Bloomingdale Brothers, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 28, 1949

87 N.L.R.B. 1326 (N.L.R.B. 1949)

In the Matter of BLOOMINGDALE BROTHERS, INC., EMPLOYER and
BLOOMINGDALE DEPARTMENT STORE EMPLOYEES UNION, LOCAL 3,
INDEPENDENT, PETITIONER
In the Matter of BLOOMINGDALE BROTHERS, INC., EMPLOYER and
INTERNATIONAL UNION OF OPERATING ENGINEERS, LOCAL #30 AND
30-A, AFL, PETITIONER
In the Matter of BLOOMINGDALE BROTHERS, INC., EMPLOYER and
LOCAL No. 3, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORK-
ERS, AFL, PETITIONER
in the Matter of BLOOMINGDALE BROTHERS, INC., EMPLOYER and
INTERNATIONAL UNION OF OPERATING ENGINEERS, LOCAL #94,9-1--A,
PETITIONER
Cases Nos. 9-RC-887, 0-IBC-936, O-RC-945, and --RC-97'3
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION
AND
ORDER
December 28, 19419
On March 31, 1949, pursuant to a Decision and Direction of Elec-
tion issued by the Board on March 8, 1949,1 an election by secret bal-
lot was conducted under the direction and supervision of the Regional
Director for the Second Region. Upon the completion of the election,
a Tally of Ballots was issued and duly served by the Regional Direc-
tor upon the parties concerned. The tally reveals that, of the ap-
proximately 3,000 eligible voters in voting group (c) ,2 2,692 cast
valid ballots, of which 1,886 were for the Petitioner, 793 for the Inter-
venor, Retail Clerks International Association, AFL, and 13 against
both.
Thereafter the Intervenor filed Objections to the Conduct Affecting
the Results of the Election. In accordance with the Board's Rules
1 81 NLRB 1252.
2 The objections filed in this case pertain only to the election conducted in this voting
group, which comprised all the employees in the selling departments ( with specific exclu-
sions ) as well as all nonselling employees other than two groups for whom separate
unquestioned elections were directed.
87 NLRB No. 144.
1326
BLOOMINGDALE BROTHERS, INC. 1327
and Regulations, the Regional Director conducted an investigation
and issued a Report on Objections in which he found merit in cer-
tain objections and recommended that the election be set aside. The
Petitioner and the Intervenor filed timely exceptions.
On July 25, 1949, the Board, having considered the Regional Di-
rector's Report and the exceptions thereto, found that the excep-
tions raised substantial and material issues with respect to the con-
duct affecting the results of the election, and consequently ordered a
hearing upon the issues raised by the exceptions and directed the hear-
inj officer to make findings and recommendations in this matter.
A hearing was held August 24, 25, 26, 29, 30, 31, and September 2,
1949, before C. Paul Barker, hearing officer. All parties appeared and
participated. The Petitioner and Intervenor filed supplementary
memoranda with the hearing officer. On November 4, 1949, the hear-
ing officer issued his Report Containing Findings of Fact and Recom-
mendations to the Board, a copy of which is attached hereto, recom-
mending that the election be set aside. The Petitioner filed timely
exceptions to the Report; the Intervenor filed a "Statement" support-
ing, with certain exceptions, the Report; and both parties refiled the
supplementary memoranda earlier submitted to the hearing officer.
The Board 3 has reviewed the rulings made by the hearing officer
and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are
hereby affirmed.' The Board has considered the Report Containing
Findings of Fact and Recommendations to the Board, the Petitioner's
exceptions, the Intervenor's "Statement," ° the memoranda filed by
the parties, and the entire record in this case. We agree that the elec-
tion should be set aside. In reaching our conclusion, we adopt; the
hearing officer's credibility findings s and reply upon the follow-
ing facts as disclosed by the record and set forth in the Report :
During the preelection campaign, about a month before the elec-
tion, Harris and Fitzgerald, paid Independent organizers, physically
'Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the National Labor Relations Act,
the Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three -member panel
[ Chairman Herzog and Members I-Iouston and Murdock].
4 The Petitioner ' s objection to the admission of evidence on matters not specifically
included in the Intervenor's formal objections is without merit, as the hearing officer was
charged by the Board ' s Rules and Regulations with the duty of inquiring into all the
facts which might have a hearing on the outcome of the election . The Fischer Chair Coln-
puny, 71 NLRB 806. And the evidence admitted related to the general objections made.
Cf. Consolidated Pnltee Aircraft Corporation ( Fort Worth Division ). 72 NLRB 497. We
find without merit the Intervenor ' s objections to the procedure adopted at the hearing.
See U. S. Rubber Co. (Scottsville Plant ), 86 NLRB 3.
s In view of our order , we need not consider the Intervenor 's exceptions to the hearing
officer 's recommendation that certain objections be overruled.
Southeastern Industries , Inc., S2 NLRB 209. Accordingly, we find no merit in the
Petitioner ' s exceptions to findings made on the basis of the hearing off'icer's resolution of
the conflicts in the evidence before him. We have reviewed all of the evidence and find
no basis for reversing the hearing officer ' s credibility findings.
1328 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
attacked Holmstrom and Bucceri, 2 employees who were distributing
RCIA leaflets, seized and disposed of the circulars. These attacks,
described in detail in the hearing officer's Report on pp. 1337-1340,
were witnessed by some 20 employees and gained notoriety throughout
the store because the victims were the principal protagonists of the
RCIA campaign.7 A few days later, an Independent shop steward, in
the presence of Harris, warned Holmstrom that, if he did not stop his
activities on behalf of the RCIA, he would "really get hurt the next
-time." About a month before the election, the Independent's sergeant•
at-arms, on meeting Bucceri in the locker room, said, "I don't want
to see you, Bucceri, [distributing RCIA leaflets] tomorrow morning,
otherwise I will kick your teeth out." The day before the election,
Bucceri was told by an Independent shop steward that "when the
Independent won the election they would see to it that they would have
my job." Harris "continually" warned Bucceri that "after we win we
will take care of you." Throughout the campaign, Holmstrom and
;Bucceri were threatened with violence and economic reprisal.
The record discloses, and the hearing officer found, other threats
by paid agents, minor officials, and employee sympathizers of the Inde-
pendent. Shortly before the election, the secretary and treasurer of
the Independent told an RCIA sympathizer, "we will get rid of you
fellows after the election." A week before the election, an Inde-
-pendent shop steward told an employee who had expressed her sym-
pathy for RCIA that "Anybody who votes A. F. of L, will be taken
care of after the election." There is no need to recite the other
incidents of this type, listed by the hearing officer in his report on
pp. 1341-1343 ; these are representative.
As we said in the recent Stern Brothers case : 8
Not only under the mandate of the National Labor Relations
Act, but pursuant to American democratic tradition, this Board
should erect and maintain every practical safeguard to ensure
that the results of its elections represent the free will of employees.
We are persuaded that the threats of bodily harm and of indi-
vidual economic disaster,° actively participated in by high officers
' According to McCarthy, a witness credited by the hearing officer, "everybody heard
.about the Holmstrom assault." Telesco, another credited witness , said that 600 employees
spoke to her about the Holmstrom and Bucceri assaults and that the Bucceri episode
was "discussed up until the date of the election,"
8 87 NLRB 16 ; see also General Shoe Corporation, 77 NLRB 124, 126.
"We find no merit in the Petitioner 's contention that the coercive speeches here were
too remote to affect the outcome of the election , under such precedent as NAPA New York
Warehouse, Inc., 75 NLRB 1269 ; The Laclede Gas Light Co., 80 NLRB 839. Those records
lacked proof of violence such as was shown here . See National Tea Company, 41 NLRB
774, in which the Board held that violence occurring at any time during a 2 -month election
,campaign could not be deemed without probable effect.
BLOOMINGDALE BROTHERS, INC. 1329
of the Petitioiler, its paid organizers, and its shop stewards, and made
against a background of the widely known physical attacks on Holm-
strom and Bucceri, created an atmosphere which made improbable a
free and untrammeled choice by employees of their bargaining
representative."'
Accordingly, we shall set the election aside and shall direct a new
election at such time as we find that circumstances permit a free choice
of bargaining representative among these employees.
ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the election (in voting group "C") held
on Match 31, 1949, among the employees of Bloomingdale. Brothers,
Inc., New York, New York, involved in this proceeding be, and it
hereby is, set aside.
HEARING OFFICER'S REPORT CONTAINING FINDINGS OF FACT AND
RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE BOARD
Mr. Emil Schlesinger, of New York, N. Y., for Retail 'Clerks International
Association, AFL.
Ncwburger, Shapiro, Rabinowitz & Boudin, by Mr. Samuel R. Shapiro, of New
York, N. Y., for the Bloomingdale Department Store Emoplyees' Union, Local 3
(Independent).
I'roslcauer, Rose, Goetz & Mendelsohn, by Mr. Howard Lichtenstein, of New
York., N. Y., for Bloomingdale Brothers, Inc.
Mr. Warren H. Leland, of New York, N. Y., for the General Counsel.
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
Upon a petition filed by Bloomingdale Department Store Employees' Union,
Local 3 Independent, herein referred to as Local 3 Independent, on November 22,
1.948, the Board, in a consolidated proceeding, issued its Decision, Direction of
Election, and Order on March 8, 1949. Retail Clerks International Association,
AFL, herein referred to as RCIA, intervened in the proceeding. On March 31,
1949, only Local 3 Independent and the RCIA participated in the election in the
unit which may be roughly described as employees in the selling and nonselling
departments of the store and warehouse with specific exclusions. The other units
in which elections were held are not material herein.
Out of approximately 3000 employees eligible in the unit of store and ware-
house employees; Local 3 Independent received 1,886 votes and the RCIA 793.
RCIA timely filed objections which were set forth in the Regional Director's
1o when, as here, the conduct predictably affected more employees than testified, we
deem immaterial the fact that all employees who testified to threats made to them, also
testified that the threats had not affected their vote. See Stonewall Cotton Mills, 75
NLRi3 762. The test is whether the conduct charged was reasonably calculated to inter-
fere. G. H. Hess, Inc., 82 NLRB 463.
877359-50-vol. 8 7---8 5
1330 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Report on Objections issued on the 16th day of June 1949 and duly served upon
the parties.'
The Report recommended that the objections be sustained. Exceptions to
adverse findings and to the recommendation of the Regional Director were filed by
Local 3 Independent: RCIA also filed exceptions to findings of the Regional
Director on their objections that he found to be without merit . After considering
the matter pursuant to the Rules and Regulations, the Board on July 25, 1949,
issued its Order, copy of which is attached hereto, directing hearing and the
issuance of a report, to be served upon the parties. Notices of hearing were
issued and served upon the parties and the undersigned was duly designated as
Hearing Officer by the Regional Director. The hearing opened on August 24,
1949. It thereafter continued until September 2, 1949.
At the outset the undersigned was beset by the problem of procedure. After
due consideration the RCIA was directed to proceed initially and offer evidence
in support of their objections to the election with opportunity to Local 3 Inde-
pendent and the company to offer evidence or reply thereto. Counsel for the
General Counsel was present throughout with the opportunity to offer evidence
and to assist the parties.
Parties were granted until September 26, 1949, to file briefs with the Hearing:
Officer in.this matter. Briefs have been received from the RCIA and Local 3
Independent, and have been considered. Upon the entire record the undersigned
makes findings of fact and recommendations to the Board as follows :
History
The employees in the selling and nonselling departments of the store, includ-
ing the warehouse, approximately corresponding to the unit found appropriate
by the Board, have been organized since 1938, and had been represented by.
Local 3 of the Retail, Wholesale & Department Store Union, CIO, herein called-
CIO, or its predecessor. A contract between this union and the company covered
these employees, the last contract entered into on August 21, 1947, extending
through the year 1948 and expiring on February 2S, 1949. This contract con-
tained a provision requiring employees to become and remain members of the
CIO and a check-off provision through which dues to the CIO were deducte&
by the company from employees' wages and remitted directly. No union authori-
zation election having been held, the so-called union shop provisions expired
under the terms of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, on August 22,.
1948, and were not thereafter given effect by the company. Up until this time,.
however, all employees in the unit had been and were members of the CIO.
Newly hired employees after August 22, 1948, were not required to join. Their
number does not appear to be substantial and is not clearly reflected in the record.
The check-off provisions, however, were continued in effect until the expiration
of the contract, but the dues were-held in-escrow for a period of time.
Meanwhile a schism developed between the parent organization, CIO, and
Local 3, the basis of which is not detailed. The record does reflect, however, that
Local 3 seceded from Retail, Wholesale & Department Store Unioa, C. I. O., on
September 1.3, 1948. Apparently there was considerable intense feeling among'
employees for and against this move. Local 3, now Local 3 Independent, con--
1 These objections are not repeated here as the Hearing Officer received and will con-
sider all evidence bearing on the election even though not before the Regional Director
and not covered by specific objections , since the Board Order is not limited in scope.
BLOOMINGDALE BROTHERS, INC. 1331
tinned its identity and continued to claim and seek recognition by the company
as bargaining agent and administrator of the contract. CIO likewise persisted
in its claims to represent the employees.. In this confused situation a number
of the employees in the unit supported Local 3 Independent and a number
supported CIO. The company refused to recognize or deal with either as exclu-
sive bargaining agent.
Into this picture in late 1948 the RCIA entered in an effort to win over the
employees of the store proper. They intervened in the representation hearing
in January 1949. The campaigns of these and other organizations in the store
reached their crescendo in the months of January, February, and March,' 1949.
Throughout the company attempted to remain neutral. Partly engendered by
the early internecine warfare between Local 3 Independent and the CIO, some.
of whose supporters switched to RCIA after the two had settled their difficulties,
employees advocating or opposing either the RCIA or Local 3 Independent held
their views and sentiments most strongly and resorted to words and actions with,
a vigorous militancy uncommon even for campaigns of this nature. The inten-
sity of the feeling was still apparent even at the time of the hearing. This was;
due in large measure to the injection into the campaign (whether calculatedly
or through provocation, I am unable to say) of issues not necessarily connected
with trade unionism, such as Communism, religion, and race. Because of the
nature of the business, time and opportunity were offered for frequent communi-
cation between employees, and the principal portions of the property were open
to free access by voluntary or paid organizers for either side.
In an effort to keep the situation in hand detectives were employed or assigned
by the store to keep campaigning, disruption of normal business, and offenses to
customers to a minimum either by employee advocates or organizers.
Findings
Two episodes discussed in my report in the matter of Stern Brothers, 2-RC-824,
relate as well to this matter and will be disposed of now.
On February 16, 1949, prior to the issuance of the Board decision but while
the matter was pending in the consolidated cases involving the Employer's store,
Local 3 Independent together with other independent locals formed a picket
line before the New York Regional Office of the Board around noontime. On
the same day a large delegation in which the business agent and members of
Local 3 Independent participated called upon the Secretary of the Board in
Washington. Large, clear pictures, one of the picket line (clearly identifying.
Andren, Local 3 Independent's assistant business agent) and another of the dele-
gation calling on the Secretary with a story headed "N-L-R-B ! We smell An
R-A-T !" in large block type sandwiched in between, were printed and promi-
nently displayed on the entire page of the back cover of the "Union Voice," the
official organ of Local 3 and other unions on February 27, 1949. All former
members of Local 3 receive this publication by mail distribution. This included
substantially all of the employees of Bloomingdale's eligible to vote in the elec-
tion. The picketing lasted about 21/2 hours and is referred to in the article as
a mass picket line. Signs carried in the picket line and which are clearly dis-
played in the picture at the top of the page of the publication distributed to the
employees, among others, read as follows : "The Labor Board plot is doomed
to fail at Stern and Namm and Bloomingdale!" and "N. L. R. B. is unfair to.
honest unionism." The article accompanying the pictures refers to the union's
attorney, Sam Shapiro, opening the session with the Board's Secretary by accus--
1332 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ing the Board of using stalling tactics to delay the election., In another, place
it states "The Board also was aware, he added, that management was attempting
to take advantage of the uncertain situation." Further on the article says,
"Lewis, Carnes and Miss Brown further denounced the Board's stalling and
pointed out that prolonged hearings might lead to serious difficulty in the depart-
ment store industry." Lewis is the business agent of Local 3 Independent.
Towards its conclusion it states that "Kleiler, who had attempted to justify the
delay, beat a speedy retreat when rank and filers opened up on the Board. From
every part of the big room came angry denunciations of the Board's delaying
tactics." Mr. Kleiler is the Secretary of the Board.
I cannot express myself sufficiently strongly in condemnation of this conduct
when a matter was pending for decision by the agency to whom employees
must look for protection of their rights under the statute and the guarantee of
free and secret elections. It is most regrettable that a member of the bar
should have participated in a portion of this demonstration. This is not to say
that it is not the privilege of this organization or any other citizen to criticize
the National Labor Relations Board. On the contrary, criticism of public
officials serves an important and necessary purpose in our form of government
especially where such officials are appointive rather than elective. There are
proper forums, times, and means for resorting to such criticism. I am well
aware also that it is imperative to protect the American's privilege of free
expression even when picketing is the mode used. However, the arbiters of
our constitutional rights, the courts, have recognized their restraint when used
for improper purposes or under improper circumstances. I would be blind
indeed if I did not recognize the similarity of the conduct engaged in here to
that which has been practiced in connection with the trial before Judge
Medina in the United States District Court in the same city, and which has
received wide publicity and the attention of Congress. The purpose was the
same, to coerce of influence action by public officials in the discharge of their
duties. The picketing and the demonstration might well be calculated to bring
about a serious discrediting of the agency which was to conduct the election
among the employees to the point where it would implant in the minds of the
employees 1 such a lack of trust, confidence and respect for the officials on
whom they must rely to protect and preserve their opportunity to cast a secret
ballot free of retributions as to prevent their appearance or free expression.
However, I have neither the function nor privilege of recommending restraint
or penalties for this deplorable action in a proceeding of this nature. The
incidents took place 6 weeks before the election and before the decision
of the Board ordering the election. The picket signs and statements in the
demonstration with the Board's Secretary were directed at the Board and
its impending decision rather than to the actual conduct of the election.
While this conduct like the physical assaults and threats hereinafter discussed,
is indicative of the unrestrained tactics of Local 3, I find no direct connection
of these two episodes to the assaults and threats. I, therefore, find that these
incidents of themselves did not adversely affect the conduct of the election.
In the same publication that Local 3 Independent distributed to employees
bearing the photographs and description of the picketing and demonstration at
the Board's offices, the headlines on the front page read "Bloomingdale Workers
on War Footing," the supporting article on page 3 of the publication states among
other things that "Bloomingdale workers are not depending on the Board but
are prepared to strike for a contract if necessary, said Lewis." Later the
BLOOMINGDALE BROTHERS, INC. 1333
article refers to support of the Bloomingdale Workers by the manpower and
finances of 35,000 unionists (members of various Independent locals in the
industry) in the event of a showdown. This was nothing more than campaign
propaganda. There was no actual threat to strike in defiance of action of the
Board on the election petition or of any certification from an election. I find
that this did not contribute to any illegitimate effect upon the outcome of the
election.
In line with its policy of neutrality the company issued and distributed to
employees a booklet on March 14, 1949, a printed message on March 23, 1949,
and mimeographed letter from its president on March 29, 1949. Summarized
briefly, one or more of these explained the reason and purpose of the election,
stressed the secrecy of the ballot, explained that employees could vote freely
despite previous commitments, reassured employees that their jobs would not
be affected, and explained the election and procedure details. I find, however,
that these company publications were not sufficient to offset the effects of the
conduct of Local 3 Independent hereinafter discussed. While they clearly
expressed the company's attitude and reassured employees as to the company's
position, they were not sufficient to thoroughly clarify an atmosphere polluted
from another source.
Six witnesses were offered by RCIA to substantiate its objections that Local
3 Independent had characterized it unfairly in the campaign as anti-Catholic,
anti-Semitic and anti-Negro. Four of these (Conboy, Williams, Pritchard, and
Ragan) gave credible evidence relating to statements by Kelley, a warehouse
employee, and one Conlon testified to a statement by Solomon, a shoe salesman.
Only one related to a Local 3 Independent responsible agent, this was the testi-
mony of McCarthy that Milton Harris had told him RCIA was anti-Catholic.
I credit McCarthy. Of a more substantial nature were the articles in the
"Union Voice" (the authority and reach of which is described hereinbefore) on.
February 27, 1949, referring to George Donahue's appointment as an interna-
tional representative of RCIA as follows :
PROPHECY COMES- TRUE. UNION VOICE prediction that George
Donahue, a vice-president of the RWDSU, would soon join the ranks of
the AFL Retail Clerks, came true several days after publication of UV,
as Times clip above reveals. Prediction was made in view of the fact that
the Wanamaker local, formerly with the RWDSU, switched to the AFL,
as well as the switch of a disruptive group at Sterns to that outfit. These
maneuvers were seen as a moving together of elements who've not been
unwilling to exploit anti-Semitic and other prejudices in the distributive
industries. Donahue has always worked closely with the leadership of the
Wanamaker local.
Again on the same page appears this quotation :
George R. Donahue, a former international vice president of the CIO
group and president of the Association of Catholic Trade Unionists, was
appointed an international representative of the Retail Clerks International
Association. He resigned last Thursday as business agent of the Sunshine
Biscuit Local 25 of the CIO state union.
I have examined the statements and publications attributed to Local 3 Inde-
pendent or its adherents and find that while they may be libelous and provoca-
tive there is -nothing more serious in them than reprehensible name-calling.
They break no RCIA bones. In fact RCIA's evidence is partially contradictory
as the statements by Kelley and Harris that RCIA was anti-Catholic are con-
1334 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
tradicted by the Local 3 newspaper reports which identify George Donahue
as president of the Association of Catholic Trade Unions. It is difficult to
believe that any employee could have been affected by such wild statements
as it was well known that Samuel Meyers, who is Jewish, was vice president
of RCIA in charge of its campaign and Manning Johnson, who is prominent in
the Negro community, joined its staff as an organizer in March. The evidence
in support of these objections is inconsequential.
On the day before the election Local 3 Independent distributed pamphlets
calling Holstrom and Buccera "flip flop stooges . . working together with
management." I find it to be nothing more than campaign characterization of
leaders of the opposition and nasty name-calling that did not affect the election.
The testimony offered by the RCIA in support of its objection that Local 3
Independent adherents refused to cooperate with RCIA adherents on the job
is unpersuasive. Momberger and Waide testified that they were unable to get
proper information from other coworkers to mark their merchandise properly
or that their coworkers failed to mark the merchandise in individual units as
they were supposed to. Both of these witnesses' testimony was vague and gen-
eral. Momberger's experience was with Vilk who is described in another portion
of this report. When she complained to her supervisors the misconduct of Vilk
was stopped. It is apparent that the testimony of Waide is inconsistent since
if the coworkers failed to mark the 20,000 items in her department individually
it was as much a handicap to them as it was to her. Waide's testimony that
her Independent coworkers refused to assist her in putting away merchandise
after work hours amounts to triviality and her testimony that her coworkers
refused to sit at the same table with her at luncheon is only indicative of the
personal feeling engendered by the campaign. Larkin testified that Independent
adherents in the store stopped talking to her and would not even look at her;
however, there is no evidence that this affected her earnings or her status in
the store. Manning Johnson and Eleanor Cron had trouble getting cooperation
out of Jack Vilk, an Independent shop 'steward, the same individual mentioned
in the Momberger testimony. Cron testified that "Vilk had said he wouldn't
work with an AFL individual and that he was doing his best not to work with
me" and threw empty cartons over her head, almost striking her. According to
Johnson's testimony Vilk had falsely accused him of not cooperating as early
as January and taken the matter up with management where Johnson success-
fully defended himself. On another occasion Vilk attempted to frame him by a
false charge that he had delivered a package to the wrong department and later
persuaded the stock man to change an established store procedure with respect
to the place where they left empty rollers, thus increasing Johnson's work.
Another incident of like character concerns Madeline Costello who was refused
service by an Independent adherent in the employee cafeteria while wearing
her RCIA button. With the assistance of another RCIA adherent she com-
plained to the assistant matron in the cafeteria who reprimanded the employee
and apologized to Costello. On a later occasion this same employee again
refused to serve Costello and sneered at her while other employees laughed.
The very recital of this incident shows its picayunishness. While I credit the
testimony that these incidents took place, I am unable to give any weight to
them. Where the proper remedy of complaint to supervisors was followed by
Momberger, Costello, and Johnson the supervisors admittedly used every effort
to correct it. Although Cron testified that after she reported Vilk's conduct
to Mr. Natalie, her supervisor, Vilk continued to harass her, Manning Johnson
BLOOMINGDALE BROTHERS, INC. 1335
admitted that the same Mr. Natalie made every effort to resolve these diffi-
culties. While these incidents may have annoyed and perhaps embarrassed
these witnesses, none of them were affected in their earnings and consequently
I find that they had no effect upon the outcome of the election.
Manning Johnson testified that as a result of the incidents mentioned above
involving him and a further incident which he described as an attempt to get
grim to accept a compact studded with jewels as a "plant to get him," he decided
to resign in February. At the time he stated to Mr. Bedell, the employment
manager, that the reason he was resigning was because the Independents were
making. it difficult for him to work in the store, had attempted to frame him,
and he'figured if he stayed on, he would get into serious difficulties. Mr. Bedell,
when he testified, was not asked about this report of Johnson to him and hence
did not deny it. I do not credit Johnson's testimony on this point that these
were the reasons for his resignation. His testimony about the compact incident
was vague and hurried. and he was nervous while giving it. His attempt at
describing its value by reference to "rubies and diamonds" was an obvious
exaggeration. His own testimony makes it obvious that he was one of the
leading and militant advocates of the RCIA equally as militant as Jack Vilk.
He took pleasure in describing how on two occasions (once when the Independ-
ent adherents had complained to management, about his conduct and again when
they 'attempted to show he had delivered a package to the wrong department)
he successfully outwitted them. He was an ex-business manager for C. I. O.
and. later joined: RCIA as a paid organizer. He is alert, intelligent, and
courageous. For these reasons I am unable to credit his testimony that these
incidents influenced his resignation.
Much testimony was offered in an effort to demonstrate that the company
was. partial to the Independent by permitting freer run of the store to Inde-
pendent organizers and that store detectives and supervisors were more severe
in curtailing activities of RCIA organizers and employee adherents while allow-
ing-free run to Independent organizers and adherents. Josephine Telesco testi-
fied that Independent officers and organizers were permitted to move freely
about the store and not asked to leave but that she was immediately spotted
by store detectives and asked to leave as soon as she entered, "many times
taken by the arm." She also testified that one of the three store detectives
(not identified by name) had told her that all three detectives had been specif-
ically assigned by . management to follow only RCIA organizers. She also
related two other incidents when commotions were caused while she was pur-
chasing articles, one occasioned by. Fitzgerald, Brigliano, and Harris, Independ-
ent organizers, and on another occasion by Fitzgerald and Brigliano. On the
first. occasion, Burns, a detective, threatened to throw her out of the store, but
left the Independents' unmolested' and when she reported this to Mr. Bedell,
he seemed amused and refused to believe it. I am unable to 'credit Telesco's
testimony on this point and also her testimony that employees continuously
asked her why Telesco did not have the same privileges as Independent organ-
izers.. Telesco was an excited and indignant witness on this point. She was
a paid organizer of the RCIA who had been assigned to the Bloomingdale store.
She attempted to testify that she entered the store for the purpose of making
purchases but it was obvious that she was in the store for the purpose of or-
ganizing. Josephine Urquhart testified to the same effect, that she never entered
the store but that she was stopped and asked to leave or escorted to the door by
detectives or executives, while in some instances organizers for the Independent
1336 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
were present and were not asked to leave. She also was a paid organizer and
spent considerable time in the store. It is difficult to understand how she as
well as Telesco could have been^.spotted immediately on entering and asked to
leave and yet spent so much time in the store. I am unable also to credit her
testimony on this point. Eleanor Cron testified concerning an incident when
two Independent adherents complained to the supervisor of her department
about Bucceri's (an RCIA advocate) presence on her floor and the supervisor
required him to leave. She compared this with employee Independent adherents
from other floors constantly campaigning on her floor and testified they were
never asked to leave by the two supervisors. While she was specific about
Buccerl, her comparison testimony about the Independent was indefinite and
generalized.
Gustave Holmstrom testified that officers, organizers, and shop stewards of the
Independent freely roamed the store and their activities were never stopped
unless specific complaints were made to management. He mentioned as' an
example Abraham Marks who, according to Holmstrom, ran around the store
day in and day out visiting people and talking to people. He made the same
generalizations with respect to four other Independent adherents but stated that
no matter where he went in the store every division superintendent, buyer,
assistant buyer, or floor manager would ask him to get out of their department.
This testimony impresses me as ekaggeration and biased conclusions of the wit-
ness' mind. As will be seen hereinafter Holmstrom had received rough treat-
ment at the hands of the Independent earlier and perhaps was influenced by
this. Holmstrom at another place when testifying concerning an incident in the
employees' cafeteria between himself, Harris, and Fitzgerald, admitted that when
lie phoned the employment manager, detectives were immediately sent to the
cafeteria and although Fitzgerald and Harris-had left, Marshall, the vice presi-
dent of the Independent, who was still present, was ushered out by the
detectives.
Larkin in her testimony when relating how Fitzgerald, Harris, and Brigliano
visited her department several times each day stated that "sometimes they were
escorted out and sometimes they were not." She also testified that on her day
off, while in the store, Fitzgerald would follow her. I credit this testimony but
find it immaterial. The record contains numerous other incidents when em-
ployee partisans or organizers for Local 3 Independent were in departments
other than their own during their working time or off time. I find. that •there
was a great amount of campaigning by these people all over the store during
store hours. Few witnesses were called by Local 3 Independent but even from
RCIA's own witnesses it is easy to glean from the record that RCIA's organizers
and employee helpers spent long hours campaigning in all. departments during
store hours.
Despite the effort to build up a record to show partiality by the store to Local 3
Independent people I am not convinced that this existed or was obvious to the
average employee. Harris, Fitzgerald, Andren, and Brigliano, the only wit-
nesses for the Local 3 Independent, testified credibly,on this point, that they too
were followed by store detectives and efforts made to get them to leave
repeatedly. There are other instances of management interference with activi-
ties of Local 3 Independent employee advocates or organizers.
The difficulties of policing the property in a department store open to the
public is readily apparent. Both sides were energetic and active in their efforts
to reach the employees who could best be reached while at work in a city the size
BLOOMINGDALE BROTHERS, INC. 1337
of New York. Additionally, they were pugnacious toward each other. They
were not only intent on their own campaign but intent on their efforts to offset the
.campaign of the other. Each side had at least three full-time organizers-for
the RCIA Clark, Telesco, and Urquhart as well as the interested adherents such
as Holmstrom and Bucceri; for the other side, Fitzgerald, Harris, and Brigliano
as well as_militant employees like Marks, Romano, Vilk, and others were active.
In connection with their duties and, under long-standing store custom, during
their rest periods employees circulated to a large extent through departments
other than their own, and are allowed time to go through the store for the purpose
of making purchases. Both sides had an equal opportunity to do this and although
the store detectives and supervisors were on the alert to prevent annoying or
embarrassing campaigning the opportunities apparently depended in direct pro-
portion on the ingenuity and aggressiveness of the individuals in avoiding
discovery. Additionally the pamphlets issued just before the election discussed
heretofore clearly indicate the company's neutrality to employees. I find that
these objections have no merit.
Two incidents which in my judgment influenced the entire election occurred
with respect to two prominent employee AFL supporters, Holmstrom and
Bucceri. Each of these employees worked in the store and were almost fanati-
cally active on behalf of the RCIA. They were unquestionably its leading
adherents in the store. They were marked, recognized, identified, and publicized
as such from the beginning not only by the RCIA but by Local 3 Independent
itself. Andren, the assistant business agent of Local 3 Independent, testified
that prior to the secession of Local 3 Independent from the United Wholesale,
Retail and Department Store Union, CIO, Holmstrom and Bucceri had organized
a committee known as "the Rank and File Progressive Committee." After the
secession which took place in September of 1948 Holmstrom and Bucceri sup-
ported the parent organization CIO and issued leaflets in support of it. Before
the CIO withdrew from its claim of interest in the representation proceeding
which was pending during the months of December 1948 and January and
February 1949, Holmstrom and Bucceri according to Andren's testimony had
issued leaflets declaring they were now members of the AFL and asking the
support of the employees for the AFL. Their position as more or less a per-
'sonification of the AFL campaign is further indicated by leaflets distributed to
'employees by Local 3 Independent itself. In one of these as early as December
30 (in evidence as RCIA Exhibit No. 14) which is headed "Stalling the Election"
there are four references to these two individuals in these words : "Who appeared
at the conference? Representatives of Wolchok's discredited C. I. O. Interna-
tional and Representatives of the Retail Clerks International Association,
A. F. L., which Holstrom and Bucceri are attempting to sponsor in their most
.recent`flip-flop." In a later paragraph of the pamphlet it states, "Who tried to
stall it? Wolchok's C. I. O. International and the Holmstrom-Bucceri A. F. L.
outfit . . ." Another paragraph refers to the "Holmstrom-Bucceri sponsored
A. F. L." and the final paragraph states "the discredited Wolchok's C. I. O.
International and the phony Holmstrom-Bucceri clique are concentrating on the
unsuspecting new people and Xmas extras who are not aware of the fighting
traditions of Local 3 Independent." The frequent reference and strong language
,used with respect to these two men in this one-page pamphlet indicates clearly
,the animus of Local 3 Independent toward these men and their recognition and
.place that they accorded them in the entire campaign of the RCIA. Nor was
this forgotten during the campaign. As late as March 30, the day before the
1338 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
election, in another pamphlet distributed to employees, Local 3 Independent in
the very first paragraph refers to them in this,manner: "-Remember that it was
the phony rank and file flip-flop stooges Holmstrom, Bucceri and company who
working together with the management tried to disrupt and wreck our union."
This recognition by Local 3 Independent of the position of these men lends great
strength and credibility to the testimony 'concerning them. The pamphlets
'forcefully impressed employees with their position in RCIA's campaign.
Holmstrom testified that on one of the last days of February roughly a month
before the election at the store's subway entrance around 8: 20 p. in. he was
distributing RCIA leaflets with a package in his hand. Harris and Fitzgerald,
both of whom are larger and heavier than Holmstrom, came down the stairs
from the street and while Harris grabbed the package of leaflets and struggled
with Holmstrom, Fitzgerald shoved him to the wall, punched and slugged him
in the face, around his head and'on his back, inflicting some marks and pain.
He dropped the leaflets. A number of employees, estimated variously by wit-
nesses but which I find to be around 20, then coming to work witnessed
the incident. Fitzgerald then either disposed of Holmstrom's leaflets by throw-
ing them in the rubbage can or ran up the steps with them.. There is conflict on
-this point between the witnesses Hyatt and Hammarstrom. Hyatt identified
Fitzgerald as picking up Holmstrom's leaflets and throwing them in the rubbage
can. Hammarstrom who was not iif a"position to identify the 2 men testified
that he witnessed the incident and saw 2 men grab the pamphlets and run
up to the street. It is clear despite this conflict that either Harris or Fitzgerald
did take possession of Holmstrom's package of pamphlets and dispose of them.
Although there is some conflict in the testimony of the 3 principal witnesses
about this incident, Holmstrom, Hyatt, and Hammarstrom, this is not unusual
in an incident of this nature nor is it irreconcilable. As to the date both Holm-
strom and Hyatt fixed it approximately 1 month before the election while
Iammarstrom said it was 2 or 3 weeks before. Marchellos who did not see it
but heard about it on the same day from his recollection fixed the date as 11/2
to 2 months before. I find that it occurred approximately 1 month before the
election. There was also some conflict-as to the actual happenings. Holmstrom
believed that -it was only Fitzgerald who was striking him while he was facing
the wall to protect himself, while Hyatt stated that Holmstrom was facing
Fitzgerald and Harris and both were hitting him. Such conflicts in testimony
concerning an incident occurring more than 6, months prior to the witnesses'
.taking the stand is not unusual nor do I consider them material. I find that
Fitzgerald and Harris participated in an assault upon Holmstrom approximately
1. month before the election at around 8: 20 in the morning at the subway
entrance to the store during which Holmstrom was repeatedly struck by Fitz-
gerald • and perhaps by Harris acting together and that his RCIA pamphlets
which he was distributing were taken from him and disposed of by either of
these 2 men.
In further corroboration Holmstrom testified that a few days after this assault
Abraham Marks, an Independent shop steward active on behalf of the Inde-
pendent, in the presence of the same Harris warned him that if he did not stop
his activities on behalf of the RCIA he would really get hurt the next time
and that it would not be done by members of Local 3 Independent but would be
done by someone else whom he would not know because the Independent- have
their goons, too. Two other employees of the store overheard this threat.
Holmstrom again,, testified that:. during the week of the election on either the
BLOOMINGDALE BROTHERS, INC. 1339
Monday or Tuesday of that week the same Fitzgerald and Harris accosted him
in the employees' cafeteria and after jostling him and elbowing him followed
him to the table where they called him a rat and a stooge and made other nasty
remarks. They were joined in this by Harry Marshall, the vice president of the
Independent. Several employees overheard this. I credit Holmstrom's testi-
mony on these instances. Abraham Marks and Marshall were not called to
testify by the Independent. Harris and Fitzgerald flatly and patently denied
each and every portion of the testimony recited above. In view of the personifi-
cation of Holmstrom as an active RCIA Independent, the aggressiveness of
Local 3 Independent's campaign, the corroborating testimony of Hyatt and
Hammarstrom, and the general appearance and demeanor of the witnesses Harris
and Fitzgerald, I do not credit their denials.
I also credit the testimony of Larkin that several weeks before the election
while Larkin was speaking to Holmstrom outside of the 59th Street entrance of
the store in the presence of a number of employees Fitzgerald came up and
aimed a blow at one or the two of them. Although the blow was ineffective a
commotion ensued during which Fitzgerald again called Holmstrom a rat and
other profane names. Again I do not credit Fitzgerald's denial.
The companion personification of the RCIA campaign to Holmstrom was
Anthony Bucceri. The record clearly indicates that he too was singled out
by Local 3 Independent organizers and adherents for special treatment. The
most serious incident in relation to Bucceri occurred while Bucceri was dis-
tributing RCIA pamphlets along with two other organizers, Josephine Clark and
Josephine Telesco, at the 60th Street entrance of the store at street level. Harris
and Brigliano, two Independent organizers, were also distributing pamphlets on
behalf of the Independent. There is some conflict as to the exact date. Bucceri
testified that it occurred on the same day as the Holmstrom incident. At other
places in his testimony he fixed it as a month before the election and 3 weeks
before the election. Telesco and Clark fixed it at different dates. McCarthy,
who learned of the incident shortly afterwards, also fixed it as the, same date as
the Holmstrom incident. I find McCarthy to be a credible witness and find that
it occurred on the same morning as the Holmstrom incident. Bucceri further
testified that at a time not exactly fixed, but around 8: 15 according to Clark,
he saw Fitzgerald coming toward him. At the same time Harris took off his
glasses. Fitzgerald came up to Bucceri and tore the package of leaflets from
his right hand and threw them in the street. Harris and Brigliano who had been
distributing pamphlets with Harris (referred to frequently in the record as
Briggs but stipulated to be the same person) started to maul him and shove him.
Fitzgerald then came over and did the same thing. He described it as a quick
succession of hard shoves with the heel of the hand. Harris was yelling mean-
while, "you watch out or he will kill you, he will kill you." Bucceri tried to get
into the store which was not yet open and after some discussion with the guard
was allowed in upon presentation of his employee's card. Telesco, who was
present, corroborates Bucceri in substantial detail. Although she described the
assault more vigorously than Bucceri and testified that Fitzgerald hit Bucceri
with blows to the face and body and went on further to relate that the three,
Harris, Brigliano, and Fitzgerald, followed Bucceri into the store vestibule where
she and Miss Clark attempted to separate them at which point Fitzgerald told
her "if you weren't a woman I would do the same thing to you." There is no
substantial contradiction and the testimony is mutually corroborating on the
actual. events. Clark's -testimony likewise is corroborative. -She further added
1340 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
that Fitzgerald first pushed Clark aside and grabbed up the RCIA leaflets which
she had deposited in a pile on the ground near her and then wheeled on Bucceri
saying, "You have no right to be here and I will kill you." According to her
testimony Fitzgerald, Brigliano, and Harris then began to beat Bucceri while she
and Telesco tried to separate them, begging them to leave Bucceri alone. She
also confirmed Telesco's testimony that the Independent organizers followed
Buccel•i into the vestibule-and after he was admitted to the store they returned
to the street where Fitzgerald again wrestled with Telesco for her pamphlets.
There is some conflict in the testimony of these three witnesses; however,
it is neither major nor unusual among witnesses relating an exciting incident of
this nature. There is conflict in the description of the assault such as Bucceri's
testimony that it was a quick succession of hard shoves with the heel of the
hand while Telesco referred to it as blows and Clark referred to it as a pound-
ing. I find no actual conflict in this description. There was conflict also as to
the time the incident took, Bucceri fixing it as a few seconds and Clark and
Telesco fixing it at a longer time. The incident was categorically denied by
Fitzgerald, Harris, and Brigliano. For the reasons set forth above I do not
credit the denial of Harris and Fitzgerald. For the same reasons I do not
credit Brigliano's denial. I find this incident took place substantially as de-
scribed by Bucceri, Clark, and Telesco. I find also that it was witnessed by
some employees coming up the street. In further corroboration of Buccerri's
testimony and lending credence to the testimony with respect thereto, it will
be recalled that he had been identified in pamphlets as set forth above. Further
he testified credibly that Milton Harris almost always referred to him as a
management stooge and rat and warned him that "after we win we will take
care of you." Fitzgerald had made similar remarks repeatedly to Bucerri
and called him foul-mouthed and vicious names . Steve Romano, an employee
and sergeant-at-arms of the Independent, around the same time, about a month
before the election, in the presence of other employees in the locker room had
said to Bucceri, "I don't want to see you, Bucceri, tomorrow morning, other-
wise I will kick your teeth out." I credit this testimony of Bucceri. Numerous
witnesses including Bucceri and Holmstrom, as well as Clark and Telesco, testi-
fied that these two incidents were discussed by employees in the store and that
the employees in the store learned about these incidents shortly after they hap-
pened. In view of the intensity of the campaign, the close identity of Holmstrom
and Bucceri with the RCIA 's campaign , the frequent opportunity for communi-
cation between employees in the store, and the widespread activity of organizers
for both sides as well as the obvious venom and feeling of Local 3 Independent
against Holmstrom and Bucceri, I credit this testimony and find that these inci-
dents became a matter of general knowledge and discussion in the store among the
employees eligible to vote in the election. Fitzgerald, Harris, and Brigliano,
according to their own testimony, continued thereafter to be extremely active in
campaigning in the store and in the distribution, of pamphlets to employees.
As such their presence was constantly before the employees. I find these physi-
cal assaults upon these two active participants in the RCIA campaign coming
to the general knowledge of the employees in the store were reasonably cal-
culated to and did affect the outcome of the election and influenced employees in
their selection of a balgaining agent.
There were other assaults of a minor nature . As early as January during the
course of an argument the ardent Vilk, identified above, seized Manning John-
son's arm and twisted it behind his back. This took place in the department
in which they worked and was witnessed by a number of employees . I credit
BLOOMINGDALE BROTHERS, INC. 1341
Johnson's testimony on this point. Again about 10 days before the election the
same Harris accosted Urquhart, the RCIA organizer, and after warning her in
the following language : "you sons of bitches had better stay away from the
store if you know what's good for you," pushed her against the building and
while doing so threatened her in this fashion : "We have never beaten a woman
yet but you look like a good one to start with." A number of employees witnessed
this which occurred about 9 a. in. I credit Urquhart's testimony and for the
reasons set out above do not credit the denial by Harris. Urquhart gave addi-
tional testimony with reference to abuse and snatching of the pamphlets from
the hands of RCIA employees by Fitzgerald and Harris with warnings to them
not to read the antiunion literature. She also testified that employees had
told her they were frightened and many would not talk to her. Because of
the general nature of this testimony which failed to identify specific instances,
I do riot credit it. There was one other incident of an assault when on the day
before • the election a described but unidentified Independent adherent struck
Manning Johnson, who was distributing RCIA leaflets at the subway entrance
while employees were coming to work, in the back with his fist and ordered him
to get out of the way. Again because of the indefinite identification and the
relatively minor nature of this assault I give it no weight.
The record indicates that in the early part of March there was talk within
Local 3 Independent itself of calling a strike at Bloomingdale's to force recog-
nition. Although the strike was never called it was a serious topic of discus-
sion. There was even talk of setting a date for it. At one of the meetings of the
general membership of the Independent attended by Lillian Storan, Sam Lewis,
who is business manager of the Independent, in addressing the assembled em-
ployees of Bloomingdale's with respect to the strike, stated that no one would be
allowed to pass the picket line into the store and that "they would overcome
any obstacle with physical persuasion." The purpose of the meeting was to dis-
cuss the proposed strike. As near as I can fix it from the testimony of the
witness this meeting occurred in early March. This is substantiated by the pub-
lication of Union Voice (Exhibit 11) of February 27, 1.949, which discusses a
strike in a lead article. In this connection, Jack Vilk, the Independent shop
steward described above, warned one of the employees, Carreras, that "if any-
one passes the picket line during the strike there will be plenty of blood
spilled." Another employee by the name of Max Rosenberg, a shop steward, was
overheard telling Miss MacDonald that if Carreras was not going on strike "I will
take care of her even if I have to go to jail for it.,, Gertrude Momberger testi-
fied to this and her testimony was corroborated in substance by Pura Carreras.
There are numerous other threats which transcend normal campaign propa-
ganda by paid agents, minor officials, and employee sympathizers of the In-
dependent. I do not intend to list them all. The same Milton Harris was en-
gaged in at least four of these independent of his activity recited above. Some
3 or 4 weeks before the election, after inviting Madeline Costello to have
coffee with him outside the store and endeavoring to persuade her to vote for
the Independent, she continued to maintain strongly her preference for the
RCIA. Harris finally warned her that he would remain at Bloomingdale's but.
in the event she should leave that he hoped she left voluntarily and not "get
run over or anything." Michael McCarthy testified credibly that sometime
before the election on a date not identified, after Harris had asked him to sign
an Independent membership card and McCarthy refused, Harris warned him
that be had better sign up or he would be out of a job. Again testimony was
1342 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
admitted by stipulation with reference to the witness Marion Fairbanks that'if.
called she would have testified "sometime before the election, but during the cam-
paign period, Milton Harris told her that the Independent was going to get in.
and when they did, `we are not going to use kid gloves.'" Although I did not have
an opportunity to observe this witness, the statement is so similar in character
to other activities of Harris that I credit it. Bucceri was also warned by
Harris on a number of occasions that "after we win we will take care of you."
This threat had added significance to Bucceri because Bucceri had been dis-
charged as a result of action by Local 3 Independent prior to its becoming in-
dependent but was later reinstated through the action of outside parties.
Fitzgerald, too, participated in other threatening activities than those listed
above. McCarthy testified credibly that Fitzgerald accosted him in the store
and after accusing him of peddling cards for the AFL and after words had
passed between them warned him "get out of here or I will stretch you."' Al-
though the meaning of the word stretch is ambiguous in its context it was an
obvious threat. Fitzgerald denied this but I credit the testimony of McCarthy.
On another occasion, as early as January, Fitzgerald had warned McCarthy
he would be sorry if he did not join up with the Independent. While this too
is ambiguous the other activities of Fitzgerald and organizers for Independent
lend added significance to it and I find it to be an actual threat. The same
Fitzgerald on the day before the election, according to the credible testimony of
Marchellos, warned him in the presence of two other employees that it was
his last chance to vote Independent or "you are out of a job." This testimony
of Marchellos was substantially corroborated by one of the employees present,
Frank Francischine, a witness. I credit their testimony rather than the denial
of Fitzgerald. Marchellos gave other testimony with reference to Fitzgerald
in February calling him names for avoiding meeting with him (Fitzgerald)
and stating that he was going to vote AFL. Fitzgerald on this occasion warned
him that he would be in the same boat with McCarthy. Because of the am-
biguity of the statement I give it no weight. Marchellos also was told by a
salesman on the floor, an Independent advocate, that McCarthy and Holmstrom
would be on the list out of a job when the Independent got in. Although no
exact date was given of this conversation and there is no showing that Paperno,
the salesman, was a responsible agent of the Independent, I have considered
it since it fits into the pattern of the general campaign of the Independent.
Brigliano, the secretary and treasurer of the Independent, shortly before
the election while distributing pamphlets and after giving one to McCarthy,
told him, "we will get rid of you fellows after the election."
Lesser officers of the Independent participated in some of these threats.
Thus, Shop Steward Rosenberg about 3 weeks before the election when
asked by Carreras if he was trying to get her job, replied : "I have ways of
doing things around here, I'll take care of you," and again Shop Steward
Goldenberg only 2 days before the election, when advised, by Doris Wolfe,
the witness, that she preferred the RCIA, warned her that "they did not like
to harm women especially her because she was only a young girl." He then
went on to say, "You should think of these things. We do not want to harm
you or any of your friends. Why don't you be a little wiser and go along
with us. You don't want to get hurt, do you?" When asked what he meant
by "get hurt," he replied "we have our ways of taking care of people that
don't get along with us." Doris Wolfe ',Vas an able and credible witness.
Although there is some ambiguity in this statement, set in the background of
the assault and the general pugnacious activity of the Independent, it takes
BLOOMINGDALE BROTHERS, INC. - - 13.43
on a -clear meaning as a threat. -Another shop steward, Welder, who;had clear;
knowledge of Lillian Storan's hostility to the Independent by -her failure, to
pay. dues and her resignation, warned her 2 weeks before the election that,
if she continued' for the RCIA she would be walking the streets looking- fort
a job. once the election was over. Melvin Landau, also a shop steward for
the 'Independent, on the day before the election informed Bucceri, the active RCIA
employee, that after the Independent won, the Independent would see to it
that they would have his job. Bucceri testified credibly to this. Larkin testis
fled that Pinza, shop steward for the Independent employed in her department,
threatened her with the loss of her.job if she did not vote for the Independent.
Mary Waide testified that Harvey Manheimer, who had assumed the duties
of shop steward, advised her the week before the election that anyone who
voted for the AFL would be taken care of after the election. He also told,
her that the Independent had, ways of finding out how.shevoted. Because
of the ambiguity of this statement and the questionable nature of Manheimer's
position I do not find it to be a serious threat. There were other threats by
Rogers, an Independent adherent, and an employee Independent supporter
named Emil to the witness Cron which I. do not think it important to detail.
Rosenberg, Goldenberg, WWider, Landau, Pinza, and Manheimer did not take
the stand to deny the testimony concerning them. While under normal cir-
cumstances there might be some question about holding the Independent
responsible for the statements 'of these men, they are so similar to the
credited threats made by Harris, Fitzgerald, and Brigliano and supported in
character by the statements made by Sam Lewis, the business agent, at the
meeting that I am forced to conclude that they are part of a definite pattern
of conduct engaged in by the Local 3 Independent. When the Holmstrom
and Bucceri incidents which carne to the general knowledge of employees are
added to these their effectiveness is greatly enhanced. Although ' the shop
steward is a relatively minor office they are actually grievance handlers at de-
partmental level and as the record indicates can aid or injure an employee sub-
stantially. I therefore find that these threats were part of a pattern of the
campaign of Local 3 Independent and were reasonably calculated to influence
the employees in expression of a free choice of bargaining agent.
Conclusions
The sole issue before this Hearing Officer is whether or not the employees
eligible to vote in the election had an opportunity to cast their ballots under
circumstances and in an atmosphere where they might reasonably freely ex-
press their choice for a bargaining agent.
By the action of the full-time organizers for Local 3 Independent in physi-
cally abusing, roughing up, and threatening organizers and well known employee
adherents of RCIA, Local 3 Independent laid a predicate of disorderly conduct
and acts of violence which gave added meaning to the improper conduct and
threats of retaliation made by them later and nominally lesser officers, such as
shop stewards, etc., and even to the expressions of strong Local 3 supporters
holding no actual office. The Independent was obviously responsible for the acts of
its paid agents. When it failed to disavow such conduct it in effect ratified by
inaction the conduct of lesser officers and employees. In this case the entire
congeries of events by their similarity, frequent repetition, and widespread cov-
erage, fit together into a natural and logical pattern which leads to but one
conclusion that it was part of a sustained campaign intended to intimidate
1344 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
and coerce employees into voting against RCIA or in favor of Local 3 Inde-
pendent. They are collectively,,,and in many instances. individually;. substan-
tial and influential.. The sincere-efforts of the company to remain neutral-and
their effort to reassure employees on the secrecy of the ballot and the security
of their jobs through the pamphlets were not sufficient to offset a campaign
of such sustained intensity. It is immaterial what the source of the adverse
influence on the election may be. Here it came from Local 3 Independent. I•
find that the entire couise of conduct of Local 3 Independent was reasonably
calculated to create an atmosphere that rendered a free and untrammeled choice.
by employees improbable if not impossible. The election, therefore, did not
constitute a fair test of employee desires.
I therefore recommend that the objections be sustained and the election be
set aside.'
Dated at New Orleans, Louisiana, this 4th day of.November 1949.
C. PAUL BARKER,
Hearing Officer.
ORDER DIRECTING HEARING ON EXCEPTIONS
The Regional Director for the Second Region having on June 16, 1949, issued
his Report on Objections to the election conducted herein in Group (c) and
thereafter, on July 5, 1949, counsel for Bloomingdale Department Store Em-
ployees Union, Local 3, Independent, Petitioner herein, and Retail Clerks Inter-
national Association, A. F. L., Intervenor herein, having filed exceptions thereto,
and the Board having duly considered the matter, and it appearing to the Board
that the said exceptions raise substantial and material issues with respect to
the conduct of the election and conduct affecting the results of the election in
Group (c),
IT IS HEIUMY ORDERED that a hearing be held on the aforesaid exceptions ; and
IT Is FURTHER ORDERED that the Hearing Officer duly designated by the Regional
Director prepare and cause to be served upon the parties a Report containing
Findings of Fact and Recommendations to the Board in this matter. Within 5,
days of the receipt of such Report, any party may file with the Board in Wash-
ington, D. C., an original and six copies of exceptions thereto. Immediately
upon the filing of such exceptions, the party filing shall serve a copy thereof upon
each of the other parties and shall file a copy with the Regional Director ; and
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the above-entitled matter be, and it hereby is, re-.
ferred to the said Regional Director for the purposes of such hearing and that
the aforesaid Regional Director be, and he hereby is, authorized to issue early.
notice thereof.
Dated, Washington, D. C., July 25, 1949.
By direction of the Board :
FRANK M. DEFILER,
Executive Secretary.
x Pursuant to the Order of the Board dated at Washington, D. C., July 25, 1949, in this
matter (copy of which is attached hereto) within 5 days of the receipt of this report
any party hereto may file with the Board in Washington, D. C., an original and six copies
of exceptions hereto and shall serve a copy upon the other parties. Proof of service
shall be made in accordance with Section 203.85 of the Rules and Regulations. Your
attention is directed to Section 203.86 of the same Rules. Your attention is also directed
to Sections 203.61 and 203.60.