David Shoe Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 25, 1966

157 N.L.R.B. 139 (N.L.R.B. 1966)

DAVID SHOE CO., INC. 139
The appropriate bargaining unit is:
All drivers, helpers, mechanics , and plant men excluding all office clerical
employees , guards, professional employees , and supervisors as defined in
the Act.
WE WILL NOT promise or grant employee benefits in order to discourage union
activities or membership among our employees.
WE WILL NOT engage in bargaining directly with employees in derogation of
the exclusive bargaining status of the Union.
WE WILL NOT change any term or condition of employment without first
affording the Union a reasonable opportunity to bargain thereon.
WE WILL NOT interrogate employees concerning their union activities in a
manner violative of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain , or coerce
our employees in the exercise of the right to self -organization , to form labor
organizations , to join or assist Local 648, International Brotherhood of Team-
sters, Chauffeurs , Warehousemen and Helpers of America, or any other labor
organization , to bargain collectively through representatives of their choosing,
or to engage in concerted activities for their mutual aid or protection.
All our employees are free to become, remain , or refrain from becoming or remain-
ing, members of Local 648, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen and Helpers of America , or any other labor organization.
COPELAND OIL CO., INC.; METROPOLITAN PETROLEUM COMPANY,
A DIVISION OF THE PITTSTON 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.
If employees have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its pro-
visions, they may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office, Fourth
Floor , The 120 Building , 120 Delaware Avenue, Buffalo, New York , Telephone No.
842-3112.
David Shoe Co ., Inc. and United Shoe Workers of America, AFL-
CIO. Case No. 1-CA-4901. February 25, 1966
DECISION AND ORDER
On September 20, 1965, Trial Examiner Louis Libbin issued his
Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respond-
ent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices
within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended,
and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain
affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Deci-
sion . With respect to certain other unfair labor practice allegations,
the Trial Examiner recommended that they be dismissed. There-
after, Counsel for the Respondent and the General Counsel filed
exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision and supporting briefs,
and the Respondent filed a brief in reply to that of the General
Counsel.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the National
Labor Relations Board has delegated its powers in connection with
157 NLRB No. 15.
140 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
this case to a three-member panel [Members Fanning,, Brown, and
Zagoria]. .
The Board has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner
at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The
rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial
Examiner's Decision, the exceptions and briefs, and the entire record
in the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recom-
mendations 1 of the Trial Examiner.
[The Board adopted the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order,
with the following modification : 2
[Substitute the following for paragraph 1(c) :
[" (c) Promising employees to grant increases, or any other economic
benefits, to induce them not to designate the above-named or any other
labor organization as their collective-bargaining representative."]
'It is clear that In paragraph 1(c) of the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order, the
Trial Examiner inadvertently omitted the word "not" from the paragraph. , We shall
correct the Inadvertent error by inserting the omitted word
2The telephone number for Region 1, appearing in the Appendix, is amended to read:
223-3358.
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon charges and amended charges filed on February 27 and March 17, 1965, by
United Shoe Workers of America, AFL-CIO, herein called the Union, the General
Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board, by the Regional Director for Region 1
(Boston, Massachusetts), issued his complaint, dated April 12, 1965, against David
Shoe Co., Inc.,1 herein called the Respondent. With respect to the unfair labor prac-
tices, the complaint alleges, in substance, that: (1) Respondent discharged and there=
after refused to reinstate two named employees because of their union and concerted
activities; (2) Respondent's plant superintendent engaged in specified acts of inter-
ference, restraint, and coercion; and (3) by the foregoing conduct, Respondent
engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) and (3) and
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act In its duly filed answer, Respondent admits the
discharge and refusal to reinstate of the two named employees, and denies, generally,
all unfair labor practice allegations.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held before Trial Examiner Louis Libbin at
Boston, Massachusetts, on June 2 and 3, 1965. All parties appeared, were repre-
sented at the hearing, and were given full opportunity to be heard, to examine and
cross-examine witnesses, to introduce relevant evidence, and to file briefs. The
General Counsel and the Respondent have filed briefs, which I have fully considered.
For the reasons hereinafter indicated, I find that Respondent violated Section 8(a) (1)
and (3) of the Act only in certain respects.
Upon the entire record 2 in the case and from my observation of the witnesses, I
make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT
Respondent David Shoe Co., Inc., a Massachusetts corporation, maintains a plant
at Lynn, Massachusetts, where it is engaged in the manufacture, sale, and distribution
of shoes and related products. During the past calendar year, Respondent purchased
'The name is conformed to that appearing in Respondent's answer.
20n June 1, 1965, Respondent filed a motion to correct record in designated specific
respects. No objection to the granting of this motion has been filed. Accordingly, I
hereby grant said motion and make the document part of the record in this proceeding
as Respondent's Exhibit 9
DAVID SHOE CO., -INC. 141
leather and other material, valued in excess of $50,000 , from points located outside
the Commonwealth of Massachusetts; during the same period, Respondent sold and
shipped shoes, valued in excess of $50,000, from its plant to points outside the Com-
monwealth of Massachusetts.
Upon the above admitted facts, I find, as Respondent admits in its answer, that
Respondent is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of
the Act.
H. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The complaint alleges, the answer admits , and I find, that United Shoe Workers of
America, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of
the Act.
In. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Introduction ; the issues
Respondent employs about 160 employees in the manufacture of shoes at its factory
in Lynn, Massachusetts. In January 1965 there was a strike by employees of other
shoe factories in the area , including one located in the same building with Respondent.
At that time, Respondent's employees began to discuss the anticipated improved work-
ing conditions and increased wages which they believed the employees of the struck
factories were likely to secure through the strike while Respondent's employees were
continuing to work without any improvement in their wages and working conditions.
During this initial discussion , employee Nicholos Gallo suggested to employee
Richard Murray and to other employees that all those interested in their problem
should meet at noontime at a cafe across the street from Respondent. About 13 or 14
of Respondent's employees, including Gallo and Murray, met at this cafe at noontime
and discussed the possibility of unionization of Respondent. After Gallo had obtained
a unanimous response from those in attendance that there should be a union at
Respondent, he volunteered to visit the Charging Union at Lynn that same day to find
out how to go about organizing the factory. Gallo and another employee did visit
the Union's office during that same lunch period and was advised by a union member
there present to return to the union hall that evening when a regular monthly meeting
was scheduled to be held. That evening Gallo, accompanied by all the employees who
had attended the meeting at the cafe , went to the union hall, explained their situation
to Union Representative Cordova, and stated that they wanted to organize Respond-
ent's shop. All signed union authorization cards that evening. The next day,
Cordova had Gallo supplied with about 125 union authorization cards which Gallo
was to distribute to Respondent's employees. A union meeting for Respondent's
employees, scheduled to be held at the union hall in Lynn at 4:30 p.m. on February 9,
1965, was attended by a small number of Respondent's employees.
Respondent admittedly became aware of the employees' organizational efforts
when James Pappas, Respondent's then superintendent and vice president, found a
union authorization card and pamphlet on the plant floor. Almost immediately
thereafter, he addressed the employees concerning their organizational efforts.
Pappas also admitted seeing some of Respondent 's employees including Gallo enter
the union hall on the afternoon of February 9 Employees Gallo and Murray were
discharged by Pappas on February 19 and March 12, 1965, respectively, under cir-
cumstances hereinafter described.
The issues litigated in this proceeding are (1) whether Pappas, after becoming
aware of the employee's organizational efforts, engaged in conduct violative of Section
8(a)(1) of the Act, such as threats of economic reprisals, promises of economic
benefits, and surveillance or creating the impression of surveillance of the union
meeting place and the employees attending; and (2) whether the discharges of Gallo
and Murray were discriminatorily motivated in violation of Section 8(a)(3) of
the Act.
B. Interference, restraint, or coercion
1. The facts 3
a. Superintendent Pappas' speech
James Pappas, Respondent's then superintendent and vice president, admitted that
in January 1965 he became-aware of the employees' organizational attempts when he
found a union authorization card and pamphlet on the plant floor. He further
admitted that thereafter either that same day or the following day he assembled all of
Respondent's approximately 160 employees in 3 separate groups, consisting of those
Unless otherwise indicated , the findings in this section are based on credited testimony
and evidence which Is either admitted or undenied.
142 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
in the stitching room, the lasting room, and the packing room, and addressed each,
group in the same manner concerning this organizational attempt. He further
admitted that during the course of his talk to each group he made the following state-
ments, among others:
After stating that he had discovered certain union literature on the plant floor and
referring to the union authorization card and pamphlet which he was then holding in
his hand, he pointed out that he did not feel that if they joined the Union the Com-
pany had to accept that fact. He explained that "all of the two dollar factories in the
area couldn't meet the Union demands and we felt neither could we, being a two
dollar factory in the same area." He stated that the past history showed that the $2
shoe factories in the area that had become unionized-had left the area and that upon
their relocation elsewhere the longevity of the employees was severed. He then
pointed out that if the Respondent could not meet the Union's demands, its alternative
would be either to relocate elsewhere or to close the plant and go out of business.
In this connection he referred to Maine, New Hampshire, and Newburyport, Massa-
chusetts, as possible places where Respondent might relocate in that eventuality.
He even mentioned the fact that Respondent had recently inspected a plant site in
Newburyport and referred to a file report in his hand from the Newburyport Chamber
of Commerce. He explained that "the $2 retailer was on its way out" at this par-
ticular time and that Respondent was "trying to replace it with a different shoe with a
little higher grade" for which "there might be a larger market." He promised that
when this happened, "it would automatically involve an adjustment in pay." He told
the employees that if they had any problems or grievances about their wages or
piece rates, his door was always open and that they could come in and talk to him
about it.
b. Pappas'•statement.to employee Murray
Richard Murray. one of the three full-time Kamborian sidelasters employed in
Respondent's lasting department, had attended the meeting of the employees in the
lasting room when Pappas had made the above-described speech about the Union.
One afternoon shortly thereafter, Pappas came up to Murray while he was working on
his machine and asked, "Were you there when I gave the speech about the Union?"
When Murray replied in the affirmative, Pappas asked if he had threatened anyone in
that speech. Murray asked Pappas to explain what he meant by "threaten." Pappas
replied, "Did I say I would fire anybody?" Murray then answered, "No, you said
that if the Union comes in, you would either close the doors or move." Pappas
replied, "That's right," and walked away.
c. Pappas' threat during interview with employees requesting wage increase
In response io Pappas' invitation in his speech to employees to come to the office to
discuss any grievance on wages or piece rates, employee Gallo, accompanied by
Respondent's other two Kamborian sidelasters, Murray and Correlle, visited the office
of Respondent's President Cohen where they unsuccessfully sought an increase in
their piece rate. Cohen and Pappas were both present. Gallo did most of the talking
for the group and indicated -that they wanted about 2 or 3 cents more per case.
Pappas stated that Respondent could not afford it and could not grant it at that time
because of the union activities. During the course of the discussion, Gallo stated
that "even if you put two or three cents an hour on every operation in the shop, it
couldn't cost that much, maybe over a period of a year it would probably cost seven or
eight thousand dollars. Do you realize what it will cost if the Union comes in here?"
In Cohen's presence, Pappas replied, "If a union comes in, you'll be out of a job and
we will close the doors and leave." 4
d. Incident involving Pappas' presence in vicinity of union hall
at time of scheduled union meeting
On February 5, 1965, the Union sent a letter to the homes of about 28 of Respond-
ent's employees who had previously signed union authorization cards. The letter
pledged the Union's support of the employees' efforts to obtain better wages and
working conditions, reminded them that job security "can best be assured through a
signed union contract," and urged them to attend an important union meeting sched-
uled for 4.30 p in. on February 9, 1965, at the union hall in Lynn.
The union hall is located on Washington Street. Directly across the street from
the hall is a United Welding building where Pappas' brother and cousin are employed-
4 Pappas did not deny having made this statement, and Cohen did not testify.
DAVID SHOE CO., INC. 143
There is a drugstore on the same side of the street as, but a short distance beyond, the
United Welding building. The union hall and the United Welding building are both
between Respondent 's plant and the drugstone . It takes only a few minutes to walk
from the plant to the United Welding building and about another minute to continue
on to the drugstore.
Plant Superintendent Pappas admittedly was in the vicinity of the union hall about
the time of the scheduled union meeting of February 9 and admittedly saw some of
the employees entering the union hall. The testimony is in dispute however as to
Pappas' location , actions, and conduct on that occasion.
Pappas' testimony is as follows : He had left the plant that day shortly after 4 p.m.
to go to the drugstore and was walking on the side of the street opposite the union hall.
As he passed the United Welding building, he looked down an alley where there are
doors leading into the back of the building . His brother was employed as a foreman
in the rear of the building. Seeing that the doors in the alley were closed, he turned
around, walked back to the front entrance of the United Welding building, entered the
building, asked his cousin in the front office if his brother was in the back. On being
informed that his brother was in, Pappas told his cousin that he was going to the drug-
store for some cigars and would be right back. He then walked out the front door,
went to the drugstore, bought some cigars and lifesavers , and walked back on the side
of Washington Street opposite the union hall toward the United Welding building.
While part way between the drugstore and the United Welding building, he happened
to look across the street and saw four of Respondent's employees-Gallo, Brown,
De Soto, and Kinney-on the opposite side of Washington Street about to enter the
union hall. He then walked through the front of the United Welding building to visit
his brother in the back, spent approximately 10 minutes visiting with him, turned
around and walked back toward the plant.
Union Representative Cordova testified as follows: He was looking out the window
of the union hall and about 4:15 or 4:20 p.m. saw Pappas across the street walking
from the direction of the plant to the United Welding building and beyond it to the
alley next to the building, turn completely around and then enter the United Welding
building. Cordova continued to look out the window and about 10 minutes later
saw a group of about six employees across the street from the union hall on the United
Welding side of Washington Street. Before reaching the United Welding building, the
group of six employees crossed over to the union hall side of Washington Street and
entered the union hall around 4:30 p.m. He continued to look out the window for
another 10 minutes with Union Organizer DeRosa but did not see Pappas come out
,of the United Welding building . The meeting began about 4:40 or 4:45 p.m.
Union Organizer DeRosa testified as follows : He was standing with Cordova look-
ing out the window of the union hall, and saw Pappas go past the United Welding
building, turn around, walk back to the United Welding building, stand there for
about 2 or 3 minutes looking around, and then enter the building. He saw a group of
six employees across the street who had just reached the point where they had to cross
the street to the union hall when Pappas entered the building . After Pappas entered
the building , DeRosa continued to look out the window for about another 10 minutes
and observed a man 's shape, which he could not identify , drifting back and forth
from the slats of the venetian blinds covering the front window of the United Welding
building. He did not see Pappas leave the building.
Considering primarily the demeanor of the witnesses while testifying under oath,
and also material inconsistencies between the testimony of Cordova and DeRosa as
well as testimony of employee Brown which tends to support Pappas' version, I do
not credit the testimony of Cordova and DeRosa to the extent that it conflicts with
that of Pappas . DeRosa particularly did not impress me as a credible witness by his
demeanor on the stand . Both Cordova and DeRosa testified that they were looking
out the window at the same time when they saw Pappas and the group of six employ-
ees. Yet Cordova testified that he first saw the group of six employees about 10
minutes after Pappas had already entered the United Welding building, while DeRosa
testified that Pappas entered the building at the point where DeRosa already saw the
group of six employees about to cross the street to the union hall. Furthermore,
although Cordova testified that he continued to look out the window with DeRosa
for about 10 minutes after Pappas entered the building , Cordova did not corroborate
DeRosa about observing the man 's shape drifting back and forth from the slats of the
venetian blinds covering the front window of the United Welding building. I cannot
believe that DeRosa would not have called this to Cordova's attention under all the
circumstances if DeRosa had in fact made such an observation . Although Cordova
testified that he did not see Pappas leave the building after entering it, employee
Brown testified on rebuttal for the General Counsel that when he entered the union
hall for that meeting Cordova stated to the group that he saw Pappas go by, "walking
,towards the drug store ." Brown further testified that at that point he looked out the
144 DECISIONS OP NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
window and did not see , Pappas walking toward the drugstore at that time. Brown's
testimony thus tends to refute Cordova's testimony that he did not see Pappas leave
the United Welding building after he entered it, and is consistent with Pappas ' testi-
mony that he stayed at the United Welding building for only a few minutes before
leaving to go toward the drugstore and that he went back into the United Welding
building shortly after he had seen the employees while he was walking back from the
drugstore . I credit the testimony of Pappas and accept as true his version of what he
did and saw on that occasion.
e. Pappas' statements to Brown on March 12, 1965
As previously noted, Pappas admitted that about 4.30 p.m. on February 9, 1965,
he observed employees Gallo, Brown, DeSoto, and Kinney entering the union hall.
Employee Gallo was discharged by Pappas on February 19, 1965, under circumstances
hereinafter described. On February 26 the Union filed with the Board's Regional
Office an unfair labor practice charge alleging, among other things, that Gallo was
unlawfully discharged because of his union membership and activities. A copy of this
charge was received by Respondent on March 1 About March 12, Pappas talked to
Brown at his machine. Pappas and Brown testified to the following conflicting ver-
sions of this conversation.
According to Brown's version, Pappas stated that he had seen "a bunch of fellows
go up to the union hall," and then added that "I don't know how you been working
so long." According to Pappas' version the following occurred- Pappas happened
to be walking by Brown's machine in the course of his normal duties when Brown
said that he wondered if he could get a loan from the office . Pappas replied that
Cohen was in today and that Brown would have to see Cohen about the loan. Pappas
then stated, "You know ... they're saying that I fired Gallo because of the union
activities. Now, if this is true and I saw you going in there , how come you are still
working here . Have you been here too long already?" Brown thereupon laughed and
replied, "I saw you too ." Pappas then repeated that if Brown wanted his loan he
would have to see Cohen, and walked away.
When called by the General Counsel as a rebuttal witness, Brown denied that
Pappas made the statement relating to Gallo's discharge . He admitted that he had
told Pappas that he had also seen Pappas outside the union hall, as Pappas testified.
He further admitted that his statement to Pappas in this respect was not a true state-
ment and that he had not in fact seen Pappas on that occasion. Brown did not deny
that the conversation took place in the context of Brown's request for a loan which
Pappas suggested should be taken up with Respondent's president. Nor did Brown
deny that he laughed at the point where Pappas made the statement about the fact
that Brown at that time was still in Respondent's employ.
Upon consideration of all the foregoing and the demeanor of the witnesses while
testifying under oath , I credit and accept as true Pappas' version of his conversation
with Brown on this occasion.
f. Pappas' statements about his observation of employees
As previously noted, Pappas admitted that on March 12 he had mentioned to
employee Brown, while the latter was working at his machine, that he had observed
Brown entering the union hall. In his pretrial affidavit, admittedly sworn to and
signed by Pappas on March 18, 1965, he admitted that he had told each of the four
employees that he had seen them enter the union hall.5
2. Concluding findings
a. As to threats of economic reprisals and promises of benefits
Superintendent Pappas' statements in his speech to the assembled employees after
becoming aware of the employees' efforts to unionize the plant, considered in the
context and under the circumstances previously detailed, constituted a clear threat
that if the employees selected the Union as their bargaining representative the
Respondent would not accept their choice but instead would either close the plant and
go out of business or would relocate elsewhere, in which event the employees'
a At the hearing in the instant proceeding, Pappas testified that he only recalled men-
tioning it to Brown. He admitted, however, that it was "possible" that he had also
mentioned it to the others but could not recollect it at that time. Although his recollec-
tion was not refreshed by an examination of his pretrial affidavit in this respect, he
admitted that he had read the affidavit before signing it and that the statements therein
were correct at that time.
DAVID SHOE CO., INC. 145
longevity would be severed. That this was in fact the intended meaning of his state-
ments is verified by his subsequent information to employee Murray that he had
stated that if the Union comes in he "would either close the door or move." An addi-
tional threat of loss of employment was made by Pappas to employees Gallo, Murray,
and Correlle during the interview when these employees unsuccessfully sought a wage
increase. As previously found, in response to Gallo's rhetorical question as to whether
Pappas realized what it would cost Respondent if the Union came in, Pappas retorted
that "if a union comes in, you'll be out of a job and we will close the doors and leave "
Contrary to Respondent's contention in its brief, such threats of economic reprisals
are not protected as free speech by Section 8 (c) of the Act but are clearly coercive and
violative of the Act. I find that by the above-described conduct of Pappas, Respond-
ent interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of their rights
guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act and thereby Section 8 (a) (1) .6
I further find that Pappas' statement in his January speech to the assembled employ-
ees to the effect that as Respondent succeeded in replacing "the $2 retailer" with a
higher grade shoe "it would automatically involve an adjustment in pay," constituted,
under all the circumstances, a promise of wags increase for the purpose of inducing
the employees not to designate the Union as their collective-bargaining representative.
Such conduct, I find, further violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act because it was
reasonably calculated to impinge on the employees' freedom of choice in the selection
of a bargaining representative.7
b. As to surveillance
There is no showing, nor is there any reasonable basis for inferring, that Pappas
was aware of the scheduled meeting at the union hall for 4:30 p.m. on February 9,
1965. I find no basis for discrediting Pappas' affirmative and undisputed testimony
that he had no knowledge of such a scheduled meeting and that he customarily visited
his brother at the United Welding building two or three times a week and at various
times of the day. Under all the circumstances, I am convinced that Pappas' presence
in the vicinity of the union hall on the afternoon of February 9 when a union meeting
was scheduled and his observation of four employees entering the union hall, was
purely coincidental. I find that Pappas did not engage in surveillance as alleged
in the complaint.
c. As to creating the impression of surveillance
It is quite obvious that one may create the impression of having engaged in surveil-
lance without having in fact so engaged or ever intended so to engage. However,
either type of conduct is equally coercive and violative of the Act. In the instant case,
Pappas' statement to each of the four employees that he had seen them enter the
union hall, without giving any explanation concerning the circumstances under which
he saw them, clearly created the impression that Pappas had engaged in surveillance
of the union meeting hall and the union activities of Respondent's employees.8 By
such conduct Respondent further violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act .9
C. Discrimination in hire and tenure of employment 10
Nicholos Gallo and Richard Murray were employed by Respondent as full-time
Kamborian sidelasters in the lasting department on a piece rate basis. Gallo was first
employed by Respondent in the latter part of 1960 and was discharged by Superin-
tendent Pappas on February 19, 1965. Murray had been in Respondent's employ
about 5 years when he was discharged by Pappas on March 12, 1965. Respondent
had only three full-time Kamborian sidelasters. The General Counsel contends, as
the complaint alleges, that the discharges were discriminatorily motivated in violation
of the Act; the Respondent contends that the discharges were solely for cause.
61 find that Pappas' statement to employee Brown on March 12, 1965, as to how it
happened that Brown was still working in view of the fact that Pappas had seen him go
into the union hall, considered in the context and under the circumstances previously
detailed, did not constitute a threat of loss of employment or employment jeopardy.
7 N.L.R.B. v. Exchange Parts Company, 375 U.S. 405.
B Contrary to Respondent's statement in its briefs, such a finding is not barred by the
absence of testimony that Pappas' statement did in fact create the impression that
Pappas was engaging in surveillance.
See, e g., Admiral Semmes Hotel and Motor Hotel, 154 NLRB 338
10 Unless otherwise indicated, the factual findings in this section are based on testimony
or evidence which is either admitted or undisputed.
146 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
1. The union and concerted activities of Gallo and Murray;
Respondent's knowledge thereof
As previously found, in January 1965 Gallo took the initiative in having a group of
employees meet during lunchtime to discuss the need for unionization of Respondent's
plant . Murray also attended this meeting. At the meeting, Gallo obtained a unani-
mous response for a union and volunteered to visit the union hall to find out how to go
about organizing Respondent's plant. That evening he and Murray, together with
the other employees in the group, signed union authorization cards at the union hall.
The next day Union Representative Cordova had Gallo supplied with about 125
union authorization cards for distribution to Respondent's employees. At the plant
that same day, Gallo divided the cards among four or five other employees for solicita-
tion of employee signatures and return to Gallo. He retained about five or six cards
which he had employees sign at the plant during the workday, at coffee breaks and at
lunchtime. As previously noted, Gallo was the chief spokesman for the group of
three Kamborian sidelasters who visited Cohen's office in January and unsuccessfully
sought a wage increase. It was Gallo's rhetorical question at this meeting as to
whether Pappas realized what it would cost Respondent if the Union came in, which
prompted Pappas to threaten loss of their jobs and the closing of the plant if a union
came in.
About 13 signed union authorization cards were returned by the other employee
solicitors to Gallo who, in turn, gave them to Union Representative Cordova. In
addition, Gallo continued, during lunchtime and coffee breaks in the lasting room, to
talk to employees in support of the Union and in favor of organizing Respondent's
plant. He attended the union meeting on the afternoon of February 9, 1965, and
Pappas admitted seeing him and three other employees enter the union hall that
afternoon.
Murray was not as active a union supporter as Gallo . He did , however, talk to
and successfully solicit the signatures of about six or seven employees to union authori-
zation cards. Murray also attended the union meeting of February 9. However, as
previously noted, I have credited the testimony of Pappas that Murray was not in the
group observed by Pappas entering the union hall on that occasion.
Considering the foregoing and the entire record as a whole, I am convinced and find
that Pappas was fully aware of the fact that Gallo was a zealous union protagonist and
of his efforts to get Respondent's plant unionized. On the other hand, I do not feel
that the evidence warrants a similar conclusion as to Murray. I find that, as Pappas
testified, Pappas was not aware of Murray's union interests and activities and that he
erroneously believed Murray to be a nonunion employee.
2. The discharge of Gallo and Murray
a. The practice relating to punching the timeclock
and withholding work slips
Respondent's operations are highly seasonable. For many years there had been a
practice in Respondent's plant, condoned by Respondent, whereby employees on
piecework, including Gallo and Murray, would fail to punch the timeclock and would
hold back piecework slips representing their production either to average out their
earnings 11 or to collect partial unemployment compensation for that week.12 Despite
Respondent's efforts beginning with the fall of 1964 to have the employees punch
their timecards and turn in their piecework slips promptly, Respondent was aware that
employees were continuing to indulge in the foregoing practices . Thus, Pappas
admitted that Respondent found it was hard to eliminate these practices. Also,
Americo Petrillo, an admitted statutory supervisor and foreman of the lasting depart-
iThis technique was illustrated by the following testimony of Gallo:
I might turn in $125 if I made $135 and I would hold the $10 and only turn in $125
and if there came weeks when I didn't make $100 or so, I would turn in the remain-
ing balance . In other words , not turning in all,the slips . . . I would try to balance
it out.
v If an employee submits to the State Unemployment Compensation Agency a "low
earning slip" furnished by Respondent to indicate that the employee had failed to earn
a certain weekly dollar amount, that employee would be entitled to collect partial unem-
ployment compensation for that particular week. Thus Murray testified as follows :
If I work say 20 hours a week and make $40 [I] get $30 clear . So the other way,
I punch in just for 10 hours instead of 20, hand in $10 [worth of piece slips] and
collect 45 [ dollars in partial unemployment compensation].
DAVID SHOE CO., INC. 147
ment where about 40 to 50 employees , including Gallo and Murray , worked, - testified
that beginning with the fall of 1964 and continuing until April 1965 he made a weekly
check of the timecards of the employees in his department to determine whether they
were being properly punched and whether the employees were turning in their piece-
rate slips for the work done that week. He admitted that each week he would find, on
an average , that approximately 5 percent of the employees in his department had
failed to punch their cards properly and that a similar number had failed to turn in
their piece -rate slips in the week in which the production reflected by those slips had
been made . In the latter case Petrillo admittedly would merely ask the employees to
turn in their piecework slips which had been withheld, and the employees would
comply.
b. The discharge of Gallo
About 3 . 30 p.m. on Friday , February 19, Foreman Petrillo informed Pappas that
Gallo had not punched his timecard for 2 days in a row. Pappas instructed Petrillo
to summon Gallo. Petrillo came up to Gallo while the latter was working and stated
that Pappas wanted to see him in the office . In response to Gallo's inquiry as to the
reason for this summons, Petrillo replied that it was something pertaining to Gallo's
timecard.
When Gallo entered Pappas' office a few minutes later, Pappas showed Gallo his
timecard and asked why it had not been punched Gallo replied that he had some
personal time out that week and had not been punching his card because he intended'
to withhold his numbers and draw unemployment compensation . Pappas admittedly
retorted at this point , "You know that's against the rules. I have already fired
Correlle for it 13 and under the circumstances I will have to fire you too ." Gallo
explained that everyone else was engaging in the same practice and stated that he
could not see why he was not permitted to do the same thing. Pappas admitted that
Gallo then stated that he would see his lawyer about his being fired . The discussion
became "heated ," and Pappas told Gallo to turn in his slips, adding that Gallo was
pretty free with his threats as he had been ' in the past and that it was not a harmonious
relationship for Gallo to keep employees under pressure . In response to Gallo's
inquiry as to what Pappas was referring to, Pappas mentioned incidents between Gallo'
and Foreman Petrillo and between Gallo and another employee, admittedly a1l-hav-
Ing occurred about 1ih'to 3 • years previously.14 '
Gallo then left , went down to get his piece-work slips, washed up, and went into
the office where he turned in his slips and got his pay. As employee Murray was
leaving the plant, -he saw Gallo-talking to Pappas and asked Gallo why he had been
fired. Gallo replied , "I didn't punch my card." Murray looked at Pappas and Gallo,
and said, "Well, I didn 't punch my 'card either." Pappas made no response.
c. The discharge of Murray
Immediately after Gallo 's dischaige , Respondent placed the following notice on
the timeclock : "Any employee not punching a card will be discharged immediately,
no excuses and no exceptions."
Early on the morning of March 12, 1965 , Foreman Petrillo was checking cards
and found five cards not punched in on the timeclock . After discussing the matter
with Pappas, Petrillo first approached Correlle and Murray, the two Kamborian side
lasters who worked close 'together . Petrillo handed them their timecards and stated
that he wanted them to punch their timecards . Correlle and Murray looked 'at one
another, and then Murray stated that he was not going to punch his timecard but was
going to the office to talk about it. When Murray and Correlle continued to refuse to
punch their timecard despite Petrillo 's warning that they could not continue to work'
there unless they : punched their card, Petrillo indicated that they were both fired, and
reported the incident to Pappas.
Murray and Correlle put on their jackets and proceeded to the office to see Pappas,
who'happened to walk by at that time . Pappas asked them, "How come you don't
want to punch your timecard?" Murray replied , "Well, I want to collect, [partial
13 This referred'to an' incident in October or November' 1964 ,' when Pappas discharged
Correlle because he had deliberately refused to turn in his work slips that week when-
requested to do so. Correlle was reinstated within a week or so when he stated he was
sorry and-it would not happen again:, J I • '
14 The findings in this paragraph are based primarily on 'the credited testimony of
Pappas Gallo denied that any, mention was made of withholding slips or that he had
told Pappas he was withholding slips to draw unemployment compensation I do' not
credit Gallo ' s testimony, to the extent that it conflicts with the findings set forth iii the text.
2 21-3 7 4-6 6-v o f 157-11
148 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
unemployment compensation]" and reiterated that he was not going to punch his
card. Pappas told them not to be foolish, that they should punch their cards and turn
in their work slips and go to work. Murray and Correlle refused. Murray pointed
out that they could not make a living on $30 a week and promised that if they would
be permitted to work without punching in and withhold their slips, they would keep
it quiet so no one would know. Pappas replied that if he let them "get away with
that, Nick Gallo will hang me." Correlle and Murray were then both terminated.15
3. Respondent's contentions and concluding findings
a. As to Nicholos Gallo
In his opening statement at the beginning of the instant hearing counsel for
Respondent stated that Gallo was discharged because he had failed to punch in to
work on the timeclock and was withholding case numbers to reduce his earnings for
that week in order to be able to receive partial unemployment compensation, all in
violation of Respondent's rules which it was making an effort to enforce. However,
as previously found, Respondent was aware that this was a practice in which its
employees, including Gallo, admittedly engaged for many years up to, and even after,
Gallo's discharge, without any disciplinary action being taken by Respondent. Thus,
in January and February 1965, Gallo himself had continued to turn in job tickets
bearing dates of prior weeks than that for which they were turned in, without any
comment by Respondent. And, as Foreman Petrillo further admitted, despite
Respondent's efforts and the weekly check which he made to tighten up on this
practice, he found that each week on an average of 5 percent of the employees in his
department (the lasting room where Gallo and Murray were employed) continued
to engage in this practice until he ceased to be foreman sometime in April 1965, long
after Gallo's discharge. Yet, in all such instances, it was Respondent's policy, as
demonstrated by Petrillo's admitted conduct, merely to request the offending employee
to turn in the piecework slips which had been withheld and for Petrillo himself to
write in the time on the employee's timecard or to request the offending employee
to punch his timecard. The only time that Respondent deviated from this policy was
in the case of Gallo who was discharged for engaging in this same practice.
Presumably awaie that the defense asserted in Respondent's counsel's opening
statement would not stand up in the light of the-foregoing evidence adduced at the
hearing, counsel has somewhat shifted his defense in his brief in a belated effort to
strengthen Respondent' s case. Thus, counsel now states in his brief that Gallo was
discharged "not merely for failing to punch his card as such" and for failing to turn
in his work slips promptly, "but because of his insistence on the `right' not to punch
and to withhold slips to collect unemployment compensation." Counsel's brief
further states that such disciplinary action was allegedly consistent with Respondent's
previously instituted policy as reflected by the discharge of Correlle in October or
November 1964. However, this asserted defense also cannot avail Respondent, as it
is vulnerable in two respects.
In the first place, the record clearly shows that, unlike Correlle in 1964 and Murray
and Correlle in March 1965, Gallo did not "insist on the right" not to punch his card.
in order to withhold slips for the purpose of collecting unemployment compensation.
Thus, as previously noted, Pappas admitted that he opened the conversation on that
occasion by asking Gallo why he had not punched his timecard and that Gallo replied
by explaining that he had taken some time out on personal matters that week and
had not been punching his card because he wanted to withhold his numbers in order
to draw unemployment compensation. Obviously, at this point there was no "insist-
ence" on the "right" to do anything. Yet, according to Pappas' own credited testi-
mony, it was at this point that Pappas retorted that this was against the rules and that
he would have to fire Gallo. Nor was there any " insistence" thereafter in Gallo's pro-
test that everyone else was engaging in this practice and that he could not see why
he was not being permitted to do the same thing. This was tantamount to no more
than a plea for equal treatment and to persuade Pappas to rescind his discharge
action. In any event, unlike Correlle and Murray, Gallo at no time refused to
comply with any request to punch his timecard or to turn in his work slips. Thus,
Pappas' own testimony renders Respondent's defense untenable.
is The findings in this paragraph are based on a synthesis of the testimony of Murray
and Pappas, the only two witnesses who testified to this conversation. The only serious
dispute with respect to these findings is Murray's denial that Pappas told them to punch
their cards or made any statement to the effect that they could continue to work if they
would go back and punch their cards. I do not credit Murray's denials in this respect.
DAVID SHOE CO., INC. 149
In the second place, if, as counsel for Respondent asserts, Gallo's discharge was
consistent with its policy , then the obvious question arises as to why Gallo was sum-
marily discharged while Murray and Correlle were admittedly given a second chance
and urged by Pappas to reconsider their action . Moreover , this disparate treatment
was accorded by Pappas with full knowledge that Murray and Correlle had just
deliberately flouted Petrillo's express instruction to punch their timecards and that
they were in fact insisting on their right not to do so in order to withhold their slips
for the purpose of obtaining partial unemployment compensation . Furthermore,
Pappas' conduct assumes even greater significance in the light of the notice , posted
by ,Respondent on the timeclock immediately after Gallo 's discharge , which for the
first time warned that any employee who did not punch his card would be "discharged
immediately" and that there would be "no excuses and no exceptions ." In addition,,
Correlle had admittedly been previously discharged for having taken this same
adamant position . Yet, fully aware of all the foregoing - circumstances , Pappas was,
eager to waive the penalty proscribed in his newly posted rule, to make an exception
without any excuse therefore , and to ignore the conduct of Correlle and Murray
despite their known deliberate flouting ' of Petrillo 's authority and their expressed
insistence on withholding slips to collect partial unemployment compensation. I am
convinced and find, under all the circumstances , that the disparate treatment accorded
to Gallo in this respect is explained by the fact that ' Gallo was a known union pro-
tagonist while Murray and Correlle admittedly were not known to be, nor regarded
as, union adherents or sympathizers.
Pappas was bitterly opposed to having the employees select the Union as their
collective -bargaining representative . He made his opposition clearly known to the
employees by his threats to close or move the plant, his promise to adjust wages, and
his other unlawful conduct, as previously found. Pappas was aware that Gallo was
a staunch union protagonist who desired to have Respondent's plant unionized.
Gallo's performance as chief spokesman for the three Kamborian sidelasters on the
occasion when they unsuccessfully sought a wage increase , as previously detailed,
also made Pappas aware of Gallo 's belief that an increase in wages could be obtained
if the Union became the employees ' bargaining representative , and also created the
impression of his determination to pursue that avenue for obtaining the requested
wage increase which Respondent had refused to grant . That Gallo was continuing
his organizational efforts was made apparent to Pappas when he admittedly observed
him entering the union meeting hall with a group of Respondent 's employees on the
afternoon of February 9, only 10 days before his summary discharge.
Although Pappas had allegedly made some effort to inform employees of Respond-
ent's new policy against the longstanding employee practice of not punching their
timecards and of withholding their work slips, he admitted that at no time prior to
Gallo's discharge had any employees been warned that they would be discharged
for continuing this practice . He also admitted that he had not talked to every per-
son in the plant about this alleged new policy and could not remember specifically
talking to Gallo about it.16 Without any prior warning or notice , and contrary to
Respondent 's policy in the case of other employee offenders in this respect , Gallo was
summarily discharged immediately upon explaining his reason for not punching
his card to be that he had intended to withhold his numbers in order to draw unem-
ployment compensation . Considering all the foregoing together with Pappas ' resur-
rection during the discharge incident of other acts of Gallo's alleged misconduct,
all of which admittedly occurred from I to 3 years previously , and the disparity -
between the treatment which Pappas accorded to Gallo, a known union protagonist,
and that which he accorded to Murray and Correlle , who admittedly were not
regarded by him as even being union supporters or sympathizers , as previously
detailed, I am convinced and find that the incident in question was not the true
motivating cause for Gallo's discharge but that Pappas seized upon it as a convenient
pretext for ridding Respondent of an active union protagonist . 17 By such conduct,
Respondent discriminated with respect to the hire and tenure of employment of
Gallo and thereby discouraged membership in the Union in violation of Section
8(a) (1) and ( 3) of the Act.
16 Gallo testified that he had been unaware of Respondent 's alleged new policy in this
respect.
171 note that on May 25 , 1965, the review examiner of the Massachusetts Division of
Employment Security Board of Review held that Gallo's failure to punch his timecard
on the occasion in question "was not the determining reason for the claimant 's [Gallo's]
discharge" and that he was entitled to unemployment compensation.
150 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
b. As to Richard Muiray
Respondent contends that Murray was discharged for insubordination in refusing
to comply with its request to punch his timecard and in insisting instead on his right
to withhold work slips for the purpose of collecting unemployment compensation.
Murray's case clearly stands on a different footing from that of Gallo. In the first
place, I have previously credited Pappas' testimony that he was not aware of Mur-
ray's union activities , that he had not seen him enter the union meeting hall on Feb-
ruary 9, and that he did not regard him as a union supporter or sympathizer. In the
second place , Pappas was according Murray favored treatment by urging him to
reconsider his position , to punch his card and to go back to work, and thereby giving
'him a second chance despite the prior posted notice , admittedly observed by Murray,
of summary discharge for this offense without any exception or excuse . But Mur-
ray deliberately refused to comply with Pappas' urgings to punch his timecard , just as
he had also previously refused to comply with Petrillo 's instructions in this regard;
instead , he did in fact insist that he be permitted to work without punching his time-
card so that he could withhold his work slips and collect partial unemployment
compensation . Indeed, even prior to the advent of the Union , Correlle had once
been discharged for taking that same position.
It is true , as the General Counsel contends , that other employees both that day
and thereafter also failed to punch their timecards , without being discharged , and that
Petrillo merely filled in their time on some of these occasions . However, this is of no
great significance in the absence of evidence that they deliberately refused to comply
with specific instructions to punch their cards or to turn in their work slips when
their offense was discovered . Nor is it of any significance that Pappas realized that
Gallo would have a stronger case against him if he were to favor Murray and Cor-
relle still further by permitting them to do what they requested
I am convinced and find that the General Counsel has not sustained his burden
of proof with respect to the allegation that the discharge of Murray was violative of
the Act. I will accordingly recommend dismissal of this allegation.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of Respondent , set forth in section III, above , occurring in connec-
tion with the operations of Respondent described in section I, above , have a close,
intimate , and substantial relation to trade, traffic , and commerce among the several
States and tend to lead'tb labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and
the free flow of commerce.
V." THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent engaged in certain unfair labor practices, I will
recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action
which will effectuate the policies of the Act.
Having found that Respondent violated the-Act by discharging Nicholos Gallo on
February 19, 1965, I will recommend that Respondent offer him immediate and full
reinstatement to-his former or substantially equivalent position, without prejudice to
his seniority or other rights and privileges, and make him whole for any loss of earn-
ings he may have suffered as a result of the discrimination against him, by payment
to him of a sum'of money equal to that which he normally would have earned as
wages from the 'date of his discharge to the date of Respondent's offer of reinstate-
ment, less his net earnings during such period, with backpay and interest thereon
to be computed in the manner prescribed by the Board in F. W. Woolworth Company,
90 NLRB 289, andt Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716.
Because of the character and scope of the unfair labor practices herein found, I
will recommend that, in order to effectuate the policies of the Act, Respondent cease
and desist from in any other manner interfering with, restraining, and coercing
employees in the exercise of their rights guaranteed,by Section 7 of the Act.18
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon' the .entire record in the
case, I make the following-
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. United Shoe Workers of America, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within
•the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. - -
is N L R.B. v. Entwistle Mfg Co.. 120 F 2d 532, 536 (C A. 4).
DAVID SHOE CO., INC. 151
2. By discriminating with respect to the hire and tenure of employment of Nicho-
los Gallo, thereby discouraging membership in the above -named labor organization,
the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 8 (a)(3) of the Act. -
3. By the foregoing conduct and by the conduct of Superintendent Pappas, detailed
in section III, B , 2, supra , Respondent has interfered with , restrained , and coerced
its employees in the exercise of their Section 7 rights and thereby has engaged in
unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a) (1) of the Act.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting . corii-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and -( 7)' of the Act. ' '
5 Respondent did not engage in surveillance 'and' did not unlawfully ' discharge
Richard Murray '
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Upon the entire record in this case , and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National
Labor Relations Act , as amended , I hereby recommend that Respondent , David Shoe
Co., Inc., Lynn , Massachusetts , its officers , agents, successors , and assigns , shall:
I Cease and desist from -
(a)' Discouraging membership in or 'activities on, behalf of United Shoe Workers
of America , AFL-CIO,'or any other labor organization , by discriminatorily dis-
'charging or refusing to reinstate employees , or by discriminating against them in any
other manner in regard to their hire and tenure 'of employment or any term or condi-
tion of employment.
(b) Threatening employees with loss of jobs, the closing or relocation of the
plant, loss of longevity , or any other economic reprisals; if they 'selected the above-
named or any other labor organization as their collective -bargaining representative.
(c) Promising employees to grant wage increase , or' any other economic benefits,
to induce them to designate the above -named or any other labor organization as their
collective -bargaining representative.
(d) Creating -the -impression that it was engaging in-surveillance of the union
meeting hall and - of the employees ' union activities.
(e) In any other manner interfering with, restraining , or coercing employees in
,the, exercise of their right to self-organization ,: to:foim, 'join, . or ' assist the above-
named or any other labor organization , to bargain ' collectively through representa-
tives of their own choosing, to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of col-
lective bargaining or.other mutual aid or protection ,- or to - refrain from any or all
such activities ,-except as authorized in Section 8(a)(3) of the Act , as amended.
2. Take the following-affirmative action which is 'necessary to effectuate the poli-
cies of the Act: -
(a) Offer , to Nicholos Gallo immediate-and' full reinstatement . to his former or
substantially equivalent position , without prejudice to his seniority or other rights
and privileges , and make him whole for any loss of earnings he may have , suffered
as a result of the discrimination practiced against him , ' in the manner set forth in
.the section of this , Decision entitled "The Remedy." . --
(b) Preserve and, upon request , make available to the Board and its agents, for
examination and copying , all payroll records , social security payment records, time-
cards, personnel records and reports, and all other.'records necessary , to determine
the amount due as backpay. "
(c) Notify the above -named employee if presently serving in the Armed Forces
of the United States of his right to full reinstatement , upon application , in accord-
ance with the Selective Service Act and the Universal Military Training and Service
Act, as amended, after discharge from the Armed Forces.
(d) Post at its plant in Lynn, Massachusetts, copies of the attached notice marked
"`Appendix ." 19 Copies of said notice , to be furnished by the Regional Director for
Region 1 ( Boston , Massachusetts ), shall, after being duly signed by authorized rep-
resentatives of the Respondent, be posted by Respondent immediately upon receipt
thereof and be maintained by it for a period of 60 consecutive days thereafter in con-
c. ^- - ,.
39 In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board,'the words "a
Decision ' and Order" shall be substituted for the words " the Recommended Order of a
Trial Examiner" in the notice . In the further event that the Board 's Order is 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"
152 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
spicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are customarily
posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by said Respondent to insure that said
notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
(e) Notify the said Regional Director, in writing, within 20 days from the date
of this Decision, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply therewith.20
I further recommend that the cbinplaint be dismissed insofar as it alleges that
Respondent violated the Act by engaging in surveillance and by discharging Richard
Murray.
In the event that this Recommended Order is 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 the 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 Rela-
tions Act, as amended, we hereby notify our employees that: -
WE WILL NOT discourage membership in or activities on behalf of United
Shoe Workers of America, AFL-CIO, or in any other labor organization, by
discriminatorily discharging or refusing to reinstate employees, or by discrimi-
nating against them in any other manner in regard to their hire and tenure of
employment or any term or condition of employment.
WE WILL NOT threaten employees with loss of jobs, the closing or relocation
of the plant, loss of longevity, or any other economic reprisals, if they select the
above-named or any other labor, organization as their collective-bargaining
representative. -
WE WILL NOT promise to grant to employees wage increases, or any other
economic benefits, to induce them not to designate the above-named or any
other- labor organization as their collective-bargaining representative.
WE WILL NOT create the impression that we are engaging in surveillance of the
union meeting hall or of the employees' union activities.
WE WILL NOT, in any other manner, interfere with, restrain, or coerce our
employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to form, join, or
assist the above-named or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively
through representatives of their own choosing, to engage in other concerted
activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protec-
tion, or refrain from any or all such activities, except as authorized in Section
8(a)(3) of the Act, as amended. -
WE WILL-offer to Nicholos Gallo immediate and full reinstatement to his for-
mer, or substantially equivalent position, without prejudice to his seniority or
other rights and privileges, and, will make him whole for any loss of earnings
suffered as a result of the discrimination against.him.
All our employees are free to become, remain, or refrain from becoming or remain-
ing, members of the above-named or any other labor organization.
DAVID SHOE CO., INC.,
Employer.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------
(Representative) - (Title)
NoTE.-In the event the above-named employee is presently serving in the Armed
Forces of the United States we will notify him of his right to full reinstatement upon
application in accordance with the Selective Service Act and the Universal Military
Training and Service Act, as amended, after discharge from the Armed Forces.
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.
If employees have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its pro-
visions, they may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office, Boston
Five Cents Saving Bank Building, 24-School Street, Boston, Massachusetts, Telephone
No. 523-8100. '