Fashion Piece Dye Works, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 4, 1936

1 N.L.R.B. 285 (N.L.R.B. 1936)

In the Matter of FASHION PIECE DYE WouKs, INC. and FEDERATION
OF SILK AND RAYON DYERS AND FINISHERS OF AMERICA
Case No. C-22.-Decided March 4, 1936
Textile Dyeing , Printing and Finisling Industry-Interference, Restraint or
Coercion : espionage-Dzscrinvinattion : discharge-Reinstatement Ordered-Back
Pay: awarded.
Mr. Gerhard P. Van Arlcel for the Board.
Mr. Norbury C. Murray, of Newark, N. J., for respondent.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF CASE
On October 31, 1935, the Federation of Silk and Rayon Dyers
and Finishers of America, hereinafter referred to as the union, filed
with the Regional Director for the Fourth Region a charge that
the Fashion Piece Dye Works, Inc., Easton, Pennsylvania, herein-
after referred to as the respondent, had engaged in unfair labor
practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8, sub-
divisions (1) and (3) and Section 2, subdivisions (6) and (7) of the
National Labor Relations Act, approved July 5, 1935. In summary,
in respect to the unfair labor practices, the complaint stated :
1. The respondent, by its officers, agents and employees, while en-
gaged at the Easton, Pennsylvania, plant of the respondent, termi-
nated the employment of Rocco Montoro, Anthony La Rossa, Joseph
Regina and Anthony Montoro on September 17, 1935, and terminated
the employment of Antonio Marra on October 1, 1935, and since those
dates has refused to employ these workers for the reason that they
joined:and assisted a labor organization known as the Federation of
Silk and Rayon Dyers and Finishers of America, and had engaged
in concerted activities with other employees of the respondent in
the Eastern plant for the purpose of collective bargaining and other
mutual aid and protection.
2. By reason of such terminations above referred to, the respond-
ent did interfere with, coerce and restrain its employees in the ex-
ercise of their rights under Section 7 of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, and discriminated against said employees, and thereby
engaged in unfair labor practices as defined by Section 8, subdivisions
(1) and (3) of the Act.
285
286 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The complaint and accompanying notice of hearing were duly
served upon the respondent and the union on December 13, 1935.
The respondent filed an answer alleging that the Board, or its agent,
has no jurisdiction over the respondent for the reason that the Na-
tional Labor Relations Act is contrary to the provisions of the Con-
stitution of the United States. The respondent, reserving all of its
constitutional rights, answered further: (1) by admitting its cor-
porate capacity and that it engages in business in Easton, Pennsyl-
vania, in the business of finishing goods belonging to others and
makes a charge for that service; (2) by admitting that some of the
goods are brought to the plant from outside of the State of Penn-
sylvania, and after dyeing, some of the goods are delivered to persons
outside of the State of Pennsylvania, but alleging that the respond-
ent does not buy or sell goods which it dyes or finishes, and does not
dye or finish goods for its own account; (3) by admitting the dis-
charge of the persons referred to in the complaint, but alleging that
they were discharged for inefficiency and for inducing other em-
ployees not to attend to their duties.
Pursuant to the notice accompanying the complaint, a hearing
was held on December 23, 1935, at Easton, Pennsylvania, before
William R. Walsh, a Trial Examiner duly designated, and testimony
was taken. Full opportunity to be heard and to examine and cross-
exmine witnesses and to introduce evidence bearing on the issues was
afforded all parties. The respondent appeared at the hearing, and
before testimony was taken, objected to the jurisdiction of the Board
on constitutional grounds. The objection was noted on the record
without ruling by the Trial Examiner, and the case proceeded to the
taking of testimony, in which the respondent participated.
During the progress of the' hearing before the Trial Examiner,
it developed that Rocco Montoro was not a member Of the union at
the time of his discharge, although he was discharged by the respond-
ent under the erroneous belief that he had become a member of the
union. Thereupon, counsel for the Board moved to amend the com-
plaint with reference to the discharge of Rocco Montoro. Counsel
for the respondent objected to the motion to amend, and ruling
thereon was reserved for the Board by the Trial Examiner. The
Board now considers the motion to amend the complaint and the
objection and denies the motion.
At the conclusion of the testimony offered by the Board, counsel
for the respondent renewed his motion to dismiss on grounds pre-
viously urged, and on the further ground that the evidence presented
no cause of action against the respondent, and on other grounds.
The objection was noted on the record without ruling by the Trial
Examiner. The Board now considers this motion and the motion
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 287
made before the testimony was taken, and upon the record both
motions are denied.
At the close of the testimony offered by the Board, the respondent
rested without offering any evidence.
During the course of the hearing, many objections were made and
exceptions taken by the respondent's counsel to the testimony of-
fered by the Board. The Board has reviewed the record and con-
sidered the objections and finds that the Trial Examiner committed
no prejudicial error in overruling the objections of the respondent's
counsel.
Thereafter, on December 26, 1935, pursuant to Article II, Section
35 of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations-
Series 1, the Board, deeming it necessary to effectuate the purposes
of the Act, transferred to and continued before itself the proceedings
in the case.
Upon the record thus made, the oral testimony and the docu-
mentary evidence offered, the Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. The Fashion Piece Dye Works, Inc. was incorporated in the
State of New Jersey on October 5, 1934, and is qualified to' do and
does business in the City of Easton, Pennsylvania. The respondent
is engaged in the business of dyeing and finishing acetate, which is
a species of rayon made from wood pulp.
Goods do not change in composition while going through ro-
spondent's plant. Raw acetate comes in and finished acetate goes
out. Only the color is changed and filling added. The material or
cloth comes from various-places to the respondent's plant, mainly
from mills located in the South, in New England, in New York;
,some may come from Pennsylvania. The normal process of finish-
ing a lot of goods takes about one day and a half. About 90 per cent
of the finished goods are shipped outside of the State of Pennsyl-
vania, most- going to New York City.
The finished goods are sometimes stored by the respondent, as a
convenience to its customers, until ordered shipped by the latter.
This is a service to the customers and not for the benefit of the
respondent.
The only advertising respondent does is in Davidson's Directory,
which is a directory of dye-house manufacturers. The respondent
has an office and two salesmen in New York. The respondent em-
ploys about 100 people and finishes about 200 pieces of 75 yards
each in an eight-hour day, and 300 such pieces in a double shift.
2. All of the aforesaid constitutes trade, traffic and commerce
among the several states.
288 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
3. The respondent's plant has never been organized and collective
bargaining has never been attempted, except that a number of men
asked for a raise in December, 1934. While the management prom-
ised the raise to avert a walkout, the raise was never effected and in
its stead a present of $5.00 was given to each man at Christmas.
According to the testimony of Joseph Regina, "Nobody said any-
thing after that."
4. About September 12, 1935, a petition was placed in the men's
room for such of those employees to sign as desired. There is no
evidence in the record as to who made up the petition and placed
it in the men's room. The object of the petition was to obtain
fewer hours and an increase in wages. The petition remained in
the men's room all day. That night, Mr. Goodyear, the foreman,
found it. On September 13, when Joseph Regina reported for
work, Mr. Goodyear threatened to fire him, accusing him of having
started the circulation of the petition. This was denied by Regina,
and after Mr. Goodyear had him wait for about a half hour, Regina
was told to go to work. This closed the incident.
5. The Federation of Silk and Rayon Dyers and Finishers of
America is a labor organization organized in 1933 and admits to
members only those workers employed in the silk and rayon finish-
ing industry. A number of men employed by the respondent met
an organizer for the union in the City of Easton, Pennsylvania
on September 16, '1935, at the corner of Fourth and Pine Streets.
The men who met the organizer at that time included the employees
referred to in the complaint, except Rocco Montoro. At this meet-
ing the men joined the union.
On the morning of September 17, when the men reported to work,
they were met by the night watchman, a police officer, and Mr.
Carroll, General Manager of the respondent. As the men came in,
either the watchman or the police officer told them that Mr. Carroll
wanted to see them. The men individually went to the office and
were discharged by Mr. Carroll. The statements of Mr. Carroll
concerning the discharge of all of the men were substantially the
same. When the men asked why they were being discharged, Mr.
Carroll replied that he had had a detective watching their move-
ments on September 16 and that he knew they were trying to pull
a strike. By innuendo, Mr. Carroll made it clear that each of the
men was discharged for joining the union. At the time Mr. Carroll
discharged Anthony Montoro, he told him to send his brother,
Rocco, back to the plant as he had unjustly discharged the latter.
Rocco Montoro reported back to the plant op several occasions, but
was unable to secure employment.
6. At the time of the discharge of Rocco Montoro, in response to
a question by Rocco Montoro as to why he was being discharged,
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 289
Mr. Carroll replied, "Ask your brother; he knows what it is about."
He would give no further information to Rocco Montoro, but later
admitted to Anthony Montoro that he had unjustly discharged Rocco
Montoro.
7. On October 1, 1935, Antonio Marra was laid off by one of the
foremen of the dye house who would assign no reason for the lay-off,
saying that if he gave the reason, he would get himself in trouble.
He, Antonio Marra, was instructed to see Mr. Carroll. Mr. Carroll
gave him no satisfactory reason for the lay-off and told him to re-
turn in one week. Marra made several attempts to see Mr. Carroll
without success. Later, the foreman told Marra that the reason for
the discharge was that Marra was a member of the union, held union
meetings in his home, and attended other union meetings.
8. The respondent pays all of its employees 450 an hour and
works 12 hours a day, 6 days a week, while the plants in Paterson,
New Jersey, the center of this industry, pay a minimum of 660 an
hour, 750 an hour for color mixers, and 860 an hour for maintenance
men. The work week in Paterson consists of 5 days, 8 hours per
day. These facts were known to tie men , and gave rise to their
efforts to increase their rate of wages and lessen their hours of work.
All of the -discharged men were replaced by other workers. None
of them has earned any money since the discharges.
9. All of the men testified that they were experienced workmen
and that no fault had been found with their work and that there
were no claimed inefficiencies.
10. Each of the employees so discharged by the respondent, except
Rocco Montoro, was discharged for the reason that each of them
had joined and assisted a labor organization known as the Federation
of Silk and Rayon Dyers and Finishers of America, and had engaged
in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining and
other mutual aid and protection, as guaranteed in Section 7 of the
Act.
11. Rocco Montoro was discharged by the respondent for the rea-
son that the respondent believed that Rocco Montoro had joined and
assisted a labor organization known as the Federation of Silk and
Rayon Dyers and Finishers of America, and had engaged in con-
certed activities for the purpose of collective bargaining and other
mutual aid and protection, as guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
12. By discharging said employees, the respondent discriminated
against them in regard to hire and tenure of employment, and did
thereby discourage membership in the Federation of Silk and Rayon
Dyers and Finishers of America, a labor organization.
13. The aforesaid acts of respondent tend to lead to labor disputes
burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow thereof.
290 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Federation of Silk and Rayon Dyers and Finishers of
America is a labor organization, within the meaning of Section 2,
subdivision (5) of the National Labor Relations Act.
2. By the discharges above set forth, the respondent has interfered
with, restrained and coerced its employees in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act,
and has thereby engaged in and is thereby engaging in unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 8, subdivision (1) of the Act.
3. By employing a detective for the purpose of spying upon its
employees in the course of their efforts to exercise the rights guaran-
teed in Section 7 of the Act and to report to the respondent as to
which employees joined the Federation of Silk and Rayon Dyers and
Finishers of America, the respondent has interfered with, restrained
and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in
Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act, and has thereby en-
gaged in and is thereby engaging in unfair labor practices within
the meaning of Section 8, subdiv*ion (1) of the Act.
4. By the discharges above set forth, the respondent did, discrim-
inate in regard to hire and tenure of employment, and.by thereby
,discouraging membership in a labor organization known as the Fed-
,eration of Silk and Rayon Dyers and Finishers of America, did engage
in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of
Section 8, subdivision (3) of the National Labor Relations Act.
5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices
affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2, subdivisions (6)
and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act.
ORDER
On the basis of the findings of fact and conclusions of law, and
pursuant to Section 10, subdivision (c) of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the
respondent, Fashion Piece Dye Works, Inc., and its officers and agents,
shall :
1. Cease and desist: (a) from employing detectives, or any other
persons, for the purpose of spying upon its employees in the course
of their efforts to exercise the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the
Act; and (b) from in any other manner interfering with, restraining
or coercing its employees in the exercise of their right to self -organiI
zation, to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to collective bar-
gaining through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage
in concerted activities, for the purpose of collective bargaining or
other mutual aid and protection, as guaranteed in Section 7 of the
National Labor Relations Act.
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 291
2. Cease and desist from discouraging membership in the Federa-
tion of Silk and Rayon Dyers and Finishers of America, or any other
labor organization of its employees, by discrimination in regard to
hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of employ-
ment.
Take the following affirmative action, which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Offer to Joseph Regina, Anthony La Rossa, Anthony Montoro,
Rocco Montoro, and Antonio Marra immediate and full reinstate-
ment, respectively, to their former positions, without prejudice to
their seniority rights or to other rights and privileges previously
enjoyed;
(b) Make whole Joseph Regina, Anthony La Rossa, Anthony Mon-
toro, Rocco Montoro, and Antonio Marra for any losses of pay they
have suffered by reason of their discharge, by payment to each of
them, respectively, of a sum of money equal to that which each, re-
spectively, would normally have earned as wages during the period
from the date of his discharge to the date of such offer of reinstate-
ment, computed at, the rate of 45¢ per hour, and determined by the
number of hours worked by the workers who replaced each of them,
respectively ;
(c) Post notices to its employees in conspicuous places in its plant,
stating that the respondent has ceased and desisted as provided in
paragraphs 1 and 2 of this order, and further stating that said notices
will remain posted for a period of thirty days.