Freda Redmond

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 25, 1964

149 N.L.R.B. 1095 (N.L.R.B. 1964)

FREDA REDMOND; SIR JAMES, INC. 1095
Freda Redmond ; Sir James, Inc. and Los Angeles Dress and
Sportswear Joint Board , International Ladies' Garment Work-
ers Union, AFL-CIO. Case No. 21-CA-5195. November 25,
1964
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND ORDER
On June 29, 1964, the Board issued its Decision and Order in the
above-entitled proceeding 1 finding, among other things, that the
Respondents are the joint employers of the employees involved in the
instant case, that for the purposes of this proceeding they constitute
a single employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of the
National Labor Relations Act, and that it would effectuate the
policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein. Accordingly, the
Board ordered this case remanded to the Trial Examiner for the
preparation and issuance of a Supplemental Decision, setting forth
his findings of facts, conclusions of law, and recommendations with
respect to the unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint.
On August 21, 1964, Trial Examiner Wallace E. Royster issued his
attached Supplemental Decision, finding that the Respondents did
not engage in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section
8 (a) (3) and (1) of the Act and recommending that the complaint
herein be dismissed. Thereafter, the General Counsel filed exceptions
to the Supplemental Decision and a supporting brief.
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 Fanning and
Brown].
The Board has considered the Trial Examiner's Supplemental
Decision, the exceptions and brief, and the entire record in the case,
and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of
the Trial Examiner .2
[The Board dismissed the complaint.]
1147 NLRB 1025
2 The Trial Examiner's Supplemental Decision makes findings with respect to Redmond's
Interrogation of employees , as alleged in the complaint , but omits any conclusion of law
or recommendation As we find that under the particular circumstances of this case, a
remedial order relating to such conduct would, in any event, be unwarranted , we deem it
unnecessary to pass upon the matter.
TRIAL EXAMINER'S SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION
Finding the Respondents to be the joint employers of the employees involved in
this case and for the purposes of this proceeding to constitute a single employer, the
149 NLRB No. 100.
1096 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Board concluded that it would effectuate the policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction
and remanded the case to Trial Examiner Wallace E. Royster for resolution of the
substantive issues raised by the complaint .1 I therefore make additional:
FINDINGS OF FACT
Redmond testified credibly that in the period from October 1 through January,
the operation was an unprofitable one. Early in January, according to Redmond's
credited testimony , her accountant told her that she was losing money. She imme-
diately informed James Horowitz , president of Sir James, 'of an intention to quit.
Horowitz , he testified , urged her , as he had on previous occasions , to keep trying,
saying that if she produced a greater volume of work she might solve her difficulties.
David Sitren , a presser in Respondent 's employ from October through January,
testified that sometime in January Redmond said , in effect, the business was not doing
well. Sitren suggested that a contract with the Union might be beneficial Redmond
answered that the business was not profitable and that she could not take that step.2
Anita Reid , a machine operator who worked for Respondents from October 14 to
January 28, testified that when she was hired by Redmond, she understood that if
Redmond managed to make a profit from the operation the job would be in some
fashion placed under the Union's jurisdiction On January . 18, according to Reid,
Redmond said that the Union was "on her neck" and asked Reid if she was "for the
union " Reid said that she was . Redmond responded that she knew that some of
the girls favored the Union but that she could not "join " and that she would have to
let some employees go. Redmond went on to say that she had to close the business
because she was not making any money. I credit Reid,
Lillian Moylan was hired by Redmond in early January as a machine operator.
On the second day of her employment , Redmond asked her if she was a union'mem-
ber and Moylan responded that she was not.
Redmond testified that when she began to operate in October she brought with
her a number of workers from the place of her previous employment , knowing them
to be union members. 'Sometime around the middle of January , Redmond testified,
she received a statement from her accountant indicating that through the month of
December she had suffered a loss of more than $1,600. According to Redmond, this
represented all of her savings ; that in addition to the loss of capital she had'taken
nothing from the business as wages for the work that she had done . Redmond read-
ily conceded that she told some of the employees that the Union was "on her neck"
and that she had on some occasions said that she could not afford to "join the union."
Sometime subsequent to January 10, the Respondents received notice that the Union
had filed a petition for certification . Undoubtedly Redmond had reference to this
when she said that the Union was on her neck.
The Board has held that a plant shutdown resulting in the discharge of employees
that is partly due to employees' union activities , constitutes an unfair labor practice 3
The question presented is whether the Respondents terminated the operation on
January 28 , in part, because the employees or some of them were seeking represen-
tation by the Union
Redmond began her adventure in October with a minimum of capital . Throughout
the time that she remained in business with Sir James, although working side by side
with the employees , she took only an occasional $ 10 or $20 to pay for transportation
expenses between the shop and her home. It was necessary for Sir James to advance
money to meet the initial payroll. When she was told by her accountant in early
January that she had lost money, it could not have come as a surprise . A glance at
her bank balance surely would have informed her that this was so. Although she
remained in business for the month of January, she did not pay the $400 rent for
that month and testified that because she was unable to do so, Sir James forgave the
debt. Redmond had been a member of the Union for 19 years and there is no rea-
son to suppose that she was hostile to the Union on any philosophical ground.
Undoubtedly she thought if the Union became the bargaining representative of the
employees the cost of doing business would be increased . Indeed, she said as much
to the employees , observing that she could not afford to "join the union ." The Gen-
eral Counsel , of course , has the burden of establishing by a preponderance of evi-
1 147 NLRB 1025
2 Sitren testified that he spoke of Redmond "joining" the Union It is clear that his
meaning was as I have interpreted it and that Redmond so understood him.
3Darlineiton Manufacturing Coinpany ; Roger Mslhhen ; Deering, Milliken d Co, Inc.
139 NLRB 241, 246
PAT IZZI TRUCKING COMPANY 1097
dence that but for the desire of some of the employees for union representation, the
Respondents would have continued this operation . In the circumstances of this case,
I am not persuaded that this burden has been sustained. The operation was clearly
unprofitable to Redmond. Her hope that Sir James would provide her with a greater
proportion of dresses rather than blouses to work on seems not to have been realized.4
At the time of closing, it is true, Redmond had a greater number of employees than
at any time in the preceding months, and from this it is argued that the business
was at least on the road to a profitable showing. But Redmond's testimony is to the
contrary and, I think, is to be believed. The loss of capital during the first 3 months
of operation was clearly of serious importance to her. She characterized it as a
loss of her life savings and I think that if the continued operation offered any promise
of profitability, she would have seized this opportunity to recoup. I find that the
business operation of the Respondents was terminated on or about January 28 because
Redmond was losing money. Even though it was probably the fact that this losing
enterprise was threatened with even greater losses should the Respondents be forced
to deal with the Union, it does not follow that "but for" the Union the business
would have been continued. The probability on this record is that it would have
ceased in any event. I find therefore, that by terminating the business arrangement
on January 28, the Respondents did not engage in unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 8 ( a) (1) and (3) of the Act.
It is therefore recommended that the complaint be dismissed.
4 Redmond testified that her operators preferred to work on dresses and that some of
them quit when such work was not supplied.
Patrick F . Izzi d/b/a Pat Izzi Trucking Company and Local 64,
International Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs, Ware-
housemen and Helpers of America . Case No. 1-CA-4476. No-
vember 27, 1964
ORDER
On July 17, 1964, Trial Examiner C. W. Whittemore issued his
Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respond-
ent had engaged in certain unfair labor practices, and recommending
that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action
to remedy such unfair labor practices. On the same date, the case
was transferred to the Board.' The General Counsel filed a brief in
support of the Trial Examiner's Decision.
Thereafter, the Respondent filed a carbon copy of the so-called
exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision, stating only that said
Decision is against the evidence, the law, and the weight thereof.
The General Counsel and the Changing Party filed motions to strike
the so-called exceptions. The Board's Executive Secretary rejected
them in a letter which informed the Respondent that it had not com-
plied with the requirements of the Rules and Regulations respecting
exceptions and briefs. The Respondent's attention was particularly
directed to the requirements that exceptions must designate the pro-
i The text of pertinent parts of the Board ' s Rules and Regulations , Series 8, as amended,
including Sections 102.46 and 102.48, was attached as a matter of course to the Order
transferring the case to the Board, served upon the parties.
149 NLRB No. 108.