate machines, but, that particular machine has caused us
endless trouble." When Winer raised the question as to whether some basic
defect might "cause these bearings to burn out," Tinley laughed and answered in
the negative and, according to Winer, in substance informed him that when
the machines are not properly oiled they burn out. Then Winer asked about
the proper speed at which to operate the sergers and Tinley, after saying that
the proper speed depended on a number of factors, summarized with the state-
ment that "Speed doesn't make any difference." After discussing the grade of
13 On cross-examination Winer testified that it was in May or June prior to the vacation
period that he discovered that Little was burning out the bearings on her machine.
ARTHUR WINER, INC. 663
vii required in the machines, Winer asked Tinley to rush the repair of the
machine and deliver it to Winer's father-in-law in Chicago so that it could be
picked up on Sunday because Winer "probably would need the machine if they
were being burned out as fast as they had been."
Immediately thereafter, Winer tried to see the president of Stein's but the
latter not being in, he talked to a 11Ir Jerdee, secretary of the Company, and told
him he wanted Jerdee to do him a favor, namely to give him a book of in-
structions showing the permissible speed of the Merrow machine Upon learn-
ing that Jerdee had no such book, Winer then asked him to write Winer a
letter telling him "how fast these machines could go" explaining that "tlhe reason
for wanting this information is that we have been burning out this machine"
and "I yam going to get to the bottom of burning out the Merrow machines . . ."
Winer testified that Jerdee objected to writing the letter and asked this amazing
question in explanation, "I haven't examined your machine . . . how can I
write a letter without examining your machine to tell you what happened to it9"
Winer "argued with him intensely on the subject" and pleaded unsuccessfully
for the letter. Then he told Jerdee, "If you don't want to write it, what is the
speed the machine should run at?" Jerdee replied, "I can safely say four
thousand." Winer then asked Jerdee to permit him to dictate the letter, telling
him that the reason he wanted to dictate the letter was because he wanted
"these machines to run at the right speed." Winer then dictated a letter which
,lid not meet with Jerdee's approval. A day or two later, apparently on the day
Little was discharged, Winer received the following letter from Stein's rewritten,
according to Winer, "along the lines" that he had dictated it.
SEPTEMBER 8PM, 1949.
ARTHUR WINER, INC.,
10th Ave. at Garfield St., Gary, Indiana.
GENTLEMEN • We have carefully checked over the Merrow Machine which
Mr. Winer brought in to us for repairs and find that the bearings are badly
scored due, in our opinion, to operating the machine at a speed far in excess
of what it should be.
May we suggest that you check up and see what speed this machine is
now set at and if your running it more than 4,000 stitches please cut the
speed down? We cannot guarantee satisfactory service on this machine if it
is operated at a higher speed and 3 on will continue having this trouble and
expense if this is not corrected.
We are very sorry to be obliged to write you in this manner.
Yours very truly,
LAWRENCE M. STEIN COMPANY,
By: C. A. JERDEE,
Secretary-Treasurer.
After his conversation with Jerdee, Winer called Trinkle and asked him what
size pulleys they needed to decrease the speed of the machines. He thereupon
purchased, not at Stein's however, although they apparently carried them, sev-
eral pulleys which, upon his return to Gary, Trinkle installed on the Merrow
sergers replacing the larger, faster pulle} s previously used. Then, according to
Winer's testimony, having decided on the basis of what he learned at Stein's that
Little was burning up her machine because of her failure to oil it, Winer in-
structed Fresh to discharge her.
In my opinion the preponderance of the evidence refutes Respondent's con-
tention that Little was discharged because of its belief that she failed to oil her
machine. As pointed out by Respondent in its brief, whether she did or did not
oil her machine is not the issue, although she testified credibly that she had al-
664 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ways oiled her machine properly and denied that she was ever told by anyone
to oil her machine.
In view of Respondent's almost frantic effort to get a letter from Stein's about
Little's machine and the obvious incongruities and implausibilities recited by
Winer in connection therewith, and in view of Winer's testimony that no bear-
ings burned out on the machine Little was operating during the period that the
machine carried to Stein's was under Trinkle's work table, I am convinced that
Respondent had no doubt that Little had properly oiled her machine, and con-
clude that Respondent's purpose was to get a statement from Stein's to the effect
that the machine had been burned out because it had not been properly oiled,
thus to supply documentary proof in support of a pretext for Little's discharge.
Even if Respondent had some prior doubt that Little had properly oiled her
machine, it is apparent that the information supplied by Stein's should have
dispelled that doubt The fact that Winer purchased and installed slower
pulleys on the serging machines after his trip to Stein's is ample proof that he
was convinced that his machines had been operating at an excessive speed.
And his testimony that if the machines "were already burning out I would want
to speed them down, not speed them up" shows that he new that excessive speed
was the cause of his difficulty. Moreover, assuming argueiido the truth of Winer's
testimony that at least d weeks, if not 3 months, prior to Little's discharge he was
informed that she had burned out several sets of bearings due to her failure to oil
her machine, the fact that Winer waited until the day that the union activities
of his employees was to reach the climax of a first meetinv to take action about
the matter, compels the conclusion that whatever concern Respondent had about
Little's treatment of her machine it was her union activities that galvanized and
actually motivated Respondent's actions with respect to Little's discharge" I
so find.
The disparity in the reasons given Little at the time of her discharge and those
advanced at the hearing support this conclusion 35 Indeed, the dissatisfaction
attributed to Little at the time of her discharge would appear to be the same
type of dissatisfaction about which Winer illegally interrogated his employees.
I find that Little was discharged because of her union activities. Her repre-
sentation to the Indiana Employment Security division that the reason for her
unemployment was "no work available" is not controlling. See Ozark Hardwood
Company, 91 NLRB 1443.
D. The dischai ye of Hazel 11mulon.
About a year prior to Munyon's discharge Reicher, because of Wiper's demand
for more production in the cutting department, requested Winer to replace one
of the two girls in the department with a man so as to eliminate the necessity
of his being interrupted in his work to help lift the piece goods from the bin to the
cutting table, which task was too heavy for the girls to perform. Thereafter,
Reicher continued to press for a man snaking about a dozen requests to Winer
up to May or June of that year.
At about that time Virgil Dawson, an experienced spreader and cutter, called
on Respondent and applied for a job. Dawson was then employed by the Albert
Givens Company, another clothing manufacturer in the area. According to
Winer's testimony he told Dawson at that time, "I need a nian, but I am not
going to take Mr Givens' help away from him. We don't like to go after each
others help. I want to be able to say `hello' to him when I see him. I don't
14 F. W Woolworth Company , 90 NLRB 289.
15 Stokely Foods, Inc, 91 NLRB 1267.
ARTHUR WINER, INC. 665
want him to think I am trying to take his help away You leave your application
here, and maybe sometime if you ever quit over there, come to me and if I
have anything open, I will take you. under those circumstances only "
Nothing further happened with respect to Dawson's application until the first
part of September ; then on Friday, September 9, Winer got in touch with Daw-
son, who was still employed at Givens, and asked him to come in and see him the
following day. Dawson appeared at Respondent's plant the following morning
about 11 a. m. and was hired at that time.18
When Dawson was hired by Respondent he was earning $155 an hour at
Givens. His starting rate with Respondent was either $160 or $1 tin an hour.
In explanation of why, in view of his original reluctance to take Givens' help
away, Dawson was hired at this time, Winer testified that Dawson told him
"Ile was being pushed around a little bit" at Givens and was not happy there.
Munyon was employed by Respondent in October 1947 and was assigned to
the cutting department located on the first floor of the plant where her major
duty was spreading cloth. She also bundled the spreads and stitched pleat
markers. She was earning 80 cents an hour at the time of her termination,
having received three raises during her 2 years with Respondent Admittedly
she was a good employee and her competence is not at issue. She attended the
union meeting and took part in the discussion there. She also discussed the
Union at the plant with her coworker. Elvia Herr, who had been with Respond-
ent for about 5 years. One one occasion Munyon was told by Iteicher, "You know
Hazel, if we had a Union here it wouldn't make it any better for us. I couldn't
join it I am a supervisor."
About noon on Saturday, September 17, Reicher told Munyon that Fresh
winter to see her According to Munyon's testimony, when she entered the
office Fresh had Munyou's check in her hand and asked her to be seated.
Fresh then told her that her services were no longer required, that the job
was too heavy for her and that a man had been hired to replace her. Fresh
also said that this action came as a surprise to her. Munyon then asked if
any other job was available Fresh replied, "Well, there is none available, and
^ on can't stitch " Munyon testified that she interpreted this remark to mean
that there might be a sewing job available and added, "But I can't stitch, and
she didn't ofter inc any stitching because of that" As she left the office Fresh
told her "That the man might not be satisfactory" and that it was possible she
might be called back in a week.
In her version of the incident Fresh denied the remark about being surprised
and testified that in reply to Munyon's query about the availability of some-
thing else she asked, "Well what about stitching? Do you think you can sews"
Fresh then testified that Munyon replied that "She didn't think she would be
interested in that," but a few moments later changed her testimony to the
effect that Munyoh replied, "No, she didn't think she could do that." Fiesh then
16 This finding is based on Winer's and Reicher's testimony. Although the testimony is
vague as to dates Winer's was quite definite that his call to Dawson was on a Friday,
and that the interview with Dawson took place the following day Reicher was called
in on the interview and testified that it was at that time that Dawson was hired Since
there is no indication in Winer's testimony that he had any other contacts whatsoever
with Dawson at or about this time, and in view of the tenor of Reicher's testimony that
his opinion was'sought of Dawson's qualifications at this time, I conclude that the call
to Dawson and his hiring took place on September 9 and 10 respectively The fact that
the question of the Dawson's notice to Givens was raised in this interview indicates that
Dawson gave a 1-week notice, notwithstanding Winer's testimony that Dawson felt he ought
to give 2 weeks' notice Although Dawson was working for Respondent at the time
of the hearing Respondent did not call him as it witness
666 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
told Munyon, "Hazel, the only other possibility would be to put you in the
cleaning or finishing department and we don't have an opening there now,
and if we (lid it would mean that you would have to work for less money . . .
On cross-examination Fresh admitted the possibility of having made the declara-
tory statement, `Well, you can't stitch,"'-' and further testified that she told
Munyon that when she had been hired she had declined a sewing job.
In spite of Reicher's conclusionary testimony that the production of the
cutting department increased "10 to 15 or 20 percent" the first week Dawson
worked, the record leaves considerable doubt that Munyon's replacement by
Dawson was motivated by economic considerations or that indeed it resulted
in any substantial benefit to Respondent. Thus it appears that Dawson although
paid at twice the rate Munyon had received, spends 80 percent of his time
spreading. Although lie devotes the other 20 percent of his time to more
important work of which Munyon was not capable, Reicher takes over his
spreading duties at this time with the result that since Munyon's discharge
Reicher has spent 20 percent of his time spreading whereas prior thereto he de-
voted no time at all to that task. Moreover, in view of the length of the time
Dawson was available to Respondent, and in view of Fresh's statement to
Munyon that it was possible that Dawson's replacement of her might not prove
to be successful, it is apparent that Respondent was not convinced of its
feasibility or of its economic necessity.
In any event, assuming that the change had been contemplated in good faith
and that its economic value has been proven, in view of the entire record'
and its revelation of Respondent's union animus and illegal conduct I am con-
vinced that the circumstances of Winer's sudden reversal of his apparently
sincere reluctance to engage in labor pirating occurring as it did at the height of
the Union's campaign to organize his plant and on the very day that Winer
had discharged an employee because of her union activities, was primarily
motivated by discriminatory considerations, and that Munyon was the object of
that discrimination.
The circumstances of Munyon's terminal interview with Fresh, in my opinion
do not establish Respondent's good faith in Munyon's discharge. Thus, al-
though Fresh testified that Munyon was a good employee and although her
termination, which Fresh described as a layoff, had been decided upon for a
full week, she was given no advance notice thereof. Instead when she appeared
at the office on the day she was discharged her check was ready for her and
she was confronted with a fait accompli Nor did Respondent volunteer any
solacing alternatives Only by reason of Munyon's initiative in the matter
was anything of this nature mentioned by Fresh, and it is clear that even
then it amounted to nothing more than polite possibilities.
Respondent contends that Munyon was offered a sewing job and refused. By
Fresh's own version of the incident it is clear that at most it amounted to an
indication by Respondent of the possibility of a sewing job and the indication
by Munyon of the possibility of her refusal. Moreover, although the reason
does not appear, it is clear from Munyon's testimony that she could not sew.
It is also apparent from Fresh's testimony that Respondent was aware of this
fact. Under these circumstances and in the consideration of the entire record,
I am convinced that whatever significance the mention of sewing had with
respect to Respondent's discharge of Munyon it did not amount to a good faith
offer for such employment. Accordingly, I find that Munyon's discharge was
17 Fresh at first admitted making the statement, then testified that she used the word
"sew" rather than "stitch," then denied the statement and finally admitted that she
may have made it. I find that Fresh made the statement in quesion.
ARTHUR `WINFR, INC. 667
motivated by her union activities, that Respondent, having similarly discharged
one of the staunch union adherents on the second floor, decided on the very
same day that it would be expedient to eliminate a similar influence on the
first.
As in the case of Little, Respondent's contention that it had no knowledge
of Munyon's union activity prior to or at the time of her discharge is without
merit. Respondent's knowledge of the union activities of both these employees
is reasonably inferable from the small size of Respondent's plant and among
other ways by the information obtained from Kusmierz by Winkler.hi
In the conclusions and findings herein I do not rely on any of the testimony
of either of the Trinkles whom I do not consider to have been reliable witnesses-
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of Respondent, set forth in Section III, above, occurring in
connection with its operations described in Section I, above, have a close, in-
timate, 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 the unfair labor practices
set forth above, I shall recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and that
it take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
Thus it will be recommended that Respondent remedy its discrimination
against Helen Little and Hazel Munyon, by offering to each of them immediate
and full reinstatement to her former or substantially equivalent position 19
without prejudice to her seniority or other rights and privileges. It will be
recommended further that the Respondent make them whole for any loss of pay
that they may have suffered by reason of the Respondent's discrimination against
them. In accordance with the Board's policy,20 I shall recommend that the loss
of pay be computed on the basis of each separate calendar quarter or portion
thereof during the period from the Respondent's discrimination on September 9,
1949 in the case of Little, and September 17 in the case of Munyon to the date of
a proper offer of reinstatement. The quarterly periods, hereinafter called
quarters, shall begin with the first day of January, April, July, and October.
-Loss of pay shall be determined by deducting from a sum equal to that which
each of the employees diserimina'ted against would normally have earned for each
quarter, or portion thereof, her net earnings,21 if any, in other employment during
1s Quest-Shon Mark Brassiere Co , Inc., 80 NLRB 1149; Jasper National Mattress Com-
pany, 89 NLR)§ 75.
19 In accordance with the Board's consistent interpretation of the term, the expression
"former or substantially equivalent position" is intended to mean "former position wherever
possible and if such position is no longer in existence then to a substantially equivalent
position " See The Chase National Bank of the City of New York, San Juan, Puev to
Rico, Branch, 65 NLRB 827
'O F. W Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289.
n By "net earnings" is meant earnings less expenses, such as for transportation, room,
and board incurred by an employee in connection with obtaining work and working
elsewhere, which v.ould not have been incurred but for this unlawful discrimination, and
the consequent necessity of his seeking employment elsewhere Ci ossett Lumber Company,
8 NLRB 440: Monies received for work performed upon Federal, State, county, municipal,
or other work-relief projects shall be considered earnings. Republic Steel Corporation v_
N. L. R. B., 311 U. S 7
`668 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
that period. Earnings in one particular quarter shall have no effect: upon the back
pay liability for any -other quarter.
I shall also recommend that the Respondent make a vailaable to the Board,
upon request, payroll and other records to facilitate the checking of the amount
,of back pay due.2'
The violations of the Act which the Respondent committed are persuasively
related to other unfair labor practices proscribed by the Act, and the danger
of their commission in the future is to be anticipated from the Respondent's
conduct in the past. The preventive purposes of the Act will be thwarted unless
the order is coextensive with the threat. In order, therefore, to make more
effective .the interdependent guarantees of Section 7, to prevent a recurrence of
unfair labor practices, and thereby minimize industrial strife which burdens
and obstructs commerce, and thus effectuate the policies of the Act, it will be
recommended that the Respondent cease and desist from infringing in any
manner upon the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and upon the entire record of the
.case, I make the following :
CONCLUSIONS or LAW
1. Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America is a labor organization within
the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
2. By discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of Helen
Little and Hazel Munyon , the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging
in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
3. By such discrimination and by interfering with, restraining , and coercing
its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act,
the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within
the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting
,commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and ( 7) of the Act.
[Recommended Order omitted from publication in this volnme.J
m F. W. Woolworth Company, supra.
MACHINE PRODUCTS COMPANY, INC . and LOCAL No. 948 , INTERNATIONAL
UNION OF OPERATING ENGINEERS . Case No. 16-CA452. May"
18, 1951
Decision and Order
On February 12, 1951, Trial Examiner C. W. Whittemore 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 he cease and desist
therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy
of the Intermediate Report attached hereto. 'Plieareafter, the Re-
spondent filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and a brief in
support thereof.
:94 NLRB No. 106.