Colnit, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 6, 1963

144 N.L.R.B. 1395 (N.L.R.B. 1963)

COLNIT, INC., AND FASHIONIT TRIM, INC. 1395
bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to
engage in other concerted activities for the purposes of collective bargaining
or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any or all such activities.
All our employees are free to become, remain, or refrain from becoming or
remaining members of any labor organization, except as that right may be affected
by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of
employment, authorized in Section 8(a)(3) of the Act, as amended. We will not
discriminate in regard to hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of
employment against any employee because of membership in or activity on behalf
of any labor organization.
ZELRICH COMPANY,
Employer.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------
(Representative) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting,
and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
Employees may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office, Sixth
Floor, Meacham Building, 110 West Fifth Street, Fort Worth 2, Texas, Telephone
No Edison 5-4211, Extension 2131, if they have any questions concerning this
notice or compliance with its provisions.
Colnit, Inc., and Fashionit Trim, Inc. and International Ladies'
Garment Workers Union, AFL-CIO, Upper South Department.
Case No. 5-CA-2313. November 6, 1963
DECISION AND ORDER
On July 31, 1963, Trial Examiner Lee J. Best issued his Inter-
mediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the
Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor
practices violative of Section 8 (a) (1) of the National Labor Relations
Act and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take
certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Intermediate
Report. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to the Inter-
mediate Report.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the Act, the Board
has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member
panel [Chairman McCulloch and Members Leedom and Fanning].
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made at
the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. These
rulings are affirmed. The Board has considered the Intermediate
Report, the exceptions, and the entire record in this case, and hereby
adopts the Trial Examiner's findings, conclusions,' and recommenda-
tions as modified below.
'In adopting the Trial Examiner's conclusion that the Respondent violated Section
8(a) (1) of the Act, l\Iember Leedom relies only on the following conduct, as more fully
set forth in the Intermediate Report (1) The interrogation and threats by Forelady
Asberry, as testified to by Asberry and employees Bolt and Burnett, (2) the threat by
Plant Supervisor Viana, as testified to by employee Widener; (3) Plant Manager Marko-
witz' conduct in creating an impression of surveillance , and (4 ) Viana's surveillance of
the March 10, 1963, union meeting The Respondent's other conduct and statements, as
set forth in the Intermediate Report, did not in his opinion violate the Act
144 NLRB No. 121.
727-083-64-vol. 144-89
1396 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ORDER
The Board adopts as its Order the Recommended Order 2 of the
Trial Examiner.3
2 As Virginia has a so-called right-to-work law, we delete both the final portion of 1 (f)
starting with the word "except" and the corresponding portion of the notice
3 The Recommended Order is hereby amended by substituting for the first paragraph
therein, the following paragraph:
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 Respondent, Colnit, Inc., and Fashionit Trim, Inc., its officers, agents, suc-
cessors, and assigns , shall:
INTERMEDIATE REPORT
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This proceeding brought under Section 10 (b) of the National Labor Relations
Act (29 U.S.C., Sec. 151 , et seq. ), herein called the Act, was heard before Trial
Examiner Lee J Best in Roanoke , Virginia , on April 29 and 30, 1963 , pursuant to
notice , and with all parties represented at the hearing.
Based upon a charge filed on November 27, 1962, and an amended charge filed
on February 5, 1963, by International Ladies' Garment Workers Union , AFL-CIO,
Upper South Department , herein called the Union or Charging Party, the General
Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board on February 8, 1963, issued a com-
plaint , which was amended at the hearing , alleging that Colnit, Inc., and Fashionit
Trim, Inc. (herein jointly called Respondent ), have engaged in and are engaging in
unfair labor practices proscribed by Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by interfering with,
restraining , and coercing its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in
Section 7 of the Act.
The Respondent thereafter on or about February 18 , 1963, filed an answer to the
complaint admitting certain jurisdictional allegations , but denied all allegations of
unfair labor practices.
All parties were afforded full opportunity to be heard , to introduce evidence per-
tinent to the issues involved, to examine and cross-examine witnesses , to argue
orally upon the record , and to file written briefs with the Trial Examiner. A
written brief was thereafter filed by the General Counsel but not by the Respondent.
From my observation of the witnesses, and upon the entire record in the case, I
make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT
Respondent is two corporations duly organized and existing under and by virtue
of the laws of the State of New York, jointly operating a plant and place of business
at Roanoke, Virginia, where it is engaged in the manufacture and sale of knitted
trimmings for sportshirts. In due course of such business operations within a rep-
resentative period of 12 months immediately prior to the issuance of complaint
herein, Respondent purchased goods and materials valued in excess of $50,000,
causing same to be shipped directly to its plant in Roanoke, Virginia, from points
of origin outside the Commonwealth of Virginia; and during the same period sold
and shipped finished products valued in excess of $50,000 from its place of business
in Roanoke, Virginia, directly to customers in States other than the Commonwealth
of Virginia.
I find, therefore, that Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce within
the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
At all times material to this case, supervisors of Respondent within the meaning
of the Act included President Saul Ludwig, Plant Manager Irving E. Markowitz,
Plant Supervisor Alfred F. Viana, and Forelady Alma C. Asberry.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
International Ladies' Garment Workers Union, AFL-CIO, Upper South Depart-
ment, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act, existing
COLNIT, INC., AND FASHIONIT TRIM, INC. 1397
in whole or part for the purpose of representing employees in dealing with employers
concerning grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, and
conditions of work.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Background
From the record herein, it appears that the Respondent corporations are suc-
cessors to Madison Knit, Inc., of Newark, New Jersey, which previously operated
under a collective-bargaining agreement with the Charging Party in this case. The
New Jersey plant was closed about July 1961, and all operations were moved by
the Respondent to its present location in Roanoke, Virginia. The present plant
manager (Markowitz) was production manager and President Saul Ludwig was
general manager of the New Jersey operations. In the fall of 1962, the Union
initiated a campaign to organize employees of the Respondent at its new plant in
Roanoke, Virginia, and filed a representation petition with the Board in Case No.
5-RC-3930. In that case an election was first held on November 14, 1962, and
was thereafter set aside by the Regional Director for the Fifth Region upon objections
and exceptions filed by the Union to conduct engaged in by the Respondent which
interfered with and prevented free and untrammeled balloting by employees in the
selection of a bargaining representative. The complaint in the instant case was
issued on February 8, 1963, prior to a second election held on April 1, 1963, alleg-
ing in substance that since on or about October 1, 1962, the Respondent by its officers,
agents, and supervisors has interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees
in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act (1) by threatening with
discharge or other reprisals I if they supported the Union; (2) by threatening to
move or close the Roanoke plant if its employees selected the Union as their bar-
gaining representative, (3) by promising additional rewards and economic benefits
if its employees would refrain from supporting or becoming members of the Union,
and (4) by creating the impression and engaging in surveillance of a union meeting
and other concerted activities of its employees.
B. Interference, restraint, and coercion
1. Prior to first election
Shortly prior to the first election, the Respondent on November 6, 1962, posted
a letter "To all Employees of Colmt, Inc., and Fashionit Trim, Inc.," as follows:
As you have already been informed, a vote or election will soon be held
here on the question as to whether you do or do not want the Ladies' Garment
Workers Union to come into this operation.
This election has now been set for Wednesday, November 14. The voting
place will be here at the Plant in the Lunch Room. The time for the voting
will be from 7:30 a.m. to 8:15 a.m. and from 3.45 p.m. to 4:15 p.m. on the
dated named, and that is, Wednesday, November 14. You will be able to
vote on Company time without any loss of pay for the time you spend in voting.
The question which is to be decided in this election is important-important
to you and to those who are dependent on you-important to your future here
and the future of your family. That is the reason we are writing you this letter
in order that you may have before you the facts on both sides as you make up
your mind about this matter.
We realize this may look like a rather long letter. Nevertheless, we will
appreciate it if you take your time and sit down in your home or wherever
you find it most convenient and give careful consideration to the things which
we are going to try to bring out. It may be that you would also like to have
a member of your family or some other person whose judgment you trust to,
read and consider the thoughts which we will outline in this letter.
The Union may make some critical remarks about our writing to you on thm
subject. The Organizers would prefer that you do not hear or read anything
except what comes from them. Our feeling on the other hand is that you
I Since it was a litigated issue, motion of counsel for the General Counsel in his brief
to amend the complaint by specifically alleging "that Markowitz threatened employees just
prior to the November 14, 1962, election with loss of their Blue Crass (insurance) if they
voted for the Union," is hereby permitted
1398 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
should not decide a matter as important as this without considering all the facts
from every standpoint.
Now we hope you will understand in the first place that we do not expect
you, and we do not ask you, to do any favor for the Company on this matter.
You should decide whether to vote for this Union, or against it, purely on the
basis of whether or not it will be to your own best interests. If this Union
were to come in here, would it benefit you or harm you? Would it be good for
you or bad for you?
For a long while now the Union organizers have been around from time to
time, holding meetings, talking with many of you, visiting some of you at
your homes, etc. Why is the Union after you? Your common sense tells you
the answer. What the Union organizers want is-MONEY- YOUR MONEY.
They are here for what they hope to get from you in the form of Union dues
and Union assessments.
It is of course for you to decide whether you want to let them have some
of your money. But make no mistake-it is your money that this Union is
after!
Wherever this Union is voted in, one of the first things it usually demands is
a "check-off." This, as you probably know is an arrangement by which the
Union takes a slice out of every member's pay check before he ever gets it or
even sees it. You should be considering whether you would like that or not.
What they ask is that you vote for them and then start paying them!
And what does the Union now say it can do for you? What do the Union
organizers claim they will get for you that you do not already have? When
it comes to vacations and vacation pay, you already have one week vacation
after you have been here one year and two weeks vacation after you have
been here two years. This is the best vacation plan we know of in any indus-
try in this entire area. You already have three paid holidays, which is better
than any we know of in this entire area for our line of business.
When it comes to insurance, have you heard of any plan better than that you
already have? You have both Blue Cross and Blue Shield, covering you and
all the members of your family, including maternity, surgical, medical and hos-
pital benefits, plus post-operative care-all paid for by the Company. You
do not have to contribute one cent. Do you know of any Company, Union
or nonunion, which provides insurance for its employees as good or better
than this?
Your wages are already far above the wages of employees working at the
same jobs in similar industries in the entire area and are above the wages paid
to employees who have been represented by the same Union which is now
claiming that it will get better wages and other benefits for you. We also
give you all the profits from the vending machines, holiday gifts, and we have
a very liberal personal loan policy to take care of you in times of emergencies
and when you have a particular need for additional money.
Another important thing to bear in mind is the steady work and full pay
which you have had here-without a Union-generally including substantial
overtime pay at one and one-half times your regular earnings. There are
plenty of people who are represented by the International Ladies' Garment
Workers Union who are often on short time and short pay and do not know
when they will work and when they won't work. This Union does not in any
sense nor to any extent assure to the people whom it represents full time work
or regular pay checks. Unions have never protected their members-and they
have no power to protect them-against short time, curtailments and lay-offs.
As many of you know, this same Union represented the employees of our
Company in New Jersey when it was operating. And what did the Union do
for those employees? We were required by the Union to pay the employees'
vacation money to the Union and the employees got only what was left after
the Union had made its deductions. In that Plant this same Union also forced
us to cut out almost all overtime work. We were even required by this Union
to secure permission from it before employees were allowed to work overtime.
The employees at this New Jersey Plant of ours had no hospital insurance
whatever and their take-home pay was substantially less than yours now is.
We realize better than anyone else that we are in the same boat with you
in this matter. It is only genuine cooperation between you and this Company
which can mean the success of this business and the assurance of jobs and
future security for you and your families. No Union creates these things. A
Union often tears them down! Security for you and your families can never
be accomplished by our pulling apart here, but only by our pulling together!
COLNIT, INC., AND TASHIONIT TRIM, INC. 1395
Now we, of course, do not mean to claim that everything is perfect here.
We do know that we are constantly trying to improve things at this Plant and
we hope to keep on improving, and we would like to emphasize, as we have
often tried to emphasize before, that if there is anything you wish to call to
our attention at any time, there is no reason why you should not do so and we
will sincerely welcome your doing so.
Job security and the advantages of a Union contract is one of the main
things that the Union organizers constantly talk about: Yet the truth is that
at many places where the people have had a Union, they now do not have
any jobs at all. There are various Companies where the employees have paid
dues to a Union for years and yet today those people are out of work, for many
of those Companies are now closed down and out of business. Did the Union
protect the people who worked under Union contracts at those places? The
plain and simple truth is that it did not!
Oftentimes people fail to realize when things are going well for then. The
organizers who work for the Union try to turn you against the management
of this Company in every way they can. But who do you believe is really
more interested in your welfare-we who are trying to carry on this operation,
or these organizers who want to collect Union dues and assessments from you?
Do you think you will do better with us whom you know, and with this Com-
pany which keeps this operation going and meets the payroll or with these
Union agents who are here today and gone tomorrow? Always you should
bear in mind that it is the Company which furnishes your job and your pay
check-not the Union. And always you should bear in mind that this Union
will never furnish you a day's work nor a cent of pay.
The truth about the Union is that it has no magic power to make things go
the way it wants them to go. Of course, it can promise anything but carrying out
its promises is an entirely different matter. When the organizers tell you they
are going to come in here and make us do this or that or the other, they are
seriously misleading you.
Sometimes people have the idea that all they have to do is vote for a Union
and then automatically higher pay and benefits of various kinds will immedi-
ately take place. Such an idea as that is absolutely in error. Voting for a
Union does not automatically bring increases nor any other such benefits to
you.
If this Union were to get in here, there would still be only one way it could
try to force us to do any particular thing. That would be by pulling you out
on strike. Now without intending to seem abrupt, we hope you will realize
and understand-in advance-that this Company has no intention of yielding
to any sort of strike pressures.
Everybody knows that WHERE UNIONS ARE IS WHERE STRIKES
GENERALLY OCCUR. And everybody knows that strikes mean trouble and
dissension, strife and misery, lost work and lost pay. From time to time you
have heard and read of trouble that has come with a Union at other places-
trouble that often ends up in violence and bloodshed.
You know and you have heard and read about various places where this sort
of thing has taken place. You have seen cases where Unions have called
employees out on strike. While they were out on the picket line, other people
came and took their jobs. Through the Union and its strike, they gained
nothing. Instead , they lost everything, including their jobs! These people
drew no unemployment compensation-debts piled up on them. There was
violence and bitterness. Friends turned against friends, and family against
family. Such are the blessings that Unions so often bring,
Now you may have been told that those who join and vote for the Union
are going to get some advantages over other employees. We want you to
know that this is absolutely in error. Those who join or belong to the Union
are never going to receive any preferred treatment over those who do not
belong.
You can absolutely depend and rely on this:-It is not necessary , and it is
not ever going to be necessary, for anybody to belong to the Garment Workers
Union, or any other Union, in order to work for this Company.
Another important thing to think about is this. Up until now you have
always been free to come in and settle with us personally any problems you
might have. But if this Union were to get in here, this freedom and this right,
which you now have, would be taken away from you and placed in the hands
of the Union.
1400 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
You have been hearing and reading a good deal about racketeering and
gangsterism in some of the labor Unions. It has been there all along and is
just now coming to light. It is a remarkable thing holy working people over
the years have paid out their hard earned dollars which are then taken and
sent to men whom the workers do not know, have never seen, and never will
see-men who take this hard earned money and strew it around in all sorts
of high living, political manipulations and the like.
In the light of all these considerations we hope you will realize the im-
portance of your taking an active personal interest in the question of whether
this Union shall be voted in or not . You may have been told, or you may
have the idea, that if you don't want the Union, then you should just keep
hands off and let those who do want the Union vote for it and bring it in if
they wish. Now that is a very misleading and mistaken idea. If this Union
were to get in, then it would represent those who do not want it as well as those
who do want it. And if it were voted in, you could not just throw it out at
will. You would be bound by its decisions whether you liked it or not.
So when this election is held you can see the importance of everybody voting.
Don't stand aside on the idea that the outcome won't affect you. It will affect
YOU. Take a hand in the matter. Help make it go the way you want it to go.
Otherwise, you may find yourself saddled with a Union you do not want. BY
ALL MEANS VOTE IN THIS ELECTION.
The voting arrangements will be simple. You merely go to the voting place
and there you will be handed a ballot. Then you go into a private booth
which will be provided there and mark and "x" on the ballot-either under
"Yes." for the Union, or "No," against the Union. Then you fold the ballot
and drop it in the ballot box. You do not sign your name in any way.
Nobody is entitled to know and nobody will know how ou vote.
Bear in mind that all of you who are against the Union' are by law entitled
to oppose the Union, and to talk and work against it, if you wish to do so.
Remember also that in this election, you will be free to vote entirely according
to your own judgment and convictions on the election day. You can vote
against the Union even though at some time or other you may have signed
a Union card.
Now we hope you will think carefully about all of the things we have tried
to bring out in this letter. As matters now stand. You have a steady job at good
wages and a good place to work. We all hope to make things even better.
Do you sec any good reason to bring this outside Union in, pay your money to
it and at the same time run the risk of tearing apart everything ttat you now
have?
If you will study this whole matter thoroughly, we believe you will surely
come to the conclusion in your own good judgment:-That you stand to lose
if the Union were to get in here and that you stand to gain by keeping it out!
Concurrently with the foregoing letter, the Respondent posted on bulletin boards
in the plant picture portrayals of (I) a plant in operation. with the gates open and
employees reporting for work: and (2) the same plant abandoned, with windows
broken, the gate hoarded up. and a large "closed" sign anneared across the entrance.
At the ton of the poster was the caption: "THE UNTON OFTEN MAKES THE
DTFFERFNCE BETWEEN THESE TWO PICTURES." Underrcath these nic-
tures were the words: "The records prove that unions and the troubles they often
bring, have shut down many plants and caused many to close, ending jobs and
bringing hardships and misery to people who want to work Where that bannens,
only the Union dues collectors benefit- evervbodv else loses' Make sure THAT
THIS SORT OF THTN r WILL NOT DESTROY YOUR JOB-VOTE NOP" 2
In addition to the foregoing written propaganda, Plant Manager T rving Markowitz
made a speech to assembled employees in the lunchroom at the plant on Novem-
ber 12. 1962, in which he admittedly discussed the situation at its New Jersey plant,
which had been closed in July 1961, when its operations were moved to Roanoke,
Virginia. Among other things, Markowitz compared its Blue Cross and Blue Shield
insurance plan of family coverage with the insurance, plan provided through the
Union at its New Tersev plant limited to individual coverage, and told the assembled
employees that Blue Cross would rot accent any group that was covered by the
plan provided by the Union. This discussion apparently created the impression that
2 See TR 52-53 in Case No .5-CA-2207 icsned by Trial Examiner Robert E. 1Tn11in on or
about re ru , rv 11, 1953 in Rurlinnton Indu .cirie.a. Tue., Tinton TVeaa, ina Coin genii Plant
T144 NLRB 2451.
COLNIT, INC., AND FASIIIONIT TRIM, INC. 1401
employees would lose their Blue Cross insurance plan if the Union came in. Several
witnesses for both the General Counsel and the Respondent testified to the effect
that Markowitz told the assembled employees that he wanted to explain what they
were getting into, then compared the benefits and privileges received by employees
at the Roanoke plant without the Union with those at its former plant in New
Jersey, which had been closed; asserted that the Respondent would not yield to
any strike pressure; and that strikes brought misery, bloodshed, loss of friends,
and even family troubles, which the employees would not want.
Forelady Alma C. Asberry, who was later discharged by the Respondent on
February 1, 1963, credibly testified in substance that prior to the first election in
November 1962, she received instructions from Plant Manager Markowitz to make
inquiries concerning any promises or offers made by the Union to girls under her
supervision in the separating department-that she did so and presented such inform-
ation to the plant manager on a yellow pad-that on November 15, 1962, next day
after the first election she and Plant Supervisor Viana were handed a list of employ-
ees by Plant Manager Markowitz and told to check off the names of those they were
convinced had not voted for the Union and also those as to whom there was a
doubt, thereby pinpointing the names of employees that had voted for the Union-
that immediately prior to her discharge on February 1, 1962, she was again called
into his office by Markowitz in the presence of President Ludwig and instructed to
check off from the eligible list of voters for the second election the names of those
she was convinced did not vote for the Union in the first election. This witness
further testified that she was instructed by Plant Manager Markowitz to talk to the
girls under her supervision-to explain to them what they would get and what
they would not get-to tell them that their Blue Cross insurance would be dropped
if the Union was organized-and that she told them just that-that on election day
prior to the balloting she reported to Markowitz that union representatives had
talked to the girls on the previous night, and Markowitz then went into the plant
and warned them to think and be sure of what they wanted before casting their
ballots-that after the election, she told Gladys Hodges (employee) that anyone
could tell which ones voted for the Union by watching the expression on their
faces-that on Friday after the election she tried to explain to the girls the meaning
of a newspaper article about five challenged ballots-that she made speeches to
the girls about the Union, and they were always talking to her about it whether
she was making inquiries or not-that there was so much talk going on that it was
about to drive her crazy.
Judy Dooley Bolt (discharged employee) credibly testified in substance that during
the fall of 1962, Forelady Alma C. Asberry talked several times to the girls under
her supervision about the Union, and told them that they would lose their Blue
Cross insurance if the Union came in-that about 2 weeks before the November
election Asberry assembled these girls on one side of the workroom, said that the
Union was threatening to establish a picket line, and that Plant Manager Markowitz
had instructed her to tell them that they would be fired if they refused to cross the
picket line-that on another occasion Asberry mentioned as a fact that 30 percent
of the girls who had signed union cards had already been fired, and if she found
others for the Union they would also be fired-that all Markowitz would have
to do if the Union came yin would be to lock the doors and open up in another build-
ing under another name-that once they had voted for the Union they would not be
rehired. This witness further testified that on Monday, before the election on
Wednesday, she heard Betty Simmons (employee) inquire whether they would get
off from work early on Friday, and Forelady Asberry replied to the effect that if
the Union came in they would probably be off all the time, because they would
not have a plant to work in.
Elva A. Burnett (discharged employee) credibly testified in substance that prior
to the November election, Forelady Asberry called the girls together near the
stairway to talk about rumors of a strike, and told them that the first girl that did
not cross the picket line would be fired on the spot-that about 2 weeks before the
election, Asberry told Shirley Arnold (employee) in the presence of all the girls
that we were just a bunch of fools-that it would be different if it was the Teamsters
Union, but if this union should come in all Markowitz would do would be to close the
doors, and when they came to work next morning there would be a lock on the door-
that the plant would be moved and opened up under a new name, and those fools
who voted for the Union would not be rehired-that about 2 days before the election
she mentioned to Forelady Asberry that 30 percent of the employees had to sign up
in order to start a union, and Asberry replied- "Yes, Elva, but you don't see that 30
percent around here any more " This witness testified further that in conversation
1402 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
during the election week, Forelady Asberry said that the fact that Blue Cross
insurance cost $35.85 per quarter, whereas union dues would be only about $4 per
month, was proof enough that we would not get Blue Cross insurance from the Union,
and that the Company was not going to pay for such insurance if we joined the
Union-that on another occasion Asberry told the girls "we'd better not take leaflets
that the Union men were handing out, because Mr. Markowitz was watching to see
who took the leaflets and who didn't." That same afternoon about quitting time,
Markowitz rushed out and engaged in an argument with one of the union men
handing out leaflets on the sidewalk in front of the plant.
Gladys Hodges (employee), as a witness for the Respondent, testified in substance
that she heard the speech made by Plant Manager Markowitz prior to the elec-
tion in November 1962-that Markowitz talked mostly about the things contained
in the letter which had been mailed out to all employees, explained the benefits now
enjoyed by the employees, and said that the New Jersey plant was no longer in
existence-that the only thing a union could do was to pull the employees out on
strike, and that the Company would not yield to any pressure. This witness further
testified as to statements made by Forelady Asberry-that Asberry said, "You all
wanted a speech and you are going to get it"-that she talked about rumors of a
strike, and said that "we would cross the picket line, if we valued our jobs"-she did
not use the word "fired," but may have said "replaced"-that she did not hear
Asberry make any statement to the effect that 30 percent of the union supporters
had been fired or that any others would be fired or that the plant would be closed
or that there would be no work on Friday, if the Union came in-that after the
election Asberry read aloud from a newspaper clipping concerning challenged ballots,
and "when I made an inquiry as to its meaning, Asberry asked me did she have to
knock it in my head"-that she did not hear Asberry say for "us not to accept leaflets
from the union men because Markowitz was watching us." This witness further
testified that approximately 8 or 10 girls were laid off in February or March prior
to the second election on April 1, 1963.
Shirley A Arnold (employee), as a witness for the Respondent, testified in sub-
stance that she heard the speech made to employees by Plant Manager Markowitz
prior to the election in November 1962-that Markowitz said that the Company
was paying out all wages and benefits they could afford-that the Union could not
get any more even if they did go on strike-that Markowitz compared the benefits
being paid at the Roanoke plant with those at its New Jersey plant under contract
with the Union, and pointed out that there was no longer a plant in New Jersey.
This witness further testified as to statements made by Forelady Asberry as to
the girls under her supervision-that Asberry said if a picket line was set up, they
must cross it and come in to work or be replaced-that Asberry read and explained
to the girls a newspaper clipping about five challenged ballots, and said to Gladys
Hodges (employee), "Do I have to knock it into your head." This witness denied
hearing Asberry say anything about any employees being fired by reason of their
union activities or that the plant would be moved or closed if the Union came in
or about accepting leaflets from the union organizers
Buretta Reed (employee), as a witness for the Respondent, testified in substance
that she heard speeches made by Plant Manager Markowitz to the effect that the
Union could not do anything for them except engage in a strike and that he would
not yield to its demands. With respect to statements made by Forelady Asberry,
this witness testified that Asberry told the girls that if they valued their jobs they
would cross the picket line if one was set up at the plant. This witness denied
hearing Asberry make any statements with respect to moving or closing the plant,
working on Friday, or firing employees by reason of their union activities.
Jerome Breslau (organizer) credibly testified that about 2 weeks prior to the
November election, while he and another organizer were distributing leaflets to
employees leaving the plant, Plant Manager Markowitz came out on a platform
in front of the building and shouted. "Why don't you tell them the truth? Why
are you bothering these people'? What do you have to offer them9"
Charles J. Widener (employee) credibly testified that Plant Supervisor Alfred F.
Viana talked to the entire group of men working on the third shift, and said:
"Fellows there has been rumors that there will be a strike. If there is a strike, and
you go out on the picket line, you will not get your job back. Charlie, you tell that
union man that I said that."
Melvin R. Markham (employee), credibly testified in substance that Plant Super-
visor Alfred F. Viana, came to his knitting machine prior to the November election,
and said that "I would probably not get my job back if there was a strike and I
walked the picket line." Viana said: "If you go out on strike, if you walk the picket
line, you are going to lose your job, you will be replaced."
COLNIT, INC., AND FASHIONIT TRIM, INC . 1403
2. Prior to second election
The record shows that on February 28, 1963, the election of November 14, 1962,
was set aside and a second election was called to be held on April 1, 1963. Despite
findings of the Board that Respondent had interfered with and prevented free balloting
by employees in November, the Respondent now engaged in similar conduct to defeat
the Union. A notice to all employees was posted on bulletin boards in the plant, as
follows:
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
It seems to us that because of the large majority of which you voted the union
down on November 14th the union would be convinced that you do not want
it to come into this plant. But the union claims that we coerced you unlawfully
and that we made statements to you which you should not be allowed to hear
even though such statements are entirely true.
Upon the basis of these claims the union is demanding that you be put through
another election.
We know that we did not coerce you and we believe that you should be allowed
to hear all truthful statements bearing upon the matter.
Nevertheless the regional office of the N.L.R.B. has publicized its intention
to have another election here.
You will be promptly advised in detail as to any further developments in this
matter.
IRVING MARKOWITZ,
Manager.
On March 10, 1963, about 6:30 p.m, Plant Supervisor Viana, admittedly curious
to observe employees attending a union meeting at 426 West Campbell Avenue in
Roanoke, Virginia, parked and sat in his automobile just across the street from union
headquarters. From that position he observed and even conversed with several em-
ployees. Consequently certain employees sought protection of the rights guaranteed
in Section 7 of the Act by addressing a letter to the Respondent, a copy of which was
sent to the National Labor Relations Board, as follows:
MARCH 10, 1963.
To: I. MARKOWITZ,
Manager Colnit Inc. Fashionit Trim Inc.,
811 Norfolk Avenue
Roanoke, Virginia
Tonight at 6:30 we attended a union meeting at 426 W. Campbell Avenue in
the city of Roanoke, Virginia.
Because the policy of Colnit Inc., Fashionit Inc. etc. is not to have its employees
represented by a union and that they will do everything possible in order to
prevent a union from winning an election.
We the Undersigned want to go on record as stating.
1. We attended an I.L.G.W.U. meeting held on March 10, 1963 at
6:30 p.m. in the union hall at 425 West Campbell Ave.
2. We will continue to work on behalf of the union in order to get better
working conditions and higher wages.
3. We know that in the United States of America we workers have the
right to organize a union of our choosing.
In order to protect ourselves a copy of this letter is being sent to the
National Labor Relations Board so that they will also have this on record.
On March 21, 1963, the Respondent mailed to each employee a letter remarkably
similar to that one sent out in November, as follows:
To All Employees of Colnit, Inc. and Fashionit Trim, Inc.:
Again the Union is insisting on having an election here.
By a clear majority you voted the Union down back in November. It
would seem that the Union organizers ought to be willing to abide by your
decision. But now they are demanding that you vote again. So the Labor
Board is going to hold another election here on April 1.
This election, like the other one, will be held here in the Plant. The time for
voting, as before, will be from 7:30 a.m. to 8:15 a.m. and from 3:45 p in. to
4 15 p.m. on the date named, that is, Monday, April 1.
Many of you were here when the last election was held, and a good many
of you were not. But whether you were here at that time or not, we feel
1404 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
that what we have to say to you now is important to you and to those who
are dependent on you. We are writing to you for the purpose of emphasizing,
as we tried to do before, that this is a most important and vital decision, for
you and your future and the future of your families.
Ever since the last election was held here, the Union has been going around
making exaggerated and false claims about what was said to you by the
Company at that time. You, of course, know why the Union has done this-
it would definitely prefer that you not be allowed to hear or read anything
except what comes from the Union. We know, on the other hand, that there
is another and entirely different side of the picture, and we definitely believe that
you should consider both sides of it before you make up your minds about the
matter. Don't pass it over lightly. Think about it seriously and carefully-
and decide entirely upon the basis of what you believe will be to your best
interests and the best interest of those who are dependent upon you.
If the Ladies' Garment Workers Union were to get in, would it work to your
advantage or to your disadvantage-to your benefit or to your harm? This
is the question for you to decide.
As matters now stand, your earnings are well above those of employees in
our line of work, anywhere in this entire area. You have vacations and vacation
pay, holidays and insurance, both Blue Cross and Blue Shield, covering you and
all the members of your family, and with maternity, surgical, medical and
hospital benefits, plus post-operative care-all paid for by the Company.
Since we came here to Roanoke, there has been steady progress in providing
various improvements for our employees. Surely no one can truthfully say
that this Company does not seek to make progress or improvement or that this
Company is neglectful of its employees.
No Union has achieved any of these things for you! It won't require a Union
to maintain them for you-nor to accomplish further improvements for you!
Your future and your security depend not upon any union, but upon our
making a success here together. We must pull together and not pull apart!
Always you should bear in mind that it is the Company which furnishes you your
job and your pay check. The Union will never provide you with a day's work
nor a cent of pay.
The Union has given you cards which claim that if you will only join the
Union you will be GUARANTEED various benefits, including job security and
overtime pay for all work in excess of seven hours in one day. This is a good
illustration of what we pointed out to you before-the Union can and it will
promise you anything to lead you, or mislead you, into the Union. The plain
and simple truth is that the Union cannot and it does not back up such promises
as these.
You have been reading lately of the high rate of unemployment-concen-
trated for the most part in areas of heavy unionization. For many years
multitudes of these people paid dues to Unions and yet they are out of work.
Did the Unions guarantee job security to these people? The plain truth is that
they did not! Can this Union guarantee you a job here anymore than those
people were guaranteed their jobs9 We all know the answer to that. There
can be no job security for any of us here without successful and profitable
operation of this business.
We have no doubt that one of the first things the Union will do if it gets in
here will be to demand that we cut back to a 7-hour day. But you should not
forget this question-is the Union really trying to get you more overtime pay
or is it trying to force the Company to take on more employees so that your work
will be shared with someone else-someone you do not know?
Your common sense will tell you the answer. For many months the AFL-
CIO Unions have been ballyhooing the 7-hour day and the 35-hour week-
not to increase workers' pay checks-but to spread the work. And they are
still pushing it even though top Government officials have declared that the
35-hour workweek is not the answer to the unemployment problem.
What the Union wants is to convince you through its false promises that all
you have to do is vote the Union in here and-as if it had maeic powers-the
Union will get you all sorts of benefits The truth is that the Union has no such
powers. Don't forget that the only wav that the Union can try to force us to
do things which we are unable or unwilling to do is by pulling you out on strike.
And you should know that we have no intention of giving in to any such pressure
as that
Remember that those who may see fit to join or vote for the Union will never
get any benefit or advantage over those who do not do so. Remember also that it
is not necessary, and it is not ever going to be necessary, for anybody to belong
COLNIT, INC., AND FASHIONIT TRIM, INC. 1405'
to the Ladies' Garment Workers Union, or any other Union, in order to work
for this Company.
Remember also that you now have the individual right and freedom to come
in and settle with us personally any problems you may have. But if this
Union were to get in here, this freedom and this right which you now have, would
be taken away from you and placed in the hands of the Union.
If you had this union and were paying dues to it, who would be getting your
money? Do you know who are the men at the head of this Union? Do you
know where they are? Do you know anything about them? Do you you want
to give your name, your money and your support to an organization which is led
by men who are strangers-and will remain strangers-to you?
Most important of all-as you make your decision of this matter, keep in mind
this fundamental fact:-THAT WHERE UNIONS ARE IS WHERE STRIKES
GENERALLY OCCUR. AND STRIKES MEAN TROUBLE-lost work, lost
pay and often jobs permanently lost-debt and regret-bitterness and dissension.
Do you see any good reason to risk all of that here? Already you have seen
the beginnings of this sort of trouble with this very Union!
We have said to you before, and we say to you again in all thruth that if you
will consider this matter thoroughly and from every standpoint, we believe
you will surely come to the conclusion in your own good judgment:-That you
stand to lose if this Union were to get in here and that you stand to gain by
keeping it out!
Sincerely yours,
IRVING MARKOWITZ, Plant Manager.
SAUL LUDWIG, President.
COLNIT, INC.
FASHIONIT TRIM, INC.
Thereafter, on March 29, 1963, Plant Manager Markowitz again called an assembly
of all employees in the plant and made a speech similar to that in November 1962,
reiterating the truth of all facts and arguments previously made by him prior to the
first election.
Concluding Findings
This is a case in which the totality of conduct engaged in by the Respondent must be
evaluated to determine the impact upon employees while attempting to exercise the
rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. From the beginning of organizational ac-
tivities about October 1, 1962, the Respondent by picturization of a closed plant on
its bulletin boards, supplemented by a letter and a speech emphasizing the closing of
its former plant in New Jersey by reason of difficulties with the Union, created an im-
plied threat in the minds of employees that a similar fate was in store for operations
at the Roanoke plant if they selected this same Union as their bargaining representa-
tive. In its letter of November 6, 1962, and in the speech of Plant Manager Markowitz
on November 12, 1962, the Respondent emphasized the contention that its employees
could retain present advantages and privileges of employment only by cooperating
with their employer in keeping the Union out, because the Union was only interested
in getting money from them in dues and assessments, and had no power to protect
them against short time, curtailments, and layoffs-that the only thing this Union could
do would be to call them out on strike, thereby causing trouble, dissension, strife,
misery, lost work, lost pay, violence, and bloodshed-that this Company had no inten-
tion of yielding to any sort of strike pressures. Plant Manager Markowitz raised
the issue and Forelady Asberry completed the threat that the family plan of Blue
Cross insurance would be dropped if the Union came into the plant. Markowitz
created the impression of surveillance by instructing Forelady Asberry to interrogate
the girls under her supervision concerning any promises and proposals made by the
Union, and Asberry thereafter kept the plant manager informed as to the activities
being engaged in by these employees. Having credited the testimony of Judy Dooley
Bolt and Elva A. Burnett, I find that Forelady Asberry told these employees that they
would lose their Blue Cross insurance; would be fired and permanently replaced if
they failed to cross the picket line and come to work in the event of a strike; that the
plant would be closed or moved to another location; and that they would not be re-
hired. Asberry asserted that some employees had already been laid off because of their
activities on behalf of the Union, and that others would be fired if she found out
that they were supporting the organization. Asberry warned the girls not to accept
union leaflets because they were being watched by Plant Manager Markowitz, and
Markowitz confirmed such surveillance by rushing out to engage in an argument with
organizers on the sidewalk distributing leaflets to employees leaving the plant. It is
admitted by Plant Supervisor Alfred F. Viana that he engaged in surveillance of a
union meeting on March 10, 1963, and thereafter reported his observations to Plant
1406 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Manager Markowitz. From the credible testimony of Charles J. Widener and Melvin
R. Markham, I also find that Plant Supervisor Viana told employees under his super-
vision that they would lose their jobs and be permanently replaced if they went out
on a strike or walked the picket line.
By the aforesaid foregoing individual conduct of supervisors and by the conduct
of the Respondent in its totality, there can be no doubt that Respondent since on
or about October 1, 1962, has interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in
the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. I find, therefore, that
by threats to close its plant, by threats to discharge and permanently replace employees
who supported the Union or engaged in a strike, by creating the impression and
actually engaging in surveillance of the union activities of its employees, and by
threatening to withdraw their Blue Cross insurance and other benefits if the Union
came in, the Respondent has and is interfering with, restraining, and coercing its
employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act; thereby
engaging in unfair labor practices proscribed by section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The conduct and activities of the Respondent set forth in section III, above,
occurring in connection with the operations set forth in section I, above, have a
close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the
several States, and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing com-
merce and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in certain unfair
labor practices, burdening and obstructing commerce, I shall recommend that it
cease and desist therefrom, and take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate
the policies of the Act. It will be further recommended that the Respondent cease
and desist from engaging in any like or related unlawful conduct tending to inter-
fere with, restrain, or coerce its employees in the lawful pursuit of their organizational
activities.
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact, and upon the entire record in the
case, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. International Ladies' Garment Workers Union, AFL-CIO, Upper South Depart-
ment, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
2. Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Sections
2(2) and 8(a) of the Act.
3. By (1) interrogating and otherwise harassing its employees with respect to their
concerted activities on behalf of a labor organization; (2) engaging in and creating the
impression that it was keeping under surveillance the organizational activities of its
employees; (3) threatening to withdraw from employees its Blue Cross and Blue
Shield family coverage plan of insurance and other economic benefits of employment
if they supported or became members of the Union; (4) threatening to discharge em-
ployees for engaging in lawful strike and picketing activities; and (5) threatening
to move or close its plant if its employees selected the Union as their bargaining
representative, the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor prac-
tices within the meaning of Section 8(a) (1) of the Act.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law, and upon the
entire record in the case, it is recommended that Colnit, Inc., and Fashionit Trim,
Inc. (herein collectively called the Respondent), its officers, agents, successors,
and assign, shall.
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Unlawfully interrogating or otherwise harassing its employees with respect
to their organizational activities or union affiliations.
(b) Engaging in or creating the impression that it is engaging in surveillance of
the union activities of its employees.
(c) Threatening to withdraw from employees its family plant of Blue Cross
and Blue Shield insurance or other economic benefits if they support or become
members of the International Ladies' Garment Workers Union, AFL-CIO, Upper
South Department, or any other labor organization.
COLNIT, INC., AND FASHIONIT TRIM, INC. 1407
(d) Threatening to discharge its employees for engaging in lawful strike and
picketing activities.
(e) Threatening to move or close its plant or to impose any other economic
reprisals if its employees select International Ladies' Garment Workers Union,
AFL-CIO, Upper South Department, or any other labor organization as their repre-
sentative for the purposes of collective bargaining.
(f) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its
employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to form labor organiza-
tions, to join or assist International Ladies' Garment Workers Union, AFL-CIO,
Upper South Department, or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively
through representatives of their own choosing, to engage in other concerted activities
for their mutual aid and 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 organization as a condition of employment, as authorized in
Section 8(a)(3) of the Act, as amended by the Labor-Management Reporting and
Disclosure Act of 1959.
2. Take the following affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of
the Act:
(a) Post in its plant at Roanoke, Virginia, copies of the attached notice marked
"Appendix." 3 Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director
for the Fifth Region, shall, after being duly signed by the Respondent's representa-
tive, be posted by it immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for
a period of 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all
places where notices to its employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps
shall be taken by the Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced,
or covered by any other material.
(b) Notify the Regional Director for the Fifth Region, in writing, within 20 days
from receipt of this Intermediate Report and Recommended Order, what steps Re-
spondent has taken to comply herewith.4
It is further recommended that unless the Respondent shall within the prescribed
period notify the said Regional Director that it will comply, the Board shall issue
an order requiring the Respondent to take action as aforesaid.
3In the event this Recommended Order be adopted by the Board, the words "A Deci-
sion and Order" shall be substituted for the words "A Recommended Order of a Trial
Examiner" in the notice. In the further event that the Board's Order be enforced by a
decree of a United States Court of Appeals, the words "A Decree of the United States
Court of Appeals, Enforcing an Order" shall be substituted for the words "A Decision
and Order."
4If this Recommended Order be adopted by the Board, this provision shall be modified
to read "Notify said Regional Director, in writing, within 10 days from the date of this
Order, what steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith."
APPENDIX
NOTICE To ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner 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 unlawfully interrogate or harass our employees with respect
to their organizational activities or union affiliations.
WE WILL NOT engage in surveillance or create the impression that we are
engaging in surveillance of the union activities of our employees.
WE WILL NOT threaten to withdraw the benefit of family plan Blue Cross and
Blue Shield insurance or any other economic benefits, because our employees
become members of or support the organizational activities of International
Ladies' Garment Workers Union, AFL-CIO, Upper South Department, or any
other labor organization.
WE WILL NOT threaten our employees with discharge or loss of employment
for engaging in lawful strike and picketing activities.
WE WILL NOT threaten to move or close our plant or to impose any other
economic reprisals if our employees select International Ladies' Garment
Workers Union, AFL-CIO, Upper South Department, or any other labor
organization, as their representative for the purposes of collective bargaining.
1408 DECISIONS OP NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain , or coerce
our employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the
National Labor Relations Act.
All of our employees are free to become , remain, or refrain from becoming
members of any labor organization of their own choosing, except in the event 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,
as amended by the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959.
COLNIT, INC., AND FASHIONIT TRIM, INC.,
Employer.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------
(Representative ) ( Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting,
and must not be altered , defaced, or covered by any other material.
Employees may communicate directly with the Board 's Regional Office, Sixth
Floor, 707 North Calvert Street, Baltimore , Maryland, Telephone No. 752-8460,
Extension 2100, if they have any questions concerning this notice or compliance with
its provisions.
The Denver Photo-Engravers ' Union No. 18, International Photo-
Engravers Union of North America, AFL-CIO and The Denver
Publishing Company and Denver Typographical Union, Local
No. 49, International Typographical Union , AFL-CIO. Case
No. 937-CD-39. November 7, 1963
DECISION AND DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE
This is a proceeding pursuant to Section 10(k) of the Act follow-
ing a charge filed by The Denver Publishing Company, herein called
the Employer, alleging that The Denver Photo-Engravers' Union
No. 18, International Photo-Engravers Union of North America,
AFL-CIO, herein called the Respondent, had threatened to picket
and/or strike the Employer with an object of forcing or requiring the
Employer to assign particular work in connection with the operation
of photo-composition machines and equipment to its member-
employees rather than to member-employees of Denver Typographical
Union, Local No. 49, International Typographical Union, AFI -CIO,
herein called the ITU, to whom the Employer has assigned the work
in dispute, and who are now performing the work.
A hearing was held before Hearing Officer Allison E. Nutt on
February 26 and 27, 1963. All parties appeared at the hearing and
were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-
examine witnesses, and to adduce evidence bearing on the issues. The
rulings of the Hearing Officer made at the hearing are free from
prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed The Employer, the Re-
spondent, and the ITU have filed briefs herein which have been duly
considered.'
'The request for oral argument made by The Denver Photo -Engravers ' Union No. 18
and International Photo-Engravers ' Union of North America , AFL-CIO, is hereby denied
as, in our opinion, the record and briefs adequately present the positions of the parties.
144 NLRB No. 137.