Butler Knitting Mills, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 7, 1960

127 N.L.R.B. 68 (N.L.R.B. 1960)

68 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
All production and maintenance employees at the Employer's
Raleigh, North Carolina, plant, including material handling group
leaders, microwave group leaders, and tester group leaders, quality
control technicians, expediters, and other plant clerical employees,
but excluding inventory control clerks, material control analysts,
technical writers, and other office clerical employees, engineers, assist-
ant engineers, senior engineers, application engineers, and other pro-
fessional employees, draftsmen, and other technical employees, cafe-
teria employees, managerial employees, guards and supervisors as
defined in the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
Butler Knitting Mills , Inc. and Local 222, International Ladies
Garment Workers Union , AFL-CIO
Julius Weber and Constance A. Weber, d/b/a Weber Knitting
Mills and Local 222, International Ladies Garment Workers
Union , AFL-CIO. Cases Nos. 22-CA-229 and f2-CA-f31. April
7, 1960
DECISION AND ORDER
On December 31, 1959, Trial Examiner Samuel Ross issued his
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that
the Respondents had engaged in and were engaging in certain unfair
labor practices and recommending that they cease and desist there-
from and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy
of the Intermediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the Charg-
ing Party filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the Act, the Board
has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-
member panel [Chairman Leedom and Members Bean and Fanning].
The Board has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner
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 exceptions, and the entire record in this case, and
hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations' of
the Trial Examiner.
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
'As the record shows that the Respondents closed the weber Knitting Mills of North
Bergen, New Jersey, in December 1958, we shall require the Respondents to send to each
of the striking employees formerly employed at the North Bergen plant , copies of the
notice attached hereto, in addition to posting notices at the Butler, New Jersey , plant.
127 NLRB No. 13.
BUTLER KNITTING MILLS, INC. 69
Relations Board hereby orders that Respondents Butler Knitting
Mills, Inc., and Julius Weber and Constance A. Weber, d/b/a Weber
Knitting Mills, their officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall
jointly and severally :
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Recognizing Local 945, International Brotherhood of Team-
sters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America, as the ex-
clusive representative of their employees for the purpose of collective
bargaining, unless and until said labor organization is certified by
the National Labor Relations Board as the exclusive bargaining rep-
resentative of said employees in an appropriate unit.
(b) In any manner giving aid, support, or assistance to Local 945,
International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen
& Helpers of America, or any other labor organization, or otherwise
interfering with the representation of their employees through a
labor organization of their own choosing.
(c) Threatening their employees with discharge or discriminating
in respect to any other term or condition of employment by reason of
their participation in strikes or other concerted activities on behalf
.of Local 222, International Ladies Garment Workers Union, AFL-
CIO, or any other labor organization.
(d) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing
employees in the exercise of the right to self-organization, to form or
assist labor organizations, to join or assist Local 222, International
Ladies Garment Workers Union, AFL-CIO, or any other labor
organization, to bargain 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, and to
refrain from any and all such activities, except to the extent that such
rights may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a
labor organization as a condition of employment as authorized in
Section 8(a) (3) of the Act, as modified by the Labor-Management
Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Withdraw and withhold all recognition from Local 945, Inter-
national Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen &
Helpers of America, or any successor thereto, as the exclusive repre-
sentative of their employees for the purposes of collective bargaining,
unless and until the said labor organization is certified by the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board as such exclusive representative in an
appropriate unit.
(b) Upon application, offer immediate and full reinstatement to
their former or substantially equivalent positions, without prejudice
to their seniority or other rights and privileges, to all those employees
70 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
of Respondent Butler who went on strike on August 25, 1958, or
thereafter, dismissing, if necessary, any person hired or transferred
to Respondent Butler's plant on or after that date, and make them
whole in the manner set forth in the section of the Intermediate Re-
port entitled "The Remedy" for any loss of pay which they may suffer
by reason of Respondents' refusal, if any, to reinstate them.
(c) Upon application, offer immediate and full reinstatement at
the Butler plant to their former or substantially equivalent positions,
without prejudice to their seniority or other rights and privileges, to
all those employees of Respondent Weber who went on strike on
August 21, 1958, or thereafter, dismissing, if necessary, any persons
hired on and after such date, and make them whole in the manner set
forth in the section of the Intermediate Report entitled "The Remedy"
for any loss of pay which they may suffer, by reason of Respondents'
refusal, if any, to reinstate them. In the event that after the dismissal
of those employees who were hired by Respondent Butler on and after
August 21, 1958, there are not sufficient jobs at the Butler plant for all
the striking employees of Respondent Weber who apply for reinstate-
ment, to the extent that any jobs at Respondent Butler's plant are still
filled by employees of Respondent Weber who were transferred to
Respondent Butler, such jobs shall be distributed among the striking
employees of Respondent Weber who apply for reinstatement and
such transferees from Respondent Weber's plant who are still em-
ployed by Respondent Butler, in accordance with such system of
seniority or other nondiscriminatory practice heretofore applied by
Respondents in the conduct of their business.
(d) Place all the striking employees of Respondents who apply for
reinstatement and for whom no employment is available upon a
preferential hiring list, with priority in accordance with such system
of seniority or other nondiscriminatory practice heretofore applied by
Respondents in the conduct of their business, and thereafter offer such
employees reinstatement as such employment becomes available and
before other employees are hired for such work.
(e) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the Board or its
agents, for examination and copying, all payroll records, social se-
curity payment records, timecards, personnel records and reports, and
all other records necessary to analyze the amount of backpay due and
the right to reinstatement under the terms of this Order.
(f) Send to each of the striking employees who were employed at
its North Bergen, New Jersey, plant, and post at its plant in Butler,
New Jersey, copies of the notice attached hereto marked "Appendix." 2
Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for
2 In the event that this Order is enforced by a decree of a United States Court of
Appeals, there shall be substituted for the words "Pursuant to a Decision and Order" the
words "Pursuant to a Decree of the United States Court of Appeals, Enforcing an Order."
BUTLER KNITTING MILLS, INC. 71
the Twenty-second Region, shall, after being signed by the Respond-
ents' representative, be mailed to said employees and also posted by
Respondents immediately upon receipt thereof and maintained by
them for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, includ-
ing all places where notices to employees are customarily posted.
Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondents to insure that the-
posted notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other
material.
(g) Notify the Regional Director for the Twenty-second Region,,
in writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps,
Respondents have taken to comply herewith.
APPENDIX
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 withdraw and withhold all recognition from Local
945, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Ware-
housemen & Helpers of America, or any successor thereto, as the
exclusive representative of our employees for the purpose of col-
lective bargaining, unless and until said labor organization shall
have been certified by the National Labor Relations Board as such
exclusive representative in an appropriate unit.
WE WILL NOT in any manner give aid, support, or assistance to
the aforesaid or any other labor organization.
WE WILL NOT threaten employees with discharge, removal from
the payroll, or in respect to any other term or condition of em-
ployment by reason of their participation in strikes or other con-
certed activities on behalf of Local 222, International Ladies
Garment Workers Union, AFL-CIO, or any other labor-
organization.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with,.
restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of the right to self-
organization, to form labor organizations, or to join or assist
labor organizations, to bargain collectively through representa-
tives of their own choosing, and to engage in other concerted-
activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual
aid or protection, or to refrain from any or all such activities,
except to the extent that such right may be affected by an agree-
ment requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition
of employment, as authorized in Section 8(a) (3) of the Act, as,
modified by the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure-
Act of 1959.
72 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
WE WILL in the manner set forth in the Decision and Order
issued by the National Labor Relations Board, upon application,
offer to all employees who went on strike on or about August 21
and 25, 1958, or thereafter, at the Weber Knitting Mills, North
Bergen, New Jersey, and at our Butler, New Jersey, plant, imme-
diate 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
they may suffer as a result of our refusal to reinstate them upon
such application.
All our employees are free to become or remain or to refrain from
becoming or remaining members of Local 222, International Ladies
Garment Workers Union, AFL-CIO, or of any other labor organiza-
tion, except to the extent that this right may be affected by an agree-
ment in conformity with Section 8(a) (3) of the Act, as modified by
the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959.
BUTLER KNITTING MILLS, INC.,
Employer.
Dated---------------- By-------------------------------------
(Representative) (Title)
JULIUS WEBER AND CONSTANCE A. WEBER,
D/B/A I,\TEBER KNITTING MILLS,
Employer.
Dated---------------- By-------------------------------------
(Representative) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof,
and must not be altered , defaced, or covered by any other material.
INTERMEDIATE REPORT AND RECOMMENDED ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon charges filed by Local 222, International Ladies Garment Workers Union,
AFL-CIO, herein called ILGWU, the General Counsel of the National Labor Rela-
tions Board, by the Regional Director for the Twenty-second Region (Newark, New
Jersey), issued his complaint dated January 27, 1959, against Butler Knitting Mills,
Inc., herein called Butler, and Julius Weber and Constance A. Weber, d/b/a Weber
Knitting Mills, herein called Weber. In substance, the consolidated complaint alleges
that Butler and Weber, although two separate business enterprises, are so interrelated
and integrated by reason of their common ownership, operation, control, and labor
relations policies, as to constitute a single employer for the purpose of this proceeding.
The complaint further alleges that since August 1958, Respondents Weber and Butler
have unlawfully assisted and supported Local 945, International Brotherhood of
Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America,' herein called Team-
sters, by initiating, sponsoring, and promoting the organizational activities of and by
recognizing Teamsters as the representative of their employees for collective-bai-
gaining purposes, and that thereby both Respondents have engaged in unfair labor
practices in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (2) of the National Labor Relations
' Local 945 , International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs , Warehousemen &
Helpers of America, the alleged assisted union, was permitted, on consent of the parties,
to intervene in this proceeding.
BUTLER KNITTING MILLS, INC. 73
Act, 61 Stat. 136, herein called the Act. The complaint further alleges that on
August 28 and December 24, 1958, Respondent Weber discharged its employees who
went on a strike in support of ILGWU and that thereby Respondent Weber engaged
in unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act. The
Respondents deny the substantive allegations of the complaint and the commission
of unfair labor practices. Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held before me in Butler
and Newark, New Jersey, on June 15, 18, 19, 29, and 30, 1959. All parties were
represented at the hearing by counsel and were afforded full opportunity to be heard,
to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence pertinent to the
issues. At the conclusion of the hearing, a motion made by the General Counsel to
conform the pleadings to the proof in respect to minor matters such as names, dates,
and places, was granted. The Charging Union, ILGWU, and the Respondents have
filed briefs which I have fully considered.
Upon the entire record in the case, and from my observation of the witnesses, I
make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENTS
The Respondent Butler, a New Jersey corporation, whose principal place of busi-
ness is -located at Butler, New Jersey, is engaged in the manufacture, sale, and dis-
tribution of knitted sweaters and related products. During the past year, Butler sold
and distributed products valued in excess of $50,000 which were shipped from the
State of New Jersey directly to other States of the United States.
The Respondent Weber, a copartnership, whose principal place of business at all
times material herein was North Bergen, New Jersey, was likewise engaged in the
manufacture, sale, and distribution of knitted sweaters and related products. During
the past year, Weber sold products valued in excess of $250,000 which were shipped
from the State of New Jersey to other States of the United States.
On the foregoing admitted facts, I find that at all times material herein, the Re-
spondents Butler and Weber were engaged in interstate commerce within the meaning
of the Act.
H. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
The Charging Union, Local 222, International Ladies Garment Workers Union,
AFL-CIO, and the Intervening Union, Local 945, International Brotherhood of
Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America, are labor organizations
within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The interrelation between Respondents Weber and Butler
Respondent Weber is a copartnership which is wholly owned and controlled by
Julius Weber and his wife, Constance A. Weber. Respondent Butler is a New
Jersey corporation, the stock of which is wholly owned by Julius Weber and his
family. Julius Weber is vice president and treasurer of Respondent Butler and his
wife, Constance A. Weber is president. A third company, Weber Knit Sportswear,
Inc., herein called Sportswear, is the parent company of both Respondents Weber and
Butler. It, also, is wholly owned and controlled by Julius Weber and his family.
The sweaters and related knitted products which are manufactured by Respondents
Weber and Butler are sold to the trade by Sportswear's salesmen. The designer
employed by Sportswear works at the mills of Respondents Weber and Butler. All
the purchases of materials for both Respondents are made by Julius Weber. Two
truckdrivers employed by Sportswear do part of the hauling for both Weber and
Butler. The expense for such hauling is borne solely by Sportswear. Final authority
over all management decisions, including labor relations, for both Respondents Butler
and Weber is in Julius Weber. According to the latter, the separate companies were
set up primarily for legal and tax purposes.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, Respondents contend that they should be regarded
as separate employers by reason of the alleged difference in the products manufac-
tured by them. The record does not support this contention. Respondent Weber
makes what is known' as cut and sewn sweaters. Respondent Butler also makes cut
and sewn sweaters and full-fashioned sweaters. The latter product is allegedly more
difficult to make. However, the record discloses that the machinery used in the two
mills are basically the same and the additional skill allegedly required at Butler is
merely that of acquiring familiarity with the application of the machines to the finer
yarns and knitted fabric used and made in Butler. In fact, employees of Weber,
where less skill was allegedly required, were transferred on occasion from Respondent
74 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Weber to Butler for the purpose of training and demonstrating work to the employees
of Butler. In peak seasons, work was occasionally transferred from Weber to Butler
or vice versa for finishing, which included steaming, cutting, and merrow operating.
Significantly, merrow operating was alleged by Mr. Weber to be one of the operations
which, because of the finer yarn used at Butler, required much greater skill than
the same operation at Weber. Moreover, when Respondent Weber shut down its
mill in December 1958, and went out of business, as hereinafter related, all of the
nonstriking Weber employees were offered an opportunity to fill job vacancies at the
Butler plant. In view of the foregoing, I am not persuaded that there was any ma-
terial difference in either the equipment, the skills, or the products at these two
plants.
On the foregoing record of common ownership and control, there is no doubt and
I find and conclude that Respondents Weber and Butler constitute a single, integrated
employer within the meaning of the Act and the Board's decisions?
B. Respondent Weber's assistance to Teamsters Local 945
In July 1958, ILGWU commenced a campaign to organize the employees of
Respondents Weber and Butler, in the course of which it distributed leaflets to em-
ployees in front of Respondents' plants and visited employees' homes in an effort to
interest them in joining ILGWU. About August 8, 1958, Richard M. Sullivan, the
plant manager of Respondent Weber, instructed John Sinisi, Joan Barbara, and
Vincent Paolina to meet with him in Julius Weber's then vacant office at the plant.3
Sullivan told these employees that he had called them together because they were
the oldest and most reliable employees in the shop and "that there was a labor dispute
starting," "that a Union [ILGWU] was trying to get in," and that they should "try
to get together with the Teamsters." Either later that day or the following workday,
Plant Manager Sullivan told John Simsi to arrange a meeting with Michael Ardis,
the business representative of Teamsters Local 945, and furnished him with the
latter's telephone number. Sinisi called Ardis and an appointment was made for a
dinner meeting between the "committee" of Weber employees and Ardis on August 11,
1958, at 7:30 p.m. at Cliff's Restaurant. On August 11, 1958, Sullivan notified
Floorlady Millie Anello 4 that she "was going to have a dinner date at the Cliff" and
to select anyone she desired to accompany her. Sullivan also told Anello that she
was "to meet a man with dark glasses from the Teamsters Union." 5 Anello selected
employee Filomena Ratti to accompany her. That evening the "committee" from
the Weber plant, consisting of Supervisors Millie Anello and Vincent Paolina and
employees John Sinisi, Joan Barbara, Filomena Ratti, and Louis Hartung, met Ardis
and another representative of Teamsters at the restaurant. Union authorization
cards were given by Ardis to Sinisi for distribution to the Weber employees. Sinisi
divided the cards among the committee members to pass out to the employees. The
cards were distributed, signed, and collected the next day. Although Ardis had
instructed the "committee" not to distribute the cards during working time, the record
discloses that at least some of the cards were distributed and/or collected while em-
ployees were working.6 Although Supervisor Anello did not distribute any cards, she
assisted some of the employees who could speak no English in filling them out.
According to Anello's credited testimony, she told these employees that Plant Man-
ager Sullivan said "we had to sign these cards because Mr. Weber said that if the
ILG got in, we would be out of a job." 7 Anello also testified that the foregoing was
2 Venus Die Engineering Company , 110 NLRB 336 ; A. ff. Andrews Company of Oregon,
-et al. , 112 NLRB 626, enfd. 236 F. 2d 44 (CA. 9).
s Vincent Paolina was a salaried mechanic in charge of the knitting machines. Accord-
ing to Julius Weber, Paolina "was not entirely a supervisor." Mr. Weber testified, how-
ever, that Paollna had about the same authority as Mr. Kinkel, the salaried mechanic at
the Butler plant, and that Kinkel had authority to discharge or to effectively recommend
discharge of the knitters Accordingly, I find and conclude that Vincent Paolina was a
supervisor within the meaning of the Act. Ohio Power Company v. N L R B , 176 F. 2d
385 (C.A. 6), cert. denied 338 U S. 899.
+ Respondent Weber admits that Floorlady Anello is a supervisor within the meaning of
the Act.
Teamsters' Business Representative Michael Ardis wears dark glasses.
e The foregoing is based on the credited testimony of Filomena Ratti, Catherine Gino,
and of Respondent 's witnesses Mamie Jouas and Sophie McGee.
4 Employee Filomena Ratti testified that Anello announced to the employees "that the
-girls should sign the cards because Mr . Weber wanted this Union [ Teamsters Local 945]
and no other union." Employee Catherine Gino testified that Anello helped her fill out an
BUTLER KNITTING MILLS, INC. 75
"just what he [Sullivan] told me to tell the girls " By the foregoing means, 65 of the
68 employees of Weber signed authorization cards for Teamsters Local 945 and the
cards were turned over to Ardis by John Sinisi.
On the morning of August 15, 1958, a large number of ILGWU representatives,
estimated at from 40 to 50 people, appeared at the entrance to Respondent Weber's
plant and distributed leaflets and spoke to the employees as they entered the plant.
Because of the large visitation, John Sinisi called Ardis and a meeting of all the em-
ployees with Ardis was arranged for that noon at the Roosevelt Tavern in North
Bergen, New Jersey. At about 10:45 a.m., pursuant to instructions from Plant
Manager Sullivan, Floorlady Anello announced that there would be the meeting at
the tavern at noon, and that Sullivan wanted them to go. The employees all at-
tended the meeting.8 A "committee" of employees from Respondent Butler's plant
also attended this meeting.9 At the meeting, a delegation was selected to accompany
Ardis to request Mr. Weber to recognize Teamsters as the representative of Weber's
employees. The meeting concluded at about 3 p.m. and the employees returned to
the Weber plant. At the request of some of the employees, Floorlady Anello asked
Plant Manager Sullivan whether the employees would be paid for the time they had
spent at the meeting.1° Sullivan said he would have to ask Mr. Weber. Later that
day, Sullivan told Anello to notify the employees that they would be paid for the
time they lost at the meeting and they were so paid. Still later that day, the em-
ployees selected at the Roosevelt Tavern meeting accompanied Teamsters' Representa-
tive Ardis and met with Julius Weber and his attorney. Ardis requested recognition
of the Teamsters and produced union authorization cards to show that Teamsters
represented a majority of Weber's employees. Thereupon, Julius Weber promptly
agreed orally to recognize Teamsters as the representative of the employees at the
Weber plant.ii
Respondent Weber did not call Plant Manager Sullivan to refute any of the fore-
going testimony nor was any explanation offered for his failure to appear.12 Al-
though Julius Weber testified that he had no preference as to which union represented
his employees and denied that he ever expressed a preference for the Teamsters, his
testimony is immaterial in view of the uncontradicted testimony that his supervisors
attributed such preference to him without contradiction by Mr. Weber. Moreover,
it is incredible that Mr. Weber, who not only owned but also actively ran the
business, was unaware of the foregoing activity of his supervisors which included
the absence of all the employees from this small plant for several hours during their
attendance at a Teamsters' meeting and the payment of his employees for the time
so spent.13 In view of all these circumstances, I do not credit Mr. Weber's testi-
mony regarding his indifference to the union which represented his employees, nor
his denials that he had expressed a preference for the Teamsters.
Upon this record of instigation of employees and selection of a committee to con-
tact the Teamsters' Union in order to thwart the organizational efforts of ILGWU,
of participation by Weber's supervisors in employee meetings with the Teamsters, of
the solicitation of employees to sign Teamsters' cards by supervisors and their state-
ments that the employer preferred this union, of the attendance of employees on
company time at a meeting with the Teamsters and the payment of employees for
the time so spent, and of the prompt recognition of Teamsters although it did not
represent an uncoerced majority of the employees involved, there is no doubt and
I find and conclude that Respondent Weber initiated, sponsored, and promoted the
organizational efforts of Teamsters at the Weber plant and thereby rendered unlaw-
ful assistance and support to Teamsters in violation of Section 8(a) (2) of the Act.
authorization card for Teamsters and answered her question as to why Mr Weber wanted
a union by saying, "Well, he wants this Union. Yes, he likes the Teamsters "
s Only Plant Manager Sullivan and Floorlady Anello remained in the shop
e The similar manner by which this committee was selected is hereinafter reported.
10 The regular lunch hour is only 45 minutes. All the employees, other than supervisors,
are paid by the hour.
11 Because, as hereinafter related, ILGWU shortly thereafter picketed and took strike
action against Respondent Weber, no contract was ever negotiated or executed between
Respondent Weber and Teamsters.
i The record discloses that Sullivan was transferred to the Butler plant as plant
manager when the Weber plant closed down
13 The Board has on many occasions inferred knowledge of an employer of the union
activities of his employees by reason of the small size of an employer's plant. See, for
example, Bituminous Material & Supply Co ., 124 NLRB 945, and the cases cited therein.
A like inference is warranted here that the employer knew of the pro-Teamsters' activity
and statements of his supervisors.
76 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Since the same conduct also unlawfully interfered with, restrained, and coerced
Respondent Weber's employees in their freedom to select a bargaining representative
of their own choice as guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act, Respondent Weber
thereby also violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
C. Respondent Butler's assistance to Teamsters Local 945
As aforestated, in furtherance of its campaign to organize Respondent Butler's
employees, in July 1958, ILGWU also distributed leaflets at the Butler plant to em-
ployees of Respondent Butler and visited their homes in an effort to interest them
in the Union. About August 13, 1958, Butler's Plant Manager Hughie Tyndall in-
structed a number of Butler employees, including Roy Slate, James Gilbert Barks,
Naomi Morey, Alice Search, and some others, to meet with him in the office at the
Butler plant. At this meeting, according to the credited testimony of Barks, Tyndall
told the employees that they were the oldest employees and that he had bad news
for them. Tyndall said, "We have come to the conclusion that we are going to
have a union here." Tyndall attributed to Mr. Weber the statement that he would
rather go out of business than sign up with the ILG, but that he would sign up
with this "other union." Tyndall was asked for the name of the "other umon" and
replied that he did not know but he would furnish them with information to enable
them to contact its representative. Tyndall suggested that the employees who were
present should form a committee and contact the "other union ." 14 A committee
was appointed at the meeting and Roy Slate was designated as the employee to make
the contact. Tyndall told Slate to call the Weber plant and ask for John Sinisi.15
Slate telephoned Sinisi, using the telephone in the shipping room in the Butler plant.
He asked Sinisi, inter alia , for the name of the Union with which the Weber em-
ployees had signed up. Sinisi did not supply the requested information but replied,
"I will give you the phone number and you can call them." Slate called the number
and Teamsters' Representative Michael Ardis responded. Slate asked Ardis what
union it was, and Ardis replied, "Teamsters Local 945." Slate asked Ardis to come
to the Butler plant and talk to them. Ardis responded, "I am not allowed to."
Slate then asked Ardis to come to the plant and meet "the committee" outside the
plant at noon that day and Ardis agreed That noon, Ardis met a number of
Butler employees and "the committee" outside the Butler plant and answered some
questions about his union. A meeting of employees was arranged for August 15,
1958, at the Veterans of Foreign Wars Hall in Butler, New Jersey.
During the morning of August 15, 1958, Butler Plant Manager Tyndall told em-
ployee Alice Search to punch out and to tell employees Naomi Morey and Martha
Romain to do likewise. The three girls punched out as directed and met employees
Roy Slate and James Gilbert Barks at the timeciock 16 The five then drove in
Slate's car to the Roosevelt Tavern in North Bergen where they participated in the
meeting of all the Weber employees with Teamsters' Representative Ardis, herein-
before described.17 On completion of the meeting, the five Butler employees re-
turned to their plant in the late afternoon and punched back in. Employee Alice
Search testified that she was paid by Respondent Butler for the time during which
she was away from the plant Her testimony in this respect was uncontradicted.18
I infer therefrom and from the likewise uncontradicted testimony that the Weber
employees who attended this meeting were likewise paid by Respondent Weber for
the time spent thereat, that the other Butler "committee" members who attended
were also paid by Respondent Butler for their time so spent.
14 Roy Slate's version of what Tyndall said at the meeting was substantially similar to
that of Barks. According to Slate, Tyndall said that there was a union in the North
Bergen (Weber) plant which had a majority signed up and he had been asked what Butler
was going to do. Tyndall further said that "it looked like we had to go under a union . .
there were two unions involved, one that Mr Weber would sign with [and] one that be
would not." Slate further testified that the employees "pick a committee and start
working "
"As hereinbefore related, Sinisi was the Weber employee who had contacted Teamsters
pursuant to the suggestion of Weber Plant Manager Sullivan
16 These employees were apparently "the committee" which had been selected at the
meeting in Tyndall's office.
17 See section III, B, supra.
18 The foregoing credited testimony concerning the attendance by the Butler "committee"
at the meeting of the Weber employees at the Roosevelt Tavern in North Bergen, New
Jersey, and her receipt of pay for the time spent in traveling to and from the meeting
and attendance thereat, was given by Alice Search, an employee called by Respondents.
In other respects , not here material , I did not regard her as a credible witness.
BUTLER KNITTING MILLS, INC. 77
That same afternoon , at 5 p .m. on August 15, 1958, a meeting of the Butler
employees with Teamsters' Representative Michael Ardis was held at the Veterans
,of Foreign Wars Hall in Butler, New Jersey. This meeting was also attended by
Weber employees John Simsi and Charlotte, whose last name was not given. At
this meeting , Teamsters ' union authorization cards were distributed to the Butler
employees. During the next few working days, Heinz Kloss, a Butler employee,
was approached on several occasions by Assistant Manager Berger in regard to
signing the Teamsters' card. Kloss was asked by Berger whether he had signed the
card yet. When Moss said, "No," Berger was asked "why not?" Kloss replied that
he was opposed to doing so against his will. Berger told him to think it over one
more day. The next day, Berger told Kloss, "Why don't you sign and get it over
with?" The office girl, Betty Vreeland, also asked Kloss whether he had signed the
card yet. When Kloss finally told Berger he had signed the card for the Teamsters,
Berger patted him on the back and said, "Good thing, Heinz."
On the morning of Friday, August 22, 1958, pursuant to permission given to the
aforedescribed committee of Butler employees, a notice was posted on the employee
bulletin board advising employees that there would be a meeting with Teamsters
that evening at the Alexander Hamilton Hotel in Paterson, New Jersey. Later that
day, employee Heinz Kloss, who worked on the second shift, was urged by Assistant
Plant Manager Berger to attend the meeting. When Kloss protested that he would
lose overtime pay if he attended, Berger replied, "Forget it, you'll get paid for it."
Kloss still demurred, saying, "I don't like that union." Berger then told Kloss that
if he did not go, he would be alone at the plant. Kloss attended and was paid by
Respondent Butler for the time he was away from the plant.
At 12 noon on August 22, 1958, Ardis and the Butler employees' committee met
with Plant Manager Tyndall and requested recognition on behalf of Teamsters'
Local 945 Ardis stated to Tyndall that Teamsters represented a majority of the
Butler employees but no proof of majority was asked by Tyndall or offered by
Ardis or the committee. Tyndall replied that he thought Mr. Weber would be very
happy to recognize Teamsters. He also stated he had no authority to grant recog-
nition and would contact Mr. Weber. About 1:30 or 2 p.m., Tyndall called Ardis
and said that recognition of Teamsters was granted 19
Upon this record of instigation of employees to contact the Teamsters Union in
order to thwart the organizational efforts of ILGWU, of the expression by supervisors
of the employer's hostility to ILGWU and his preference for Teamsters, of the
solicitation of employees by supervisors to sign Teamsters ' cards and attend its
meetings, of the posting of a notice of a Teamsters' meeting on the employees'
bulletin board in the plant , of the attendance of employees at Teamsters' meetings
on company time and the payment of employees for the time so spent, and of the
hasty recognition of Teamsters without requiring proof of majority status and
although Teamsters did not represent an uncoerced majority of the employees
involved, it is clear and I find and conclude that Respondent Butler initiated,
sponsored, and promoted the organizational efforts of Teamsters at the Butler plant
and thereby rendered unlawful assistance and support to the Teamsters in violation
of Section 8(a) (2) of the Act. Since the same conduct also unlawfully interfered
with, restrained, and coerced Butler's employees in their freedom to select a
bargaining representative of their own choice as guaranteed in Section 7 of the
Act, Respondent Butler thereby also violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act
D. The strikes and picketing of Respondents by ILGWU
On the morning of August 21, 1958, before the start of the workday, ILGWU
struck Respondent Weber and commenced picketing in front of the Weber plant
in North Bergen.20 A majority of Weber's normal complement of 68 to 70
19 The foregoing findings regarding the request for and the granting of recognition, are
based on the credited testimony of Michael Ardis, the business representative of Teamsters'
Local 945, and Alice Search, Respondent's witness Although Julius Weber denied that
he had recognized Teamsters as the representative of his Butler plant employees, I do
not credit his denial for the reason that Tyndall was not called by Respondents to contra-
dict the testimony of Ardis and Search, and the denial is inconsistent with the entire
record of assistance and support to Teamsters and the admitted granting of recognition
to it for the Weber plant employees.
Because, as hereinafter described, ILGWU shortly thereafter picketed and took strike
action against Respondent Butler, no contract was ever negotiated or executed between
Respondent Butler and Teamsters
20 The number of pickets was variously estimated at from 40 to 60. None were em-
ployees of Respondent Weber.
78 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
employees joined in ILGWU 's strike , honored its picket line , and only 28 to 30
went into the plant to work that morning. Notwithstanding their recent prior
designation of Teamsters as their representative , many of those who did not go into
work, joined ILGWU that morning , and thereafter these employees picketed the
Weber plant on behalf of ILGWU. Other employees , who likewise did not cross
the picket line, joined ILGWU during the week following the commencement of
the strike and picketing, and thereafter participated in the picketing.
On the evening of August 22, 1958, ILGWU picketed the Teamsters' meeting
of Butler employees which was held at the Alexander Hamilton Hotel at Paterson,
New Jersey. Thereafter, on the morning of August 25, 1958, ILGWU extended
its strike and picketing to the Butler plant. As in the case of the Weber plant, a
number of Butler employees, about 15 or 16 out of approximately 60 Butler
employees, joined in ILGWU's strike, honored its picket line, and refrained from
going to work. A number of the employees who participated in ILGWU's strike
thereafter joined ILGWU and picketed the Butler plant?'
The reasons for their participation in ILGWU's strike and picketing were described
by some of the strikers as follows: Weber employee Catherine Gino told Mr.
Weber while she was on the picket line, "We didn't ask for no union. You started
all this trouble." Weber employee Rinaldo Marchi testified he struck "because
Weber, he wanted to join us to the Teamsters and I don't like and I went on strike."
Weber employee Julia Genovese gave as her reason for striking, "I felt like fighting
for the right union I wanted, not what Mr. Weber wanted or not what we were
forced in doing." Other employees testified that they stayed away from work
because they did not want to cross ILGWU's picket line. The reason for ILGWU's
picketing and strike action, according to Teamsters' Representative Ardis, was that
ILGWU was charging "collusion in remarks and propaganda and leaflets and
placards and that the Teamsters were a racket union." 22 No other reason for
ILGWU's strikes and picketing was advanced by any of the witnesses.
On the foregoing uncontraverted record, I find and conclude that the strikes and
picketing by ILGWU at the Weber and Butler plants were in protest over Respondents'
unfair labor practices, hereinbefore found, in assisting and supporting Teamsters
to organize Weber's and Butler's employees and in extending hasty recognition to
Teamsters, and I therefore, further find and conclude that the Weber and Butler
employees who struck in support of ILGWU were unfair labor practice strikers 23
E. The alleged discharge of Respondent Weber 's striking employees
ILGWU's strikes against Weber and Butler caught Respondents at the "heart"
of their season . Consequently , when the striking Weber employees went into the
plant a few days later to get their paychecks for the time they worked, some of
them were asked by Plant Manager Sullivan to return to work. So far as the record
discloses, none of the Weber strikers acceded to Sullivan's request. Thereupon, on
August 28, 1958, Sullivan dispatched registered letters to all the striking Weber
employees. The letter stated:
This is to advise you that the National Labor Relations Board has notified
us that the Teamsters Union has petitioned for an election . That a hearing will
be held in the immediate future to determine a date for the election which will
be held shortly thereafter.
21 It was stipulated by the parties that all who joined in the strikes against Weber and
Butler received strike benefits from ILGWU. The women employees received $25 per
week and the men received $35. If necessary for sustenance, some of the strikers were
given a few extra dollars
zz Ardis gave this testimony in an attempt to explain ,his inconsistent action an August 20,
1958, of filing, on behalf of Teamsters, two petitions for certification as the representative
of Weber's and Butler's employees, notwithstanding that recognition had already, been
extended to Teamsters by Weber and Butler. (Cases Nos 22-RC-305 and 22-RC-306 )
Ardis explained that there were no problems when recognition was granted, but that
problems arose because of ILGWU's charges of "collusion" by its strike placards and
propaganda. Because of this, testified Ardis, he wanted to give the employees involved
an opportunity to express their preference by secret ballot.
The Weber petition was subsequently withdrawn on December 2, 1958, apparently be-
cause of the impending shutdown of the Weber plant. The Butler petition was dismissed
by the Regional Director on February 10, 1959, because of insufficient showing.
23 The picketing at the Weber plant was terminated on or about December 24, 1958,
when the plant shut down. The Butler strike and picketing was still in progress at the
time of the hearing herein.
BUTLER KNITTING MILLS, INC. 79,
It is the policy of our Company to have each employee unable to work,
telephone us and so advise us of the reason.
We feel you have quit our employ, hence you are not eligible to vote in this.
election.
If you are to be eligible to vote , you must be an employee of our Company.
If you don't report for work at once , you will automatically be removed from
our payroll.
Contrary to the terms of the letters, none of the employees who were striking
had given any indication to Respondent Weber that they had quit. At the time
the letters were mailed, many of the strikers were picketing outside the plant and
thus were demonstrating their interest in continued employment by Respondent
Weber rather than any intention to quit. Indeed, Julius Weber admitted that none
of the strikers ever resigned, either orally or otherwise. When Plant Manager
Sullivan was about to mail the letters to the strikers, he told Floorlady Anello,
according to the latter's credited testimony, "that [the letters] should scare them
[the strikers] a little bit." Anello further testified that this meant scaring them into
coming back to work. Accordingly, the mailing of these letters to the striking em-
ployees, was, as a minimum, a "strike breaking technique . designed to coerm
the strikers to abandon the strike" and was therefore violative of Section 8 (a) (1) of
the Act24 I so find.
Only five employees returned to work after the letters were mailed. Three of
them (Mamie Jonas, Josephine Minero, and Sophie McGee) returned to work on
September 2, 1958, and two other employees, Patty Sinisi and Cathy Scherer returned
on September 1 and 13, 1958, respectively. Aside from these five employees who
returned to work within a relatively short time after the mailing of the letters, no
other employees ever requested and, consequently, none were denied reinstatement 25.
On December 24, 1958, the Weber plant was shut down. Most of Weber's machin-
ery was sold, a few of the machines were transferred to the Butler plant, and the
building was put on the market for sale26 Shortly before the Weber plant was
to close down, Mr. Weber called the nonstriking employees together in the plant and
told them he was doing so because he had suffered a heavy financial loss because
of the strike. He offered jobs at Butler to all the nonstriking employees to the extent
that such jobs were available. A number of the Weber employees accepted the offer
and were transferred. Others refused to go because it was too far from their homes
for convenient commutation.27
The complaint alleges and the General Counsel contends that the dispatch of the
letters quoted above to the striking Weber employees constituted a discharge of the
strikers because they engaged in concerted activity on behalf of ILGWU, and that
Respondent thereby violated Section 8 (a) (1) and (3) of the Act.28
I have already found hereinabove that both Respondents constitute a single,
integrated employer, that both engaged in flagrant and uncontroverted acts of
support and assistance to the Teamsters, and that the strikes against Respondents
were unfair labor practice strikes and the participants therein were and are unfair
labor practice strikers. I have also found that the mailing of the letters to the
Weber strikers constituted a threat of discharge unless the strikers abandoned the
strike and returned to work, and thereby violated Section 8 (a)( 1 ) of the Act.
The question of whether or not the letters constituted also a discriminatory dis-
charge of the strikers who did not promptly abandon the strike and return to work,
presents a question of fact as to whether, notwithstanding the language of the letters,
Respondent Weber intended thereby to "impair the protected status of the striking
employees," or whether it was merely a technique to coerce the strikers into re-
turning to work. Respondents claim it is the latter.29 The unfair labor practice
strikers have the right, upon application, to return to their jobs and to displace, if
24 Kerrigan Iron Works, Inc, 108 NLRB 933.
25 In January 1959, after the Weber plant shut down as hereinafter related, a delega-
tion of Weber strikers asked for jobs at the Butler plant on behalf of all the strikers at
the Weber plant. The General Counsel and the Charging Union, for reasons not disclosed
on the record, have stated that this was "not a bona fide request for reinstatement" and
that this testimony should be disregarded
2a The complaint does not allege the closing of Respondent Weber's plant as an unfair
labor practice, and, in any event, the uncontroverted record establishes that the reason
therefor was economic in nature.
27 The distance between the two plants is 27 miles.
28 For reasons not disclosed by the record, only 21 of the Weber strikers are named as
the alleged discriminatees
29 Kerrigan Iron Works, Inc, supra.
80 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
necessary, all employees hired by the Respondents as .their replacements.30 In the
event that I should also find that Respondent Weber, in violation of Section 8(a) (3)
of the Act, discriminatively discharged those Weber strikers who did not abandon
the strike, their right to reinstatement for all practical purposes would be no differ-
ent than their right to reinstatement as unfair labor practice strikers. As of the
time of the hearing herein, none of the alleged discriminatees had abandoned the
strikes, which,- in view of the integrated nature of Respondents' business, was, in
effect, a single strike which still continues. Since no request for reinstatement has
been made by any of the strikers, there is no question of backpay, since the Board's
practice is not to award backpay to employees discriminatorily discharged while on
strike on the theory that until it appears that the employees have given up the strike
it cannot be established that the loss of pay was conclusively attributable to the
employer's conduct.31 As aforestated, I have also found that the mailing of the
letters which threatened the Weber strikers with discharge unless they abandoned
the strike and returned to work, is an unfair labor practice in violation of Section
8(a)(1) of the Act. Based on that finding, I will hereinafter recommend that
Respondents cease and desist from further engaging in such conduct. No different
cease and desist provision would result if I were to find that the mailing of said
letters also constituted a violation of Section 8 (a) (3 ).
Under all these circumstances, and since the relief which will be recommended on
the findings heretofore made, will be, to all practical purposes, identical, no useful
purpose can be served by any further consideration, report, and analysis of the
record to determine whether the dispatch of the letters in question also constituted
a violation of Section 8(a) (3) as well as of Section 8(a) (1) as already found. I
therefore consider it unnecessary and supererogatory to do so and shall not burden
and lengthen this report with it.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondents set forth in section III, above, occurring in
connection with the operations of the Respondents described in section I, above,
have a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce
among the several States, and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstruct-
ing commerce and the free flow thereof.
V. THE REMEDY
In view of my finding that both Respondents constitute a single, integrated em-
ployer within the meaning of the Act, I shall recommend that both shall be jointly
and severally responsible for remedying the unfair labor practices herein. Since
I have found that Respondents have engaged in certain unfair labor practices, I
shall recommend that they cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative
action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
I have found that Respondents have violated Section 8(a)(1) and (2) of the
Act by initiating, sponsoring, and promoting the organizational efforts of Teamsters
at Respondent plants and by recognizing Teamsters as the collective-bargaining
representative of their employees in order to thwart the organizational efforts of
ILGWU, thereby rendering unlawful support and assistance to Teamsters, not-
withstanding that Teamsters did not represent an uncoerced majority of the em-
ployees involved. I shall therefore, in accordance with established Board policy,
recommend that Respondents cease and desist from such unlawful support and
assistance and withdraw and withhold recognition from the Teamsters unless and
until the Teamsters is certified by the Board as the collective-bargaining representa-
tive of Respondents' employees in an appropriate unit.32 I have further found that
Respondents have violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by threatening their striking
employees with discharge unless they abandoned their strike and concerted activities
on behalf of ILGWU. I shall therefore recommend that Respondents cease and
desist from such unlawful conduct. I have also found that the strikes by Re-
spondents' employees were caused by and resulted from Respondents' unlawful
support and assistance to Teamsters and that the striking Weber and Butler em-
ployees are unfair labor practice strikers. As hereinbefore found, the Weber plant
closed down and some of the nonstriking Weber employees were transferred to
Butler where the strike is still in progress. Accordingly, in order to restore the
20 No replacements were hired by Respondent Weber because none were available.
3 Kitty Clover, Inc, 103 NLRB 1665, 1667, Porto Rico Container Corporation, 89
NLRB 1579.
32 No provision for reimbursement of dues is necessary as none was collected.
0
BUTLER KNITTING MILLS, INC. 81
status quo as it existed prior to the time that Respondents engaged in the unfair
labor practices and thereby to effectuate the policies of the Act, it will be recom-
mended that the Respondents shall, upon application, offer reinstatement to their
former or substantially equivalent positions, without prejudice to their seniority or
other rights and privileges, to all the Butler employees who went on strike on
August 25, 1958, or thereafter, dismissing, if necessary, any persons hired or trans-
ferred to Butler on or after that date. I shall likewise recommend that the Re-
spondents shall, upon like application, offer reinstatement at the Butler plant to
their former or substantially equivalent positions, without prejudice to their seniority
or other rights and privileges, to all the Weber employees who went on strike on
August 21, 1958, or thereafter, dismissing, if necessary, any persons hired on and
after that date. In view of the closing of Weber plant and its partial consolidation
with Butler, it is possible and even likely that there will not be sufficient jobs at
Butler for all the striking Weber employees who apply for reinstatement at the
Butler plant, even after dismissal of those employees who were hired by Butler on
and after August 21, 1958. In such event, and to the extent that any jobs at Butler
are still filled by employees of Weber who were transferred to Butler, I shall recom-
mend that such jobs shall be distributed among the striking Weber employees who
apply for reinstatement and the nonstriking Weber employees who are still em-
ployed at Butler, in accordance with such system of seniority or other nondiscrim-
inatory practice heretofore applied by the Respondents in the conduct of their
business. I shall further recommend that the Respondents shall place those striking
employees of Weber and Butler who apply for reinstatement and for whom no
employment is available, if any, on a preferential hiring list, with priority in accord-
ance with such system of seniority or other nondiscriminatory practice heretofore
applied by the Respondents in the conduct of their business, and thereafter offer
them reinstatement as such employment becomes available and before other em-
ployees are hired for such work.33 I shall also recommend that the Respondents
be ordered to make whole their employees who went on strike on August 21 and 25,
1958, or thereafter, for any loss of pay they may suffer by reason of the Respondents'
refusal, if any, to reinstate them, by payment of each of them of a sum of money
equal to that which he normally would have earned as wages during the period from
5 days after the date on which he applied for reinstatement to the date of Respond-
ents' offer of reinstatement. Loss of pay shall be computed on a quarterly basis
in the manner established by the Board in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289.
I will also recommend that the Respondents preserve and make available to the
Board upon request, payroll and other records to facilitate the determination of
the amounts due and the right to reinstatement under the terms of this recommended
remedy.
In view of the nature of the unfair labor practices committed, the commission of
similar and other unfair labor practices reasonably may be anticipated. I shall
therefore recommend that the Respondents be ordered to cease and desist from in
any manner infringing upon the rights guaranteed to their employees by Section 7
of the Act.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record in
the case, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Respondents Butler Knitting Mills, Inc., and Julius Weber and Constance
A. Weber, d/b/a Weber Knitting Mills, constitute a single, integrated employer
within the meaning of the Act.
2. Local 222, International Ladies Garment Workers Union, AFL-CIO, and
Local 945, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen &
Helpers of America, are labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of
the Act.
3. By initiating, sponsoring, and promoting the organizational efforts of Local
945, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers
of America, and by granting recognition to it, although it did not represent an
uncoerced majority of their employees, Respondents have engaged in unfair labor
practices in violation of Section 8 (a) (2) of the Act.
4. By the foregoing conduct of giving material aid, support, and assistance to
Local 945, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen &
Helpers of America, and by threatening to discharge the employees of Respondent
Weber unless they abandoned their strike and concerted activities in support of
33 Biscayne Television Corporation, 125 NLRB 437.
560940-61-vol. 127-7
82 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Local 222, International Ladies Garment Workers Union , AFL-CIO, Respondents
have interfered with, restrained , and coerced their employees in the exercise of rights
guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act, and have thereby violated Section 8 (a) (1) of
the Act.
5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
[Recommendations omitted from publication.]
Waikiki Biltmore Inc., d/b/a The Waikiki Biltmore Hotel and
Hotel Restaurant Employees and Bartenders ' International
Union, Local 5 (AFL-CIO), Petitioner. Cases Nos. 37-RC-462
and 37-RC-466. April 7, 1960
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS
Upon separate petitions duly filed under Section 9(c) of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Act, a consolidated hearing was held before
Albert Schneider, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made
at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in these cases, the Board finds:
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the Act.
2. The labor organization involved claims to represent certain
employees of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section'
9(c) (1) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The Petitioner seeks certification as representative of a unit com-
posed of all employees at the Employer's Honolulu, Hawaii, hotel,
including office clericals, pool attendants, and doormen. The Em-
ployer contends that there should be two separate bargaining units :
(a) One unit embracing the front office cashiers, the night clerk, the
relief night clerk, room clerks, relief room clerks, and auditors, all of
whom the Employer characterizes as office clerical employees ; and (b)
another unit encompassing all the other employees, excluding guards
and supervisors.
Since 1954 the Petitioner has been recognized as the bargaining
agents for all the hotel employees, except those deworibed in (a) above,
guards, pool attendants, doormen, and supervisors . The most recent
agreement covering these employees expired on May 31, 1958.
In the recent Arlington Hotel case,' the Board held that employees
with duties similar to those of the Employer's front office cashiers, the
night clerk, the relief night clerk, room clerks, and relief room clerks
1 Arlington Hotel Company, Ino., 126 NLRB 400.
127 NLRB No. 23.