Friedman-Harry Marks Clothing Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 28, 1936

1 N.L.R.B. 411 (N.L.R.B. 1936)

In the Matter of FRIEDMAN-HARRY MARKS CLOTHING COMPANY, INC.
and AMALGAMATED CLOTHING WORKERS OF AMERICA
Case No. C-40.-Decided March 28, 1956
Men's Clothing Industry-Interference, Restraent or Coercion: engendering
fear of loss of employment for union membership and activity ; expressed op-
position to labor organization , threats of retaliatory action ; bribing union
members ; surveillance over union meetings and activities ; propaganda against
union ; circulation of anti-union petition among employees ; threat to move
plant-Discrimination : discharge : for union membership and activity ; for
filing charges with Board-temporary lay-off-Reinstatement Ordered-Back
Pay: awarded.
Mr. Gerhard P. Van Arkel and Mr. A. L. Wirin for the Board.
Weinberg c Sweeten, by Mr. Leonard Weinberg and Mr. Harry J.
Green, of Baltimore , Md., for respondent.
Mr. John Hirschberg, of Richmond , Va., and Mr. H. Blumberg,
of New York City, for the Union.
Mr. Stanley S. Surrey, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF CASE
On September 28, 1935, the Amalgamated Clothing Workers of
America filed with the Regional Director for the Fifth Region a
charge that the Friedman-Harry Marks 'Clothing Company, Inc.,
Richmond, Virginia, had engaged in and was engaging in unfair,
labor practices contrary to the National Labor Relations Act, ap-
proved July 5, 1935, hereinafter referred to as the Act. On Octo-
ber 26, 1935, the Board issued a complaint against the Friedman-
Harry Marks Clothing Company, Inc., hereinafter referred to as the
respondent, said complaint being signed by the Regional Director
for the Fifth Region and alleging that the respondent had committed
unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of
Section 8, subdivisions (1), (3) and (4) and Section 2, subdivisions
(6) and (7) of the Act. In respect to the unfair labor practices, the
complaint alleged, in substance :
1. The respondent, by its officers and agents, terminated the em-
ployment of certain specified employees and laid off others for brief
periods of time, all of said events occurring on various days after
411
412 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
July 5, 1935, for the reason that each of said employees had joined
and assisted a labor organization known as the Amalgamated Cloth-
ing Workers of America, said acts being contrary to Section 8, sub-
divisions (1) and (3) of the Act.
2. The respondent, by its officers and agents, engaged in further
unfair labor practices contrary to Section 8, subdivisions (1) and
(3) of the Act by threatening to discharge employees for refusing
to sign a petition expressing a ,feeling -of loyalty to the respondent
and a desire to be freed from the activities of union organizers, by
threatening to discharge employees for refusing to sign a petition
stating that they wished to withdraw from the Amalgamated Cloth-
ing Workers of America, and by requiring, as a condition of retaining
employment; that certain employees withdraw their membership in
the Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America.
3. The respondent, by its officers and agents, terminated the em-
ployment of and refused to reinstate Sara Sheffield for the reason
that she had filed charges under the National Labor Relations Act,
said conduct on the part of the respondent being contrary to Section
,8, subdivision (4) of the Act.
The complaint and accompanying notice of hearing were served
.on the parties in accordance with Article V of National Labor Re-
lations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 1. The respondent, ap-
pearing specially, objected to the jurisdiction of the Board on stated
constitutional grounds. Without waiving its rights under that
special appearance, the respondent filed an answer to the complaint
in which it admitted the discharges and lay-offs, but denied the al-
legations of violation and moved to dismiss the complaint. After
adjournments on, November 6, 1935, and November 12, 1935, a hear-
ing was held at Richmond, Virginia, on December 5, 1935, by Henry
G. Perring, the Trial Examiner designated by the Board, and evi-
dence was taken. Counsel for the Board and the respondent had
previously entered into a stipulation governing the introduction of
evidence at said hearing whereby the Board was permitted to present
its evidence in the form of written statements and affidavits which
would stand as uncontradicted for the purposes of the record. The
respondent admitted it had full opportunity to cross-examine and to
present evidence on its part. As a result of this stipulation all of
the evidence in the case consists of written statements, in large part
under oath. The evidence is uncontradicted by the respondent. The
respondent, choosing not to avail itself of its privileges under the
stipulation, did not present any evidence, oral or written, on its
behalf. The motion to dismiss was denied by the Trial Examiner.
The Board affirms this ruling.
Thereafter, the Trial Examiner duly filed his Intermediate Report
with the Regional Director. In said report, the Trial Examiner
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 413
-ruled that the evidence submitted for the Board was admissible and
consequently overruled the various objections of the respondent,
which were based generally.upon irrelevance and immateriality. The
Board affirms these rulings. He found that the respondent (a) by
-discharging Archer Brock, Robert L. Koch, Wilson Lane, Bryce
Williams, Luella (Lula) Nichols, Dorothy McAden, Reba Holder,
.and Sara Sheffield, and by lay-offs of Mrs. Doris Koch and Arnold
Holder, said discharges and lay-offs being made for the reason that
each employee had joined and assisted the labor organization known
as the Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America, hereinafter
sometimes referred to as the union, has engaged and is engaging in
unfair labor practices affecting commerce, within the meaning of
-Section 8, subdivisions (1) and (3) and Section 2, subdivisions (6)
and (7) of the Act; (b) by discharging and refusing to employ
Sara Sheffield because she had filed charges under the National
Labor Relations Act has engaged and is engaging in unfair labor
practices affecting commerce, within the meaning of Section 8, sub-
Aivision (4) and Section 2, subdivisions (6) and (7) of the Act.
No evidence having been introduced with respect to the cases of
Mrs. Gertrude Holder, Margaret Turnstall, Hobert Holder, Mrs.
Robert Binns, John Gall, Heywood Tunstall, and Floyd Chetty, the
Trial Examiner dismissed the complaint as to these employees.'
The Trial Examiner recommended that the respondent cease and
desist from its unfair labor practices and, in addition, offer reinstate-
ment to the discharged employees and pay to said employees and
those laid •off, respectively, a sum of money equal to the wages lost
to them by virtue of the discharges and lay-offs. The respondent has
not complied with these recommendations.
Upon the entire record in the case, including the pleadings, the
stenographic transcript of the hearing, and the documentary and
other evidence received at the hearing, the Board makes the fol-
lowing :
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE MEN'S CLOTHING INDUSTRY
1. The men's clothing industry is among the twenty most important
manufacturing industries in this country. It ranked in 1929, ac-
cording to the U. S. Census of Manufacturers, sixteenth in the
number of wage earners employed, nineteenth in the value of its
product and sixteenth in the amount of wages paid. In 1935 2 there
I There were no allegations in the complaint respecting Mrs Fagan , although she is
mentioned in the charge.
2 Unless the text indicates the contrary , the statistical statements in the findings of
fact are based upon 1935 figures.
414 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
were more than 3,000 firms in the industry which employed approxi-
mately 150,000 workers in the manufacture of men's clothing. In
addition to these workers, there are about 58,000 engaged in the
manufacture of the fabrics from which the clothing is made and
about 100,000 who are engaged in the wholesale and retail distribu-
tion of the manufactured men's clothing. The total value of sales
in 1929 by the manufacturing plants in the industry was $833,242,000.
2. The various steps in the typical process of manufacturing men's
clothing are as follows :
(a) The purchase, generally by specifications, of the raw mate-
rials-mainly woolen and worsted cloth, cotton and rayon, canvas,
.silesia, felt, hair-cloth, sewing materials and buttons;
(b) The sponging and shrinking of the cloth, after an examina-
tion to determine the proper method of so treating it;
(c) The cutting of the cloth, linings, canvas and other materials
according to schedules prepared on the bases of sizes, models and
customer ;
(d) The fabrication into separate garments, such as coats, pants
and vests, of the cut materials through many sewing, basting and
pressing operations;
(e) The assembly of these separate garments into completed suits,
grouped according to customers' orders and, in some cases, having
sewn on them the customer's label ;
(f) The distribution of the garments to the manufacturers' cus-
tomers, generally retailers ; alteration of the garment by the retailer
to fit it to the wearer and correction by the manufacturer of defects
in returned garments.
3. Woolen and worsted cloth represent about 75 per cent of the total
cost of raw materials. Much of the raw wool is imported from
foreign countries. The production of the domestic raw wool is con-
centrated in the Western States, over 70 per cent having been pro-
duced in that area in 1933. Texas, Montana, Wyoming, and Cali-
fornia constitute the chief wool-producing States. But while the
raw wool is thus produced mainly in the West, the manufacture of
that wool into woolen and worsted cloth, known as men's wear fab-
rics, takes place largely in the New England' States, so that there
is a constant flow of raw wool across the country to the mills in
New England. These mills in 1929 produced over 63 per cent of the
total of men's wear fabrics. Such fabrics constitute the largest
single item as respects both quantity and value of the product of
the wool textile industry.
4. The bulk of the rayon fabrics used for linings is produced in
New Jersey and Pennsylvania, whose combined production in 1929
exceeded 50 per cent of the United States total. In all, only four-
DECISIONS AND ORDERS . 415
teen States produce rayon fabrics. As these fourteen States are not
similarly prominent in the list of States producing men's clothing,
it is clear that there must be an extensive flow of this raw material
in interstate commerce. For example, sixteen States and the District
of Columbia, which accounted in 1934 for over 25 per cent of the
garments cut, produced no rayon fabrics in 1929, while New York,
which cut more than 46 per cent of the total of men's clothing cut
in 1934, produced only 3.7 per cent of the total of rayon fabrics.
5. As in the case of the wool and rayon fabrics, the areas of pro-
duction of the other materials, such as cotton fabrics, silesia for
pockets, felt, hair-cloth, jute and hemp fabrics, bear no direct rela-
tion to the areas of production of men's clothing, so that a large
amount of these materials must be transported to the latter areas.
6. Most of the sponging and shrinking, which is necessary to con-
dition the fabrics for cutting, is performed in New York and Phila:
delphia for those firms which do not operate their own sponging
plants. The cloth is generally shipped, after its purchase by the
men's clothing manufacturer, from the mill to the sponging plant and
then reshipped to the manufacturer.
7. The principal operations after shrinking and sponging are cut-
ting, sewing and pressing. All of these operations may be performed
in one plant, but very` frequently they are performed separately
in plants' located in different States. • The- term "inside manufac-
turer" is applied to establishments in which the entire manufactur-
ing process is carried out in one place. The "contract manufacturer",
on the other hand, purchases the cloth and, after sponging, cuts it
in his plant but has the sewing and pressing performed by contrac-
tors to whom the cloth is let out on a piece rate basis. For the New
York area, about 75 per cent of the goods cut are sent out to con-
tract shops to be sewn.
Fifty per cent of the 3,225 establishments engaged in the fabrication
•of men's clothing are located in New York State; 95 per cent are
located in eight States-New York (50.2 per cent) ; Pennsylvania
(10.4 per cent) ; Maryland (10.2 per cent) ; New Jersey (5.9 per
`cent) ; Illinois (8.3 per cent) ; Massachusetts (3.6 per cent) ; Cal-
ifornia (3.3 per cent) ; and Ohio (3 per cent). Since the men's wear
fabrics are produced largely in the New England States, the goods
must be transported from the mills across state lines to the fabricating
establishments in the States listed above. Sixty-five per cent of the
total of suitings and pantings fabrics for men' s wear produced in 1929-
$175,379,000 in value-was produced in five New England States,
Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, Maine and Vermont. In
these same five States, 74 per cent of the overcoatings fabrics, or
$23,371,000 in value, was produced. While the combined total of men's
wear fabrics produced in these States was thus about $200,000,000,
416 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the value of men's clothing manufactured from these fabrics in the
same States was only $35,000,000. It is thus apparent that the great
bulk of the fabrics are shipped to manufacturing establishments in
other States.
In respect to the cutting of the cloth, about 46 per cent is per-
formed in New York; 11.72 per cent in Pennsylvania; 11.17 per cent
in Ohio; 9.12 per cent in Illinois; 7.20 per cent in Maryland; 4.07
per cent in Massachusetts; and the balance in other States (based
upon 1934 figures). In 22 States, no cutting is performed. But
while the three States of New York, Ohio and Massachusetts in 1934
cut 61.27 per cent of the total number of garments cut, only 44.81
per cent of the man-hours worked in the men's clothing industry were
worked in these States. Conversely, although only 28.74 per cent
of the garments were cut in Maryland, Illinois, New Jersey and
Pennsylvania, 41.98 per cent of the man-hours were worked in these
-States. These comparisons indicate the extent to which the cloth and
garments are transported among the States in the process of manu-
facture.
8. The processes in many of the clothing factories are assembly
operations. Many firms, for example, do not make shoulder pads
for coats in their own factories but buy them from firms specializing
in this part of the garment, in many cases causing the pads to be
transported from other States. The same is true of the canvases
used in the coats. Finally, certain parts of the suit, as the pants
or coat and vest, may be manufactured in one State and the other
parts elsewhere, so that the separate garments must be transported
from the various manufacturing plants to a central place for