Catalina, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 30, 1954

110 N.L.R.B. 1064 (N.L.R.B. 1954)

1064 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
CATALINA, INC. and UNITED TEXTILE WWWORKERS OF AMERICA, AFL and
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, WARE-
HOUSEMEN & HELPERS OF AMERICA, LOCAL 994, AFL. Case No.
21-CA-1876. November 30, 1954
Decision and Order
On August 6, 1954, Trial Examiner Howard Myers issued his In-
termediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the
Respondent had not engaged in the unfair labor practices alleged in
the complaint, and recommending that the complaint be dismissed
in its entirety, as set forth in the copy of the Intermediate Report at-
tached hereto. Thereafter, the General Counsel filed exceptions to
the Intermediate Report together with a supporting brief, and the
Respondent filed a brief in support of the Intermediate Report.
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made
at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed.
The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the In-
termediate Report, the exceptions and briefs, and the entire record
in the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recom-
mendations contained in the Intermediate Report.'
[The Board dismissed the complaint.]
1 The General Counsel excepts to the findings of the Trial Examiner on the ground
that he erred in crediting the testimony of the Respondent 's witnesses and in refusing
to credit the testimony of the General Counsel 's witnesses The Thal Examiner resolved
credibility in favor of the Respondent 's witnesses on the basis of his observation of the
witnesses ' demeanor . We do not overrule a Trial Examiner 's resolutions of credibility
except where the clear preponderance of all the releNant evidence convinces us that the
Trial Examiner 's iesolution was incorrect A close scrutiny of the record , including the
documentary evidence upon which the General Counsel relies , reveals nothing to warrant
such conclusion in this case Accoidingly , we adopt the Trial Examiner 's credibility
iesolutions and his findings based thereon Standard Dry Wall Products , Inc, 91 NLRB
544, 545, enfd 188 F. 2d 362 (C A. 3)
Intermediate Report and Recommended Order
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon a charge and three amended charges duly filed by United Textile Workers of
America, herein called Textile Workers, for and on behalf of itself and International
Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs , Warehousemen & Helpers of America, Local
994, AFL, herein called Teamsters , the General Counsel of the National Labor Rela-
tions Board , herein called respectively the General Counsel 1 and the Board , through
the then Regional Director for the Twenty-first Region (Los Angeles , California),
issued his complaint dated March 18, 1954 , against Catalina , Inc., herein called Re-
spondent , alleging that Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor
practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8 ( a) (1) and (3) and
Section 2 ( 6) and ( 7) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended , 61 Stat.
136, herein called the Act. Copies of the charges and the complaint , together with
notice of hearing thereon, were duly served upon Respondent , Textile Workers, and
Teamsters.
1 This term specifically includes counsel for the General Counsel appearing at the
hearing.
110 NLRB No. 179.
CATALINA, INC. 1065
With respect to the unfair labor practices, the complaint, as amended,2 alleged in
substance that: (1) Respondent laid off Pauline M. Holguin, Carmen Schramm,
Bella Harris, and Lucille Rosvig on June 19, 1953, Laura Massaro on June 26, 1953;
and Ellis J. Cassell on August 7, 1953,3 and discriminatorily failed and refused to
recall said employees except Rosvig, who was recalled on approximately December
1, 1953, because of their activities on behalf of the, above-mentioned Unions, and
because of Respondent's belief that said persons had engaged in such activities; and
(2) Respondent, on certain stated dates, by means of certain described acts and state-
ments of some of its officials, otherwise interfered with, restrained, and coerced its
employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
On April 30, 1954, Respondent duly filed its answer to the complaint, as amended,
denying the commission of the alleged unfair labor practices. At the opening of
hearing herein, Respondent served upon the parties an amendment to the answer to
the complaint, as amended.
Pursuant to due notice, a hearing was held from June 14 through June 24, 1954,
before a duly designated Trial Examiner. The General Counsel and Respondent
were represented by counsel and each Union by a representative thereof. All parties
were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses,
to introduce relevant evidence, to argue orally upon the record, and to file briefs or
proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law, or both, on or before July 14, 1954.4
A brief has been received from Respondent's counsel which has been duly considered.
Upon the entire record in the case and from his observation of the witnesses, the
undersigned makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OPERATIONS OF RESPONDENT
Catalina, Inc., a California corporation, is engaged in the manufacture, sale, and
distribution of sweaters and swim suits in the city of Los Angeles, California, where
it maintains two plants, the employees of which are the only ones involved in these
proceedings. Respondent also maintains plants in Chicago, Illinois, New York, New
York, and since about November 1953 in Whittier, California. During the 12-month
period ending December 31, 1953, Respondent shipped products from its two Los
Angeles plants, herein referred to as the San Pedro plant and the Santa Fe plant,
valued in excess of $100,000 to points located outside the State of California.
Upon the above undisputed facts the undersigned finds that during all times mate-
rial Respondent was, and now is, engaged in commerce within the meaning of the
Act.
If. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
United Textile Workers of America and International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America, Local 994, each affiliated with
American Federation of Labor, are labor organizations admitting to membership em-
ployees of Respondent.
III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The union activities of Respondent's employees
In September 1952, Holguin met with Abe Pincus, an international representative
of Textile Workers, in order to enlist that Union's aid in organizing the employees of
Respondent's Los Angeles plants.5 On this occasion Pincus gave Holguin blank
2 On March 19, 1954, the General Counsel duly served upon the parties an amendment
to complaint
3 The General Counsel's unopposed motion, made during the course of the hearing, to
dismiss the allegations of the complaint, as amended, with respect to Cassell was granted
4 Upon request of Respondent's counsel the time to file briefs was extended to July-
26,1954
5 Holguin testified that she contacted Texile Workers after a coworker, Catalina Madrid,
had suggested that Respondent's employees needed unionization because of the "terrible"
working conditions then prevailing in the plant in which she and Madrid worked.
Madrid denied having any such conversation with Holguin. The Trial Examiner, for the
reasons stated below regarding Holguin's credibility, coupled with the fact that Madrid
was a credible witness, credits Madrid's denial and finds that Madrid did not make the
statements attributed to her by Holguin.
1066 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
membership application cards. Holguin testified that she gave some of these cards
to Madrid,6 to Bella Harris, to Laura Massaro,7 and "probably" to Lucille Rosvig,8
that thereafter "the three girls" to whom she had given cards returned about 20 or 30
of them signed by employees of Respondent; 9 and that she, herself, obtained the
signatures of about 10 employees to membership cards.10
Between October and December 19, 1952, about 5 organizational meetings were
held at Holguin's home, each of which Pincus attended. At each of these meetings,
on the average, about 5 of Respondent's employees were present. Harris, however,
did not attend any; Massaro attended either the first or second one, and Rosvig at-
tended the December 19 meeting. The aforesaid meetings and all other activities up
to about December 23, 1952, were held and conducted in apparent secrecy and the
record is clear that Respondent's officials had no knowledge or intimation regarding
said meetings or activities. In fact, as Pincus' testimony clearly indicates, that prior
to the last mentioned date, those acting in behalf of unionization solicited employees
"on a selective basis" in order to keep the Union's campaign as secretive as possible.
Under date of December 23, Textile Workers wrote Respondent's president, E. W.
Stewart, that it represented the majority of Respondent's employees, and requested
recognition as such representative and an appointment to discuss a collective-bar-
gaining agreement. Respondent replied, under date of January 12, that it had no
knowledge nor proof that Textile Workers represented the employees and suggested
that Textile Workers prove its majority status through "approved procedures and
agencies."
Commencing in the forepart of January 1953, at about the peak of Respondent's
production period, Textile Workers' organizational campaign, in which Teamsters
joined, was conducted openly; handbills and application cards were distributed
periodically in front of Respondent's 2 Los Angeles plants and the employees thereof
were openly solicited to attend the approximately 10 informal meetings these unions
jointly held at the Teamsters Hall between early January and May 19, 1953.11 Mas-
saro attended all said meetings; Holguin attended all but 1; Harris attended only 1
or 2, and Rosvig did not attend any.
Under date of March 17, 1953, Garment Shipping & Receiving Clerks, Ware-
housemen, Drivers and Helpers Union, Local 994 12 wrote Respondent that it repre-
sented the majority of the employees and requested an appointment to discuss a col-
lective-bargaining contract. Under date of March 23, Respondent replied suggest-
ing that the matter of representation be resolved by the Board.
On March 20, 1953, Textile Workers filed a representation petition with the Board
seeking certification as the bargaining representative of all production and main-
tenance employees, including warehousemen, shipping and receiving clerks, wrap-
pers, packers, and drivers employed at the two Los Angeles plants, excluding certain
named classifications. By order dated April 2, the Regional Director for the Twenty-
first Region set the hearing on the above-mentioned petition for April 10. However,
the scheduled hearing was not held because said Regional Director, by letter, dated
April 7, advised the parties to whom he had sent notice of hearing that he was dis-
missing the petition because Textile Workers had not submitted to him the required
evidence that it represented at least 30 percent of the employees in the claimed unit.
On the same day, April 7, said Regional Director issued an order dismissing the peti-
tion. No appeal, as far as the instant record reveals, was taken from said order.
B. The alleged discriminatory refusal to rehire the complainants; alleged interfer-
ence, restraint, and coercion
As noted above, the complaint, as amended, alleged that Respondent, in violation
of the Act, discriminatorily failed and refused to rehire Pauline M. Holguin, Carmen
Schramm, Bella Harris, Lucille Rosvig (prior to about December 1, 1953), and Laura
Massaro. In its answer and in the amendent to the complaint as amended, Respond-
ent denied said allegations. -
At the hearing and in its brief Respondent maintained that Schramm, Harris, and
Massaro were not rehired, after the usual annular summer layoffs of the production
6 Madrid denied receiving any such cards from Holguin. The Trial Examiner credits
Madrid's denial.
4 Also referred to in the record as Laura Messeio.
° Also referred to in the record as Lucille Roswick.
° Undoubtedly, Madrid did not band Holguin any signed cards.
10 Up to about April or May 1953, Holguin had obtained only two signed cards.
11 On May 12, a meeting was held at a local hotel.
12 An affiliate of Teamsters.
CATALINA, INC. 1067
employees here involved , for good and sufficient cause; that for the same reason
Rosvig was not rehired prior to December 1, 1953; that Holguin would have been
reemployed on or about December 14, 1953, were it not for the fact that she had,
prior to that date, advised Respondent that she did not desire reemployment because
she had obtained permanent employment elsewhere ; and that almost immediately
after Respondent had been served with a copy of the second amended charge, wherein,
for the first time, it was alleged that Holguin had been discriminatorily refused reem-
ployment, Respondent notified the Board's Twenty-first Regional Office that she
would be given the first available job in the department where she formerly worked;
and that Holguin failed to respond to Respondent's February 19, 1954, offer to re-
port for work on March 1, 1954. The alleged refusals to reinstate are discussed
seriatim:
Pauline M. Holguin was employed continuously as a single-needle operator, on a
piecework pay basis, from December 29, 1947, until about June 19, 1953, except
for certain layoffs aggregating in all about 5 or 6 weeks. During the swimsuit
season, which each year is normally from late December or early January until
mid-June, Holguin worked on knit goods in the swimsuit department, under the
supervision of Magdalena Ast.13 Until the conclusion of the 1951-52 swimsuit
season a few operators, including Holguin and her sister, Carmen Schramm, were
transferred each year when work became unavailable in the swimsuit department
to the sweater department and the rest of the swimsuit operators were laid off. This
policy of transferring operators of the swimsuit department to the sweater depart-
ment was changed after the 1951-52 swimsuit season. Holguin became aware of
such action in December 1952 when John Harris, who was then in charge of the
knitwear sewing floor, informed her, during a conversation wherein Holguin had
asked whether she was going to work again in the sweater department at the end
of the next swimsuit season, that in the future the operators would not be shifted
from one department to another.14
Holguin testified that in or about May 1948, at the time the International Ladies'
Garment Workers' Union, herein called ILGWU, was attempting to organize Re-
spondent's employees, she approached Ast and told the latter that she formerly
worked for that union, that she wanted Ast to know that she was not connected
with, or interested in, the ILGWU organizational campaign; that Ast replied, to
quote Holguin, "she would say so to the firm if it was necessary"; that in June 1949,
Ray Parsons, Respondent's industrial engineer,15 called her away from her machine
and, again to quote Holguin, "told me he knew I had been active in the union and
that he had told" Sam Hyman, Respondent's then vice president, that she, to fur-
ther quote Holguin, "had been a secretary for the union but that he knew that I was
all right, that I wasn't active or wasn't doing any union activity at the present and
that he trusted me very much"; and that Parsons then asked her to let him know
if, and when, any union activity took place among Respondent's employees, to which
request "I told him that I would if the International Ladies Garment Workers would
ever start anything there I would certainly let him know."
Holguin further testified that on May 13 or 14, 1953, pursuant to her request,
Parsons and she met in one of Respondent's conference rooms and that the follow-
ing ensued:
I said, "Mr. Parsons, what do you know about my union activities going on
around here?"
And he said, "Nothing."
And I said, "Well, I am surprised because I'm involved in it just as much as
the other girls are and I haven't been questioned and I have been questioned
by the girls why I haven't been called on."
And he said, "I don't know anything. What girls do you mean?"
And I said, "Bella Harris, Laura Massaro, and Lucille [Rosvig]."
And he said, "I don't know anything about it. Were you active in this?"
And I said, "Yes, I have been active."
And he said, "Why don't you stick to your convictions, . you told me
you would let me know of any union activity in this plant if there was any."
And I said, "I would if the International Ladies Garment Workers started
anything but this is not the International Ladies Garment Workers. This is a
11 Also referred to in the record as Lena Ast.
14 The General Counsel does not contend, nor do the charges and complaint allege, that
Holguin's June 1953 layoff was discriminatory.
15 Parsons has under his supervision "industrial engineering , payroll , production and
costing [employees ] and a few other odds and ends."
1068 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
young union , a good union, one I think I will like, the United Textile Work-
ers. If the International Ladies Garment Workers were the ones that started
this, I would have told you right away because I don't care to belong to them."
Ast testified that shortly after Holguin 's employment commenced at Respondent's
plant, Holguin came to her and said, "You might hear that I belong to a union and
I did belong to a union but I don't care anything about the union any more. I just
[want ] to know whether you hire people that belong to a union or not"; and that
she replied that she did not care whether or not Holguin or any other employee
belonged to a union . Ast denied that she told Holguin that she would inform any
Respondent official about Holguin's former union affiliations.
Parsons testified that he had a conversation about unions with Holguin in the
spring of 1948; that the conversation took place at his desk; that he did not call
Holguin away from her work in order to speak to her but that she came to him;
that he was positive that the conversation took place during an organizational drive
put on by some union in the spring of 1948; that the substance of the conversation
was as follows.
She said, "Mr . Parsons, I thought it would be best if I came in and tell you
about my previous union activity and affiliation . I notice that there was a girl
out there on the floor that has seen me . . . I am afraid this girl might come in
or you might find out from some other source that I was connected with the
union . I would rather you find it out from me than some one else. I used
to be a secretary to a union 18 . . . They let me out . . . gave me a dirty
deal at that time and I 'm no longer interested in a union."
And I said , "Pauline, it doesn't make any difference whether you are inter-
ested in a union or not. We don't care."
Parsons denied that he ever said to Holguin that he knew she had been active
in a union ; that he told Holguin that he so informed Hyman; that he ever said to
Holguin that he had told Hyman that Holguin had been a "secretary for a union
but . knew that Pauline Holguin was all right , that she wasn 't active or doing
any union activity at the present time and . trusted her very much"; that he
ever had a conversation with Holguin wherein he asked her to let him know if, and
when, any union activity took place in the plant and that she replied she would, pro-
vided the ILGWU was involved, that he had a conversation with Holguin in 1949,
or at any other time. wherein he advised her that several female employees had in-
formed him that she was "a spotter for the union in Catalina"; that he had been
watching her and knew she was not a "spotter" and from his observation of her ac-
tivities he was satisfied that she was not working for any union. Parsons specifi-
cally denied that he asked Holguin if she would "inform me if there is any more
activity? Have you got a way of knowing before so you can tell me, so that you
can inform me about it"; and that Holguin replied, "I think so . If the ILGWU
tries to organize here I will tell you."
Parsons testified that on or about April 16, 1953, Holguin telephoned him and
asked for an appointment with him and John E. Watte, Respondent's vice president
in charge of production ; that he informed Holguin that Watte was otherwise en-
gaged but that he would gladly speak to her privately; and that the following con-
versation took place in one of Respondent 's conference rooms:
She said, "Mr. Parsons, I think that you all should make a speech to your
employees and explain to them your position on the union and tell them that
they have a right to vote for [the union] and for them to vote. If you all were
to make that speech to the employees and you were to have an election, you
all would win the election and the union organizers would go away from out
front and leave you all alone."
I [said], "Pauline I don 't think our employees want an election. They sig-
nified so by not even signing 30 percent of the cards . If they want an election
and would signify it by signing enough cards , we would be glad to have an
election because what we want is what our employees want. . I wouldn't
begin to subject our employees to the tension of having an election unless it
was at their request and wishes."
She said, "I only asked two people to sign cards and I asked those people
because I knew that they wouldn 't sign."
Parsons further testified that Holguin, during the aforesaid conversation, volun-
teered that she had asked Betty Fisk to sign a card; that Holguin then accused
"Parsons testified that Holguin mentioned the name of the union , but he could not
recall it.
CATALINA, INC. 1069
Respondent of submitting a padded payroll to the Board in the representation case,
and added that was the reason the Regional Director had ruled that the Textile
Workers had not submitted sufficient cards to warrant holding an election, to which
accusation he stated that he personally had prepared the list and that it was correct;
and that, after some discussion with respect to the number of persons employed,
Holguin, in effect, withdrew her charge of fraud.
Parsons denied that during the above-referred-to conversation the names of Harris,
Massaro, and Rosvig were mentioned, or that he stated, "Why don't you stick to
your convictions. You told me you would let me know of any union activity in
this plant if there was any," or that Holguin remarked, "I would [have] if the
(ILGWU] started anything but this is not the [ILGWU]. This is a young union,
a good union, one I think I will like, the United Textile Workers. If the [ILGWU]
were the ones that started this, I would have told you right away because I don't
care to belong to them," or that he asked her for the names of the union members.
Upon consideration of the testimony of Holguin, Ast, and Parsons regarding the
above-referred-to conversations, the Trial Examiner credits the versions of Ast and
Parsons and rejects those of Holguin. Ast and Parsons particularly impressed the
Trial Examiner as being witnesses careful of the truth and meticulous in not enlarg-
ing their testimony beyond their actual memory of what occurred. From his ob-
servation of Ast and Parsons, while they were on the witness stand, the Trial Exam-
iner does not believe either would have fabricated his testimony. Holguin's tes-
timony, on the other hand, reflects a tendency on her part to attempt to conform
her testimony to what she considered to be to her best interest and to the best interest
of the other complainants. Upon due and careful consideration of the entire record
in this case, the Trial Examiner finds Ast's and Parson's testimony regarding their
respective conversations with Holguin to be substantially in accord with the facts.
The Trial Examiner further finds that neither Ast nor Parsons, during the afore-
mentioned conversations, made the statements attributed to them by Holguin. The
Trial Examiner also finds that the conversation which Holguin testified she had
with Parsons on May 13 or 14, 1953, actually took place, as Parsons testified, on
or about April 16, 1953.
Holguin testified that she was laid off on June 19; that on June 26 she had a tele-
phone conversation with Parsons during which the following was said:
I asked [him] when they were going to call me back to work. He said he
didn't know yet but the work hadn't started, they were moving the machines
to the other factory and the work hadn't started but he would call me as soon
as it would start. He asked if I was working and I said yes, I was working but
I wasn't very happy where I was and he said they would call me as soon as work
started.
Holguin further testified that in July she again called Parsons seeking work and
was told, to quote Holguin, "The machines weren't ready and that I'd be called to
work as soon as the work was available but there wasn't anything for me then";
that in the forepart of August she went to the plant , saw Parsons , and was told
by him that there was no opening but she would be called as soon as work became
available; that later in August she telephoned Ast, inquired for work, and was told
that she would be called as soon as "an opening" occurred; that in September she
telephoned Anthony Gonzales, Santa Fe plant manager , inquired for work, and
Gonzales replied that he did not know her but he would inquire about her and
then would call her as soon as he finished his inquiry ; that about 3 days later she
again called Gonzales and the latter told her that he had mislaid her name and
address but would look into the matter and then advise her whether or not there
was any work available ; that she never heard from Gonzales or any other official
of Respondent until she received a letter from Parsons , dated February 19, 1954,
requesting her to report to Foreman John Harris on March 1; and that she did not
report to Harris because she did not want to work in the sweater department for
her job, at that time of the year, was in the swimsuit department where she normally
earned between $80 to $85 per week, whereas in the sweater department she never
earned more than $50 per week.
Parsons testified that he had about 3 or 4 conversations with Holguin about her
being recalled to work after her layoff in June 1953; that in about August, Holguin
telephoned inquiring for work and he told her there was no work available for which
she was qualified and he also told her, "We are pretty slow in getting started" because
the machines were being moved and hence "it's going to take us a little bit longer"
than usual to get into production; that Holguin told him that she was then employed
in a nearby plant and was earning $1.25 per hour, and, although she did not care to
retain that job permanently, she would keep it until she was recalled by Respondent;
1070 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
that a couple of weeks later Holguin came to the plant inquiring for work and after
he told her that there was none for which she was qualified she left; and that in the
latter part of November, he had the following telephone conversation with her:
"Mr. Parsons, do you have anything for me yet?"
I said , "No, Pauline , there isn't anything yet. We are picking up slowly
and we have some people back to work but there's nothing for you yet at this
time because the things that you are used to making, we don't have right at
this minute."
She says, "Well , the reason why I called you and asked you this is that
I have since I talked with you the last time changed employment. If you don't
have anything right now for me, well, I think I will go ahead and work where
I am now. I'm working at a place, I've changed employment and I'm not
where I used to work. I'm working at a place where I'm making $1.50 now
and better. This place hasn't grown to such a size that it's lost the family spirit.
It's a mighty fine place. Family spirit exists and I like it real well."
And so I says, "Well, Pauline, I certainly am glad that you found a job that
you consider permanent...."
Then she says, "You know I owe insurance. Will you take what money I
owe on this insurance out of my Christmas bonus check and apply it to what
I owe?"
And I said, "Pauline, I will check into it and I think it can be arranged and
I will check into it to be sure."
Parsons further testified that after the aforementioned telephone conversation he
informed Watte and Gonzales that Holguin had obtained permanent employment
elsewhere.
Gonzales testified that about mid-November , Holguin telephoned him and in-
quired about reemployment; that he told her that he had no opening for her at that
time; that Holguin then said she would obtain other employment; that he told
her that was the proper thing to do, adding that as soon as an opening occurred he
would notify her; and that at the end of November, Parsons advised him that Holguin
had obtained a permanent job at another plant and hence would not be available
to Respondent.
Upon consideration of the testimony of Holguin, Parsons, and Gonzales, the Trial
Examiner credits the versions of Parsons and Gonzales and finds their respective
versions of what occurred, each in the above-referred-to conversations with Holguin,
to be substantially in accord with the facts. In crediting the testimony of Parsons
and Gonzales, the Trial Examiner was favorably impressed by the fact that their
testimony , both on direct and on cross-examination , was consistent , clear , and definite.
Neither attempted at any time to give his testimony new direction or emphasis to
meet situations developed on cross-examination or as a result of afterthoughts
brought to mind by questions of counsel. The same finding cannot be made with
respect to Holguin 's testimony.
Parsons further testified, and the Trial Examiner finds, that within about 10 days
after receiving a copy of the second amended charge filed herein, he and Respondent's
counsel called upon the then Acting Regional Director for the Twenty-first Region
and stated that Holguin had not been recalled solely because she had stated to him
that she had obtained suitable permanent employment elsewhere; that he further
stated to said Acting Regional Director, "A job [was] coming up in the knit goods
department at the San Pedro plant on swim suits.17 And the job would break in a
short period of time and I would be glad to call her in for this job"; that by letter,
dated February 19, he requested Holguin to report for work on March 1; and that
on March 9 he wrote Holguin stating that since she had ignored his letter of February
19, he considered her employment with Respondent as terminated.
Holguin testified that she did not report for work on March 1, as directed by
Parsons' letter of February 19, because she had no interest in being employed in
the "knitwear department " since "I had been hired as a bathing suit operator and
if I would return to work, I would like to return to the bathing suit department."
The record is clear that the proffered job was the same type of job Holguin normally
performed during Respondent 's swimsuit season and one, according to her own
testimony, where she made the most money. Under the circumstances, the Trial
Examiner finds that Holguin 's reasons for not reporting for work on March 1, and
the General Counsel's contention that Parsons' letter of February 19 did not offer
Holguin her former job are without substance or merit.
17 A job on which Holguin normally worked during the swimsuit season.
CATALINA, INC. 1071
Upon the record as a whole, the Trial Examiner finds that the General Counsel
has failed to sustain the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence
that Respondent, by failing to recall Holguin prior to Parsons' letter of February
19, 1954, violated Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act. Accordingly, the Trial Examiner
recommends that the allegations of the complaint, as amended, with respect to
Pauline M. Holguin be dismissed.
Carmen Schramm, a sister of Holguin, was employed continuously by Respondent
from 1949 until sometime in June 1953, as a single-needle operator on a piecework
pay basis. During the swimsuit season, Schramm worked in the swimsuit depart-
ment and during the balance of the year in the sweater department.
Schramm testified that she telephoned Gonzales about mid-September 1953 and
asked for work and was told that work was very slow but to call him at a later date;
that about 2 weeks later she called Gonzales who told her to seek work at Respond-
ent's Whittier plant; that "around October" she went to the plant and Watte told her
that work was slow but he saw no reason why she should not be rehired when work
picked up; and that in a telephone conversation with Gonzales in November he said,
to quote Schramm, "Your name is on the list here. You know, you don't make
your time."
Schramm further testified that she took no part in the Textile Workers' 1952-53
organizational drive; that she did not join that Union nor sign one of its membership
application cards nor attend any of its meetings. Schramm also testified that in
March 1953, while in a restaurant near the plant of Respondent at which she worked,
Holguin introduced her to Abe Pincus, a representative of Textile Workers, and sat
at a table with them for about 4 or 5 minutes.
Watte testified that in August 1951, shortly after Hyman's death, he was trans-
ferred to Los Angeles and placed in charge of production; that prior to such transfer
he had no textile mill experience and, after his transfer, spent a good part of his time
getting acquainted with the two Los Angeles plants and their production problems;
that commencing about August 1, 1953, he established a system of plant managers
and appointed Gonzales manager of the Santa Fe plant, Cy Kitts manager of the
San Pedro plant, and John Ketterer manager of the Whittier plant; 18 that, com-
mencing in August 1953, he, Ketterer, Gonzales, Kitts, and Dona Blackburn, the
head of the San Pedro plant boxing department, were the only ones authorized to
order the recall of the laid-off employees; that when Schramm inquired of him, in
October 1953, about being recalled to work, "I told her I'd have to look into it but I
referred her to our plant manager, Tony Gonzales, as being the one to find out from";
and that he did not tell her, as Schramm testified, "The work was slow but [I] did
not see any reason why she wouldn't be called back."
Watte further testified that on or about May 1, 1953, Respondent issued to each
production employee a booklet entitled "Catalina Employee Manual"; that therein
is set forth at page 12 Respondent's policy regarding recalling laid-off employees;
that such policy is that seniority becomes a factor in recalls only when the qualifi-
cations of the laid-off employees are equal; that said policy was strictly adhered to
during the 1953-54 season; that Schramm's makeup pay for the 1952-53 season,
amounting to about $148, was the highest makeup of the 474 1952-53 operators;
that he and Parsons, after examining the operators' 1952-53 pay makeup records,
decided not to recall Schramm because of her high pay makeup; 19 and that he knew
of no participation by Schramm in any union activity nor did he have any reason to
suspect that Schramm was sympathetic toward, or interested in, any union.
Gonzales testified that he became manager of the Santa Fe plant on August 1,
1953; that about mid-November he was instructed by Watte not to recall the opera-
tors who had high makeup pay during the past season; and that Schramm was not
recalled because of her high makeup pay during the 1952-53 season.
When questioned about the two telephone calls Schramm testified she had with
him in September 1953, Gonzales testified that he could not recall talking to Schramm
on the telephone. He specifically denied making the statements which Schramm
testified he had made during those alleged calls.
Upon the record as a whole, the Trial Examiner finds Watte's version of his con-
versation with Schramm in or about October 1953 to be substantially in accord with
the facts; (2) that Gonzales did not tell Schramm during a telephone conversation in
or about September 1953 to inquire at the Whittier plant for work; and that Schramm
' The Whittier plant commenced operations in the latter part of November 1953.
19 In the fall of 1952, Watte instituted an intensive drive to eliminate, or at least
drastically reduce, the operators' makeup pay. He was particularly concerned with
the elimination of the makeup pay of operators, such as Schramm, who worked on stand-
ardized operations year after year.
1072 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
was not recalled for the 1953-54 season because her 1952-53 makeup pay record
was high, and for no other reason.
The General Counsel stated in his oral argument made at the conclusion of the
taking of the evidence that, with respect to Schramm's case, he particularly relied
upon N. L. R. B. v. Mylan-Sparta Co., Inc., 166 F. 2d 458, 490 (C. A. 6). The facts
as found by the Trial Examiner in Mylan-Sparta (70 NLRB 574, 599-600) and
adopted by the Board and the court, distinguish that case from the instant record.
The dischargee in the cited case, Pauline Anderson, was not only the wife of the
"leading proponent of the Union most active in its organization, and that in disgust
at the continued pressure to quit such activities he requested discharge . . Pauline
Anderson herself distributed union application cards in the plant and obtained sig-
natures thereto, and on March 7, the day her husband was called out of the plant to
be importuned by Ed Knowles and city officials, she was told by her forelady that
the ones who started the Union would be discharged." 20 Here, the record affirma-
tively shows that Schramm had no affiliation whatsoever with either Union here in-
volved, had not attended any of their meetings, and had not otherwise participated
in any of their activities. In addition, the credible evidence in the instant proceed-
ing clearly establishes that no official of Respondent knew, or even suspected, that
Schramm had any union affiliation or sympathies, or participated in any union ac-
tivity while in Respondent's employ. The fact that on one occasion Schramm sat
at a table in the restaurant located near her plant, with her sister and Pincus, is not,
standing alone, sufficient evidence to warrant a finding that by such conduct Re-
spondent was aware of some union activity on Schramm's part. This conclusion
becomes inescapable when consideration is given to the fact that the record clearly
shows that no official of Respondent ever saw Pincus prior to the opening of the
hearing herein.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Trial Examiner finds that Schramm was not
recalled for work for the 1953-54 season solely for the reasons advanced by Respond-
ent and not for the reasons alleged in the complaint. Accordingly, the Trial Ex-
aminer recommends that the allegations of the complaint with respect to Carmen
Schramm be dismissed.
Bella Harris worked for Respondent as a single-needle operator from February
1950 until sometime in June 1953, on a piecework pay basis, except for the summer
months of 1950 and 1951.
Harris testified that early in September 1953, she telephoned Angie Fugarino, as-
sistant floorlady of the swimwear department of the San Pedro plant and asked when
she would be recalled; that Fugarino replied that work was slow; that Fugarino then
advised her to seek employment elsewhere; that when she retorted that she knew
,other operators who were doing the same job she did the previous year had been
recalled, Fugarino said that those operators needed work and again suggested that she
obtain other employment; that when she telephoned Fugarino in the latter part of
September, Fugarino repeated what she had said in her earlier telephone conversa-
tion and then added that she was no longer permitted to recall the operators for that
authority had been delegated to Gonzales; that in the early part of October she
calle& Gonzales and asked for work; that Gonzales said that he didn't think any
was available but he would check and let her know; that, because she had not heard
from Gonzales for several days, she again called him and he said there was no open-
ing for her because things were very slow; that later in October she again called
Gonzales who told her that Respondent was hiring according to seniority and there
were other operators with more seniority than she who had not been recalled; that
when she replied that operators with less seniority had been recalled, Gonzales said
there was no work for her; that in October she and Lucille Rosvig asked John Miller,
Respondent's secretary-treasurer, why they had not been recalled, that Miller replied
he would check; that when she telephoned Miller several days later he said he knew
of no reason why she and Rosvig had not been recalled except that they "must have
been lost in the shuffle" and then suggested that she and Rosvig contact Watte; that
about a week later she phoned Watte and in response to her question why she had
not been recalled, Watte said it was because work was very slow; that in November
when she and Rosvig asked Henry Heller, the newly appointed head of Respondent's
personnel office, why they had not been recalled, Heller said, after explaining that
he was new on the job, that they should inquire of Gonzales; that on or about Decem-
ber 7, she again called Miller and asked why she had not been recalled and Miller
said that he would connect her with Watte because Watte could supply the answer
to her question; that when she asked why she had not been recalled, Watte suggested
20 In addition, the court found "All seven of these employees [including Pauline
Anderson] were active in the organization of the Union."
CATALINA, INC. 1073
she discuss the matter with Parsons; that on the same day she had spoken to Miller
and Watte she telephoned Parsons and Parsons said he had nothing to do with recall-
ing laid-off employees, that she should speak to Gonzales; and that same day she
telephoned Gonzales and the following transpired:
I said, "Tony, how are things?" And he said, "It looks pretty good." So, I
said, "That's fine, maybe you can put me back to work again ." And he said,
"Just a minute. I have to call the front office." I said, "I have just talked to
all of them there." And that was the end of that.
Fugarino testified that she had only one conversation with Harris in 1953, respect-
ing the latter's recall, and on that occasion she advised Harris to get in touch with
Gonzales. Gonzales, after testifying that he could not recall having any telephone
conversation with Harris, specifically denied he made the statements attributed to him
by Harris. Watte testified that the only telephone conversation he had with Harris
took place in September 1953, during which the following transpired:
She asked me why she had not been called back to work. I told her because
she wasn't a good operator and she insisted that she was a good operator and
that there must be some other reason. I told her as far as we were concerned,
our records showed she was not a good operator and she then said that wasn't
going to be the end of it, she was going to get back at Catalina somehow.
The Trial Examiner was favorably impressed with the sincere, straightforward, and
honest manner with which Fugarino, Gonzales, and Watte testified. On the other
hand, Harris did not so impress the Trial Examiner. Under the circumstances, the
Trial Examiner credits Watte's, Gonzales', and Fugarino's testimony, as summarized
above, and finds their testimony to be substantially in accord with the facts.
According to Harris' testimony, her activities on behalf of the Unions here involved
consisted of signing up about 10 or 15 fellow-employees from the fall of 1952 through
April 1953; "always talking union"; and about 3 or 4 times each week during
February and March 1953 sitting at a table in a restaurant near the San Pedro plant
during the morning coffee breaks with Pincus, Massaro, Rosvig, Holguin, a few other
females, and a representative of Teamsters.
Harris further testified that, while at the table with the aforesaid persons, she saw
John Harris, foreman of the knitwear sewing floor, about 3 or 4 times a week dur-
ing February and March 1953; and that she "believed" that she saw Watte in said
restaurant on I occasion during the aforesaid months.
Watte credibly testified that he never patronized the aforementioned restaurant
during the period from October through May; that during the summer months he
went there only on very rare occasions; that he never saw Pincus or Joseph M.
Mihalow, the Teamsters' representative , prior to the opening day of the present
hearing.
John Harris testified, and the Trial Examiner finds, that he normally went to said
restaurant 2 or 3 times a week: He further testified that he did not know Harris,
Pincus , or Mihalow.
Parsons credibly testified that about the first week of December 1952 he informed
Harris and Massaro that they "weren't making their time and were on pay make-up";
that they replied that the rates were not fair, to which statement he retorted that the
rates were practically the same as in the past years; that on December 17 or 18 he
asked Harris and Massaro why they still were on makeup pay and they said the rates
were not fair; that on December 18 he personally made a time study of Harris' opera-
tion and the results thereof convinced him that the prevailing rates were fair; that he
then informed Watte that he was satisfied that a couple of operators, influenced by
Harris and Massaro, were engaging in a deliberate slowdown in an effort to have
the rates raised; and that Watte requested that Harris and Massaro be brought to
his office.
Watte testified that in the fall of 1952, Respondent made an extensive drive to elimi-
nate as much as possible the operators' makeup pay, especially that which occurred
during the fall of the year on standardized operations upon which Harris, Massaro,
and other operators worked; that on or shorty before December 19, 1952, when
Parsons reported to him that Harris and Massaro had been consistently on makeup
pay, he instructed Parsons to bring them to his office; that, in Parsons' presence, he
told Harris and Massaro that they must immediately eliminate all makeup pay be-
cause Parsons had made a time study of Harris' operations which disclosed no reason
why they should not earn more than the guaranteed wage, especially since no other
operator in their section was on makeup pay; that Massaro upbraided Parsons, using
abusive language, adding that Parsons did not know his business because the rates
338207-55-vol. 110-69
1074 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
fixed were not fair ; and that Harris criticized the uneven manner in which the work
was distributed in her section 21
Upon the entire record in the case, the Trial Examiner is convinced, and finds,
that the allegations of the complaint that Respondent's refusal to recall Harris for
the 1953-54 season was violative of the Act are not sustained by the credible evi-
dence. The Trial Examiner further finds that Harris was not recalled solely because
of her 1952-53 season high makeup pay. The findings are buttressed by the fact
that the credible evidence affirmatively establishes that Respondent had no knowledge
that Harris belonged to, or was active on behalf of, any union. Accordingly, the
Trial Examiner recommends that the allegations of the complaint, as amended, with
respect to Bella Harris be dismissed.
Laura Massaro was employed by Respondent from February 1950 through June
26, 1953 , as a swimsuit department single-needle operator on a piecework pay basis.
Massaro, however, did not work for Respondent during its usual summer layoff.
Massaro testified, and the Trial Examiner finds, that she became active in Textile
Workers in the latter part of November 1952, but did not become "full-hearted about
it until December 19"; that she attended the December 19 meeting held at Holguin's
home, attended about 8 meetings held at the Teamsters' Hall, and attended I held
at a local hotel ; that she personally obtained 10 signatures to Textile Workers mem-
bership cards and received about 50 other such cards from other employees; that
about 2 or 3 times a week from January through March 1953 she met Pincus while
on her morning coffee breaks at the said nearby restaurant; that because the restau-
rant was "pretty heavily full with people" during the morning coffee breaks, she was
able to sit at the same table with Pincus only about once a week; that when she sat
at a table with Pincus, Bella Harris was always present ; that on 2 or 3 occasions
Mihalow also sat at the table with Pincus and her; that she saw John Harris in the
restaurant almost every time she was there with Pincus; 22 and that on no occa-
sion did she and Bella Harris sit at a table in the restaurant with Pincus alone; and
that the group of employees sitting at Pincus' table was "pretty large." Massaro
further testified that on many occasions commencing in September 1953, she in-
quired when she would be recalled but was never given any definite reply.
It would serve no useful purpose to resolve here the conflict in testimony between
,Massaro and the' persons with whom Massaro testified she had conversations about
her- work or about returning to work because the credible testimony of Watte. Par-
sons, and Gonzales clearly shows that Massaro had the second highest 1952-53
makeup pay in her group and that Massaro was not recalled for the 1y53-54 season
solely because of that makeup -pay record. The Trial Examiner further finds that
Respondent 's officials had no knowledge of Massaro 's union affiliation or activity
while she was in Respondent's employ. Accordingly, the Trial Examiner recom-
mends that the, allegations of the complaint, as amended, with respect to Laura
Massaro be dismissed.
Lucille Rosvig worked in the swimsuit department of the San Pedro plant as a
single-needle operator on a piecework pay basis from January 10, 1949, until June
19, 1953. Rosvig, however, did not work during the usual summer layoffs.
Rosvig testified, and the Trial Examiner finds, that she inquired on about four
occasions during September, October, and November, 1953, regarding being recalled
for the 1953-54 season but was never given any definite assurance of work; that
on December 1, 1953, she was given reemployment; that she became active in be-
half of Textile Workers in the latter part of 1952; that her activity consisted of pass-
ing "the good word around " and "[getting ] two people signed up"; that the only
union meeting she attended was the one held on November 19; that she did not
speak to any employee about Textile Workers until they asked her questions about
it; that when Bella Harris obtained her signature to a membership card she told
Harris, "I didn 't want to he involved in any of this"; and that she ceased all union
activity early in January 1953.
Rosvig testified that on January 20, 1953, she was called to Watte's office and
told by him that she was causing trouble in her department and evidently was un-
happy working for Respondent; that she replied that she was not unhappy and that
the gossip the other operators were spreading about her was the sole cause of the
trouble; that Watte then said that the blame for the trouble was being placed on her
and then inquired what she could gain because "All you would have is just your
21 The vei sions given by Harris and Massaro about this interview are somewhat in
variance with that of Watte. Parsons' version was substantially the same as that of
Watte The Trial Examiner accepts as substantially in accord with the facts the versions
given by Watte and Parsons.
21 John Harris testified, and the Trial Examiner finds, that he did not know Massaro,
Bella Harris, or Pincus prior to the hearing herein.
CATALINA, INC. 1075
monthly dues to pay. The thing is, the girls just don't want the union. Do you
happen to know who the girls are"; and that she replied, "No, I have no way of
knowing," adding that the only employee she knew who belonged to the union "was
Catalina Madrid because she had introduced the union to me."
Watte testified that he called Rosvig to his office in January 1953 because Parsons
and Ast had reported to him tnat Rosvig had made Selina lileck terribly upset and
caused Bleck to cry; that when he asked Rosvig what caused the trouble, she replied
that the girls were picking on her, that he cautioned Rosvig to attend to her work
and not to upset any operator; and that the interview closed after kosvig had spoken
at some length as to wny the other operators were "jealous of her. Watte denied
(1) making the statements about the Unions -here involved attributed to him by
Rosvig, (2) asking Rosvig for the names of union adherents, and (3) that Madrid's
-flame was mentioned during the conversation.
Upon the entire record, the Trial Examiner credits Watte's testimony regarding
the above Watte-Rosvig meeting and rejects Rosvig's version thereof. In making said
finding the Trial Examiner considered the credible testimony of Parsons, Ast, Madrid,
and Myrtle Kompton concerning Rosvig's behavior on the sewing floor. In addition,
the Trial Examiner took into account that shortly prior to the aforesaid conversa-
tion with Rosvig, Watte had instructed Respondent's supervisory force to refrain from
interfering with the employees' union activities, that Respondent's supervisors did
mot violate Watte's instructions, that there is no credible evidence of union animus
on Respondent's part, and that there is no credible evidence that Watte or any other
official knew of Rosvig's union affiliation or activity at the time of the aforesaid
conversation.
Rosvig turther testified that in the forepart of April 1953, she went to Watte's
office and there the following took place:
I told him the reason I was down there was to clear myself before someone
else came down with vicious lies that were going around and I said, "When
I came in this morning, one of the employees checking the list, passed by and
said to me, 'Oh, Lucille, so you have been out working for the union,' and she
laughed about it. And, of course, that just echoed through -the whole depart-
ment. . . . I don't want you to think 1 was out for that reason-13 I stayed
home to catch up on some work."
He said, "Lucille, we don't think anything of that. You are a darned good
operator." Then he asked me again if I knew who the girls were and I re-
peated myself by saying that the only one I knew was Catalina Madrid, be-
cause she introduced it to me.
He went on to talk about the nice plans they had worked out for the girls
this coming year. He said, "We know who the girls are and they won't be back
next year."
Watte testified that Rosvig came to his office about April 10, 1953, and said that
some of her coworkers had remarked that she was working for the Unions and
wanted him to know that was not a fact; that he replied that it was none of his
business if she was a union member; and that the subject of the conversation changed
to certain real estate Rosvig owned. Watte denied making the statements attributed
to him by Rosvig. The Trial Examiner credits Watte's testimony regarding his
April 1953 conversation with Rosvig and rejects her version thereof.
The record is manifestly clear that Rosvig was not recalled to work until Decem-
ber 1, 1953, because, as Parsons, Watte, and Gonzales credibly testified, Respondent
desired to discipline her for the disturbance she had caused among her coworkers
during the 1952-53 season and for no other reason; that Rosvig's union membership
and activity played no part in Respondent's decision not to recall Rosvig prior to
December 1, 1953; and that the credible evidence does not support the allegations
of the complaint, as amended, that Rosvig was refused reemployment prior to
December 1, 1953, because of her union activity and membership. Accordingly,
the Trial Examiner recommends that the allegations of the complaint, as amended,
with respect to Lucille Rosvig be dismissed.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record in
the case, the Trial Examiner makes the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Catalina , Inc., Los Angeles, California, is engaged in and during all times ma-
terial herein was engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and
(7) of the Act.
21 Rosvig testified she was absent from work the previous day.
1076 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
2. United Textile Workers of America and International Brotherhood of Team-
sters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America, Local 994, each affiliated
with American Federation of Labor, are labor organizations within the meaning
of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
3. The allegations of the complaint, as amended, that Respondent has engaged
in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a)
(1) and (3) of the Act have not been sustained by substantial evidence.
[Recommendations omitted from publication.]
a
MOUNTAIN STATES TELEPHONE & TELEGRAPH COMPANY and INTERNA-
TIONAL UNION OF OPERATING ENGINEERS , LOCAL No. 1, AFL, PETI-
TIONER. Case No. 30-RC-962. November 30, 1954
Decision and Order
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a hearing was held before Clyde F. Waers, hearing offi-
cer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from
prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the
Act.'
2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent employees of
the Employer.'
No question affecting commerce exists concerning the representation
of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9 (c)
(1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act, for the following reasons:
The Employer, a Colorado corporation with its principal executive
offices located at Denver, is engaged in the business of furnishing com-
munication services, mainly telephone service, in Arizona, Colorado,
Montana, New Mexico, Utah, Wyoming, and parts of Idaho and Texas.
The Petitioner seeks to sever from a companywide unit; currently
represented by the Intervenor, five licensed steam engineers who are
engaged in the operation and maintenanc of high pressure heating
equipment and refrigeration and ventilating equipment in the Em-
ployer's Denver, Colorado, operations. The Employer and the Inter-
venor contend that the requested unit is inappropriate and oppose
severance on the ground that the steam engineers are a part of the
house service group in the Denver area, which has been represented and
1 Following the hearing in this case , the parties stipulated to facts warranting the
assertion of jurisdiction herein. The stipulation is hereby received and made part of
the record.
2 Communications Workers of America, CIO, was permitted to intervene at the hearing
on the basis of its contractual relations with the Employer,
3 This unit is comprised of all the Employer's plant department employees , approxi-
mately 6,000 in number, in the States of Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, New Mexico, Utah,
Wyoming, and El Paso County, Texas. As the Employer's operations in Montana are
excluded from this unit, it is not a true employerwide unit.
110 NLRB No. 176.