B&Z Hosiery Products Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 10, 1949

85 N.L.R.B. 633 (N.L.R.B. 1949)

In the Matter of ABE ADOLPH BOCIINER AND ZHERSCTIEL ZYLBERBERG,
INDIVIDUALLY AND AS CO-PARTNERS, DOING BUSINESS AS -B & Z HOSIERY
PRODUCTS Co. and AMERICAN FEDERATION OF HOSIERY WORKERS
Case No. 41-C-1809.-Decided August 10, 1949
DECISION
AND
ORDER
On November 17, 1948, Trial Examiner Louis Plost issued his Inter-
mediate 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. The Trial Examiner also
found that the Respondents had not engaged in certain other alleged
unfair labor practices and recommended dismissal of those allegations
of the complaint. Thereafter, the General Counsel and the Union
filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and supporting briefs.
The Board 1 has considered the rulings of 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,2 the exceptions and supporting briefs, and the entire
record in the case and, finding merit in certain of the exceptions,
hereby adopts only such of the findings, conclusions, and recommen-
dations of the Trial Examiner as are not inconsistent with this Deci-
sion and Order.
1. The Trial Examiner found that Respondent Zylberberg's state-
ments to Frank Rice on the night of April 4, 1947, and his telephonic
request of Ernest Kelemen on April 5, 1947, constituted interference,
restraint, and coercion by the Respondents of their employees in vio-
lation of the Act.3 We also find that certain of the statements made
' 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 Herzog and Members
Houston and Gray].
2 The Intermediate Report states that the original charge in this case was filed April 4,
1947; it was in fact filed April 21, 1947.
' No exceptions were filed to these findings.
85 N. L . R. B., No. 116.
633
634 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
by Respondent Zylberberg to the employees at the shift meetings on
April 9, 1947, likewise constituted interference, restraint, and coercion.
Frank Rice and Stephen Kelemen testified credibly that Respondent
Zylberberg told the employees on the day shift that if they joined the
Union, he was going to stop payment of the customary Christmas and
Easter bonus. Five employees from both shifts 4 testified without
contradiction that Respondent Zylberberg made statements to the em-
ployees on both shifts to the effect that he would discontinue his efforts
to secure yarn, in addition to that regularly received from the manu-
facturer, if the employees joined the Union. Respondent Zylberberg
did not deny making the foregoing statements attributed to him.
Accordingly, we find that Respondent Zylberberg made such state-
ments to his employees.
The Trial Examiner concluded that such statements, even if made
by Respondent Zylberberg, were privileged as free speech under Sec-
tion 8 (c) of the Act 5 We do not agree. No extended discussion is
necessary to establish that Respondent Zylberberg's statements with
respect to the bonus payments constituted a threat of reprisal if the
employees engaged in activities protected by Section 7 of the Act.6
Likewise, his statements regarding his efforts to secure yarn, when
viewed against the background of less than full-time operation of
most of the knitting machines, and the obvious effect o71 the employees'
earnings of a further reduction in hours of work resulting from a re-
duction in yarn supplies ,7 also constituted threats of economic detri-
ment. We conclude that these threats of economic reprisal against
organizational activity were not protected under Section 8 (c) of the
Act, and that by making such threats of economic loss the Respond-
ents interfered with, restrained, and coerced their employees in the
exercise of the rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act, all in viola-
tion of Section 8 (1) of the Act and Section 8 (a) (1) of the amended
Act.$
4 Prank Rice and Stephen Kelemen from the day shift ; Adam McCaughey, Robert
McCaughey, and Ernest Kelemen from the night shift.
"The expressing of any views, argument, or opinion . . . shall not constitute or be
evidence of an unfair labor practice . . . if such expression contains no threat of reprisal
or force or promise of benefit."
8 See Matter of William P+. 11uffm an, d/b/a Radio Station WFHR, 71 N. L. R. B. 518, 519.
7 The fact that the quantities of yarn obtained by the Respondents from sources other
than the manufacturer may, as Respondent Zylberberg testified, have been only an in-
significant proportion of the Respondents' total yarn supplies, does not in our opinion
remove from the statement the threat of reprisal.
'The General Counsel has also excepted to the Trial Examiner's failure to resolve
the alleged conflict in testimony, between Respondent Zylberberg and Ernest and Stephen
Kelemen, regarding Respondent Zylherberg's alleged statements concerning the plant he
formerly operated in Europe, and to the Trial Examiner's findings that Respondent Zylber-
berg's statements, at the shift meetings on April 9, 194-7, regarding "double jobs," were
merely an exposition of the Union's policy, that such statements accurately represented
the Union's policy, and that such statements were privileged free speech. In view of
our findings herein , we deem it unnecessary to resolve these issues.
B S: Z HOSIERY PRODUCTS CO. 635
2. On April 16, 1947, the Respondents, through one Edelman, ad-
vised all the employees in the knitting department that the operation
of that department was being discontinued as of the close of business
that day, and that all employees in that department were laid off.9
The Trial Examiner rejected the General Counsel's contention that
the shut-down and lay-off were discriminatory ; rather, he found that
such conduct was prompted by legitimate business reasons, and ac-
cordingly did not violate the Act. We do not agree.
The Respondents advanced as the reasons for the shut-down and
lay-off: (a) a substantial break in the market for 42-gauge nylon
hosiery; (b) a shortage of nylon yarn; and (c) the need to convert the
42-gauge knitting machines to higher gauges and to repair the 45-
and 51-gauge knitting machines. These alleged reasons will be dis-
cussed seriatim.
a. The alleged market breale
The Respondents allege that one of the factors which prompted the
shut-down of the knitting department and the lay-off of the knitters
on April 16, 1947, was a substantial break in the market price for
42-gauge nylon hosiery,10 which break allegedly occurred immediately
0 The Respondents resumed operation of the knitting department on or about July 20,
1947, and reinstated 11 of the laid-off employees to their former or substantially equivalent
positions on or about the following dates :
Date of
Employee reinstatement
Joseph Feldenser------------------------ July 20, 1947.
Calvin Hanley-------------------------- July 20, 1947.
Robert McCaughey--------------------- July 20, 1947.
John Motacki--------------------------- July 20, 1947.
Walter Moyer--------------------------. July 20, 1947.
Charles Reese--------------------------. July 20, 1947.
Ernest Kelemen------------------------- August 1, 1947.
Stephen Kelemen-----------------------. August 6, 1947
Joseph Matus--------------------------. September 15, 1947.
Earl Stoyer---------------------------- September 15. 1947.
George Farrell------------------------- September 22, 1947.
Robert Daniels was offered reinstatement by the Respondents to his former or substan-
tially equivalent position on or about July 20, 1947, but refused such offer. Adam Mc-
Caughey and Frank Rice have neither been reinstated nor offered reinstatement to their
former or substantially equivalent positions. Frank Rice applied for reinstatement on or
about November 22, 1947 : on or about November 25, 1947, the Respondents refused to
reinstate him. Adam McCaughey, who did not apply for reinstatement, was told by another
employee at the Respondents' behest on or about September 13, 1948, to return to work
on two 42-gauge machines ; before the shut-down he had worked on two 45-gauge machines,
for which work he received more money than he would have received working on two
42-gauge machines.
10 On April 16, 1947, the Respondents operated ten 42-gauge machines, two 45-gauge
machines, and one 51-gauge machine. The Respondents owned two additional 42-gauge
machines which were not in operation.
636 DECISION'S OF NATIONAL LABOR IIELATIONS BOARD
prior to the shut-down and lay-off." The record conclusively estab-
lishes, however, that no such break, or intimation of such a break, in
the general market occurred until after the lay-off.12 Moreover, the
prices at which Respondents sold 42-gauge nylon hosiery remained
steady from March 1, 1947, through May 16, 1947.13 Accordingly, we
find that a break in the market price for 42-gauge nylon hosiery was
not a factor which motivated the Respondent's decision to discontinue
knitting operations on April 16, 1947, and to lay off the employees in
the knitting department 14
b. The alleged yarn shortage
In their answer to the complaint, the Respondents allege that one
of the factors motivating the shut-down of the knitting department
11 Respondent Zylberberg testified that there was a substantial break in the market price
for 42-gauge nylon hosiery shortly after he returned from a convention which had been
held at Atlantic City, New Jersey. He admitted that prior to this convention, he had
had no intimations of a substantial break in the market, and had had no intention of
discontinuing the knitting operations. He alleged that he did not make the decision to
close the knitting department and lay off the knitters until after the market broke.
12 Respondent Zylbcrberg admitted under cross-examination that the convention which,
according to his previous testimony (see footnote 11, supra.), had preceded both the
market break and any intimations thereof, and the lay-off, did not begin until April 28,
1947. Moreover, according to the uncontradicted testimony of the Union's research
director, which we credit, no question as to a possible unfavorable market or decline in
prices was raised during the negotiations preceding or at the time of the execution on
April 25, 1947, of a contract, providing for a wage increase, between the Union and an
association representing approximately 40 hosiery manufacturers. The testimony of the
Union's research director establishes that a substantial break (approximately 10 percent)
in the price of nylon hosiery occurred during May 1947, and that the first signs of such
a break did not appear until about May 5, 1947.
11 At the hearing it was stipulated, on the basis of the Respondents' records, that during
the period from April 15, 1947, through May 16, 1947, the Respondents sold in excess
of 1,700 dozen pairs of nylon hose at a price of $10.00 per dozen and, with the exception
of 11 dozen pairs of inferior grade, sold no 42-gauge nylon hose at any other price.
Respondent Zylberberg admitted that the Respondents made no appreciable reductions
in the price of hosiery sold during .the period from March 1, 1947, through April.15, 1947,
and that such reduction began after May 16, 1947.
Likewise, in view of Respondent Zylberberg's admission and the Respondents' sub-
stantial sales of 42-gauge nylon hosiery following the shut-down, we do not agree with
the Trial Examiner's finding that, at the time of the shut-down, the Respondents' 42-gauge
nylon hose were not readily salable. For the same reasons we do not credit Respondent
Zylberberg' s assertion that at the time of the shut-down "there was no market at all"
for 42-gauge nylon hose.
14 As the Respondents do not contend that the shut-down was motivated by any "isolated
price drops" which might have occurred prior to the convention which began April 28,
1947, but rely on the substantial market break which followed, and in view of Respondent
Zylberberg's admission that prior to the convention he had no intimations of such a break,
we do not consider it necessary to comment further on the Trial Examiner's speculations
as to the possibly calamitous effects on the Respondents' business of such possible "isolated
price drops." Nor do we consider significant, with respect to this question, the efforts
of the knitters to secure employment after the shut-down. They were originally advised
that the lay-off was temporary, and it was not until about May 26, 1947, that they were
advised to consider the lay-off as permanent. Moreover, the record does not support the
Trial Examiner' s finding that none of the knitters were able to secure employment in
their trade.
B & Z HOSIERY PRODUCTS CO. 637
was a shortage of nylon yarn. Although the Trial Examiner does
not appear to adopt this particular facet of the Respondents' defense,
it is. noteworthy that the record does not support this contention. On
the contrary, the record establishes that the Respondents' supply of
nylon yarn was not substantially different at the time of the shut-
down from what it had been throughout the period subsequent to the
change from rayon to nylon in January 194715 Accordingly, we find
that at the time of the lay-off the Respondents experienced no un-
usual shortage of nylon yarn and that the alleged shortage of nylon
yarn was not a factor which motivated the Respondents' decision to
discontinue knitting operations and to lay off the employees in the
knitting department.16
c. The Respondents ' regauging and repair program
Ever since the acquisition of certain of their 42 -gauge knitting
machines about August 1946, it had been the Respondents ' intention
to regauge all their 42 -gauge machines to higher gauges.' It had
been the Respondents ' intention to undertake and complete this pro-
grain gradually , one or two machines at a time, and without closing
down the shop for that purpose .' The Respondents had initiated this
15 Respondent Zylberberg testified that a period of approximately 6 to 8 weeks must
elapse from the time nylon yarn is delivered by the manufacturer until it is available for
knitting. During the last 7 months of 1946, nylon yarn was delivered to Respondents
by the manufacturer in the following quantities :
June 1946-349 lbs. October 1946-357 lbs.
July 1946-575 lbs. November 1946-334 lbs.
August 1946-329 lbs. December 1946-343 lbs.
September 1946-338 lbs.
Beginning in January 1947 , the quantities of nylon yarn delivered to Respondents by the
manufacturer were substantially increased as follows :
January 1947-971 lbs. April 1947-922 lbs.
February 1947-864 lbs. May 1947-738 lbs.
March 1947-961 lbs.
The record does not show the quantities of nylon yarn obtained by the Respondents from
sources other than the manufacturer . Respondent Zylberberg testified , however , that such
"grey market " yarn constituted but an insignificant percentage . of the Respondents' total
yarn supplies . We conclude , therefore, that any variations which might have occurred
in such supplies could not have been of sufficient magnitude to have affected the Respondents'
decision to shut down the knitting department.
That Respondents experienced no unusual shortage of yarn is further evidenced by the
increase , during the period of the shut -down , in the quantities of hose which Respondents
had knitted for them by other manufacturers with yarn furnished such manufacturers by
Respondents , as follows :
February 1947-644 dozen . May 1947-3,350 dozen.
March 1947-601 dozen . June 1947-2,462 dozen.
April 1947-1,743 dozen. July 1947-890 dozen.
16 It is evident that at the time of the shut-down , the Respondents did not have sufficient
nylon yarn to enable them to operate all their machines full time . This condition had,
however, prevailed since January 1947, when the Respondents discontinued the production
of rayon hose , yet the Respondents had not previously considered a comparable or even
greater shortage of nylon yarn as sufficient reason for discontinuing their operations.
- ?[ Based on the testimony of Respondent Zylberberg.
638 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
program by having one of such 42-gauge machines regauged to a 51-
gauge machine; the regauging of this machine was completed in
January 1947. It is uncontradicted that the performance of this 51-
gauge machine and the two 45-gauge machines was not wholly satis-
factory, and that ultimately some repairs would have to be made on
them; the Respondents had not intended, however, to close down the
shop for that purpose.,"'
The Respondents allege, however, that because of the alleged yarn
shortage and/or the alleged serious break in the market, it became
economically feasible and opportune to alter their previous inten-
tions of carrying out their regauging and repair program gradually
and without closing down the shop, and, instead, to close down the
shop for the purpose of carrying out this program immediately. We
find no merit in this contention.
The Respondents do not contend that their regauging and repair
program was the immediate cause of the shut-down; rather, they
claim that they attempted to turn to their advantage the difficulties
created by the economic situation, by undertaking to accomplish in
a short period of time a program which they had initially intended
to accomplish over a longer period of time.19
18 Moreover, Ernest and Stephen Kelemen, who operated the 51-gauge machine, testified
credibly and without contradiction that sometime between January 1947 and the time of
the shut-down, Respondent Zylberberg had told them lie intended to have the 51-gauge
machine repaired during the July vacation, which consisted of a week's holiday received
by the employes during the week which included the Fourth of July. Ernest Kelemen also
testified credibly and without contradiction that during this same period Respondent Zylber-
berg had told him that if more than 1 week was required to repair this machine, he
[Kelemen] would be given employment on a 42-gauge machine until the 51-gauge machine
was ready for operation.
19 Respondent Zylberberg testified in part as follows :
Q. How long after you came back from the Manufacturer's Convention in Atlantic
City did you decide to shut down your knitting shop?
A. It wasn't long, it was just a few days.
Q. A few days after?
A. That is right.
Q. And that was the first time you had made up your mind to close the shop?
A. That is right.
Q. Before that time you had no idea that you were going to close clown the whole
shop?
A. I didn't know this whole situation was coming.
Q. Up until that time you had thought that what you would do was to reneedle or
regauge these machines, a pair at a time or one at a time, is that right?
A. That is right.
s s t a o a e
Q. When you were in Atlantic City at the convention, Mr. Hemmerich was there,
wasn't he?
A. That is right.
Q. And you did not discuss with him the closing down of your shop then?
A. I did not.
Q. Is the reason for that that you did not expect to close down your shop then?
A. Well, at that time, as I pointed out before, I did not expect ; I had expected to
do my regauging gradually, because who does it otherwise? I would have done it two
machines at a time. But when I came home, the market was breaking to pieces. I
thought this is the best opportunity to do it, and to do it quickly.
B & Z HOSIERY PRODUCTS CO. 639
We have found, however, that there was no yarn shortage or market
break, actual or anticipated, immediately preceding the shut-down.
Accordingly we find that such alleged economic factors could not have
offered a favorable opportunity for or contributed to the Respondents'
decision to accelerate their regauging and repair program .20
Nor could the record support a contention that the Respondents' re-
gauging and repair program was a primary motivating factor for the
shut-down. The Respondents had intended to accomplish this pro-
gram gradually, without closing down the shop, and with a minimum
interruption of production.21 As found by the Trial Examiner, the
Respondents had for some months been negotiating with various firms
for the regauging of their 42-gauge machines. Yet the record is wholly
devoid of any evidence regarding any event, which occurred prior to
or at the time of the shut-clown, which either required a closing down
of the shop in order to accelerate the program'22 or from which the
Respondents could reasonably have inferred that their program could,
20 We find here no more than that Respondents did not take advantage of a shut-down
caused, induced, or motivated by legitimate business reasons, to accelerate their regauging
and repair program. This does not mean, however, that the Respondents may not have
taken advantage of the shut-down, caused by other factors, to attempt to accelerate such
a program.
21 See footnotes 18 and 19, supra.
22 The record contains no evidence that the quality of the work put out by the 51- and
45-gauge machines deteriorated during the period immediately preceding the shut-down.
Respondent Zylberberg and Ernest and Stephen Kelemen all testified that the 51-gauge
machine had not been completely satisfactory since it was placed in operation in January
1947. Frank Rice, who operated the two 45-gauge machines, testified credibly and without
contradiction that the work put out by these machines was no worse immediately preceding
the shut-down than it had been during the previous year. Other than the alleged economic
reasons, which we have considered and rejected, supra, the record contains no evidence of
any increased need to hasten the regauging of the 42-gauge machines.
In view of these findings, we deem it unnecessary to consider Respondent Zylberberg's
contention that the 45- and 51-gauge machines were his "bread and butter," and that it
was unprofitable to operate the knitting department with the 42-gauge machines alone. We
note in this connection, however, his earlier statement to Ernest Kelemen regarding the
repair of the 51-gauge machine (footnote 18, supra) and the fact that although six of the
42-gauge machines were placed in operation on or about July 20, 1947, when the knitting
department was reopened, the 51-gauge machine was not returned to full operation until
about August 6, 1947, and the two 45-gauge machines until about October 19, 1947. We
find unconvincing his explanation that unanticipated delays were experienced in securing
the return of the parts of these machines, although at the time the knitting department
was reopened he expected to be able to place them in operation "any day," particularly in
view of the following circumstances: (1) The parts for the 51-gauge machine, shipped
to the machine repair company about April 17, 1947, were returned to Respondents about
June 13, 1947 ; (2) The parts for the first 45-gauge machine, shipped to the machine repair
company about April 23, 1947, were returned to Respondents about June 3, 1947; (3) The
parts for the second 45-gauge machine were not shipped to the machine repair company
until about June 6, 1947.
640 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
by closing down the shop, be accelerated above the one-or-two-at-a-time
pace which they originally had intended.23
Accordingly, we find that Respondents' regauging and repair pro-
gram was not a factor which motivated their decision to discontinue
knitting operations and to lay off the employees in the knitting de-
partment 24
d. Conclusions
On the basis of the foregoing, and on the entire record, we con-
clude that the Respondents did not discontinue their knitting opera-
tions and lay off the knitters on April 16, 1947, because of the reasons
alleged by them. It does not automatically follow, however, that the
shut-down and lay-off were discriminatory. The burden rests upon
the General Counsel to prove affirmatively that such was the fact.
We believe that the burden of proof has been sustained in this matter.
This conclusion is based upon the chronology of events including the
Respondents' conduct leading up to the shut-down and lay-off.
Efforts to organize the Respondents' knitters began about the end
of March 1.947.25 Respondent Zylberberg became aware of such ef-
forts not later than April. 4, 1947, 26 whereupon on April 4, 5, and 9,
Respondent Zylberberg made the afore-mentioned unlawful threats to
defeat the unionization of the knitters. Several times during the pe-
riod from April 7 through 15, 1947, Respondent Zylberberg made in-
quiries of Adam McCaughey regarding the success of the efforts to
23 No contract for regauging any of the 42-gauge machines was executed by Respondents
until about June 14, 1947, and no parts of such machines were shipped by Respondents for
regauging until about June 16, 1947. Moreover, the following record establishes that the
Respondents thereafter substantially pursued the original one-or-two-at-a-time regauging
program with respect to their 42-gauge knitting machines:
Ma-
chine
No.
Type of agreement Date of agreement Parts shipped by re-spondents
Parts returned
to respond-
ents
Written contract_________________
----- do---------------------------
--do---------------------------
---do---
Option under written contract---
- do ----------------------------
oral contract - _______-
-----do----------------------------
Oral or written contract __________
-----d0 ---------------
June 14,1947__________
---do-----------------
July30, 1947----------
----- do- - ------------
-----do----------------
----- do---------- ------
After July 30, 1947-----
----- do---------------
-----do-----------------
-----do-----------------
------------------------
June 16, 1947----------
----- d0-----------------
On or after July 30,
1947.
---- do----------------
----- do-----------------
----- dO----------------
About Feb. 11, 1947---
M
Aug. 1, 1948-_____-_--_
------------------------
Aug. 29, 1947
Sept. 19, 1947
Nov. 10,1947
Dec. 5,1947
Jan. 9,1948
Feb. 10,1948
.Apr. 28,1948
Apr. 9,1948
July 29,1948
*Date does not appear in the record.
**Not returned as of Sept. 23, 1948.
***Being operaled as 42-gauge machines on Sept. 23, 1948; to he regauged subsequently.
24 We consider immaterial, with respect to this question, any difficulties which the Respondents may have
experienced in securing the return, on schedule, of parts shipped to the machine reconditioning firms.
25 Frank Rice testified he thought such efforts began about March 29. 1947.
Based upon Respondent Zylberberg's statements to Frank Rice on that clay.
B & Z HOSIERY PRODUCTS CO. 641
unionize the knitters .L1 On April 15, 1947, Adam McCaughey advised
Respondent Zylberberg that all of the employees were members of
the Union.2S On April 16, 1947, without prior notice, the employees
in the knitting department, the only unionized department in the
plant, were told that as of the close of business on that day knitting
operations would be discontinued and the employees in the department
laid off. All the other nonunionized departments of the plant con-
tinued, however, at approximately the same level of operations as
prior to the lay-off.29
The record thus shows, in summary, that immediately upon the ad-
vent of union activities in the plant, the Respondents embarked
on their own intensive campaign to defeat the organizational efforts
of the Union; that the Respondents shut down the knitting depart-
ment on the very first day after Respondent Zylberberg learned that
the Union's organizational campaign had succeeded in that depart-
ment, his own countercampaign failing there; 30 that the Respondents
continued the operation of the nonunionized departments; and that
the reasons advanced by the Respondents for the shut-down and lay-
off are demonstrably false. On the basis of these facts, and upon the
entire record in the case, we are forced to the conclusion that the shut-
down of the knitting department and the lay-off of the knitters was
motivated by and was the result of the Respondents' opposition to the
unionization of the knitting department employees.31 Accordingly,
n Based upon the testimony of Adam McCaughey, which the Trial Examiner did not
discredit and which Respondent Zylberberg did not specifically deny. Although Respondent
Zylberberg denied generally that he had, at any time other than at the shift meetings on
April 9, 1947, discussed with any of the employees the efforts to unionize the plant, we
do not credit his denial, in view of the Trial Examiner's findings with respect to the
conversations of April 4 and 5, 1947, between Respondent Zylbcrberg and Frank Rice
and Ernest Kelemeh. We further find that Respondent Zylberberg's interrogation of
Adam McCaughey in this matter constituted an independent violation of Section 8 (1)
of the Act and Section S (a) (1) of the iunended Act. See, for example, Matter of Morrison
Turning Co., Inc., 77 N. L. R. B. 670, 671.
28 Based on the testimony of Adam McCaughey, which testimony we credit for the
reasons stated in footnote 27, supra.
29 Based upon Respondent Zylberberg' s admissions under cross-examination.
30 In assessing the Respondent's motives for closing down the knitting department, we
deem it immaterial that some employees in the knitting department may not have been or
In fact were not members of the Union at that time. (See Matte, of Capital City Candy
Company, 71 N. L. R. B. 447, 451.) Moreover, there is nothing in the record to indicate
that Respondent Zyiberberg had any reason to doubt Adam McCaughey's information that
all such employees were members of the union.
33 See Matter of Sifers Candy Company, 75 N. L. R. B. 296, enforced 171 F. 2d 63
(C. A. 10), and Matter of Pepsi-Cola Bottling Company of Montgomery, 72 N. L. R. B. 601,
in which the Board found discriminatory lock-outs on similar sets of facts.' The Respond-
ents' ultimate reemployment of, or offer of reemploynmt to, all but two of th employees
who had joined the Union, after the original and first amended charges had been filed in
this case. does not militate against the overwhelming effect of the evidence establishing
discriminatory intent. N. L. It. B. v. Vincennes Steel Corporation, 117 F. 2d 169, 173
(C. A. 7).
642 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD .
we find that by closing down the knitting department on April 16,
1947, and laying off the knitting department employees, the Respond-
ents have discriminated with respect to the tenure of employment of
such employees, thereby discouraging membership in American Fed-
eration of Hosiery Workers, and by such conduct have interfe-red
with, restrained, and coerced, and are interfering with, restraining,
and coercing such employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed by
Section 7 of the Act, in violation of Section 8 (1) and 8 (3) of the
Act, and Section 8 (a) (1) and 8 (a) (3) of the amended Act.
TILE EFFECT OF TILE UNFAIR LABOR PRAUT[CES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondents set forth above, occurring ill con-
nection with the operations of the Respondents described in Section I
of the Intermediate Report, 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 obstructing commerce and
the free flow thereof.
THE REMEDY
We have found that the Respondents violated the Act by, among
other things, threatening Frank Rice with reprisal if he continued his
activities on behalf of the Union, interrogating Adam McCaughey
regarding the Union's organizational campaign, and threatening the
knitting department employees with economic loss if they joined the
Union. In' addition, the Respondents discriminatorily laid off the
knitting department employees, on account of their organizational and
concerted activities 32 Such discrimination, in the language of the
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, "goes to the very heart of the
Act." 33
Upon the entire record, we infer and find that the Respondents'
illegal activities, mentioned above, disclose an intent to defeat self-
organization and its objects, and an attitude of opposition to the pur-
poses of the Act. Because of the Respondents' unlawful conduct and
31 As indicated hereinbefore , all the laid-off empldyees except Frank Rice and Adam
McCaughey have been reinstated or offered reinstatement. We do not consider the
Respondents' offer to Adam McCaughey through another employee (footnote 9, supra)
as an adequate offer of reinstatement . As the Respondents initially discriminated against
Frank Rice and Adam McCaughey by the unlawful shut-down and lock-out, they are under
a continuing obligation to recall and reinstate them . Matter of Sifers Candy Company,
supra. For this reason, we find it unnecessary to pass upon the allegations that, irre-
spective of the nature of the lay-off, the Respondents discriminatorily refused reemployment
to Frank Rice and Adam McCaughey.
33 N..L . R. B. v. Entwistle Manufacturing Co., 120 F . 2d 532 , 536 (C . A. 4). See also
N. L. R. B. v. Automotive Maintenance Machinery Co., 116 F. 2(1 350, 353 (C. A. 7).
B & Z HOSIERY PRODUCTS CO. 643
the underlying purposes manifested thereby, we are convinced that
the unfair labor practices found are persuasively related to the unfair
labor practices proscribed by the Act and that danger of commission
in the future of any or all of the unfair labor practices defined in Sec-
tion 8 (a) of the Act is to be anticipated from the Respondents' con-
duct in the past. The preventive purposes of the Act will be thwarted
unless our order is coextensive with the threat. 34 In order, therefore,
to make effective the interdependent guarantees of Section 7, to pre-
vent a recurrence of unfair labor practices, and thereby minimize in-
dustrial strife which burdens and obstructs commerce, and thus effec-
tuate the policies of the Act, we shall order the Respondents to cease
and desist, not only from the unfair labor practices herein found, but
also from in any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coerc-
ing their employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section
7 of the Act, and to take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate
the policies of the Act.35
Having found that the Respondents discriminated in regard to the
hire and tenure of employment of Adam McCaughey, Frank Rice,
Robert Daniels, Joseph Feldenser, Calvin Hanley, Robert McCaughey,
John Motacki, Walter Moyer, Charles Reese, Ernest Kelemen, Stephen
Kelemen, Joseph Matus, Earl Stoyer, and George Farrell, we shall
order the Respondents to :
(1) Offer Adam McCaughey and Frank Rice immediate and full
reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent positions,36
without prejudice to their seniority or other rights and privileges, and
make them whole for any loss of pay they may have suffered by reason
of the Respondents' discrimination against them, by payment to each
of them of a sum of money equal to the amount which he would nor-
mally have earned as wages during the following periods: (a) from
the date of the" discrimination against him to November 17, 1948, the
date of the Intermediate Report herein, and (b) from the date of our
34 Cf . N. L. R. B. v. Express Publishing Company, 312 U . S. 426 ; May Department Stores
Co. v. N. L. R. B., 326 U. S. 376.
35 Although the Respondents have posted the notices as recommended by the Trial
Examiner in his Intermediate Report, we believe that, because of the additional violations
found herein , and the character of such violations , the purposes of the Act will be best
effectuated by requiring the Respondents to post the notices provided for herein.
"The expression "former or substantially equivalent position " is intended to mean
"former position wherever possible, but if such position- is no longer in existence, then a
substantially equivalent position." See Matter of The Chase National Bank of the City of
New York, San Juan, Puerto Rico, Branch, 65 N. L. R. B. 827.
857829-5O-vol. 85-42
644 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Decision and Order herein to the date of the Respondents' offer of
reinstatement '17 less his net earnings 38 during the said periods;
(2) Make whole Robert Daniels for any loss of pay he may have
suffered by reason of the Respondents' discrimination against him, by
payment to him of a sum of money equal to the amount which he would
normally have earned from the date of the discrimination against hire
to the date of the Respondents' offer of reinstatement, less his net
earnings during the said period;
(3) Make whole Joseph Feldenser, Calvin Hanley, Robert Mc-
Caughey, John Motacki, Walter Moyer, Charles Reese, Ernest Kele-
men, Stephen Kelemen, Joseph Mattis, Earl Stoyer, and George Farrell
for any loss of pay they may have suffered by reason of the Respond-
ents' discrimination against them, by payment to each of them of a
sum of money equal to the amount which he would normally have
earned from the date of the discrimination against him to the date
of his reinstatement, less his net earnings during the said period.
We expressly reserve the right to modify the back-pay and rein-
statement provisions if made necessary by a change of conditions in
the future, and to make such supplements thereto as may hereafter
become necessary in order to define or clarify their application to a
specific set of circumstances not now apparent.3°
ORDER
Upon the entire record in this case , and pursuant to Section 10 (c)
of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended , the National Labor
Relations Board hereby orders that the Respondents , Abe Adolph
Bochner and Herschel Zylberberg , individually and as co-partners,
doing business as B & Z Hosiery Products Co., Ridge Pike, Norris-
town , Pennsylvania , and their agents and assigns, shall: ,
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Discouraging membership in American Federation of Hosiery
Workers, or any other labor organization of their employees , by dis-
37 This abatement of back pay for the period between the issuance of the Intermediate
Report and our Decision and Order follows our practice in cases in which, as here, the
Trial Examiner did not recommend the reinstatement of these employees or the award of
back pay to them.
33 By "net earnings" is meant earnings less expenses , such as for transportation, room,
and board, incurred by an employee in connection with obtaining work and working else-
where than for the Respondents. which would not have been incurred' but for the unlawful
discrimination and the consequent necessity of his seeking employment elsewhere. See
Matter of Crossett Lumber Company, 8 N. L. It. B. 440. Monies received for work per-
formed upon Federal, State, county, municipal, or other work-relief projects shall be
considered as earnings. See Republic Steel Corporation v. N. L. R. B., 311 U. S. 7.
3D Matter of Fairmount Creamery Company, 64 N. L. It. B. 824: cf. N. L. R. B. v. New York
Merrbandise Company, Inc.. 134 F. 241 949 (C. A. 2) : International Union v. Eagle-Picker
Mining and Smelting Co.. 325 U . S. 335.
B & Z HOSIERY PRODUCTS CO. 645
charging, laying off, or refusing to reinstate any of their employees,
or by discriminating in any other manner in regard to their hire or
tenure of employment, or any term or condition of their employment;
(b) Interrogating their employees concerning their union affilia-
tion, activities, or sympathies, or threatening their employees with
reprisal or economic loss because of their union affiliation, activities,
or sympathies ;
(c) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing
their employees in the exercise of the right to self-organization, to
form labor organizations, to join or assist American Federation of
Hosiery Workers, or any other labor organization, to bargain collec-
tively through representatives of their own choosing, to engage in
concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other
mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any or all of such activi-
ties, 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.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds
will effectuate'the policies of the Act :
(a) Offer Adam McCaughey and Frank Rice immediate and full
reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent positions,
without prejudice to their seniority or other rights and privileges;
(b) Make whole Adam McCaughey and Frank Rice for any loss of
pay they may have suffered by reason of the Respondents' discrimina-
tion against them, by payment to each of them of a sum of money
equal to the amount which he would normally have earned as wages
during the following periods : (1) from the date of the discrimination
against him to November 17, 1948, and (2) from the date of our
Decision and Order herein to the date of the Respondents' offer of
reinstatement, less his net earnings during the said periods;
(c) Make whole Robert Daniels for any loss of pay he may have
suffered by reason of the Respondents' discrimination against him,
by payment to him of a sum of money equal to the amount which he
would normally have earned from the date of the discrimination
against him to the date of the Respondents' offer of reinstatement,
less his net earnings during said period;
(d) Make whole Joseph Feldenser, Calvin Hanley, Robert Mc-
Caughey, John Motacki, Walter Moyer, Charles Reese, Ernest Kele-
men, Stephen Kelemen, Joseph Matus, Earl Stoyer, and George Far-
rell for any loss of pay they may have suffered by reason of the Re-
spondents' discrimination against them, by payment to each of them
of a sum of money equal to the amount which he would normally have
646 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
earned from the date of the discrimination against him to the date
of his reinstatement, less his net earnings during the said period;
(e) Post at their plant on Ridge Pike, Norristown, Pennsylvania,
copies of the notice attached hereto and marked Appendix A.4o
Copies of such notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for
the Fourth Region, shall, after being duly signed by the Respondents
or their representative, be posted by the Respondents upon receipt
thereof, and maintained by them for sixty (60) consecutive days there-
after, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to em-
ployees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by
the Respondents to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced,
or covered by any other material;
(f) Notify the Regional Director for the Fourth Region in writing,
within ten (10) days from the date of this order, what steps the Re-
spondents have taken to comply herewith.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint be, and it hereby is, dis-
missed, except as otherwise found herein.
APPENDIX A
NOTICE To ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to a Decision and Order of the National Labor Relations
Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, we hereby notify our employees that :
WE WILL NOT discourage membership in AMERICAN FEDERATION
OF HOSIERY WORKERS, or any other labor organization of our em-
ployees, by discharging, laying off, or refusing to reinstate any
of our employees, or by discriminating in any other manner in
regard to their hire or tenure of employment, or any term or
condition of employment.
WE WILL NOT interrogate our employees concerning their union
affiliation, activities, or sympathies, or threaten them with reprisal
or economic loss because of their union affiliation, activities, or
sympathies.
WE WILL, NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or
coerce our employees in the exercise of their right to self-organi-
zation, to join or assist AMERICAN FEDERATION OF HOSIERY
WORKERS, or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively
through representatives of their own choosing, to engage in
40 In the event this Order is enforced by decree of a United States Court of Appeals,
there shall be inserted before the words, "A DECISION AND ORDER" the words, "A
DECREE OF THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS ENFORCING."
B & Z HOSIERY PRODUCTS CO. 647
concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or
other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any or all of
such activities, except to the extent that such right may be
affected by an'agreement requiring membership in a labor organi-
zation as a condition of employment, as authorized in Section
8 (a) (3) of the Act.
WE WILL OFFER to the employees named below immediate and
full reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent
positions, without prejudice to any seniority or other rights and
privileges. previously enjoyed, and make them whole for any
loss of pay suffered as a result, of the discrimination : Adam
McCaughey, Frank Rice.
WE WILL MAKE WHOLE the employees named below for any loss
of pay suffered as a result of the discrimination against them :
Robert Daniels Charles Reese
Joseph Feldenser Ernest Kelemen
Calvin Hanley Stephen Kelemen
Robert McCaughey Joseph Matus
John Motacki Earl Stoyer
Walter Moyer George Farrell
All our employees are free to become or remain members of the
above-named union or any other labor organization. We Will not
discriminate in regard to the hire or tenure of employment or any term
or condition of employment against any employee because of member-
ship in or activity on behalf of any such labor organization.
ABE ADOLPH BOCHNER and HE, RSCHEL ZYLBERBERG,
individually and as co-partners doing business as
B & Z HOSIERY PRODUCTS Co.,
Employer.
By-----------------------------------------------------
(Representative ) (Title)
Dated--------------------
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
Mr. John H. Wood, Jr., and Miss Helen F. Humphrey, for the General Counsel.
Shoyer, Rosenberger, Highley, Spiegel and Cunniff, by Mr. Geoffrey J. Cunniff,
of Philadelphia, Pa., for the Respondents.
Mr. Julian E. Goldberg, of Philadelphia, Pa., for the Union.
648 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
STATEMENT or THE CASE
Upon a third amended charge filed September 10, 1948,' by American Federa-
tion of Hosiery Workers, herein called the Union, the General Counsel of the
National Labor Relations Board 2 by the Regional Director' for the Fourth
Region (Philadelphia, Pennsylvania), issued a complaint dated September 10,
1948, against Abe Adolph Bochner and Herschel Zylberberg, individually and as
co-partners, doing business as B & Z Hosiery Products Co. of Norristown,
Pennsylvania, herein called the Respondents, alleging that the Respondents had
engaged in and were engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within
the meaning of Section S (1) and (3) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National
Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, as reenacted in Section 8 (a) (1) and (3) and
Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947, 61 Stat.
136, herein called the Act.
Copies of the complaint, the amended charge, and a notice of hearing were.
duly served on the Respondents and the Union.
With respect to the unfair labor practices the complaint alleged in substance :
(a.) that the Respondents on or about April 16, 1946, terminated the employment
of 14 named individuals because they joined or assisted the Union or engaged in
other concerted activities; (b) that the Respondents wholly failed and refused
to reinstate 3 of these individuals and discriminatorily reinstated the others;
(c) that the Respondents warned and threatened their employees with unfavor-
able working conditions if they adhered to the Union, threatened employees with
loss of employment, interrogated employees regarding their union membership
and activities, offered special inducements to employees if they refrained from
joining or remaining members of the Union and initiated and sponsored activities
among their employees to establish a committee to act as their bargaining agent;
(d) that by the foregoing conduct the Respondents have interfered with, re-
strained, and coerced their employees and are interfering with, restraining, and
coercing their employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7
of the Act, and in re particularly have violated Section 8 (1) and (3) of the
National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, and have violated and are violating
Section 8 (a) (1) and (3) of the Act (61 Stat. 136).
The Respondents filed an answer dated September 15, 1948, in which they ad-
mitted that they were engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act;
admitted that the Union was a labor organization within the meaning of the
Act; and denied that they had engaged in any of the unfair labor practices
alleged in the complaint.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held at Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, on
September.20 to 24, 1948, inclusive, before Louis Plost, the undersigned Trial
Examiner duly designated by the Chief Trial Examiner. All the parties were
represented by counsel participated in the hearing and were afforded a full
opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to intro-
duce evidence bearing upon the issues.
I The original charge was filed April 4, 194T; the first amended charge was filed June 10,
1947 ; and the second amended charge was filed Tune 22, 1948. All these charges are
against B & Z Hosiery Products, Inc. The original complaint was issued against B & Z
Hosiery, Inc . and is dated July 29, 1948. The third amended charge and the complaint
issued thereon are dated September 10, 1948, and are against Abe Adolph Bochner and
Herschel Zylberberg d/b/a individually and as co-partners as B & Z Hosiery Products Co.
%The General Counsel and his representatives are herein referred to as the General
Counsel, and the National Labor Relations Board as the Board.
0 The original complaint was by an Acting Regional Director.
B & Z HOSIERY PRODUCTS CO. 649
At the conclusion of the evidence in the General Counsel ' s case-in -chief and
again at the close of the hearing the Respondents moved to dismiss the com-
plaint on various grounds. The undersigned denied the motion in part and
reserved ruling in part . The rulings reserved are hereinafter disposed of. At
the close of the hearing the General Counsel moved to conform all the pleadings
to the proof with respect to names , dates , spelling, and like matters not sub-
stantive . The undersigned granted a motion without objection.
The parties waived oral argument . A date was set for the filing of briefs,
or proposed findings of fact or conclusions of law or both , with the undersigned.
After the close of the hearing the time for such filing was extended to November
1. Briefs have been received from the General Counsel and the Respondents and
have been considered by the undersigned.
Upon the entire record and from his observation of the witnesses the under-
signed makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENTS
The Respondents Abe Adolph Bochner and Ilerschel.Zylberberg are co-partners
doing business under the style and name of B & Z Hosiery Products Co. The
Respondents' principal place of business is on Ridge Pike near Norristown,
Montgomery County, Pennsylvania, where they maintain a plant for the manu-
facture of hosiery. In the course and conduct of their business the Respondents
use nylon yarn valued in excess of $40,000 annually, all of which yarn comes to
the Respondents from outside the State of Pennsylvania. The Respondents manu-
facture hosiery in excess of $60,000 annually. Approximately 50 percent of the
products manufactured by the Respondents are shipped by them to points outside
the State of Pennsylvania. The Respondents also maintain a sales office in New
York, New York.`
II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
American Federation of Hosiery Workers is a labor organization admitting
employees of the Respondent to membership.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The Respondent 's plant and operations
At all times material her the Respondents had in their plant a total of 15
hosiery knitting machines , divided by gauges as follows :
12 machines 42-gauge
2 machines 45-gauge
1 machine 51-gauge
Two of the 42-gauge machines were not in operation in April 1947 ; of the others
the 51-gauge machine - was operated as a single unit by 1 knitter , the remaining 12
machines were operated "double," meaning that 1 knitter • operated 2 machines.
The plant operated on a 2 -shift basis , there being 7 knitters on each shift.
The double operation was of great advantage to the knitters , as by operating
two machines the operator was paid for virtually 2 days' work each shift
(although all work was on a piecework basis ), and was able to average earnings
of $3.50 per hour.
' The above is based on stipulated facts.
650 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The operations of the plant are directed by the Respondent Herschel Zylberberg.
The Respondents manufacture nylon hosiery. Nylon yarn is obtainable from,
a single source identified in the record as "Dupont," which apparently has a
manufacturing monopoly and arbitrarily allocates the quantity sold to each user
of yarn monthly. However, it seems customary for users of nylon yarn to "trade"
and to sell from their allocated supplies. Nylon yarn not obtained directly from
"Dupont" brings a price double that charged by the manufacturer.
In addition to the hosiery they manufacture the Respondents also buy hosiery
for resale in both finished and partly finished condition, they contract for the
knitting of hosiery by other manufacturers, the yarn used being furnished by
Respondents, and the Respondents also trade, buy, and sell yarn.
The Respondents hold contracts with large distributors of hosiery but in times
of price decline or unsettled market conditions they either cannot or are reluctant
to enforce their contract, and compel acceptance from unwilling buyers.
The above findings are all made on uncontradicted and mutually corroborative
testimony which the undersigned credits.
B. Interference, restraint, and coercion
The record is clear that the Union organized Respondents' employees during
the last days of March 1947.
Frank Rice, who was at the time employed by the Respondent as a knitter,
testified that on the night of April 4, 1947, while Rice was at work, Herschel
Zylberberg came to him and made certain statements regarding the organization
of the Union. Rice testified :
Q. (By Mr. WooD). What did he say?
A. Why, he said, "Aren't you satisfied with the machines you are run-
ning now?" I said, "Yes, I am,. now that we are runing good yarn." He
started as if to walk away and then lie came back again and he says, "Do
you know what I heard today? I heard that Frank Rice was organizing a
union in this shop. I couldn't believe it. What did I ever do to you that
you should do this to me? Didn't I always treat you right? I•can tell you
right now that you will never get away with it. You will be sorry if you
join the union. I will pay you for cleaning the machines, if that is what you
want. That is the trouble, I was always too good to you fellows. It is not
too late yet to change your mind. Think it over, and I hope you do, because
you will regret it if you don't." Then he left me.
Except to deny generally that he ever talked to any of the employees alone about
the Union, Zylberberg did not deny the above testimony, which is therefore cred-
ited by the undersigned.
Adam McCaughey, who was also at the time employed by the Respondents as
a knitter, testified that on April 5, Zylberberg telephoned him at his home and
asked McCaughey "who was the ringleader" of the Union. McCaughey replied
that he did not know. McCaughey further testified that later in the same day
Zylberberg cause to his home and asked McCaughey "what I (McCaughey) could
do about breaking it up," and told McCaughey that Zylberberg had "other
methods," such as shutting down the plant and starving them (the knitters) into
submission. During his visit Zylberberg, according to McCaughey, stated that
the Respondents were "going to get rid of" employees Rice and Ernest Icelemen.
McCaughey also testified that "I said I would see what I could do up the
shop, which I done," and that Zylberberg promised that "if I could swing
B Ss Z HOSIERY PRODUCTS CO. 651
the deal with some help lie would provide for ine, take care of Inc." McCaughey
further testified that on April 7, Zylberberg again phoned to him and asked that
McCaughey discuss with employee Joseph Feldenser the possibility that these
two employees "throw a little weight" in order "to swing the union out of the
mill" and "have a company union of our own."
Zylberberg testified that McCaughey telephoned to him and asked Zylberberg
to come to his home. Zylberberg did so and on arriving at McCaugheyy's home he
found the latter intoxicated and upon observing McCaughey's condition merely
asked why he had been called and left after a few minutes. Zylberberg denied
that he made any of the statements attributed to him by McCaughey, or that
he at any time asked McCaughey to break up the Union.
McCaughey did not favorably impress the undersigned; he seemed to be telling
a rehearsed story and his entire attitude while on the witness stand can best be
described as "smart aleck."
Zylberberg impressed the undersigned as being worthy of belief ; he made no
attempt to evade or deny matters damaging to the Respondents' case. As between
McCaughey and Zylberberg, the undersigned is persuaded that Zylberberg's
account of the incidents relating to the latter's visit to McCaughey's home,
including the telephone call which prompted it, and the alleged telephone call
requesting McCaughey to speak to Feldenser, is the more accurate account of
these incidents, and therefore the undersigned does not credit McCaughey's
testimony with respect to them.
Employee Ernest Kelemen testified, that sometime in January 1947, Zylberberg,
in conversation with Ernest Kelemen and his brother Stephen Kelemen, in
the plant, told them that at the time Zylberberg had a plant in Europe, if any
labor trouble occurred he would shut down and "just hire back the fellows that
suited him."
Ernest Kelemen further testified that during the afternoon of April 5, he
received a phone call at his house from Zylberberg during which :
A. Mr. Zylberberg said, "I hear that Frank Rice is trying to organize
the shop" ; and that he always tried to treat Frank Rice fair, that he
couldn't understand that part of it. And then he went on to say "I wonder
if you could do anything about this by approaching the boys when you come
in to work."
And I told him, "Mr. Zylberberg, it is out of my hands," and it was.
"It is in the hands of the union. All the cards are signed. There is nothing
I can do about it. I am nobody. There is no one leader to this thing."
Q. (By Trial Examiner Plost) That is what you told him over the
phone?
A. That is what I told him on the phone, as I recall it.
Employee Stephen Kelemen testified :
Q. (By Mr. Wood) Did Mr. Zylberberg ever talk to you about unions
during the first part of 1947?
A. Well, there was that conversation that he had with my brother and I.
Q. When did it occur?
A. This occurred in January, of labor trouble that he had while operating
a mill in Europe ; that he had labor trouble there and the way he eliminated
it was by closing the plant down and rehiring the help he wanted. That
was the only time lie ever talked about labor.
652 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Zylberberg denied that he at any time discussed " labor troubles " in a plant
he formerly operated in Europe , with the Kelemens . However , inasmuch as
the statement is alleged to have been made in January , some 3 months prior to
the events material to the complaint , the undersigned does not find it necessary
to resolve this conflict in the testimony.
Zylberger was not asked to deny Ernest Kelemen 's testimony with reference
to the telephone call made by Zylberberg to Kelemen , The undersigned credits
Ernest Kelemen ' s testimony relative to the above -mentioned telephone call.
Rice testified that on April 9, at about 11.'30 a. in. all of the seven knitters
on the , shift gathered about Zylberberg in the plant and a general discussion
regarding the effort to organize the union was entered into between the men
and Zylberberg. Apparently Zylberberg was responsible for the calling of the
gathering , which seems to have been unplanned , and in which all present freely
participated as a discussion rather than to deliver opinions and argument in
the form of speeches . According to Rice he asked Zylberberg "what is on your
mind?" and Zylberberg replied that "lie can 't see why we want an outside union.
He is paying more than the union rate, and he says lie can 't see why we should
pay dues to another union. It would just be wasted ." According to Rice, Zylber-
berg also told the knitters that "if we joined the union lie was going to cut
out paying the bonus " and "that if we insist on going through with the union,
he was going to single up all the jobs," and that he would not pay $9 a pound
for yarn to keep the plant operating if it were unionized.
Stephen Kelemen corroborated Rice and . testified that Zylberberg stated that
"he would single up the jobs if the fellows joined the union, the future 51's."
There was only one 51-gauge machine in the plant but the record shows that
it was common knowledge that all the other machines were at some future time
to be reconverted.
Adam McCaughey testified that during the night shift on April 9 , Zylberberg
came to the plant and asked _McCaughey to call the knitters together . After the
men had assembled , only five being present, Zylberberg entered into a discus-
sion with them that lasted "maybe an hour or more" during which Zylberberg
asked why they wanted to organize the shop , that "he would single the machines
up" and "that he didn ' t have the heart to go out and buy yarn for knitters if they
didn ' t want to be one big happy family and not go along with him ." McCaughey
testified that Zylberberg did not mention the bonus paid employees , Ernest Kele-
men and Robert McCaughey testified in corroboration of Adam McCaughey.
Zylberberg testified that he talked to both day and night shift knitters on April
9. He testified that the meetings were held after lie had learned of the union
organization among his employees and that the day shift meeting was spontaneous.
Zylberberg freely admitted that he told the knitters that he saw no point
in their joining the Union , or paying dues. He did not specifically deny the other
statements attributed to him except the one relating to "double jobs." As to
the "double jobs " Zylberberg testified that he told the employee knitters "if the
union comes in the union is not in favor of double jobs." Zylberberg testified that
he told the night shift substantially the same things as the day shift.
The matter of "double jobs " is of great importance to the Respondents ' employ.
ees. As previously found herein the Respondents operate their plant with one
knitter operating two machines . This system enables the knitters to earn 2 days'
pay each day . There is evidence in the record that this method of operation
is not looked upon with favor by the Union.
B & Z HOSIERY PRODUCTS CO. 653
Robert Lesnick, a union representative, testified that in most mills operating
-under union contract a knitter is permitted to operate only one machine; that
where the Union finds a "double job operation" it trys to eliminate it ; that in the
Philadelphia area no plants operating under union contract operate "double
jobs." Lesnick testified :
Q. (By Mr. Cunniff) Wouldn't it be a fair statement, Mr. Lesnick, to say
that as a matter of policy your organization does not approve of a knitter
operating more than one machine?
A. To that I would say yes.
Although witnesses called by the General Counsel testified on direct that
Zylberberg threatened to "single up" the jobs and thus cut their pay by 50
percent if they joined the Union, their testimony on cross was quite different
thus:
Rice testified :
"and he says if we get a union, we will have to go on single jobs."
Ernest Kelmen testified :
"He said that if the union would come in, `You fellows would have to
run 51 gauges, single job.'"
John Motacki, a knitter employed by the Respondents, and called by them,
testified that he attended the clay shift meeting and described the meeting as a
general discussion during which Motacki and Rice engaged in a heated argu-
ment regarding the advantage of unionization, Motacki being opposed to the
Union. Motacki testified that Zylberberg told the employees "that the union's
policy is to run single jobs, whereas we are running double jobs." Motacki
also testified that Zylberberg did not mention the bonus payments, but that the
bonus was mentioned during Motacki's discussion with Rice.
From all the testimony and from his observation of the witnesses, the under-
signed is persuaded that Zylberberg told the Respondents' employees that the
union policy would prevent their operating "double jobs," meaning two ma-
chines at a time. The clear inference being that a union contract would mean
a 50-percent loss in pay. There is therefore no doubt that Zylberberg's re-
marks contained, if not a threat of economic loss in the event of unionization,
as well as a promise of benefit if the status quo was maintained, a powerful
argument against the Union based on loss of benefit.
It is quite clear that Zylberberg was stating the union's policy quite ac-
curately as evidenced by the testimony of union representative Lesnick. In
the circumstances the undersigned is of the opinion that Zylberberg's statement
did not constitute the Respondents' independent threat of reprisal or force or
promise of benefit" but was merely such an argument against the unioniza-
tion of the Respondents' employees which cannot be used as a basis for a finding
of unfair labor practices. The undersigned further finds that all of Zylberberg's
remarks made to the Respondents' employees during the two meetings held
April 9, 1947, are also privileged under the constitutional guarantee of free
speech.
The undersigned finds that by Zylberberg's statements to Frank Rice to the
effect that Rice would "never get away with" organizing the employees, would
be sorry if he joined the Union, that he would "regret it" if he did not change
his mind about organizing the Union, and further by Zylberberg's request to
' Section 8 (c) L. M. R. A., 1947.
654 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
employee Ernest Kelemen to influence the employees against the Union, the
Respondents have interfered with; restrained, and coerced their employees in the
exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, and more particularly
have violated Section 8 (a) (1) thereof.
C. The alleged discrinhnatori discharges
On April 16, 1947, the Respondents laid off all of their knitters; ° however, the
other departments of the plant were kept in operation.
The complaint alleges that the Respondents terminated the employment of
these knitters because they joined or assisted the Union or engaged in other
concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid
or protection.
The record is clear, that the Union organized the Respondents' employees dur-
ing the last part of March, and that at the time of the lay-off all of the knitters
had become members of the Union.
The knitting department of the plant had been operating on a 3-clay-a-week
schedule since January. Zylberberg testified that between January and July
1947, there was a sharp break in the hosiery market ; "prices went down sharply,
dollars per hour, like the stock market." Zylberberg further testified that dur-
ing this period no nylon yarn was available, yet at the same time the hosiery
market was flooded. During this period according to Zylberberg "there was no
market" for 42-gauge hosiery "at all." There is evidence in the record that 42-
gauge is not a popular gauge of hosiery and that leading houses wholly dis-
continued its manufacture. The Respondents' knitting department consisted
of ten 42-gauge machines in operation, two 45-gauge and one 51-gauge machine.
The latter three were described by Zylberberg as the Respondents' "bread and
butter" without which the operation of the plant was not profitable. The 42-
gauge machines were obsolete and produced a type of hosiery not readily salable.
Zylberberg and the knitters had discussed the Respondents' intention to convert
these machines to a more popular gauge. The knitters understood that these
machines would be regauged as soon as possible. The 51-gauge machine was
faulty in its operation and required reneedling. The Kelemen brothers, who
operated the 51-gauge machine on alternate shifts, both testified that the machine
needed reneedling and that Zylberberg had told them that it would be reneedled.
Rice who operated the two 45-gauge machines admitted that the machines had
been putting out bad work, and Adam McCaughey who operated the same ma-
chines on the alternate shift admitted that he had complained about their condi-
tion.
Zylberberg testified that as early as January 1.947, the Respondents had nego-
tiated with various machine reconditioning firms with respect to. having their
machinery put in shape and had at least made tentative arrangements to have
the work done on some of the machines. Zylberberg further testified that the
break in the market decided the Respondents to shut down the knitting depart-
ment and recondition their machinery while waiting a change in market condi-
tions. This meant shipping the working parts of their machinery to a recondi-
tioning plant. However, they did not anticipate that the various reconditioning
° The following named employees were laid off: Robert Daniels, George Farrell, Joseph
Feldenser, Calvin Hanley, Ernest Kelemen, Stephen Kelemen, Joseph Matus, Adam Mc-
Caughey, Robert McCaughey, John Motacki, Walter Moyer, Charles Reese, Frank Rice,
and Earl Stoyer.
B & Z HOSIERY PRODUCTS CO. 655
jobs would consume as much time as they eventually did,' but during this period
machinery houses became crowded with similar work from hosiery manufacturers
taking advantage of the market break as "everybody did it," causing unforeseen
delay. The Respondents' reconditioning program has entailed an expenditure
of more than.$100,000.
The Respondents reopened their knitting department in July 1947. Between
April and July the Respondents apparently were able to continue in business as
usual ; they had hosiery knitted for them in other plants, they bought hosiery,
they traded in yarn. The plant other than the knitting department was kept in
operation.
As has been found herein the knitters were laid off on April 16. On May 26,
1947, the Respondents sent a letter to each of the knitters they had laid off advis-
ing them that "you may consider your layoff permanent."
The above findings are all based on the uncontraclicted or mutually corrobora-
tive testimony of witnesses for the General Counsel and the Respondents, which
is credited by the undersigned. In addition to the above testimony the under-
signed is mindful of the testimony of William Rafsky, research director of the
Union, that there was a 10-percent drop in the wholesale price of hosiery in
May 1947; that such a drop is considered sharp ; and that there might have been
"isolated" price drops during April 1947.
Zylberberg testified on cross-examination that he attended the hosiery manu-
facturers' convention at Atlantic City in 1947, and that the decision to lay off
the employees because of business conditions was made after the convention.
There is undisputed evidence that the convention began on April 28, 1947.
In the opinion of the undersigned the fact that Zylberberg testified to an erro-
neous date does not impeach his credibility. Zylberberg was on the witness stand
for a considerable time on every day of the hearing and the undersigned does
not regard his failure to recall a date with accuracy under the battering of severe
cross-examination as being of any great importance inasmuch as the general
impression he made upon the undersigned was that of an honest witness.
It is also apparent from the entire record that the Respondents' manufactur-
ing operations were at the time material herein largely marginal, and being so
their business operations would be among the first to reflect a market change.
The undersigned credits the testimony of the Union's research director to the
effect that a severe break in the 1947 hosiery market occurred in May and that
there might have been "isolated" price drops during April. In a business such
as the Respondents' is disclosed to have been by the record, including their "trad-
ing" in yarn, buying and selling of finished and partly finished hosiery, relying
on "commission knitting" and the like, the tremor of the "isolated price drops"
might well spell calamity.
There is also evidence in the record that none of the knitters laid off on April
1C were able to secure employment in their trade. These men were evidently
highly skilled knitters, able to earn twice the regular scale of wages ; therefore,
the very fact that they could not obtain employment in their trade would serve
to buttress the Respondents' testimony that the hosiery manufacturing industry
was severely disorganized during this period.
Upon all the evidence in the record considered as a whole, the undersigned is
persuaded that the Respondents on April 16, 1947, laid off their knitters because
of valid business reasons, and that they did not discriminatorily lay them off
T The record shows that the entire reconditioning program had not been fully completed
at the time of the hearing.
656 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
because of their membership in and activities on behalf of the Union as alleged
in the complaint. The undersigned so finds.
Inasmuch as an employer is not prohibited by the Act from discharging his
employees for any reason other than their union activities and may even capri-
ciously discharge them for any reason or no reason whatever, it follows that the
Respondents' discharge of their employees by the letter of May 26, 1947, was
legally effective. The undersigned so finds.
Having found that the Respondents did not illegally lay off or discharge their
employees, it follows that once having effectively discharged their employees the
Respondents were under no legal obligation to again reemploy them, absent a
refusal on the part of the Respondents to give employment to any of the men
because of their membership in the Union.
The complaint alleges that the Respondents refused to reinstate 3 of the
knitters discharged as herein found, namely, Frank Rice, Robert Daniels, and
Adam McCaughey, and discriminatorily reinstated the other 11.
The record is clear that on July 20, the Respondents again began their knitting
operations and recalled six of their former knitters, and that these men were
put to work on the same machines they had formerly operated.'
As the machines were again put in operation, all of the knitters formerly
employed were recalled to work with the exception of three who were not offered
employment by the Respondents. The first was recalled approximately July 20,
the last was recalled September 22, 1947:
The General Counsel contends that the Respond: nts discriminatorily recalled
its employees in that the Respondents failed to recall the employees formerly
laid off in order of their seniority, and also wholly refused to reinstate three
named employees.
The undersigned has found' that the Respondents effectively discharged the
knitters ; however, there can be no possible ground for the contention that those
recalled to work were recalled discriminatorily. The Respondents knew that all
of the knitters had joined the Union, they recalled all but three of them as they
needed their services and were not required to follow any seniority system.
Seniority is a matter of contract and not a matter of right.
As to the three men not recalled : having been legally discharged, in order to
establish any claim for employment it was first necessary that these men ask
the Respondents for employment, otherwise no basis exists for a charge of dis-
crimination.
8 The parties stipulated that the Respondents' conversion program was as follows :
No. Kind of machine
Date shipped for
repair
Date returned Ready for opera-
tion
51 gauge----------------------- Apr. 17,1947 -_ _ _ _-_ _ June 13, 1947______ July 13, 1947.
2 Apr. 23 1947________ June 3, 1947_-_._-_ Oct. 19 1947
45 gauge-----------------------
,
June 6,1947--------- Sept. 19__________-
, .
Do
2 June 16, 1947-------- Aug. 29, 1947__--__ Sept. 22.
4
42 gauge----------------------- --- - do---------------
July 30______________
Sept.19____-___--_
Nov.10___-____--_
Dec. 5-
Oct. 15.
Dec. 10.
Jan. 10 1948.
42 gauge-------------------- do------------- Jan.9,1948________
,
Feb. 9.
42 gauge----------------------
-do-----------
--- ----------------
Feb. 10___-________
Apr. 28, 1948 ------
Mar. 10.
May 28.
42 gauge----------------------- -------------------- Apr. 9----------- May 29.
42 gauge____ - ------------------- July 29____________ Aug. 29.
42 gauge ------------------- ----------------------
Aug. 1------------
2 machines still not shipped for reconversion.
B & Z HOSIERY PRODUCTS CO. 657
Adam McCaughey testified that from the time he was discharged to the time
of the hearing he did not apply to the Respondents for work.
Robert Daniels testified that in July 1947 "when the others were called back,
I was called back." Daniels refused the employment tendered him by the
Respondent.
Frank Rice, who was the leader in the union activity among the Respondents'
employees, testified that in August 1947, he went to the plant and removed his
tools. Rice testified that prior to this, in September 1947, he bought a house in
Milwaukee, Wisconsin, and moved his family there. Rice obtained work as a
knitter in Milwaukee December 29, 1947.
Rice testified at the request of the Union he wrote to the Respondents from
Milwaukee, Wisconsin, on November 22, 1947, and asked "for reinstatement to
the job I had with you." °
Under date of November 25, 1947, the Respondents replied, "there are at the
present time no available openings for you."
Rice operated the two 45-gauge machines. These machines were not put in
operation until October 19, 1947.
Zylberberg testified that he had been told by relatives of Rice who also worked
in the plant.tha:t Rice had moved to Milwaukee and had left no address. When he
received Rice's letter of November 22, there was no opening and he so wrote Rice.
According to Zylberberg an opening for Rice's services presented itself. in
December but at that time Zylberberg had learned that Rice had bought a house
in Milwaukee and was established there and therefore Zylberberg thought Rice
would not be interested in a job with the Respondents.
On the entire record the undersigned is persuaded that the Respondents'
explanation for its failure to hire Rice is reasonable and therefore finds that
the Respondents did not discriminate against Rice by refusing him employment.
The General Counsel argues in his brief :
It is submitted that in view of the other circumstances in this case it is
not unreasonable to assume that Respondents delayed deliberately the
reconditioning of the 45 gauge machines and putting them back into operation
until both Rice and Adam McCaughey had come for their tools in August,
and until word had been received that Frank Rice had moved to Milwaukee,
Wisconsin.
The undersigned is of the opinion that in order to make the assumption urged
by the General Counsel he must impute to the Respondents either such diabolical
cunning or such boundless stupidity , nurtured on such vindictive hatred as to
wholly blind any self-interest . The undersigned finds it impossible to be so
unrealistic.
Upon all the evidence in the case the undersigned finds that the evidence does
not support the allegations of the complaint to the effect that the Respondents
discharged and failed to reinstate any of their employees and will recommend that
the complaint be dismissed insofar as it so alleges.
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 described in Section I, above, have a close,
intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the
° The quotation is from the letter.
0
658 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
several States and such of them as have been found to be unfair labor practices
tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free
flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondents, Abe Adolph Bochner and Herschel Zylber-
berg, individually and as co-partners, doing business as B & Z Hosiery Products
Co., have engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (1)
of the National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449 as reenacted in Section 8 (a)
(1) of the Act (61 Stat. 136), the undersigned will recommend that they cease
and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action in order to effectuate
the policies of both statutes.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record
in the case, considered as a whole, the undersigned makes the following:
CONCLUSIONS or LAW
1. The operations of the Respondents Abe Adolph Bochner and Herschel Zylber-
berg, individually and as co-partners, doing business as B & Z Hosiery Products
Co. (Norristown, Pennsylvania), constitute commerce within the meaning of
Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
2. American Federation of Hosiery Workers is a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2 (5) of 49 Stat. 449 and the Act (61 Stat. 136).
3. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise
of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of 49 Stat. 449 and the Act, the Respondents
have engaged in and are engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning
of Section 8 (1) of 49 Stat. 449 as reenacted in Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act
(61 Stat. 136).
. 4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting
commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of 49 Stat. 449 (61 Stat.
136).
The Respondents have not engaged in unfair labor practices by laying off, dis-
charging, or in reinstating Robert Daniels, George Farrell, Joseph Feldenser,
Calvin Hanley, Ernest Kelemen, Stephen Kelemen, Joseph Matus, Adam Mc-
Caughey, Robert McCaughey, John Motacki, Walter Moyer, Charles Reese, Frank
Rice, and Earl Stoyer.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and conclusions of law the under-
signed hereby recommends that the Respondents, their successors, and assigns,
shall :
1. Cease and desist from :
In any manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees in the
exercise of the right to self-organization, to form labor organizations, to join or
assist American Federation of Hosiery Workers, 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, as guaranteed in Section 7, 49 Stat. 449, and of the
Act (61 Stat. 136).
B & Z HOSIERY PRODUCTS CO. 659
2. Take the following affirmative action, which the undersigned finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Post at their plant in Norristown, Pennsylvania, notice attached hereto
and marked Appendix A. Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the
Regional Director of the Fourth Region, shall, after being duly signed by the
Respondents, be posted by it immediately upon receipt thereof, and maintained
by it for sixty (60) consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including
all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable
steps shall be taken by the Respondents to insure that said notices are not
altered, defaced, or covered by any other material;
(b) Notify the Regional Director for the Fourth Region in writing within
ten (10) days from the date of the receipt of this Intermediate Report,'what
steps the Respondents have taken to comply with the foregoing recommendations.
It is further recommended that, unless the Respondents shall, within ten (10)
days from the receipt of this Intermediate Report, notify the Regional Director
for the Fourth Region in writing that they will comply with the foregoing
recommendations, the National Labor Relations Board issue an order requiring
the Respondents to take the action aforesaid.
It is also recommended that the complaint, insofar as it alleges that the
Respondents discriminated in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of
any of their employees, be dismissed.
As provided in Section 203.46 of the Rules and Regulations of the National
Labor Relations Board-Series 5, as amended August 18, 1948, any party may,
within twenty (20) days from the date of service of the order transferring the
case to the Board, pursuant to Section 203.45 of said Rules and Regulations,
file with the Board, Rochambeau Building, Washington 25, D. C., an original
and six copies of a statement in writing setting forth such exceptions to the
Intermediate Report or to any other part of the record or proceeding (including
rulings upon all motions or objectives) as he relies upon, together with the original
and six copies of a brief in support thereof ; and any party may, within the same
period, file an original and six copies of a brief in support of the Intermediate Re-
port. Immediately upon the filing of such statement of exceptions and/or briefs,
the party filing the same shall serve a copy thereof upon each of the other parties.
Statements of exceptions and briefs shall designate by precise citation the
portions of the record relied upon and shall be legibly printed or mimeographed,
and if mimeographed shall be double spaced. Proof of service on the other
parties of all papers filed with the Board shall be promptly made as required
by Section 203.85. As further provided in said Section 203.46, should any party
desire permission to argue orally before the Board, request therefor must be
made in writing to the Board within ten (10) days from the date of service,
of the order transferring the case to the Board.
In the event no Statement of Exceptions is filed as provided by the aforesaid
Rules and Regulations, the findings, conclusions, recommendations, and recom-
mended order herein contained shall, as provided in Section 203.48 of said Rules
and Regulations, be adopted by the Board and become its findings, conclusions,
and order, and all objections thereto shall be deemed waived for all purposes.
Dated at Washington, D. C., this 17th day of November 1948.
Louis PLOST,
Trial Examiner.
857829-50-vol. 85-43
660 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
APPENDIX A
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the recommendations of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor
Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, we hereby notify our employees that :
WE WILL NOT in any manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our
employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to form labor
organizations, to join or assist American Federation of Hosiery Workers
or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively through representa-
tives of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted activities for the
purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection. All our
employees are free to become or remain members of this union, or any
other labor organization.
ABE ADOLPH BOCHNER AND HERSCHEL ZYLBERBERG,
individually and as co-partners, doing
business as B & Z HOSIERY PRODUCTS Co.,
Employer.
By ---------------------------------------------------
(Representative ) (Title)
Dated --------------------
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof , and must
not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.