Harry Schwartz Yarn Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 23, 1939

12 N.L.R.B. 1139 (N.L.R.B. 1939)

In the Matter of HARRY SCHWARTZ YARN CO., INC. and TEXTILE
WORKERS ORGANIZING COMMITTEE
Case No. C-340.-Decided May 03, 1939
Noi,elty Yarn Manufacturng Industrg Interference, Restraint, and Coercion:
surveillance of employees while meeting with union organizers ; union affiliation
and activity, questioning employees regarding ; anti-union statements ; discredit-
ing union and leaders ; disorganizing union, encouraging employees to join for
the purpose of ; individual bargaining in disregard of negotiations with union ;
engendering fear of loss of employment for union membership or activity ; vili-
fying union and its officers and leaders ; interference with consent election ;
discriminatory discharges : for union membership and activity ; because of
activities of union ; discrimination in amount and kind of work given to union
members ; discriminatory refusal to reinstate striking union members to regular
and continuous employment ; refusals to bargain collectively-Unit Appropriate
for Collective Bargaining: all employees except supervisory, salaried, and cl^rical
employees and foremen ; reliance upon agreement of parties to such unit as
expressed in agreement for consent election-Representatives: proof of choice :
membership in union; consent election-Collective Bargaining: refusal of : by
refusing to accept a letter from union requesting collective bargaining; by fail-
ing to negotiate in good faith, use of dilatory and obstructionist tactics ; by
refusing to render an understanding with the union obligatory; by refusing to
enter into any contractual relationship with the union--Discrimination: with
respect to hire and tenure of employment : discharges and lay-offs : for union
membership and activity ; because of the activities of the union ; dismissed as to
one employee ; refusal to reinstate striking employees because of union member-
ship and activity, charges of, dismissed ; refusal to reinstate discriminatorily
discharged employees to regular and continuous employment because of union
membership and activity, charges of, dismissed as to some employees ; with
respect to terms and conditions of employment : giving union employees less
work to perform than non-union employees; giving union employees the most
difficult work to perform-Strike: caused and prolonged by unfair labor prac-
tices ; conduct of-Strike Settlement: failure of ; effect accorded to-Reinstate-
ment: ordered : employees discriminatorily laid off, discharged, or refused rein-
statement to former or substantially equivalent employment at termination of
strike, displacement of employees hired during strike, but not employed at com-
mencement of strike ; if not enough work available reduction of force may be
made on a non-discriminatory basis, dismissed employees being placed on a pref-
erential list to be offered employment as it becomes available ; refused : to
striking employees working elsewhere at termination of strike who refused offers
of reinstatement at that time-Back Pay: awarded: laid-off and discharged
employees ; from date of lay-off or discharge to date of offer of reinstatement
during strike, or to date of reinstatement after strike, or to date of offer of
reinstatement or placement upon a preferential list pursuant to the order ; monies
received by employees for work performed upon Federal, State, county, muniv-
ipal, or other work-relief projects to be deducted and paid over to agency which
12 N. L. R. B , No. 116.
169131-39-vol 12-73 1139
1140 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
supplied funds for such projects-Remedial Pay: awarded : to employees dis-
criminated against in the amount of work they were given to perform ; in such
sum as to place their earnings on a parity with the average earnings of non-
union employees.
Mr. Lee Loevinger, for the Board.
Mr. Irving Kornblum, of New York City, for the respondent.
Mr. Alfred Udoff, of New York City, for the Union.
Mr. Warren L. Slvarfman, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon charges and amended charges duly filed by Textile Workers
Organizing Committee, herein called the Union, the National Labor
Relations Board, herein called the Board, by Elinore M. Herrick,
Regional Director for the Second Region (New York City), issued
its complaint dated August 25, 1937, against Harry Schwartz Yarn
Co., Inc., North Bergen, New Jersey, herein called the respondent,
alleging that the respondent had engaged in and was engaging in
unfair labor practices affecting commerce, within the meaning of
Section 8 (1), (3), and (5) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National
Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein called the Act.
In respect to the unfair labor practices, the complaint alleged in
substance that on June 21, 1937, the respondent discharged eight
named persons employed at its plant in North Bergen, New Jersey,
because of their application for membership in and activities on be-
half of the Union,l thereby discriminating in regard to the hire and
tenure of employment of said persons and discouraging membership
in a labor organization; that thereafter on said June 21 the respond-
ent's employees at said plant went on strike because of the discharges
and other unfair labor practices of the respondent; that on said June
21, and thereafter, the respondent refused to bargain collectively with
the Union as the representative of all the production employees at the
plant, exclusive of clerical and supervisory employees, although a ma-
jority of these employees designated the Union as their representa-
tive for the purpose of collective bargaining and said employees con-
stituted a unit appropriate for such purpose; that on or about July
13, 1937, and thereafter to the date of the issuance of the complaint,
the respondent refused to reinstate the employees who had gone on
strike, although requested by the Union so to do, because they had
1 The names of these employees are as follows : Margy Barry , Dorothy Calla , Rae Callo,
Salvatore Corsetti, Elsie Hall , Martin Iannaconne , Marie Marotta, and Leona Pallughi.
BARRY SCHWARTZ YARN CO., INC. 1141
joined the Union and engaged in concerted activities for the purpose
of collective bargaining and other mutual aid and protection; that
by the foregoing acts, and certain other specified acts, the respondent
interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise
of rights guaranteed under Section 7 of the Act. The complaint and
accompanying notice of hearing were duly served upon the respondent
and upon the Union. On October 2, 1937, a second notice setting the
hearing for October 7, 1937, was served upon said parties.
On October 4, 1937, the Board duly served its notice upon the re-
spondent and upon the Union that at the hearing it would move that.
the complaint be amended to allege that the respondent discharged
six additional named employees on said June 21, for joining and as-
sisting the Union; l that it refused and still refuses to reinstate two.
of said employees; 3 that it reinstated 12 of the employees 4 dis-
criminatorily discharged on June 21, but only for short periods and
for part-time work, and refused and refuses to give them regular-
and continuous employment; that on August 30, 1937, the respondent.
and the Union entered into an agreement wherein the respondent
promised, among other things, to reinstate the striking employees and
to discharge all new employees hired to replace said strikers, but that
despite said agreement the respondent since said August 30 had re-
fused, and still refuses, to reinstate 24 of said striking employees 5
because of their affiliation with and activities in behalf of the Union;
and that the respondent discriminated against the striking employees,
whom it did reinstate pursuant to said agreement, in the amount and
kind of their work, and in other ways in regard to the terms and con-
ditions of their employment because of their union membership and
activities.
Pursuant to notice a hearing was held in Passaic, New Jersey, on
October 7, 1937, before Irving G. McCann, the Trial Examiner duly
designated by the Board. The Board, the respondent, and the Union
were represented by counsel. The Board's motion to amend the com-
plaint in accordance with its notice of motion to amend, above men-
tioned, was granted by the Trial Examiner. The hearing thereupon
was adjourned to afford the respondent an opportunity to prepare
2 The names of these employees are as follows : Helen Condor , Natallne Panarenato (at
times referred to in the record as Nataline Parnarnto ), Gladys Plohn , Margaret Rist,
Ethel Rogazza and Margaret Vigno
s The names of these two employees are Helen Condor and Ethel Rogazza . See foot-
note 85.
4 The names of the 12 employees are : Margy Barry, Dorothy Callo, Rae Callo, Salvatore
Corsetti , Elsie Hall, Martin Iannaconne , Marie Marotta , Leona Pallughi, Natallne Pana-
renato , Gladys Plohn , Margaret Rist, and Margaret Vigno
5 The names of said employees are alleged as follows : Harold Beilan , Angela Borealine,
May Campbell, Carmen Carbello, Catherine Casserly, May Castor, Joseph DePerna, Hilda
Frasca , Irene Carton , Catherine Hanson, John Karkowski , Irving Keith, May Kerrigan,
Juliette Kilian. Paul Kruger, Lena Livesey Alexandra Monsoig, George Perannod Eleanor
Petei s, Vincent Rivelli , Ethel Rogazza , Gertrude Strubel , Marie Testa , and Mary Tilki.
1142 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
its answer and defense to the complaint, as amended . Thereafter,
the respondent filed an answer denying the material averments of the
complaint, as amended.
On October 13, 1937, the hearing was duly resumed, and held to
and including November 1. The Board, the respondent, and the Union
were represented by counsel and participated in the hearing. Full
opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and
to introduce evidence bearing upon the issues was afforded all parties.
The complaint, as amended, was further amended at the hearing with
respect to one named employee,e and was dismissed as to three other
employees 7 therein named, but was reinstated as to one of said em-
ployees.s During the course of the hearing the Trial Examiner made
various rulings on motions and on objections to the introduction of
evidence. On motion of the Board's counsel, he struck from the re-
spondent's answer, as irrelevant, certain allegations that striking
employees "at the behest of or with the permission of the Union"
by various acts "sought to intimidate and coerce non-strikers." The
respondent stated no exception to this ruling in its statement of ex-
eeptions thereafter filed. The Board has reviewed the rulings of the
Trial Examiner and finds that no prejudicial errors were committed.
The rulings are hereby affirmed. At the conclusion of the hearing the
respondent submitted to the Trial Examiner a written brief upon the
issues presented.
On December 21, 1937, the Trial Examiner filed his Intermediate
Report on the record, copies of which were duly served on all parties,
in which he found that the respondent had engaged in and was en-
gaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce, within the mean-
ing of Section 8 (1), (3), and (5), and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the
Act. He recommended, inter ilia, that the respondent cease and
desist from engaging in the activities constituting the unfair labor
practices; that it reinstate to their former positions with back pay
certain employees found to have been discharged by the respondent
for joining and assisting the Union; that it similarly reinstate with
back pay certain other employees found to have been discriminated
against in their reemployment by the respondent because of union
membership and activities; that it make whole other employees found
to have been discriminated against in the amount of their work by
the respondent, for similar reason ; that the respondent bargain col-
lectively with the Union; and that it take certain other affirmative
action to remedy the situation brought about by the unfair labor
practices. On January 8, 1938, the Union filed Exceptions to the
The name of this employee is Marie Marotta See footnote 47
7 The names of these employees are Helen Condor, Paul Krueger, and Ethel Rogazza.
See footnotes 68, 85.
1 The name of this employee is Ethel Rogazza
HARRY SCHWARTZ YARN CO., INC. 1143
Trial Examiner's Intermediate Report. On January 18 the respond-
ent did likewise.
Pursuant to notice a hearing was had for the purpose of oral argu-
ment before the Board in Washington, D. C., on February 14, 1938.
The respondent and the Union presented oral argument on their Ex-
ceptions, and the Union submitted a brief in support of its position.
During the hearing counsel for the Union moved to conform the
pleadings to the proof, and more specifically to amend paragraph 11
of the complaint, as amended, by adding thereto the names of 16 other
striking employees whom the respondent allegedly - had refused re-
instatement. Notice of this motion was served on the respondent on
January 8, 1938. On February 12, 1938, the respondent filed with
the Board a paper opposing the motion., The motion is hereby denied.
The Board has considered the Exceptions to the Intermediate Re-
port filed by the respondent and by the Union, and in so far as they
are inconsistent with the findings, conclusions, and order set forth
below finds them to be without merit.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
The respondent is a New Jersey corporation, engaged in the manu-
facture, sale, and distribution of novelty yarns. It operates a manu-
facturing plant in North Bergen, New Jersey, and has its main office-
in New York City. Harry Schwartz is the president and principal
stockholder of the respondent.
The yarns manufactured by the respondent are for the most part
made from other yarns, which it purchases. About 80 per cent of the
finished yarn is in rayon, 10 per cent in cotton, a similar percentage in
wool, and less than 1 per cent in linen. The respondent obtains its
rayon from Virginia; its cotton from the South, chiefly Georgia; its
wool from Pennsylvania and Rhode Island; and its linen, apart from
that procured in New Jersey, itself, from foreign countries. Ap-
proximately 80 per cent of the total amount of these materials used
in, the course of manufacture are purchased and brought to the plant
from outside the State of New Jersey.
The finished yarns manufactured by the respondent are shipped to
knitting mills and other manufacturing companies located through-
out the United States. Approximately 75 per cent of the respond-
ent's products are shipped to customers outside the State of New
Jersey.
The respondent's business is seasonal in character. Manufacturing
for the fall season commences early in July and continues until Octo-
1144 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ber; that for the spring season starts in December and continues until
April. • In normal times the respondent manufactures for stock be-
tween seasons. The number of persons employed at the plant varied
considerably during 1936 and 1937. During the week of June 21, 1937,
the respondent employed about 111 persons.
II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Textile Workers Organizing Committee is a labor organization
affiliated with the Committee for Industrial Organization, admitting
to its membership all production and maintenance employees of the
respondent, excluding clerical and supervisory employees.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
The Union commenced organization of the respondent 's employees
at North Bergen on June 14, 1937. Union organizers visited the em-
ployees outside the plant , spoke to them about the Union , and dis-
tributed union literature . During the succeeding week many em-
ployees became members of the Union, and some actively engaged in
securing signed membership acceptances from fellow workers.
On the morning of June 21 , 1937, the respondent laid off or dis-
charged 12 employees ." These workers promptly decided to call a
strike. They proceeded to the plant and requested all of the em-
ployees to cease work and go on strike . By noon of June 21 all of
the respondent 's employees were out on strike.
On the same day one Barkan, the union representative in charge
of the organization of the employees , sent the respondent a registered
letter stating that the Union represented a majority of the respond-
ent's employees and asking that the respondent set a date by June 24
for collective bargaining with it as representative . On June 24, no
reply having been received , Barkan telephoned the respondent's gen-
eral manager, Littman, and asked when the respondent would bargain
collectively with the Union. Littman replied that Barkan would have
to communicate with Harry Schwartz , who was out of town.
On June 28, 1937, the Union filed its charges herein with the Board
setting forth unfair labor practices committed by the respondent in
connection with the situation . Meanwhile , Barkan continued in his
efforts to meet with the respondent , but without success. A concil-
iator of the United States Department of Labor, one Kamenow, en-
tered the controversy and by July 13, 1937 , was able to arrange a
meeting of the Union with the respondent . At this meeting and at
the succeeding one on July 19, the Union sought an agreement with
the respondent for the termination of the strike and for the establish-
See Section III C 1.
HARRY SCHWARTZ YARN CO., INC. 1145
meat of satisfactory working conditions, but no agreement could
be obtained. At the July 19 meeting the respondent, among other
things, raised the question whether the Union had been designated
by a majority of the respondent's employees as their representative
for the purpose of collective bargaining, and the parties then con-
sidered the matter of holding a consent election among the employees
under the supervision of the Regional Director to determine that
issue. On August 9, 1937, such an election was conducted, wherein a
substantial majority of the employees designated the Union as their
bargaining representative.
Thereafter, several conferences between the respondent and the
Union were held. By August 19, 1937, the parties reached an
understanding covering all points. A written form of contract was
drafted by the respondent's attorney in accordance with the terms
of the proposed agreement, expressly excluding from its provision,
however, all matter of membership in the Union as a condition of
employment with the respondent and reserving such question for
further negotiations within 30 days. On August 23, the day set for
the execution of the contract, the respondent altered its position
and refused to sign any contract. On August 24, the Union filed its
amended charge, and on August 25 the complaint issued. The origi-
nal hearing on the complaint was set for August 31. On August 30
the respondent and the Union met once more.
. The conference of August 30 resulted in a settlement of the strike
and the postponement of the hearing. The memorandum of settle-
ment then made provided that the Union terminate the strike, that the
respondent dismiss immediately all persons in its employ that were
not eligible to vote at the election of August 9, and that all of the
strikers would be reinstated. Attached to the memorandum of settle-
ment was a proposed written contract between the parties containing
provisions covering wages, hours, and working conditions to which
the respondent and the Union had agreed. Shortly after the strike
terminated the Union contended that the respondent was not com-
plying with the memorandum of settlement and was engaging in
further unfair labor practices. Further conferences between the re-
spondent and the Union concerning these grievances failed. The
proposed contract was never signed. Thereafter, a hearing on the
complaint, as amended, was begun. Other facts pertinent to our
decision will appear hereinafter.
A. Interference, restraint, and coercion
As stated, the Union commenced organization activities among
the respondent's employees on June 14, 1937. The respondent lost
little time in interfering with these activities and in otherwise intimi-
1146 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
dating and coercing its employees in the exercise of rights secured
them by the Act. During the week of June 14 to 19 officials and
supervisors of the respondent, including Littman, the general man-
ager; Dave Schwartz, the vice president; Toulson, the superintend-
ent; and Schecterman, a foreman; walked among the employees, and
mingled with them, as the employees gathered outside the plant to
talk with the union organizers. Considerable of this surveillance
occurred during the lunch hour. The officials and supervisors not
only followed the employees about but went into Mario's restaurant
and a grocery store where the employees customarily had their lunch.
Although the officials and supervisors did not speak to the employees
they never before had mingled with them on such occasions or eaten
in Mario's or the grocery store. Because of these acts, the employees
were unable to speak freely, and some were afraid to speak at all,
with the union organizers. At the hearing Littman and Dave
Schwartz stated that they had followed the employees for the pur-
pose of protecting them, that they had done so only after several
employees had reported that there were some C. I. O. organizers
outside the plant speaking with the employees and that "something
might happen." In contrast to this explanation is the one given by
the superintendent, Toulson, who testified that Harry Schwartz in-
structed him to observe the employees during lunch hour and deter-
mine whether the organizers were distributing and the employees
accepting union membership cards, and to try to overhear what the
employees were saying. We find that the respondent's officials and
supervisors mingled with and followed the employees in order to
observe the nature of and participants in the organizational activities
occurring outside the plant, to discover the identity of those em-
ployees who met and conversed with the organizers, and otherwise
to restrain the employees from becoming members of the Union. The
evidence shows that the respondent's officers were then receiving re-
ports from various persons concerning the names of employees who
joined the Union.
During the same period the respondent, through its officials and
supervisors, interrogated individual employees about their member-
ship in the Union and whether their fellow workers had joined.
Often coupled with such questioning were anti-union remarks and
statements concerning the Union and its parent body, the Committee
for Industrial Organization. On June 16 the general manager,
Littman, while being transported in an automobile to the ferry by
Keith, an employee, asked Keith whether he had joined the Union.
Upon Keith replying that he had not, Littman said that it was un-
wise for Keith to do so as the Union only wanted his money. Litt-
man then proceeded to question Keith concerning the names of
HARRY SCIIWARTZ YARN Co., INC. 1147
employees who had joined. On June 19 Littman called aside Rivelli,
one of the subforemen, and said, "Vincent, what is this I hear about
you signing the C. I. 0.? " Rivelli, who had signed a union member-
ship application, simulated ignorance saying, "What is the C. I. O.
anyway? " Littman replied "that the C. I. O. was a Union," that it
"let you go on strike and ... lose your job," and "in case you, win
the strike they let you pay so much a week :.. They were just a
bunch of racketeers, they took your money and walked around."
Littman asked Rivelli if he had seen any of the girl employees signing
applications, and said that he would give Rivelli an increase in salary
if he would report the names of any who signed. At the hearing
Littman admitted conversing with Rivelli but stated that all he had
told Rivelli was that Rivelli had the right to join or not to join the
Union. However, in the light of the general anti-union attitude
of Littman as disclosed by the record, and the surrounding circum-
stances we feel that Rivelli's version of the conversation is entitled
to belief.
Toulson, the plant superintendent, also spoke of the Union to
employees in terms that disclosed unmistakably the hostility of the
respondent to the Union. In tk conversation with Rivelli on June 21
he told the story of an organizer who allegedly was being paid $75 per
week by the "C. I. 0." and previously had been receiving $15 a week
from the "W. P. A."; and added that it was the workers who joined
that had "to pay for" that organizer.
Dave Schwartz, the respondent's vice president, engaged in similar
activity. On June 19 he stopped Corsetti, an employee and one of
the leaders in the organizing campaign, and asked if Corsetti had
joined the Union. Corsetti stated that he had not. Schwartz then
said that Corsetti should not "bother with them" as "they" were
"nothing but a bunch of communists." Schwartz was called as a
witness by the respondent and denied making these statements.
However, another witness, Iannaconne, who overheard the conversa-
tion, testified that Schwartz's testimony was false. Schwartz's tes-
timony, in general, was contradicted at almost every turn by wit-
nesses whose testimony warrants credence. Upon the entire record,
we are convinced that Schwartz's denials of the statements attributed
to him by Corsetti are not to be believed.
The making of anti-union statements by officials and supervisory
employees did not cease on June 21, when the strike occurred. Later
in the summer, during the time the Union was having its conferences
with the respondent, the foreman of the stock department, one
Schecterman, told an employee, Elsie Hall, who was one of the most
active members of the Union, "that the C. I. O. were all a bunch of
racketeers and that the contract [under discussion between the re-
1148 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
spondent and the Union] would be made to be broken." At the very
time of the hearing Schecterman said to another employee, Margy
Barry, that the union organizer, Barkan, and "the rest" were a "bunch
of reds," and that the chairman of the Committee for Industrial
Organization, John L. Lewis, was "trying to make a name for him-
self like Mussolini."
Littman did not confine his acts of interference and intimidation
to those above mentioned. During the week of June 14 he sug-
gested to Mario, the proprietor of Mario's restaurant, that he stop
the union organizers from causing a "disturbance" while the em-
ployees were having their lunch at his place. Mario thereafter
posted a notice to that effect in the restaurant. Littman also told
Mario that it was improper for Mario to allow meetings of the Union
to be held in the resturant because of the proximity of the restaurant
to the plant.
Rose De Fina was and is a "twister" at the plant. On the morn-
ing of June 19 Littman called her into his office and conversed with
her. When De Fina later returned to her work, she was asked by
Elsie Hall and Marie Marotta, another twister, what Littman had
said. De Fina stated that Littman. inquired whether anyone had
joined the Union and if she knew anything about it, that she had
not told Littman anything. About half an hour later De Fina
approached Marotta and requested five union application cards, one
for herself and the others for four other employees, Mary Morley,
Margaret Wilson, Marie Reuter, and De Fina's sister, Angelina Car-
pinella. The cards were given to De Fina and she promptly signed
one. On several occasions prior to this, both Hall and Marotta had
tried unsuccessfully to persuade her to join the Union. After the
strike was called on June 21 neither De Fina nor any of the other four
girls picketed, although large groups of the employees did. De Fina
attended no union meetings until 5 weeks after the strike began. At
that time she and a group of her friends sought to induce some of
the striking employees to return to work. Elsie Hall, upon being in-
formed of this, discussed the matter with De Fina, who promised
not to return to work during the strike. Two days later while the
strike was still in progress Rose De Fina led a group of employees
back to work.
Littman admitted in his testimony that he called De Fina into his
office on June 19 and testified that he asked her if she belonged to
the Union. Apart from that the only conversation which he stated
he had with her was to tell her that she had a right to join or not
to join the Union. He testified that Rose told him that she had not
joined and would not do.so, as "she was not in sympathy with strikes
and labor trouble." Although specifically examined on the subject
HARRY SCHWARTZ YARN Co., INC. 1149
at the hearing, Littman could not explain why he had called De Fina
into his office to ask her these questions, when in interrogating other
employees in similar vein on June 19 he had done so in the plant
proper. Toulson, the superintendent, testified that Herman Schwartz,
a salesman for the respondent and brother of Harry and Dave
Schwartz, told him, Toulson, that the respondent's officials were keep-
ing themselves informed concerning the Union through one of the
girl employees.
From the foregoing facts and testimony, in the light of the record,
we are convinced that on June 19 the respondent, through Littman,
encouraged Rose De Fina to join the Union and to induce her friends
to do likewise, for the purpose of assisting the respondent in combat-
ting the Union in such ways as might prove helpful to the respondent.
During the strike, and while the Union was meeting with the
respondent in an effort to settle the controversy and arrive at an
agreement concerning wages, hours, and other working conditions,
various officials and agents of the respondent urged individual em-
ployees to ignore the Union and union leadership and to return to
work. Harry Schwartz had instructed that the employees be visited
at their homes, saying, "If you can get anybody to work, get them
to work." Some employees were threatened that they never would
secure future employment with the respondent unless they came back
at once. Others were offered increases in pay if they would break
rank.
On July 21 the respondent's vice president, Dave Schwartz, visited
Rose Giordano, an employee, at her home and asked her to return:
to work. Giordano refused. Schwartz then reminded her of a pre-
vious strike at the respondent's plant in Brooklyn which had failed,
and declared that the Union would not win this strike, that the
respondent would not sign a contract. When Giordano still refused,
Schwartz told her that she never would work for the respondent. The
record shows that about 2 weeks before this, Schwartz visited Gior-
dano's home and asked her landlady, Mrs. Palumbo, to evict her
unless she returned to work. While Schwartz's version of these occur-
rences varied from that set forth above, we place no credence, as
previously stated, in his testimony.
At about the same time Dave Schwartz went to the house of another
employee, Barry, who was active on the picket line and asked her to
return to work. He referred to Harry Schwartz, saying, "You ought
to know he will never consent to a union shop. He has beat 14 unions
now and he is going to beat this one. If you want your job back,
you better come in Monday."
About 3 or 4 weeks after the commencement of the strike Littman
and Herman Schwartz, the brother of Harry and Dave Schwartz,
1150 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
talked with Elsie Hall while she was picketing. Littman departed
and Herman Schwartz invited Hall to have breakfast with him. She
accepted upon Schwartz's stating that Matilda Alford, another
striker, could accompany them. According to the testimony of these
employees, Schwartz said to them during breakfast that the Union
would never win the strike, that Harry Schwartz would never sign
a contract, and advised Hall to go back to work. When she refused,
Schwartz offered her a 5-dollar a week increase in salary to return.
At the hearing Schwartz testified that he had had the breakfast in
question with Hall and Alford, that Hall had said that she would
not go out on strike if she had it to do over again. The evidence
shows that Hall was not among the employees who went on strike,
but had been laid off just prior thereto. In any event, in view of the
record, we are satisfied that Schwartz's conversation with the two
employees occurred as set forth in their testimony.
The record discloses numerous other instances of interference with,
and restraint and coercion of employees by the respondent in the
employees' exercise of the rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act.
In its efforts to thwart unionization the respondent, through its super-
visory officials, boldly interfered with the conduct of the consent
election held on August 9 under the supervision of the Regional
Director among the employees, for the purpose of selecting a bar-
gaining representative. Employees in some instances were asked to
vote for the respondent.10 Throughout the period of the strike these
officials spoke in abusive and at times obscene language to employees,
largely women, because of their membership or activity in the Union.
Statements of this character were made to the employees while they
were picketing, when they refused the respondent's request to break
the strike, and in connection with the election. Dave Schwartz was
especially offensive in his utterances. Such speech was well calcu-
lated to and did intimidate the employees in their organizational
work.
It is apparent from the above facts, that the respondent, through
Littman, Dave Schwartz, Herman Schwartz, and other officials and
supervisory employees, engaged in a course of action designed to
deprive its employees of their right to self-organization under the
law. In the surrounding circumstances and in the light of the re-
spondent's economic power, the afore-mentioned anti-union state-
ments of Littman, Toulson, Dave Schwartz, and Scbecterman were
intentionally intimidatory and coercive.h1 We find that the respond-
10 The respondent , of course , was not on the ballot, but a vote against the Union was
clearly a vote for the respondent.
'-Virginia Ferry Corporation v. National Labor Relations Board, 101 F. (2d) 103,
105-106 (C. C. A. 4) ; National Labor Relations Board v. The Falk Corporation, 102 F.
(2d) 383 (C. C. A. 7) ; National Labor Relations Board v. Fansteel Metallurgical Cor-
po) ation, 306 U. S. 240.
HARRY SCHWARTZ YARN CO., INC. 1151
ent, by engaging in surveillance of its employees while they were
meeting with the union organizers and discussing union organization
among themselves; by interrogating its employees as to their union
affiliation and activities; by making derogatory remarks and anti-
union statements concerning the Union, its leaders, and the Com-
mittee for Industrial Organization with which the Union was affil-
iated ; by addressing its employees in abusive, insulting, and at times
obscene language in connection with their union affiliation and activ-
ities; by encouraging employees to join the Union and disorganize
its activities; by soliciting individual employees, during the strike
and settlement negotiations, to return to work in disregard of the
Union's instructions to its members; by threatening employees with,
loss of employment unless they did return to work and offering them.
considerations to do so; by interfering with, and intimidating the-
employees in their free choice of representatives at the election of-
August 9, and by various other acts, has interfered with, restrained,,,
and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed-
under Section 7 of the Act.
B. The refusals to bargain collectively
1. The appropriate unit
The complaint, as amended, alleged that the production workers
employed by the respondent at the North Bergen plant, exclusive of
clerical and supervisory employees, constitute a unit appropriate for
the purposes of collective bargaining. The respondent in its answer
denied any knowledge regarding the appropriate bargaining unit,
and at the hearing offered no proof on this matter.
As above mentioned, in July 1937 after the Union had met several
times with the respondent in an attempt to settle the strike and
secure a collective-bargaining agreement, the respondent challenged
the status of the Union as bargaining representative, on the ground
that it had not been designated by a majority of the employees in
an appropriate collective-bargaining unit. This issue was resolved,
as already stated, through a consent election conducted on August 9,
1937, by the Regional Director. The record shows 12 that the ballot
was taken among employees in the following unit, "The employees
of Harry Schwartz Yarn Company, Inc., exclusive of supervisory,
salaried, clerical employees and foremen." The consent to the elec-
tion was express, in writing, signed by the Union and by the re-
spondent, neither of whom here questions the appropriateness of the
unit in which the election was conducted, nor, for that matter, the
Regional Director's Report upon Secret Ballot setting forth the
12 See Report upon Secret Ballot, Board Exhibit No. 3.
1152 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
election return. We have held in numerous cases where the parties
in interest themselves have agreed upon a specified unit as appro-
priate for collective bargaining, that it was within the exercise of
our discretion to find such a unit an appropriate one to effectuate the
policies of the Act.- We are of the opinion that a similar principle
obtains here where the parties have consented to the conduct of an
election by the Regional Director in a stated unit.
The exclusion of supervisory, and clerical employees and foremen
from the election unit, these employees not being admitted to mem-
bership in the Union, was in consonance with our usual practice.
Nor does it appear that the omission of salaried employees was
improper. While the complaint, as amended, described the group
of employees within the unit as production employees, it is clear
from the character of organization carried on by the Union among
the plant employees, as well as from the meaning given the term
by the parties at the hearing, that the term should not be,interpreted
strictly but should be accorded its broad meaning of including equally
,other employees such as maintenance workers, shippers, and truck
drivers. The agreement for the election in describing the unit in
which the ballot was to be taken referred unqualifiedly to the group
of eligible employees as "the employees" of the respondent.
We find that the employees of the respondent at the North Bergen
plant, exclusive of supervisory, salaried, and clerical employees and
foremen, constituted and constitute a unit appropriate for the pur-
poses of collective bargaining, and that such a unit insures, to • the
employees of the respondent the full benefit of their right to collective
bargaining and otherwise effectuates the policies of the Act.
2. Representation by the Union of a majority in the appropriate unit
During the week ending Saturday, June 19, 1937, which was the
week preceding the commencement of the strike on June 21, not
more than 106 persons were in the employ of the respondent at the
North Bergen plant in the unit here found appropriate for collective
bargaining.14 Their names are set forth in the record.75 In con-
is Matter of Lone Star Bag and Bagging Company and Textile Workers Organizing
Committee , 8 N. L. R. B. 244 ; Matter of North River Coal and Wharf Company and Inland
Boatmen's Union of the Atlantic and Gulf, 8 N L. R B 146.
14 The written consent and agreement of the respondent and the Union relating to the
election of August 9 (Board Exhibit No. 7 ^ provided that the election was to be con-
ducted among persons in the employ of the respondent during the week ending June 19
in the unit which here has been found appropriate For purposes of the election the
respondent undertook to and did furnish the Regional Director with a list of the names
of such employees As submitted , the list contained 99 names typewritten thereon.
During a conference between representatives of the parties and the Board prior to and
concerning the election, 11 names were added in handwriting . The name of one employee,
Mary Martino, was written twice. Allowing for this error, the complete list consisted
HARRY SCHWARTZ YARN CO., INC. 1153
nection with the election held by the Board on August 9, 1937, to
determine whether the Union then represented a majority in the
appropriate unit, the respondent and the Union agreed", that the
ballot to be taken in the unit, should be taken among persons in
the employ of the respondent during the week ending June 19, 1937.
We accordingly find that from June 19 until August 9, 1937, both
inclusive, the employees of the respondent within the appropriate
unit were not more than 106 in number and consisted of the persons
employed in the unit at the plant during the week ending June 19,
1937.
By June 19, which also marked the close of the first week of or-
ganizational activity, a majority of these employees accepted member-
ship in the Union and designated it their representative for purposes
of collective bargaining with the respondent in respect to rates of pay,
hours of work, and other conditions of employment. Employees
joining the Union signed certain union cards 17 wherein and whereby
they affiliated themselves with the Union and authorized it to act
as their bargaining representative. Barkan, the union organizer
testified that prior to June 2118 he personally examined and counted
the number of such cards then signed and determined that a ma-
jority of the employees in that unit had signed during the week end-
ing June 19. On June 21 this majority was increased by additional
employees in the unit signing cards designating the Union their
representative.
At the hearing the respondent questioned the Union's designation
as representative by a majority, at the time the Union first requested
the respondent to bargain with it in the letter mailed June 21, 1937,
hereinafter mentioned. It introduced in evidence a compilation 18
based on the signed union cards, showing the dates, as indicated by
the cards, when certain named employees of the respondent respec-
tively signed such cards, and listing the names of other employees
who signed union cards which bore no dates. Further, by way of
of 109 names and, as such , constituted the election roll . It was introduced in this
prodeeding as Board Exhibit No 4.
Of the 109 names thus on the list , five, viz, Julius Erhardt , Joe Burnsteln , Daniel
Girovitz (also spelled in the record as Guiovich ), Vincent Rivelli , and Catherine Casserly,
are those of supervisory employees not within the unit here found to be appropriate.
At the hearing the respondent and the Union agreed that two employees not named on
the list , viz, Edith Diehl and Helen Tames , should be included on the list
Accordingly , in computing the number of persons in the employ of the respondent dur-
ing the week ending June 19 in the unit found appropriate , we have deducted from the
109 names on the list, the names of the five supervisory employees , and have added the
to employees agreed upon.
15 These are the persons whose names were counted in computing the number of persons
in the employ of the respondent in the week ending June 19 in the appropriate unit. See
footnote 14
10 Board Exhibit No 7. See footnote 14.
17 Board Exhibit No. 5
is June 20 was a Sunday and no cards were signed on that day.
29 Respondent Exhibit Nos . 1 and 1-B.
1154 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
challenging the accuracy of the dates on the dated cards, it called two
witnesses, Julia Scanlon and Rogazza,20 who testified that the respec-
tive cards which they signed, dated June 18, 1937, were signed on
June 21.
There is no claim or proof that any of the employees whose names
are set forth in the compilation revoked their designation of the
Union as bargaining representative. A comparison of the names of
the persons employed in the appropriate unit during the week end-
ing June 19, 1937,21 with the names of those employees stated in the
compilation as having signed cards of specified dates 22 establishes
that 36 persons so employed in the unit, including Julia Scanlon
and Rogazza, signed cards dated June 19, 1937, or before.23 We find
nothing in the testimony of Scanlon and Rogazza which affords
ground for the contention that the dates on the signed cards are gen-
erally inaccurate. Moreover, in the instance of Scanlon we are satis-
fied that the card was signed on June 18. There is credible evidence
in the record showing that the card in question was signed during
the week ending June 19, that the card adverted to by Scanlon was
a duplicate card signed on June 21 and destroyed. With respect to
the card signed by Rogazza, the respondent urged that the card
could not possibly have been signed on June 18 because Rogazza was
on vacation during the week of June 14. However, other evidence
of the respondent 24 indicates that Rogazza worked one day that
week at the plant. Nevertheless, because of some doubt, we will
consider Rogazza's card as having been signed on June 21. With
respect to the employees listed in the compilation as having signed
cards which bear no dates 25 the record shows that 20 of these em-
ployees, all within the unit,26 signed their cards on or before June
19.27 It also satisfactorily appears that two other employees in the
20 Ethel Rogazza, sometimes spelled Ethel Rogoza.
21 See footnote 14
22 Respondent Exhibit No. 1 Some of the names are misspelled but the identification
Is clear
22 The names of these employees, excluding Rogazza, are as follows • Matilda Alford,
Margy Barry, Frieda Bettiger, George Bucel, Rae Callo, Angelina Caipmella, Salvatore
Corsetti, Clara DeBurgh, F. Deffenbough, Rose DeFina, Joseph DePerna, Molly Goldstein,
Martin lannaconne , John Karkowski, Irving Keith, Ernest Kohler, Helen Condor, Esther \
Krausner, Theresa Lamura, Florence Luedeke, Ann Marotta, Marie Marotta, Mary Morley,
Jean Mrozek, Nataline Panarenato, George Perienod, Gladys Plohn, Marie Reuter, Frank
Rossi , Julia Scanlon, Ray Scanlon, Gertrude Stiuble, Anna Testa, Mary Tilki, and
Margaret Wilson
21 Respondent Exhibit No. 7.
25Respondent Exhibit No. 1-B.
2e Sec footnote 8
21 Martin lannaconne, the employee leader in the organizing campaign, testified that the
following persons signed cards on the following specified dates : Angela Borealine, June
18 or 19 ; Dorothy Carlo, June 17 ; Anthony Cotton, June 17 or 18 ; Josephine Fiala, June
18 ; Fiances Fiala, June 18 ; Elmer Forsyth, June 19 ; Michael Gaul, June 17 ; Elsie Hall,
June 17 ; Juliette Kilian, Jure 19 ; Leona Pallughi. June 17 ; Marion Panepinto, June 19 ;
Margaret Rist, June 18 or 19 ; Regina Serafin , June 19 ; Betty Torre, June 18 ; Margaret
HARRY SCHWARTZ YARN Co., INC. 1155
unit, Margaret Vigno, an employee named in the complaint, as
amended, and Raia, signed union cards before June 19.28 Upon the
foregoing we find that at least 57 of the 106 employees within the
appropriate unit did on or before June 19 designate the Union their
representative for collective bargaining with the respondent, that the
Union at all times since has been the representative of such employees.
Further comparison of the names of employees in the appropriate
unit 29 with the names of employees listed in the compilation as
having signed dated cards 30 shows that on June 21, the first work-
day succeeding June 19, 11 employees signed cards. With Rogazza
and including the above 57, there thus were 69 employees who by
June 21 had designated the Union their bargaining agent. There-
after, more than 20 other employees within the appropriate unit
signed dated or undated union cards.
Upon the foregoing facts and the record, and in view of the further
fact that all of the employees went on strike on June 21 with those
who had designated the Union their representative, we find that on
June 19, 1937, and from that date until the consent election of
August 9, the Union was the duly designated representative of the
majority of the employees in an appropriate unit, and pursuant to
Section 9 (a) of the Act, was the exclusive representative of all the
employees in such unit for the purposes of collective bargaining with
the respondent in respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employ-
meut, and, other conditions of employment.
The consent election was held on August 9, 1937. The Regional
Director's Report Upon Secret Ballot 81 issued August 10, 1937, shows
that 61 employees in the unit here found appropriate voted in favor
of the Union acting as their representative for purposes of col-
lective bargaining with the respondent, and 29 voted against. We
find that on August 9, 1937, and thereafter, the Union was the
duly designated representative of the majority of the employees in
an appropriate unit, and pursuant to Section 9 (a) of the Act, was
the exclusive representative of all the employees in such unit for the
purposes of collective bargaining with the respondent in respect to
Zanowick . Jure 19 Some of these names appear spelled differently in parts of the record
but the identification is clear Eleven of the foregoing 16 persons themselves testified as
to the date they signed , corroborating Iannaconne s testimony
In addition , Harold Beilan testified that he signed a union card on June 19; Pauline
Biedenkapp , that she signed one on June 18; Eleanor Peters, that she signed one on June
IT, and Frances Schmale testified that her sister , May Castor , signed a card on June 19
t8 Margaret Vigno testified positively that she became a union member on June 16,
although her card was not dated until later Fay Raia testified that she signed a union
card on June 16 She w.is employed by the respondent in the appropriate unit during the
week endin g June 19 Mir name does i.ot appear in the compilation
Sea footnote 14
20 Respondent Exhibit No 1.
ii Board Exhibit No 3
169134-39-vol 12-74
1156 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other conditions of
employment.
3. The refusals to bargain
On June 21 , 1937 , the Union , through Barkan, sent a letter by
registered mail to the respondent at North Bergen requesting col-
lective bargaining . The letter stated that the Union represented a
majority of the respondent 's employees and asked that a reply be
made by June - 24 setting a date for bargaining . The respondent
never replied . On June 24 Barkan communicated by telephone with
the respondent 's general manager, Littman, about the letter. Litt-
man stated that the letter reached the plant , but he had refused to
accept delivery of it because it was addressed to Harry Schwartz,
personally . The evidence shows that the letter in fact was addressed
to the respondent , not to its president . Upon Barkan's pointing out
this fact , Littman answered that he would accept a redelivery of
the letter.
It is apparent that the respondent , through Littman, refused
acceptance of the letter to avoid communication with the represent-
ative of its employees . Littman knew at the time the letter was
tendered by registered -mail carrier to the respondent that it had
been sent by the Union '32 and his explanation for rejecting it rested
on an untruth . The respondent cannot evade its duty to meet or
treat with the representative of its employees by ignoring letters
sent by their representative in the course of the collective -bargaining
procedure . An employer is required to conduct himself with respect
to such correspondence in a manner consonant with the fair
demands of ordinary communication . We find that the respondent
in rejecting the letter of June 21 , under the circumstances involved,
refused to bargain collectively with the Union, within the meaning
of the Act.
In his telephone conversation of June 24 -Barkan informed Littman
of the contents of the letter and asked when the respondent would
bargain with the Union . Littman replied that he would have to dis-
cuss the matter with Harry Schwartz , that Schwartz was out of town.
During the succeeding 21/2 weeks the Union attempted repeatedly to
secure a conference with the respondent , but to no avail . During this
time the mayor of North Bergen, a conciliator for the United States
Department of Labor, as well as one of the Field Examiners for the
Board, intervened and sought to persuade the respondent to meet
ivith the Union. The conciliator , Kamenow, was especially active.
32 This appears from the testimony of Barkan and is confirmed by the requirement of
United States Postal Laws and Regulations , Section 1202 ( 1) and (4) that registered
mail bear the name of the sender for purposes of identification upon tender of delivery.
HARRY SCHWARTZ YARN CO., INC. 1157
The respondent, however, refused, predicating its unwillingness on
the ground that the employees had gone on strike and that it could
not act during Schwartz's asserted continued absence.
It has repeatedly been held that the right of employees to bargain
collectively through their chosen representative is in no wise defeated
by the occurrence of a strike, that the very purposes and policy of
the Act require the employer in such cases to meet with the repre-
sentative of his employees in a bona fide effort to resolve the dispute
through the processes of collective bargaining.33 Moreover, apart
from the matter of "disentangling" 34 the two reasons advanced by
the respondent, we are not satisfied, in the light of the record, that
the second of these reasons, Schwartz's asserted continued absence,
in fact explains or justified the respondent's conduct. We do not
believe that throughout the 3 weeks which followed the calling of the
strike and the closing of its plant, a period of some consequence to
the respondent, there was no, person other -than Schwartz who was
or properly could have been authorized by the respondent to meet
with the Union. The general manager , Littman, as shown by the
testimony of Schwartz and of Littman, himself, was a responsible
and influential person in the management of the respondent' s affairs,
well qualified to represent the respondent in matters affecting its
employees. During the negotiations with the Union later undertaken
by the respondent, Littman assumed a predominant position in repre-
senting the respondent's interests. In view of the acts of intimidation
and coercion, heretofore set-forth, then being engaged in by the re-
spondent's officials and managerial employees, as well as the record
as a whole, we find that the reason for the respondent's failure to
enter into collective bargaining with the Union during this period
was its determination to combat unionization.
In any event, on July 13, 1937, chiefly through the offices of
Kamenow, the Union succeeded in meeting with the respondent.
Earlier in the day a form of contract was, submitted to Littman by
the Union as a basis for discussion. The meeting was attended by
Harry Schwartz, Herman Schwartz, and Littman, acting in behalf
of the respondent, and by Barkan and one Froise, a union official,
representing the Union. Kamenow also was present. Throughout
the conference the respondent assumed the position that the strik-
ing employees should return to work as a condition precedent to its
entering into any discussion or negotiation concerning a contract
"Matter of S L Allen i Company, Inc, a Corporation and Federal Labor Union Local
No. 18526, 1 N. L. it. B. 714; order enforced (C. C A 3), C. C. H. Labor Law Service,
Par. 18089 ; Jeffery-DeWitt Insulator Co. v. National Labor Relations Board, 91 F. (2d)
134 (C. C. A. 4), cert. den 302 U. S. 731
84 See National Labor Relations Board v. Remington Rand, Ino., 94 F . ( 2d) 862, 872,
(C. C. A. 2), cert. den. 304 U. S. 576.
1158 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
with the Union. Littman was insistent "that no contract should be
signed or agreed upon until first the status of the plant be brought
back to the day of the strike ." Accordingly , the respondent turned
aside without serious consideration various proposals of the Union
for settling the controversy . We find no warrant in the facts before
us for the respondent thus deferring the performance of its duty to.
bargain. What has been stated above regarding the purposes and
policy of the Act in instances where an industrial dispute has arisen
is equally applicable here. The Union , nevertheless , undertook on
its part to arrange for the return upon the following day of 12
employees, the number which the respondent estimated was needed
to commence production . The meeting then concluded.
On July 14 the 12 employees reported at the plant for duty, but
were refused work by the respondent , for the alleged reason that they
had arrived at 11 instead of 9 o 'clock. At the hearing Harry
Schwartz admitted , and we find, that the actual ground for the re-
fusal was that he had "changed his mind ." He further testified
that the respondent had decided that it "did not want to have any-
thing settled in a half way ." The record shows that during this
period officials and agents of the respondent were urging and coercing
individual employees to return to work, in disregard of the union
leadership . 35 Littman visited a number of the employees at their
homes and told them that if they wanted to return immediately the
respondent would take them. Also, as heretofore mentioned, the
respondent 's vice president on July 21 and • thereabouts went to the
home of Rose Giordano and Margy Barry for the purpose of intimi-
dating them to go back, and about the same time Herman Schwartz
had breakfast with Elsie Hall to persuade her to the same end.
On July 19 the respondent and the Union met again, after two
previously arranged meetings had been postponed upon request of the
respondent . Harry Schwartz , Froise, Barkan, and Kamenow were
present. At the outset , Schwartz objected to the respondent 's engag-
ing in any bargaining because the Union had not organized the em-
ployees of the respondent 's competitors in the industry and had not
sought collective-bargaining agreements with such competitors. It
is too clear for discussion , and we have held, that an employer cannot,
for such reason , avoid the obligation imposed upon him by the Act
to bargain with the representative of his employees.'' A fortiori is
this true where collective bargaining is sought with an employer
pending a strike induced , as herein found, by unfair labor practices.
During the meeting some discussion occurred with respect to the
contract which the Union had submitted to Littman on July 13.
85 See discussion in Section III A.
36 Matter of Harbor Boat Building Company, a, Corporation and Ship Carpenters Local
Union tio. 1335, 1 N L H B 349, 355.
HARRY SCHWARTZ YARN CO., INC. 1159
There is a conflict in the record as to whether Harry Schwartz in
the course of this discussion offered, in behalf of the respondent, to
enter into a contract with the Union similar in terms to an agree-
ment which the Union then had with the Malina 37 Company, one
of the respondent's competitors. At the hearing Schwartz denied
having so offered and testified that he merely had made the state-
ment, "I do not mind seeing it," meaning the Malina contract. Never-
theless, the union representatives understood him to make the offer
and through Froise stated that the Union would agree to enter into
-such a contract. Whereupon Schwartz, who concededly had not seen
the Malina contract, stated that the respondent would not accept it.
While there is some dispute in the evidence about this matter, we are
-satisfied that lie did so refuse.
At the meeting the respondent also raised as objection to its bar-
gaining, want of authority in the Union to act. Schwartz contended
that a certain certificate, which he produced, issued some 3 years pre-
vious apparently by the Textile Labor Relations Board 33 certifying
a labor organization described as Harry Schwartz Employees' Asso-
ciation, as collective bargaining representative for the respondent's
-employees, debarred the Union from representing the employees.
Schwartz further contended that the Union also lacked authority be-
-cause it had not in fact been designated by a majority of the em-
ployees. We do not believe that the respondent actually considered
the certification a bar to recognition of the Union under the Act.
IKamenow, who was present, promptly explained that the certificate
was without force. It had been issued several years before, even
before passage of the Act, under the authority of a law no longer
.effective,39 to an organization which apparently was no longer in
existence. Indeed Schwartz did not argue at length the force of the
,certificate, but turned to his claim that the Union had not been desig-
nated by a majority. Barkan- suggested that this issue be determined
through a consent election conducted among the employees under the
-supervision of the Regional Director. Upon Schwartz indicating
-that the respondent would accede to an election, Kamenow immedi-
ately telephoned the Regional Office of the Board to secure the ap-
proval of the Regional Director and to have a date set for an election.
While conversing with the Regional Office Kamenow asked Schwartz
Referred to in the record in various ways , as "Maligna ," "Marina," "Melmas."
38 Although the record is not entirely clear, it appears that the board in question was
the Textile Labor Relations Board created by Executive order on September 26, 1934,
pursuant to Title I of the National Industrial Recovery Act (U S. C ., title 15, sec 701)
and Public Resolution 44 (Pub. Res . 44, 73d Cong.). This board conducted elections for
employees ' collective bargaining representatives , and certified the results . After the
Schechter decision , 295 U . S 495, it ceased functioning in this field. The board originally
replaced the old Cotton Textile National Industrial Relations Board, which had been set
up in 1933 under the National Industrial Recovery Act.
89 See footnote 38.
1160 BARRY SCHWARTZ YARN CO., INC.
if the election could be held on July 21, whereupon Schwartz stated
that he had changed his mind about having a consent election and
would have to consult with Littman about it. The meeting then
ended.
We are of the opinion that the respondent did not bargain in
good faith with the Union at the July 13 and 19 meetings. It made
no sincere effort to ascertain and explore the proposals of the Union
for settling the strike and establishing satisfactory working con-
ditions. It made no genuine attempt by suggestion or proposal
of its own, and by interchange of ideas, to achieve an understanding
resolving the controversy.40 Throughout, its policy was to obstruct
and delay by raising multiple unjustifiable or pretended objections
to the carrying on of collective bargaining. When the Union sought
to overcome some of these objections, the respondent beat a quick
retreat, with its president "changing his mind." As heretofore set
forth, during the period in which these meetings were held, and
thereafter, the respondent through its officers and agents sought to
induce and coerce individual employees and union leaders to ignore
the Union and return to work. We have had occasion in previous
cases to indicate the import of such conduct by an employer as dem-
onstrating the absence of a real intent to bargain collectively with
the designated representative." We find that the respondent refused
to bargain collectively with the Union on July 13 and 19.
No further meetings of the Union and the respondent occurred
until August 6, 1937, when the parties conferred with the Regional
Director at the Regional Office, relative to the holding of a consent
election. An election was agreed upon. On August 9 the election, here-
tofore referred to, was held wherein a majority of the respondent's
employees designated the Union as their bargaining representative.
In the week following the election several conferences were had
by the Union with the respondent concerning an agreement. Litt-
man, assisted by the respondent's attorney-at-law, acted for the re-
spondent. After considerable discussion the parties on August 19,
reached an understanding upon all terms of a proposed contract
and the respondent's attorney was directed to draft a written con-
40 See Matter of 8 L. Allen d Company, Inc, a Corporation and Federal Labor Union
Local No. 18526. 1 N. L R B. 714, 727, 728, order enforced (C C. A. 5), C C FI Labor
Law Service, Par 18089; Globe Cotton Mills v National Labor Relations Board, 103
F (2d) 91 ((1 C A 5)
41 Matter of Bilcs-Coleman Lumber Company and Puget Round Dist,ict Conne-l of Lumber
and Sawmill Workers, 4 N. L R. B, 679, 700. order enforced, National Labor Relations
Board v. Biles-Coleman Lumber Company, 98 F. (2d) 18 (C. C. A 9) ; Matter of Atlas
Mills, Inc. and Textile Workers of America, 3 N. L. R B. 10, 20, 22: Matter of Elbe File
and Binder Company, Inc. and Bookbinders, Manifold and Pamphlet Division, Local Union
No 119, International Brotherhood of Bookbinders, 2 N L R. B 906, 913; Matter of The
Timken Silent Automatic Company, a corporation and Earl P Ormsby, Chairman, Execu-
tive Board, Oil Burner Mechanics Association, 1 N. L. R. B. 335, 341.
HARRY SCHWARTZ YARN Co., INC. 1161
tract in conformity therewith for execution by the parties the fol-
lowing day. The agreement provided, among other things, for
recognition of the Union as exclusive bargaining agent of the plant
employees, for the return to work of the striking employees and for
otherwise settling the strike, for wages, hours, and working condi-
tions. The parties expressly agreed to exclude from the contract
and reserve for future negotiation within 30 days the matter of
membership in the Union as a condition of employment at the plant.
On August 23 42 the union representatives, accompanied by one
Williams, a conciliator of the Department of Labor, went to the
office of Littman for the purpose of signing the agreement. Littman
refused to sign. He told the union representatives that the respond-
ent would not sign a contract with the Union unless provision was
made for an "open shop." He then added that the respondent would
not enter into any contract. The union representative understood
from this that the respondent proposed to make no agreement with
the Union, and they departed. At the hearing Littman testified that
after the August 19 meeting had concluded he "changed his mind"
about signing the contract, because he "did not want anything left
open." He further testified elsewhere in the record that he did not
know what caused him to state to the union representatives that the
respondent refused to sign "that morning," that "it must have been
something Mr. Froise said to me . . . It must have been some oc-
currence that happened at the mill . . . It may have been something
that happened to make me feel that way . . . It may have been one
of these outbursts of violence." Littman admitted that he had au-
thority to sign.
We entertain no doubt that the respondent's refusal on August
23 to execute the proposed written agreement which its attorney
had prepared, was motivated solely by an unwillingness to enter into
any contract whatsoever with the Union. The union representatives
reasonably so interpreted Littman's refusal. We are convinced that
his statement to them concerning an "open shop" provision, viewed
in the light both of his further statement that the respondent would
not enter into any contract and of the entire course pursued by the
respondent prior to the consent election, was a pretext. While the
demonstration by the Union of its strength at the consent election,
despite the interference therewith by the respondent, brought about
a period when matters were discussed and an understanding reached,
the facts show that the respondent did not completely abandon its
intention to avoid contractual relations with the Union. We find
that the respondent, by refusing to render that understanding
42 The postponement in meeting from August 20 to August 23 evidently was occasioned
by a delay in the respondent's attorney 's preparation of the formal papers.
1162 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
obligatory,43 and refusing to enter into any contractual relationship'44
refused to bargain collectively, within the meaning of the Act.
On August 25, 1937, the complaint issued against the respondent
and hearing was set for September 1. On August 30, at the instance
of the Regional Director, the union representatives met with Litt-
man. The respondent's attorney and a member of the staff of the
Regional Office were present. Littman was asked why the respond-
ent did not execute the proposed contract. He replied that the
respondent would not sign "unless the entire tiling was complete,"
meaning until the parties had reached an agreement upon the matter
of union membership as a condition of employment. Littman further
said that he was not prepared to discuss that matter with the Union,
that he first would have to confer about it with Harry Schwartz,
that the matter was one for Schwartz himself. Littman, however,
assured the union representatives that he had "complete authority
to carry on negotiations and to sign a contract." The member of the
staff of the Regional Office who was present suggested that pending
negotiations on the membership question an interim agreement be
made by the parties looking toward the execution of a final contract
when that question had been determined. Upon the parties'
acquiescing, a so-called memorandum of settlement was drafted. It
43 In Matter of St. Joseph Stock Yards Company and Amalgamated Meat Cutters and
Butcher Workmen of North America, Local Union No. 159, 2 N. L R B. 39, 54, the Board
stated :
In our view of the Act, the minds of the parties having met, it imposed upon the
respondent a definite obligation to embody that understanding in an agreement The
respondent's failure to do so constituted an unfair labor practice, within the meaning
of Section 8, subdivisions (1) and (5).
49 In Matter of Globe Cotton Mills and Textile Workers Organacing Committee, 6 N. L.
It. B. 401, 467, the Board said :
The term collective bargaining denotes in common usage, as well as in legal termin-
ology, negotiations looking toward a collective agreement. If the employer adheres
to a preconceived determination not to enter into any agreement with the representa-
tives of his employees, as we have found here, then his meeting and discussing the
issues with them, however frequently, does not fulfill his obligations under the Act.
In enforcing the affirmative order of the Board in this case, the Court stated, Globe
Cotton Mills v. National Labor Relations Board, 103 F. (2d) 91 (C. C. A 5) :
We believe there is a duty on both sides, though difficult of legal enforcement, to
enter into discussion with an open and fair mind, and a sincere purpose to find a
basis of agreement touching wages and hours and conditions of labor, and if found,
to embody it in a contract as specific as possible which shall stand as a mutual
guaranty of conduct and as a guide for the adjustment of grievances
In Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc., etc, et at. v. National Labor Relations
Board, et at ., 305 U. S. 197, the United States Supreme Court said :
The Act contemplates the making of contracts with labor organizations. That is
a manifest objective in providing for collective baigaining.
In National Labor Relations Board v. The Sands Manufacturing Company, 59 S. Ct. 508,
the Court said :
The legislative history of the Act goes far to indicate that the purpose of the
statute was to compel employers to bargain collectively with their employees to the
end that employment contracts binding on both parties should be made.
HARRY SCHWARTZ YARN CO., INC. 1163
was signed by the union representatives. Littman refused to sign.
He stated as the reason that he did not "want it [the memorandum]
to be construed as anything in the nature of a permanent agree-
ment." The suggestion then was made that in such event the
respondent's attorney sign the memorandum. Littman rejected this
suggestion and cautioned the attorney "Don't you sign it either,
because again it might be construed in that way." The respondent's
attorney, nevertheless, did affix his signature, saying that he was
doing ,so only as a witness. He told Littman, "You need not worry
that it will be considered as my signing on behalf of the company
any contract." After the member of the Regional Office likewise had
stated to Littman that the attorney had signed "purely and solely
as a witness," Littman was reassured. The conference concluded
with an understanding among the parties that within the time pro-
vided in the memorandum Harry Schwartz would meet and negotiate
with the union representatives relative to the membership question.
The memorandum consisted of two parts, the memorandum proper
and an attached, unsigned draft of a formal contract between the
parties containing provisions with respect to wages, hours, and work-
ing conditions essentially the same as those in the draft agreement
which the respondent refused to execute on August 23. The memo-
randum proper provided in substance that the strike would be
"called off" immediately, certain strikebreakers would be dismissed,
and all striking employees reinstated ; that lay-offs at the plant in
the future were to be made on a "union preference" basis; that
the attached draft of contract constituted "evidence of the pro-
visions to which the [respondent and the Union] . . . shall
comply until settlement of the question of membership in the Union,"
and that said "attached contract shall be in existence until settlement
of the membership question;" that this question was "to be decided
by negotiations between [the respondent and the Union] .. .
to commence within ten (10) days;" that in the event such negotia-
tions failed the parties "shall be relegated to such rights as they
may now be entitled to under the law;" that "Upon notice of settle-
ment of the entire matter by the parties hereto, the Board will con-
sider the question of whether or not the entire proceedings [herein]
should then be dismissed." 45
There is no showing that at any time within the 10 days follow-
ing the August 30 meeting, or thereafter, the respondent informed
the Union that Harry Schwartz was prepared to meet with it and
discuss the membership question. One of the union representatives
45 Section 10 (a) of the Act provides that the jurisdiction of the Board in respect to
unfair labor practices , "shall not be affected by any other means of adjustment or pre
vention that has been or may be established by agreement * * •."
1164 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
communicated with the respondent 's attorney and requested him to
arrange a conference with Schwartz , but Schwartz never in fact met
with the Union . At the hearing the respondent 's attorney stated
that he had discussed the matter with Schwartz, that Schwartz had
refused to meet the Union, that he had said , "Mr. Littman is capable
of handling this thing with you ." The record fails to disclose
whether the Union ever was informed of this decision of Schwartz.
On or about September 9 or 10 the union representatives met with
Littman and the respondent's attorney. A member of the Regional
Office staff attended . Harry Schwartz was not present. The re-
spondent had not dismissed all of the strikebreakers , and the union
representatives stated that this evidenced a lack of good faith in the
respondent in its negotiations with the Union. Littman asserted that
there were "just two or three strikebreakers in the plant ." When told
that the number was approximately 16 lie disclaimed knowledge of
the matter. The meeting ended with an understanding that the
respondent would dismiss the remaining strikebreakers by the fol-
lowing Monday morning , September 13.
Thereafter , in the period immediately preceding the hearing, some
discussions were, had between the Union and Littman . The Union
felt convinced , because of the continued failure of the respondent to
dismiss the strikebreakers and the occurrence of the unfair labor
practices , hereinafter set forth , that the respondent was acting in bad
faith in its negotiations . At one of these discussions Littman was
asked whether the respondent would comply with the August 30 set-
tlement. Littman replied that "until the open-shop clause was taken
up, [the respondent] . . . could do as they pleased." Upon
being further asked when Harry Schwartz would be ready to discuss
that question Littman refused to answer.
We find nothing in the events occurring subsequent to August 23,
1937 , which convinces us that the respondent at any time since that
date abandoned the position it then had assumed and began to comply
in good faith with the collective -bargaining requirements imposed
by the Act. Rather , the foregoing facts make manifest the adherence
of the respondent at all times to its decision of avoiding any agree-
ment with the Union relating to wages, hours, and working condi-
tions. Littman 's insistence that the execution of the proposed con-
tract, concerning whose terms an understanding had been reached,
be conditioned upon a resolution of the membership question, can
only be viewed , in the circumstances here presented , as another
dilatory tactic stemming from the respondent 's unalterable decision.
Littman, himself, undertook no negotiation of the question, despite
his asserted authority in the matter. He referred the issue to
Schwartz , a person whom the Union was afforded no opportunity
HARRY SCHWARTZ YARN Co., INC. 1165
to meet. Littman's assurance that Schwartz would discuss the ques-
tion with the union representatives was never fulfilled. We view
the respondent's refusal to sign the memorandum of settlement and
the admonishment of its attorney in that respect as further proof of
the same abiding determination. Littman's explanation that affixing
his or the attorney's signature would render the memorandum subject
to the construction that it constituted a "permanent agreement" is
wholly untenable in the light of the express language of the memo-
randum.
The proposed formal contract was never signed. The respondent's
persistence in not bargaining in good faith, and its retention of the
strikebreakers, resulted in a failure of negotiations for the proposed
formal contract.
We find that the respondent on or about June 22, 1937, July 13 and
19, 1937, and August 23, 1937, and on each of said occasions, and at
all times since August 23, 1937, refused and is refusing to bargain
collectively with the Union, as the representative of the respondent's
employees, in respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment,
and other conditions of employment, and thereby has interfered with,
restrained, and coerced, and is interfering with, restraining, and co-
ercing these employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed by
'Section 7 of the Act.
C. The discriminatory discharges and lay-offs of June 21, and the
commencement of the strike
On the morning of Monday, June 21, 1937, the respondent laid
,off 46 Margy Barry, Dorothy Callo, Rae Callo, Elsie Hall, Leona
Pallughi, Gladys Plohn, Margaret Rist, Ethel Rogazza, and Mar-
garet Vigno; and discharged Salvatore Corsetti, Martin Iannaconne,
.and Nataline Panarenato.4t As heretofore set forth, the preceding
week of June 14 marked, the commencement of union organizational
activities among the plant employees. During that week the respond-
ent, as we have found, through its officials and supervisory force
displayed open hostility toward the Union, engaged in surveillance
4e It is immaterial whether the employees named were laid off or discharged, for a ter-
mination of work or employment , if for anti-union cause , would contravene the Act as a
discrimination in regard to hire and tenure of employment , within the meaning of Section
8 (3) Matter of Precision Castings Company, Inc . and Iron Molders Union of North
America, Local 80, 8 N. L. R. B 879 ; Matter of Servel, Inc. and United Electrical, Radio
and Machine Workers of America, Local No. 1008 , 11 N. L R B 1295.
49 The complaint, as amended , alleged that two other employees , Helen Condor and
Marie Marotta likewise were discharged on June 21 , 1937. As heretofore set forth,
during the hearing, the Trial Examiner dismissed the allegations as to Condor and
Rogazza , for the reason that these persons had not testified during the Board 's case in
chief. Subsequently at the hearing, Rogazza was permitted to testify , and the allegations
as to her were reinstated. The evidence shows that Marotta was not discharged on June
21 but went on strike on that day, and the complaint, as amended, was further amended
at the hearing to allege properly this fact.
1166 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
of and interrogated employees to ascertain the identity of those-
who showed interest in the Union or participated in the organiza-
tional activities, received reports as to employees who had become
union members, arranged with Rose De Fina to assist it in com-
batting the Union, and in other ways interfered with and coerced
its employees in the exercise of their right of self-organization.
Three of the above-named employees, lannaconne, Hall, and Cor-
setti, were the leaders in the organizing campaign. They joined the
Union either on June 14 or 15. Iannaconne assumed charge of the
distribution and collection of union membership cards, Corsetti as-
sisted him, and Hall obtained the signatures of some 25 employees
to the cards. We are satisfied that the union activities of these
persons were well known to the respondent prior to June 21. In
the week of June 14 the foreman, Schecterman, averring that he
wanted to become affiliated with the Union, asked Iannaconne if lie
had joined the Union, and who the employees were that had become
members. During that same period the superintendent, Toulson, in
passing Hall at work, addressed her saying, "How is the C. I. O.
going? How are you getting along?" On June 19 Dave Schwartz,
the vice president, detained Corsetti and had the conversation with
him heretofore mentioned in which Schwartz inquired whether Cor-
setti had joined the Union, warned him not to "bother with them,"
and made various anti-union statements.
The other above-named employees who were laid off or discharged,
except Rogazza, joined the Union on or before June 18, 1937. They
too were active in the Union. We are convinced that the union affili-
ation or activities of a substantial number of these persons were
known to the respondent through one or more of their superiors and
the respondent's officers prior to June 21, 1937. Rae Callo, who
acted as committee shop chairlady for the Union, was told by Littman
on June 19 that he "heard rumors" of her becoming a union mem-
ber. During the week of June 14 Dubin, the general foreman, ob-
served and reacted to Barry's carrying of union membership cards.
In the same week Pallughi was asked by Dubin whether the em-
ployees were joining the Union; and was told by Dave Schwartz
"not to listen" to Barkan, the union organizer, but to listen to "her
boss." At the same time Littman and Dave Schwartz discovered
Gladys Plohn talking with Barkan in Mario's.
The record shows that on the morning of June 21, a few minutes
before the beginning of work, Harry Schwartz, the president, tele-
phoned the North Bergen plant from New York City and had a con-
versation with Dubin, the general foreman. Dubin was in charge of
various departments at the plant including the "twisting" depart-
ment. Schwartz told Dubin that "some of the help" would have to
HARRY SCHWARTZ YARN CO., INC. 1167
be laid off. According to Dubin's testimony, Schwartz also stated
that the lay-off was occasioned by slow business, but did not tell him
which employees or how many of them were to be laid off. Dubin
informed Toulson, who was Dubin's immediate superior, about
Schwartz's call. The evidence shows that Dubin had been in the re-
spondent's employ about 8 years, Toulson some 7 or 8 months. There-
after, Toulson either telephoned Harry Schwartz or received a tele-
phone call from him concerning the dismissal. In this conversation
Schwartz instructed Toulson to lay off "about" 25 of the women
employees at the plant for a period until July 15 and to discharge
all of the men employees.48 Schwartz testified that he told Toulson
that the reason therefor was that "we were going into our season of
slow business, and it would be advisable not to manufacture as heav-
ily." However, Toulson already had sent away what help was not
needed for the, day's work,49 and the. employees on hand all were
working on "order" work, that is, production of yarn needed to fill
orders.50 Toulson expostulated with Schwartz about the dismissal,
pointing out that it would cause a stoppage in this work. Schwartz
replied, "Do not ask any questions; just do as you are told. You
better tell the boys [men employees] to get work elsewhere if they
can, because we will not want them back again." While Schwartz
at the hearing denied that Toulson protested the dismissals, the sur-
rounding circumstances, as well as the facts discussed below, convince
us that Toulson's-testimony of the-protest-is truthful. Usually the
matter of discharging and laying off employees was not of Schwartz's
concern but depended upon the discretion of the foremen and other
supervisors at the plant.
About half an hour later Toulson ordered all of the machines to
be stopped and assembled together some 50 employees, those working
principally in the "twisting" department!" The persons above named
were, included. Toulson informed the employees that Schwartz had
telephoned instructing that only a "skeleton crew" be retained, that
some of the women employees would have to be laid off and all the
'8 The men employees Toulson was instructed to discharge , termed by the witnesses
"boys, " excluded foremen and subforemen , and evidently men working in the dye house
who were not under Toulson's supervision . The men to be discharged were employed
chiefly in the twisting department although they were "scattered around" doing work in
other departments as well.
'B As set forth below, the respondent's business is seasonal in character , the "Fall season"
commencing about the beginning of July
w "Order work " is distinguished from "stock work" which is production in contemplation
of orders
"Those assembled did not include all of the men employees . Theie were others at
work , for example , in the stockroom , the shipping department , and the dye house; also
men engaged in carpentry work, maintenance , and truck driving. Toulson testified that
"twisting" was the first basic operation in the manufacturing process and that men
employees engaged in subsequent operations who were to be discharged would be dismissed
later. The employees in the (lye house were not under his supervision.
1168 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
men employees were to be discharged. Toulson indicated that the
lay-off of the women would be for several weeks, and emphasized
that the men employees, "especially," seek employment elsewhere.
Corsetti, Iannaconne, and Panarenato were thus discharged. Toulson
then told the women employees to return to their machines where
those to be laid off would so be informed.
Thereafter, Toulson and Dubin walked among the women em-
ployees and Dubin, not Toulson, designated those to be laid off.
Barry, Dorothy and Rae Callo, Hall, Pallughi, Plohn, Rist, Rogazza,
and Vigno were selected.'' Some of these employees protested.
Plohn asked why she was laid off when newer employees who cus-
tomarily were laid off first were being retained. Dubin replied that
he "wanted to give some of the new girls a break." Dorothy Callo,
who had been employed by the respondent for 3 years, asked Dubin it
similar question. His reply was, "Well, I am sorry. I am not laying
off the girls. I am laying off the ones I have been told to lay off.
I am not laying off the ones I would like to lay off." Margy Barry,
who had been in the respondent's employ 5 years, told Dubin, "I need
my job. There is a girl, Julia, working here a year, and she has a
husband here. I want to know why I am being laid off." Dubin
stated, "I am sorry. I did not pick out the girls. Those are my
orders."
The respondent contends that the lay-offs and discharges of June
21 were occasioned by slowness in its business and by business con-
ditions; 63 further, that Dubin in selecting the above-named women
employees to be dismissed chose them on an efficiency basis. We are
not satisfied that the condition of the respondent's business, and of
business generally, on June 21, 1937, were such as to explain the
proposed lay-offs and discharges, or those actually made. The re-
spondent's contention in this regard rests upon testimony lacking
specificity in important particulars.- While there is some general
testimony introduced by it to the effect that at some unspecified
times in the past the respondent laid off on a single occasion 25 or
52 Toulson testified that at that time there was yarn already in the machines required
for orders, and that because of that 25 women employees were not at that time laid off.
59 See footnote 54.
54 Some of this testimony indicates a confusion between conditions of the respondent's
business on June 21 , and conditions existent some months later. This difference was
brought out in the examination of Toulson at the hearing :
Q. At that time, June 21, you did not know that this would be a bad season , did you?
You know it now. Did you know it at that time?
A. [Toulson] No.
Q So, far as you were concerned , it might have been a very good season at that time?
A. [Toulson] Well, we could not tell , of course.
Q You could not tell at that time how the season would turn out?
A. [Toulson] No.
HARRY SCHWARTZ YARN CO., INC. 1169
more persons from among an unspecified total number of employees,
this evidence falls far short of proving that the discharges or lay-
offs of June 21 were an ordinary occurrence. On the other hand, the
record shows that toward the beginning of July of each year the
respondent regularly commences its so-called "Fall season" of manu-
facture necessitating at that time and thereafter an augmentation in
the number of employees, and of workdays per employee, rather
than a dismissal of employees. In May 1937 the respondent increased
generally the wages of plant employees, and in June initiated a
practice of allowing vacations with pay to all employees on its pay
roll for more than 1 year. Moreover, as stated above, on June 21
all of the employees at work on the machines were engaged at order
work.
Nor does the evidence establish that Dubin's choice of the women
employees to be laid off was based upon efficiency or other work
standard. Dubin's testimony with respect to his applying such
criterion is unpersuasive. It contains contradictions, is evasive, and
discloses lack of knowledge on relevant matters. We are convinced
that all of the above-named employees laid off on June 21 were satis-
factory in their work, and that at least some of them were very
efficient workers. Six had been in the respondent's employ 2 years
or more; all had won the praise of their superiors. Margy Barry,
the employee who had been observed by Dubin in the week of June
14 carrying union membership cards, worked for the respondent 5
years and was described by Toulson at the hearing as being a "very
good and efficient worker." Rae Callo, the committee shop chairlady
whom Littman spoke to on June 19, as above stated, also worked 5
years for the respondent and similarly was described by Toulson as
an efficient worker.
We are satisfied from what has been set forth above, in the light
of the entire record, that the respondent laid off Margy Barry,
Dorothy Callo, Rae Callo, Elsie Hall, Leona Pallughi, Gladys Plohn,
Margaret Rist; Ethel Rogazza, and Margaret Vigno, and discharged
Salvatore Corsetti, Martin Iannaconne, and Nataline Panarenato,
on June 21, 1937, for the purpose of intimidating, coercing, and re-
straining the respondent's employees in the exercise of their right to
join and assist the Union, and to discourage membership in the Union.
It is manifest that the respondent's president, Harry Schwartz, pro-
posed on June 21 that there be discharged and laid off a substantial
number of the plant working force, including what employees were
then known to the respondent to be active in or members of the
Union, as a means of combatting the organizational activities begun
the week before. The measure which he adopted was a form of lock-
1170 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
out and a dismissal of known union sympathizers. -15 We entertain
no doubt that Schwartz well knew prior to June 21 of the campaign
being conducted by the Union to enroll the employees as members.
Toulson, the respondent' s plant superintendent , testified that in the
week preceding June 21 he was instructed by Harry Schwartz "to
keep my eyes open and see if there was anybody suggesting or,talk-
ing . . . about the union ; also when I went to lunch I was instructed,
along with the others [the respondent' s officers and supervisory em-
ployees] to see if any . . . [union organizers ] were giving cards, and
if any employees were accepting cards . . . and I and the others were
told to stand nearby so we could hear what they [the employees
and organizers] were saying." Toulson further testified that he,
the "three Schwartz brothers" and Littman held conversations at that
time in which they discussed the possibility of a union strike.
Harry Schwartz's telephone call to Dubin on June 21 and his later
telephone conversation with Toulson; the discharges of Iannaconne,
Corsetti, and Panarenato as part of the general discharge of all men
employees ordered to be carried out; the selection by Dubin of Barry,
Dorothy and Rae Callo, Hall, Pallughi, Plohn, Rist, Rogazza, and
Vigno for laying off and their being laid off, constituted successive
steps in effectuating Schwartz's, and, accordingly the respondent's,
illegal proposal. It evidently was immaterial to the respondent that
a lay-off of the kind ordered among the women employees would
result in a stoppage of necessary work, or that the discharges of
Iannaconne, Corsetti, and Panarenato, the three men employees, would
occasion a loss of competent workmen.56 Toulson testified that
Iannaconne was a "very good worker," Corsetti "a very good and a
very hard worker," and that Panarenato worked "very well indeed."
It is difficult to understand why these men should have been dis-
charged, not merely laid off, or, for that matter, why a discharge of
all men employees should have been directed, if the motivation was
solely current business conditions." The knowledge which the re-
spondent had of lannaconne and Corsetti's union membership' leads
us to conclude that Schwartz's order to discharge all men employees
15 As to the use of the lock -out technique to destroy unionization , see Matter of Santa
Crux Packing Company, a corporation and Weighers and Cereal Workers, Local 38-4),
International Longshoremen 's Association . 1 N L R B 454, 458 , order entotced to Santa
Crui Fruit Packing Company v. National Labor Relations Board, 303 U. S 453; Matter
of Hopwood Retinninq Company , Inc and Monarch Retinninq Company , Inc and Metal
Polishers, Buffers, Platers , and Helpers International Union Local No. 8, and Teamsters
Union, Local No. 584, 4 N. L R. B 922, 929, order modified and, as modified , enforced in
National Labor Relations Board v. Hopwood Retinniug Company, Inc, and Monarch Retin-
ring Company, Inc., 98 F (2d) 97 (C. C A. 2).
5" Toulson testified of a "general all around man" subsequently employed to perform in
part I'anarenato's work, who was a "much more expensive man . . . and he did not do
it half as well."
"TCf Matter of Servel , Inc. and United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of
America, Local No. 1002, 11 N. L. R B 1295
HARRY SCHWARTZ YARN Co., INC. 1171
was intended in part to make certain that the respondent would rid
itself of all union adherents among these employees.58
The telephone call of June 21 from Schwartz to Dubin was for
the purpose, we are convinced, of taking Dubin into Schwartz's con-
fidence concerning Schwartz's decision to terminate, for anti-union rea-
sons, the employment and work of a substantial group of the plant
employees. We find that Schwartz communicated to Dubin his pro-
posal in that regard, and, likewise, instructed Dubin to lay off among
the women employees to be dismissed, those whom the respondent's
management already was informed were members of or active in the
union. Whether or not Schwartz told Dubin who these women
employees were, we are satisfied, and find, that Dubin in making the
selection knew their identity, that he designated at least Barry, Rae
Callo, Dorothy Callo, Hall, Pallughi, and Plohn, because of their
union affiliation or activities.58 The afore-mentioned facts show that
the union membership or activities of these employees, at least, be-
came disclosed to the respondent's management prior to the lay-off.
The other three women employees, Rist, Rogazza, and Vigno, were
laid off along with those whose union sympathy was known. As
stated above, all of the women employees who were laid off, as well
4is the men employees who were discharged, had their work or em-
ployment terminated as part of the respondent's plan to intimidate
a.nd coerce the employees in their organizational activities in the
exercise of the right of self-organization and to discourage union
membership. From this viewpoint it is unnecessary to consider
whether Rist and Vigno's union affiliation or activities were known
to the respondent before June 21. It equally is immaterial that
Rogazza first joined the Union and became active in its affairs sub-
sequent to her lay-off.
We find that the respondent on June 21, 1937, discharged or laid
off Margy Barry, Dorothy Callo, Rae Callo, Salvatore Corsetti, Elsie
Hall, Martin Iannaconne, Leona Pallughi, and Gladys Plohn, and
each of them, because of their membership and activities in the Union,
and discharged or laid off said employees and Nataline Panarenato,
Margaret Rist, Ethel Rogazza, and Margaret Vigno, and each of
them, because of the activities of the Union, thereby discriminating
° The plant employees were predominantly women Cf. Matter of Cherry Cotton Mills
and Local No 1824, United Text,te Workers of America, 11 N L. R B. 478, where the Board
stated of a shut-down that it "was to a large extent based upon a policy of driving out of
the mill the active members of the Union and replacing them with new employees "
rI The respondent in its brief stresses the testimony of Toulson, a Board's witness, that
Toulson engaged in no anti-union discrimination in connection with the lay- offs of the
Ni omen, that "it was a question of duty that I had to lay this number off" We find
nothing in this testimony establishing that Harry Schwartz did not initiate the lay-offs
and discharges for anti-union purposes or that Dubin did not execute Schwartz's Instruc-
tions in that regard. As stated above, Dubin, not Toulson, designated those to be laid off.
169134-39-vol 12-75
1172 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
in regard to the hire and tenure of all said named employees, and each
of them, and discouraging membership in a labor organization and
interfering with, coercing, and restraining them in the exercise of
their right to join and assist the Union.
At the time of their respective lay-offs and discharges, Rogazza
was earning $12.50 a week; Hall, Dorothy Callo, Rae Callo, Pallughi,
and Rist each was earning $14 a week; Plohn and Vigno each was
earning $13.65 a week; Iannaconne and Barry each was earning $15
a week; Corsetti was earning $15.60 a week, and Panarenato was
earning $12 a week. After their respective lay-offs and prior to their
reinstatement Dorothy Callo earned $22, and Plohn earned $20.
None of the other employees laid off or discharged on June 21 earned
any money apart from earnings received from the respondent.
Corsetti, Iannaconne, Panarenato, and Rist, who have not been rein-
stated to regular and continuous employment, desire full reinstatement.
Following the discharges and lay-offs, the employees affected
thereby left the plant and immediately determined to call a strike of
all employees. They then returned to the plant and requested those
at work to go on strike. Within a period of 5 to 10 minutes all of
the employees were out. We find that the effective and proximate
cause of the strike was the respondent's unfair labor practices in
discharging and laying off the above-named employees on June 21,
1937. We further find that the refusal of the respondent to bargain
collectively with the Union on or about June 22, 1937, and thereafter,
and the other unfair labor practices in which we heretofore have
found the respondent to have engaged during the strike, constituted
an operative cause for the prolongation of the strike.80 There is
neither showing nor convincing ground for belief that had the
respondent discharged its duty under the Act by negotiating in good
faith with the Union and refraining from committing its other unfair
labor practices, the strike would not have terminated sooner than
August 30, 1937.81
The respondent sought to establish that when the strike was called
at the plant, some of the discharged or laid-off employees led working
employees out of the plant; that Rae Callo, Barry, Tannaconne, and
Corsetti "pulled switches," that is, turned off the electric power
which operated some of the machines. The record plainly shows
that the employees who went on strike did so voluntarily. What
confusion occurred in connection with the calling of the strike does
MBlack Diamond 8 S. Corporation v. National Labor Relations Board, 94 F. (2d) 875
(C. C. A. 2), cert. den 304 U. S. 579.
1 National Labor Relation8 Board v. Remington Rand, Inc., 94 F. (2d) 862, 872,
(C. C. A. 2), cert. den. 304 U. S. 576, 585.
HARRY SCHWARTZ YARN CO., INC. 1173
not show coercion. Nor are we convinced, apart from the irrelevancy
of the matter, that the four named employees, or any of them, in
fact stopped the machines. A number of the machines were
left running after the employees went on strike; others were turned
off in the customary fashion by the operators before going on strike.
Some testimony was introduced by the respondent to the effect that
lannaconne not only shut off the power, but on the evening of June
21 admitted having done so to Harry Schwartz in the presence of a
police officer. The officer did not testify, and Iannaconne emphat-
ically denied at the hearing having done so. HaTy Schwartz, him-
self, stated in his testimony that a few moments after lannaconne's
alleged making of the admission, Iannaconne denied shutting off the
power to several other persons; and Toulson, the plant superintend-
ent, testified not only that he had not witnessed any of the alleged
pulling of switches at the time of the strike but that Harry Schwartz
on several occasions had asked him to swear that Iannaconne had
done so, despite Toulson's refusal so to testify.
2. Alleged discriminatory refusals to reinstate striking employees
after the settlement of the strike on August 30, 1937
As stated above,e2 on August 30, 1937, the respondent and the
Union signed as "witnesses" the memorandum of settlement which
provided among other things that the Union was to terminate its
strike and the respondent was to dismiss immediately all strikebreak-
ers and reinstate all strikers.88 On August 31 the Union called off
the strike, and Barkan, the union organizer, presented the respond-
ent with a list of the strikers thus to be reinstated .64 Thereafter, the
respondent dismissed certain strikebreakers 85 and reinstated certain
ez See Section III B 3.
ft The settlement agreement stated, "Persons now employed by the company who did
not participate in the election vote of August 9, 1937 , shall be dismissed Immediately"
Those entitled to vote at said election were "all employees on payroll ending in week of
June 19 , 1937." See Board Exhibit No. 7.
84 Board Exhibit No. 19.
85 The extent of the respondent 's action in dismissing strikebreakers is ind sated by the
following table computed from Board Exhibit No. 15A and 15B.
Week ending-
Sept. 4 Sept. 11 Sept. 18 Sept. 25 Oct 2 Oct. 9 Oct 16
Strikebreakers employed----- 33 19 9 7 10 12 6
Strikebreakers not employed
whoworkedonAug 30,1937'_ 0 14 25 27 24 22 24
One strikebreaker, John Misorek , was not employed on August 30, 1937, but started to^ work
for the respondent during the week ending September 18, 1937.
1174 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
of the strikers.86 However, some of the strikers in behalf of whom
reinstatement had been requested, were never reinstated after August
30 by the respondent during the period under review .67
The complaint, as amended, alleged that the respondent refused to
reinstate 24 striking employees because of their membership in and ac-
tivity on behalf of the Union sg The names of these individuals are
Harold Beilan, Angela Borealine, May Campbell, Carmen Carbello,
Catherine Casserly, May Castor, Joseph DePerna, Hilda Frasca, Irene
Garton, Catherine Hanson, John Karkowski, Irving Keith, May Ker-
rigan, Juliette Kilian, Lena Livesy, Marie Marotta, Alexandra Mon-
soiq, George Perrenod, Eleanor Peters, Vincent Rivelli, Ethel Rogazza,
Gertrude Strubel, Marie Testa and Mary Tilki.8e The respondent ad-
vanced at the hearing various reasons for refusing to reinstate the
above-named strikers, the principal one being that there was no work
for them to do either because their jobs had been eliminated or because
work was slack, and contended that under the settlement, as evidenced
by the memorandum of settlement, it was not required to reinstate the
sstrikers under such circumstances.
The settlement, which the memorandum of settlement of August
30 evidences, must be deemed to have been terminated, for all purposes,
with the commencement of the hearing herein on October 7. As
heretofore found, negotiations for the execution of the proposed
formal contract failed prior to the hearing. We agree with the re-
spondent that with the final failure of negotiations and with the com-
mencement of the hearing, the memorandum of settlement, in its
entirety, including that provision of the memorandum proper which
provided for a continuance of the terms evidenced by the unsigned
proposed formal contract until the membership question was resolved,
"a Prior to October 16, 1937, of the 69 strikers eligible for reinstatement on August 30,
1937, 45 were reinstated for some period of time The number of reinstated strikers
working each week from August 30 to October 16, 1937, is indicated by the following table
computed from Board Exhibit No. 15C, 15D , and 15E.
Week ending-
Sept 4
Reinstated strikers employed-
Sept 11
4034
Sept 18
33
Sept 25
29
Oct. 2
32
Oct 9
34
Oct. 16
30
m The names of these persons are Harold Beilan , Angela Borealine , May Campbell,
Carmen Carbello, Catherine Casserly, May Castor, Joseph Del'erna, Bertha Downey, Hilda
Frasca, Catherine Hanson, John Karkowski , Irving Keith , May Kerrigan , Juliette Kilian,
Lena Livesy, Anna Maine, Alexandra Monsoig, George Perrenod, Eleanor Peters, Vincent
Rivelli , Ethel Rogazza, Gertrude Strubel, Marie Testa, and Mary Tilki
68 During the hearing the name of Marie Marotta was added to the complaint by amend-
ment, and the name of Paul Krueger was dismissed from the complaint , as amended.
"" Bertha Downey and Anna Maine were not named in the complaint , as amended,
although they were not reinstated . See footnote 67, supra . Marie Marotta was named
in the complaint , as amended , although she was reinstated during the week ending Sep-
tember 4, 1937. Irene Garton, named in the complaint, as amended, was reinstated during
the week ending October 9, 1937.
HARRY SCHWARTZ YARN CO., INC. 1175
fell and was terminated, and that the parties thereto were thereafter
relegated to such rights as they were entitled to, under the law, prior
to the making of the settlement evidenced by the memorandum of
settlement. Further, under the circumstances of the case, it will not
effectuate the purposes and policies of the Act to accord the memo-
randum of settlement any force.7° However, the fact that the re-
spondent in refusing to reinstate certain strikers after August 30 was
acting, to the extent that it did, in reliance on said settlement, shall
be considered a circumstance in determining whether its refusals to
reinstate were discriminatory.
All of the above-named 24 persons, who were allegedly refused
reinstatement after August 30, 1937, because of their membership in
and activity on behalf of the Union, applied for reinstatement through
the Union on August 30.71
Hilda Frasca, Ethel Rogazza, and Mary Tilki, the record shows,
were offered reinstatement by the respondent after the strike settle-
ment but were unavailable at the time. We find that Hilda Frasca,
Ethel Rogazza, and Mary Tilki were not refused reinstatement because
of their union membership and activity.
Catherine Casserly and Vincent Rivelli were employed by the re-
spondent at the time of the strike, Casserly in the winding department,
and Rivelli in the reeling department. Both employees went on strike
on June 21, 1937, have not worked for the respondent since August
30, 1937, and desire reinstatement.
The respondent admits that Casserly and Rivelli were not reinstated,
but denies that its failure to reinstate them was based on their union
membership and activity. No one has replaced either employee.
Dubin, the general foreman, does their work. The respondent asserts
that it did not reinstate Casserly and Rivelli because their reinstate-
ment would require the displacement of other production workers,
which it was not required to do under the settlement of August 30;
further, that Casserly and Rivelli had no actual production experience
for several months prior to the strike. While the relevance of these
employees' production experience is not readily apparent, we are
satisfied that both Casserly and Rivelli were and are efficient produc-
tion workers. It nevertheless is true that their reinstatement would
have caused the displacement of other workers, not strikebreakers, and
the memorandum proper of August 30, was interpreted by the re-
spondent and by the Union to render unnecessary the reinstatement
of strikers if no jobs were available after strikebreakers were dis-
missed. According to the memorandum, therefore, the respondent
properly could have refused the request made in behalf of Casserly
and Rivelli on August 30 to be reinstated.
70 As to the power of the Board, see Section 10 ( a) of the Act.
71 The precise list of names was tendered the respondent , as stated above, on August 31.
1176 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
We find that the respondent did not refuse to reinstate Catherine
Casserly and Vincent Rivelli because of their union membership and
activity.
Irene Garton was offered reinstatement by the respondent after the
strike settlement but was unavailable at the time because of illness.
When she recovered she reported back to work and was reinstated
on October 7, 1937. We find that the respondent did not refuse to
reinstate Irene Garton because of her union membership and activity.
Marie Marotta was reinstated by the respondent on September 1,
1937, 2 days after the strike settlement. We find that the respondent
did not refuse to reinstate Marie Marotta because of her union mem-
bership and activity.
May Campbell, Carmen Carbello, Juliette Kilian, Eleanor Peters,
and Gertrude Strubel42 were all employed by the respondent as ex-
aminers prior to the strike on June 21. They were all members of
the Union and all went on strike. None of them was reinstated after
the strike settlement. All of them desire to be reinstated.
The examining department where these employees worked was
eliminated after the strike. No one has replaced Campbell, Carbello,
Kilian, Peters, or Strubel. The small amount of examining work now
done by the respondent is performed by Julius Earhardt, who was
subforeman of the examining department prior to the strike, and by
Grace Valenti and Bertha Landrock, two employees who served as
examiners prior to the strike and returned to work before the strike
settlement in other capacities. As in the cases of Casserly and Rivelli,
the respondent properly could have refused the request made in be-
half of Campbell, Carbello, Kilian, Peters, and Strubel on August 30
to be reinstated.
We find that the respondent did not refuse to reinstate May Camp-
bell, Carmen Carbello, Juliette Kilian, Eleanor Peters, and Gertrude
Strubel because of their union membership and activity.
Harold Beilan 73 and George Perrenod 74 were employed by the
respondent in the stock department prior to June 21. Both belonged
to the Union and went on strike on June 21. Neither was reinstated
by the respondent after August 30 because of the unavailability of
work. Neither was replaced. Under the strike settlement the re-
spondent properly could have refused the request made in their behalf
on August 30 to be reinstated. We find that the respondent did not
refuse to reinstate Harold Beilan or George Perrenod because of their
union membership or activity.
Joseph DePerna and Irving Keith were employed by the respond-
ent as shipping clerks prior to June 21.75 Both men belonged to the
72 Also referred to as Grace Strubel.
78 His name also appears as Beilin.
74 His name also appears as Perranot.
75 While Keith worked as a chauffeur on occasions his position is that of a shipping clerk.
HARRY SCHWARTZ YARN CO., INC. 1177
Union and went on strike. Neither was reinstated after August 30,
1937. There is no work available for either DePerna or Keith as
shipping clerks, and neither has been replaced. In view of the strike
settlement the respondent properly could have refused the request
for reinstatement made in their behalf on August 30. We find that
the respondent did not refuse to reinstate Joseph DePerna or Irving
Keith because of their union membership or activity.
Alexandra Monsoig 78 was employed by the respondent as a sample
maker and in the hand-knitting department prior to June 21, when
she went on strike. She was not reinstated after the strike settlement,
because the respondent then made no samples and the hand-knitting
department had been discontinued. Under the settlement the re-
spondent properly could have refused the request for reinstatement
made in her behalf on August 30. We find that the respondent did
not refuse to reinstate Alexandra Monsoig because of her union mem-
bership and activity.
May Castor, Catherine Hanson, and Lena Livesey were employed
be the respondent as winders prior to the strike on June 21. Hanson
went on strike on June 21, and Livesey and Castor joined the strike
,on June 22. After the settlement the respondent reinstated all of the
striking winders with the exception of Castor, Hanson, and Livesey.77
There was no work then available for them. The respondent properly
'could have refused their requests for reinstatement of August 30.
We find that the respondent did not refuse to reinstate Catherine
Hanson , Lena Livesey, and May Castor because of their union mem-
bership and activity.
Angela Borealine 78 and Marie Testa were employed by the
respondent as reelers prior to June 21, 1937, when they, as mem-
bers of the Union, went on strike. Neither has been reinstated since
August 30, 1937, and both desire reinstatement. Three days after
the strike settlement the respondent reinstated 9 of the 13 striking
reelers.79 Borealine and Testa were not reinstated because there
was no work for them. The respondent properly could have refused
their requests for reinstatement of August 30. We find that the
respondent did not refuse to reinstate Angela Borealine and Marie
Testa because of their union membership and activity.
May Kerrigan was employed by the respondent as a packer prior
to June 21, 1937. She went on strike, and was not reinstated after
7e Also referred to as Monroy.
77 Anna Maine and Bertha Downey, two other winders not named in the complaint,
as amended , were not reinstated after the settlement . The respondent requested their
return but they had obtained jobs elsewhere. Catherine Casserly was the subforeman in
the winding department.
78 Also referred to as Borealina.
7e A tenth reeler, Edna Testa, was reinstated the following week. Vincent Rivelli
was a subforeman in the reeling department . Borealine and Marie Testa were the other
two reelers not reinstated . See Board Exhibit No. 15-D.
1178 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
August 30 because there was no work for her to perform. The
respondent properly could have refused her request for reinstatement
of August 30. We find that the respondent did not refuse to rein-
state May Kerrigan because of her union membership and activity.
Johan Karkowski 80 was employed by the respondent as a dyer prior
to June 21, 1937, when he went on strike. He was not reinstated
after August 30. Shortly after the strike settlement the respondent
dismissed one Frank, a strikebreaker who was working as a dyer."'
and offered the vacated position, through the Union, to Karkowski.
At that time Karkowski was in Pittsburgh. However, Barkan
assured Littman that Karkowski desired that position and that
he, Barkan, would communicate by telegram with Karkowski, inform-
ing him of the available position. On September 8, 1937, Kar-
kowski, having returned from Pittsburgh, went to the respondent's
plant seeking employment. The plant was closed, however, for the
day, and Karkowski was unable to speak with any of the respond-
ent's officials. He never again approached the respondent to secure
reinstatement, but maintained relations with the Union for that
purpose.
On September 29, 1937, the respondent rehired Frank, who was
employed from that time until October 18, 1937, when he was laid
off because of a slack in work. Littman testified that he would have
reinstated Karkowski and would not have reemployed Frank had
he known that Karkowski was available'82 that he had been told by
Barkan that when Karkowski returned from Pittsburgh the respond-
ent would be notified, that no such notification had been received.
On the other hand, Barkan testified that when Littman first offered
to employ Karkowski he told Littman that Karkowski was in Pitts-
burgh and would be available, that he, Barkan, expected Littman
would communicate with him further about Karkowski, and that
no such communication had been received.
It is clear that under the strike settlement the respondent was
required to dismiss Frank and make his position available to Kar-
kowski. The respondent's failure to do so, if through its own fault,
might have constituted a discrimination with respect to the employ-
ment of Karkowski as well as a violation of the settlement. How-
ever, from what has been set forth above, and from the entire rec-
ord, we find that the failure to reinstate Karkowski was due to a
reasonable misunderstanding by the respondent and the Union as to
whether the Union was to inform the respondent that Karkowski
10 Also referred to as Krkowski and Jankowski.
"See Board Exhibit No. 15-D. During the week ending September 4, 1937, Julius
Frank worked 181/2 hours during 2 days. See Board Exhibit No. 12.
s'" Littman testified that Karkowski was as good a worker as Frank, and the respondent
points out in its exceptions to the Intermediate Report that it would have saved $8 a
week by employing Karkowski instead of Frank.
HARRY SCHWARTZ YARN CO., INC. 1179
had returned from Pittsburgh or the respondent was to communicate
further with the Union about Karkowski's position.
We find that the respondent has not refused to reinstate John
Karkowski because of his union membership and activity.
Upon the foregoing facts we will dismiss the complaint, as
amended, in so far as it alleges that the respondent refused to rein-
state the above-named 24 striking employees, because of their mem-
bership in and activity in behalf of the Union. However, since the
strike in which they engaged was caused and prolonged by the unfair
labor practices of the respondent, our order will make provision for
the reinstatement of these employees.83
3. Discriminatory and allegedly discriminatory refusals to give
reinstated employees regular and continuous employment
The complaint, as amended , further alleged that although the
respondent reinstated Margy Barry, Dorothy Callo, Rae Callo,
Salvatore Corsetti, Elsie Hall, Martin lannaconne , Marie Marotta,
Leona Pallughi, Nataline Panarenato , Gladys Plohn, Margaret Rist,
and Margaret Vigno'84 it has so reinstated them and each of them
for only short periods of time and for part-time work and has re-
fused to give them regular and continuous employment because of
their union membership and activity'85 thereby discriminating in
regard to the hire and tenure of employment, and terms and con-
ditions of employment, of said employees, within the meaning of
Section 8 (3) of the Act.
We are satisfied from the entire record that Margy Barry, Dorothy
Callo, Rae Callo, Elsie Hall, Marie Marotta,88 Leona Pallughi,
Gladys Plohn, and Margaret Vigno received regular and continuous
employment.87 Whether there was any discrimination as to the
amount or kind of work these employees received after their rein-
statement, apart from the regularity and continuity thereof, as com-
pared with the work of non-union workers, will be dealt with here-
inafter.
88 National Labor Relations Board V. Remington Rand, Inc., 94 F. (2d) 862 (C. C. A. 2),
cert. den . 304 U . S 576 ; Black Diamond Steamship Corp. v. National Labo7+ Relations
Board, 94 F ( 2d) 875 ( C. C. A. 2), cert. den . 304 U. S. 579.
84 These employees were reinstated as follows : Barry , Dorothy Callo, Hall , and Marotta
on September 1 ; Plohn and Vigno on September 2; Rae Callo , Corsetti, Pallughi, and
Rist on September 3; Panarenato on September 9; and Iannaconne on September 11, 1937.
85 The amendment to the complaint also alleged that the respondent refused to reinstate
Ethel Rogazza and Helen Condor for the same reasons The refusal to reinstate Rogazzq;
has been discussed above, see Section III C 2. Helen Condor 's name was dismissed from
the complaint , as amended , during the hearing. See footnote 7.
se Marotta 's reinstatement is dealt with in Section III C 2.
87 The salient facts concerning the employment of these individuals after their rein-
statement appear in the following table. We find that the individuals listed in said table
were given work and received earnings as set forth in the respective columns opposite
their names , in the periods indicated . ( Following page for table.)
1180 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
m
O
G
O
m
rw^ri iti inw sac .a
m
N
C- C C O O
Cl
O O
^m ;;V
N M CO O
M O 0
N
W
00
N N
O
O
_ M M
C
'
N m M N" H
Ga m ti N l`
00 W
00000
m
i N N .i N
O n O
^^^ M ^ M
n to CD N CD
ti m 00000
CO
uo O O O O V^ W Cl O Cl CA
C)
rl H .-I .4 .4
M N N N N ^' M N CO N 0O N
CC
0
rn
0) M 00 M CO - - CO H M H M
Ca
COD li m b «) m .^^ M M
O ^Ci O ^ O O Ki tq C7 GO
m
A-1ZA 1$2 :500EI
CO N CO N CO M N M- M
HARRY SCHWARTZ YARN CO., INC. 1181
We find, however, that Salvatore Corsetti, Martin Iannaconne, Mar-
garet Rist, Nataline Panarenato have not been reinstated to regular
and continuous employment."" The question, accordingly, as regards
each of these employees is whether such failure to reinstate is at-
tributable to discriminatory action of the respondent in contraven-
tion of the Act.
Salvatore Corsetti, prior to his discharge on June 21, 1937, was em-
ployed as a "utility man," engaged generally in receiving and storing
stock, moving machines, distributing stock, and placing and removing
pipes.
The record shows that from August 30 until October 16, 1937, the
period with respect to which evidence was introduced, Corsetti was
employed as a utility man by the respondent for a total of 40 hours at
a wage rate of 421/2 cents an hour. The respondent maintains that
Corsetti was given no other work during this period because none was
available. However, it employed one Karp 89 in this same period for a
total of 2681/2 hours, at least 90 per cent of which time was spent in
removing and placing pipes. Karp was one of the strikebreakers, who
under the terms of the August 30 settlement the respondent had agreed
to dismiss immediately. Littman testified that he did not discharge
Karp because there was no striker who satisfactorily could replace
Karp at the work he was performing. However, Corsetti was fully
qualified to perform the work done by Karp after August 30. Corsetti
had performed such work for the respondent before his discharge.
We heretofore have found that the respondent discharged Corsetti
on June 21 because of his union membership and activities. Corsetti
was one of the leaders in the organizing campaign which preceded his
discharge, and assumed a prominent part in the activities of the Union
throughout.the strike. We are convinced that the respondent did not
dismiss Karp, as it had agreed, and make the work he was performing
available to Corsetti, for the same reason that it had originally dis-
charged Corsetti, namely, his union membership and activities.
We find that while the respondent reinstated Corsetti after August
30, it refused, because of his union membership and activities, to pro-
vide him with regular and continuous employment substantially
equivalent to that which he had enjoyed before his discharge. By such
refusal the respondent discriminated against Corsetti in regard to
hire and tenure of employment ; thereby discouraging membership in
the Union. To the, extent that the respondent's - refusal to afford
Corsetti work was attributable to its unwillingness to displace Karp,
BoSee footnote 87.
p Also referred to as Korp.
1182 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
a strikebreaker, that, too, was a discrimination, within the meaning
of the Act.90 By its discrimination against Corsetti after his rein-
statement the respondent has interfered with, restrained, and coerced
its employees and is interfering with, restraining, and coercing them
in the exercise of the right guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act.
Martin Iannaconne had been employed previous to June 21, 1937, in
various occupations at the plant, including binding, twisting, examin-
ing, and floor work. At the time of his discharge on June 21, he was
engaged in floor work, that is, distributing work among other em-
ployees, repairing machines, and giving general assistance.
On or about September 11; 1937, Littman offered to reinstate Ianna-
conne, apparently at twisting. The strike settlement provided that
Iannaconne was to be reinstated at such work. Iannaconne thereupon
proceeded to the plant to perform this operation. About an hour after
his arrival Harry Schwartz observed lannaconne's presence and in-
structed Toulson to "let him [Iannaconne] go out and put him on
nights." Iannaconne was then dismissed. Thereafter, Iannaconne, on
at least six occasions asked the respondent for work, but was never
successful in obtaining it. On one occasion his foreman told him
"that he could not put me to work until he was given orders by Mr.
Littman." When Iannaconne then telephoned Littman, he was told
that Littman would instruct the foreman to give him work. However,
a subsequent inquiry of the foreman elicited the response that "there
was nothing doing, but to call up the following day." Repeated calls
by lannaconne brought no further results. Finally on October 18,
while the hearing herein was being held, Littman told Iannaconne that
"if he stayed home and slept the next day and called the foreman at
4 o'clock p. m." he would be given work the next night. Iannaconne
was a witness at the hearing the following day.-
While Iannaconne was reinstated and permitted an hour's work on
September 11, it is plain that he did not receive after August 30, regu-
lar or continuous employment. The respondent contended at the hear-
ing that the reason Iannaconne was not fully reinstated was that he
had "pulled the switches" at the time the strike began. We have here-
tofore stated 92 concerning this matter, that, apart from the issue of
its relevancy, we were not convinced that Iannaconne had engaged in
such conduct. Moreover, as stated above, the strike settlement of Au-
go See Matter of McKaig-Hatch, Inc. and Amalgamated A88ootation of Iron, (Steel, and
Tin Worker8 of North America, Local No. 1139, 10 N. L. R. B 88.
11 That lannaconne was present every day at the hearing, and that the respondent was
aware of this is shown by its exceptions.
12 See Section III C 1.
HARRY SCHWARTZ YARN Co., INC. 1183
gust 30 expressly provided that the respondent would reinstate Ianna-
conne as a twister. Iannaconne, like Corsetti, was one of the leaders
of the Union. We have found that the respondent discharged lanna-
conne on June 21 because of his union membership and activities.
This fact, as well as the circumstances surrounding his dismissal by
Schwartz on September 11 and the manifestly dilatory acts of the re-
spondent thereafter, despite its agreement, in avoiding making work
available to Iannaconne, plainly establishes that his inability to obtain
regular and continuous employment resulted from discriminatory
.cause.
We find that although Iannaconne was reinstated by the respondent
on September 11, 1937, he was refused regular and continuous em-
ployment substantially equivalent to that in which he was engaged
before his discharge on June 21. We further find that the respondent
so refused to afford him such employment because of his union mem-
bership and activities, thereby discriminating in regard to hire and
tenure of employment and discouraging membership in the Union;
that by such discrimination the respondent has interfered with, re-
strained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guar-
anteed by Section 7 of the Act.
Margaret Rist was employed by the respondent as a redrawer 1 clay
each of the 3 weeks following the strike settlement. She was then
laid off because there was no more redrawing work to be performed by
her or any other redrawer. We find that the respondent did not dis-
criminate against Margaret Rist by refusing her regular and con-
tinuous employment after August 30, 1937.
Nataline Panarenato worked as an oiler boy for the respondent
prior to the strike. Subsequent to August 30, he was employed for 1
day to oil and tape some machines. He thereafter received no work
because there was no oiling for him to perform. One Wilenkin, who
is doing such work now, was in the respondent's employ prior to the
strike and was working at the time of the settlement of August 30.
We find that the respondent did not discriminate against Nataline
Panarenato by refusing him regular and continuous employment after
August 30, 1937.
Upon the foregoing, we shall dismiss the complaint, as amended, in
so far as it alleges that the respondent refused, after reinstatement, to
give Margy Barry, Dorothy Callo, Rae Callo, Elsie Hall, Marie Ma-
rotta, Leona Pa]lughi, Nataline Panarenato, Gladys Plohn, Margaret
Rist, and Margaret Vigno regular and continuous employment be-
cause of their union membership and activity.
1184 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
4. Discrimination in regard to amount and kind of work given to
union members after the strike settlement
The complaint, as amended, alleged that subsequent to the reinstate-
ment after August 30 of striking employees by the respondent, the
respondent discriminated against those it had so reinstated, in regard
to the terms and conditions of their employment, because of their
union membership and activities.93 The record shows that when the
strike settlement of August 30 was reached some 26 of the employees
who had gone on strike already had returned to work. None of these
was then a member of the Union. On the other hand, all of the strik-'
ing employees to be reinstated under the settlement were union mem-
bers. Thus, after the reinstatement of the striking employees pursuant
to the strike settlement, the respondent employed both union and
non-union employees. The complaint, as amended, expressly alleged
that the respondent gave the union employees only "part time" em-
ployment while the non-union employees received regular and con-
tinuous employment, that the union employees received the least
pleasant of the work to be performed. Both the non-union and union
employees were compensated for their services on an hourly basis, at
the same rate within each occupational classification.
Certain compilations in writing, based upon the respondent's own
"time card" records, were introduced into evidence. 94 These com-
pilations, among other things, set forth the respective amounts of
the weekly earnings of all the respondent's employees during the
7-week period commencing with the week ending September 4, and
concluding with the week ending October 16, 1937; which of these
employees were union employees and which non-union employees;
B3 The names of these employees and the classification of their occupations , as shown
by the record , are as follows :
Twisters : Margy Barry, Dorothy Callo, Elsie Hall, Ann Marotta , Marie Marotta, and
Ann Zanowick ;
Binders : Pauline Biedenkapp , Rae, Callo , Molly Goldstein, Leona Pallughi , Gladys Plohn,
Margaret Vigno, and Margaret Zanowick;
Reelers : Genevieve Dercia, Marcelle Eitzenhoffer , Rose Giordano , Betty Leone , Florence
Luedeke, Fay Rala , Regina Serafin , Helen Tames , Edna Testa, and Emily Testa ;
Winders : Bessie Abrams , Edith Diehl, Frances Fiala, Josephine Fiala, Irene Garton,
Esther Krausner , Barbara Laub , Emily Menigaz , and Frances Schmale ;
Coners : Matilda Alford.
In addition to the foregoing employees , the following 12 striking employees who were
members of the Union also were reinstated: Four of these employees , viz, Coisetti, Inna-
conne, Panarenato , and Rist, have been considered separately in Section III C 3 , supra,
and will not be dealt within this section. The remaining eight employees , Arce , Bucci,
Cottons, Gaul , Kohlgr, Panepipto , Rossi , and Torre, likewise will not be dealt with in this
section because the work which they performed upon their reinstatement was not per-
formed by any non-uuionw employees , and, hence , no criterion for determining discrimina-
tion in the amount - of their work exists.
84 Board Exhibit Nos. 15 and 19. See also Board Exhibit Nos 8, 9 , 10, 11 , 12, 13,
and 14.
HARRY SCHWARTZ YARN Co., INC. 1185
what the occupational classification of each employee was, as "twist-
ers," "binders," "winders," and "toners"; and what employees were
strikebreakers, subject to dismissal under the August 30 agreement,
viz, the so-called "ineligible employees." The compilations further
set forth certain conclusions therein reached relating to a comparison,
in each occupational classification, of the amount of earnings received
by non-union and union employees during the period reviewed 95 At
the hearing the respondent did not challenge the specific statements
in the compilations of the amount of weekly earnings of each em-
ployee, or the designation of each employee as union or non-union,
or the designation of certain employees as the so-called "ineligible
employees," but contended that certain of the employees listed had
been erroneously classified as to their occupation or had been errone-
ously included in an occupational classification. The respondent,
therefore, urged that the conclusions in the compilations were inaccu-
rate. We find merit in this contention, and in view thereof and in
view of certain other matters mentioned hereinafter have based our
findings set forth below solely upon the admitted facts of said
compilations, and the record, and not upon the conclusions of the
compilations.
We find that for each of the 6 weeks 96 during the period com-
mencing with the week ending September 11 and terminating with
the week ending October 16, 1937, the average earnings of the re-
spondent's union employees and of its non-union employees,
respectively, in the specified occupations, excluding the "ineligible
employees," are as set forth in the following table. We further
find that the average weekly earnings of the union employees and
of the non-union employees, in said respective occupational classi-
fications, from the viewpoint of the entire 6-week period, are as set
forth in the said table. The date at the head of each of the various
columns of the table, except the last column, is the last day of the
weekly period to which the figures in the column apply. The figures
in the columns under these dates state the average earnings for the
weekly period ending with the respective date. The last column
sets forth the average weekly earnings for the entire 6-week period,
based upon the aggregate average earnings of all the 6 weeks. By
"Union" and "Non-Union" are meant union and non-union employees,
respectively.
us These conclusions showed a substantial discrimination against union employees in
the amount of their earnings.
°B It appears that some of the union employees who worked during the week ending
September 4, 1937, were not reinstated until the middle of the week. This fact would
result in weighting the average weekly earnings - n their favor. We, therefore , have omitted
this week from our findings.
1186 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Week ending-
Average
Sept. 11 Sept. 18 Sept. 25 Oct. 2 Oct 9 Oct. 16
Sept 4-
Oct. 16
Twisters:
Union I ------------------------- 12.16 5.94 8 85 11 23 8 02 3.87 8.35
Non-Union 3-------------------- 10.25 9.45 12 82 17.82 16 40 10 78 12.92
Binders 1
Union 3------------------------- 9 50 6 34 7.16 9.81 5 54 3 70 7.01Non-Union4.................... 9.58 7 15 8 69 11.09 10 19 6 81 8.92
Reelers.
Union 5------------------------- 6.39 6 63 8 79 8.73 10 11 5.70 7.73
Non-Union 5-------------------- 11.09 14 26 15 84 15 85 15 84 15 84 14 79
Winders
Union °------------------------- 10 54 12 12 17 57 15 13 13 39 14 97 13.95Non-Union 8____________________ 12.04 14 26 17 82 17.82 16.45 15 02 15.57
Coners
Union 3------------------------- 3 17 .53
Non-Union 10--------- ---------- - 9.50 14 95 12 67 15 84 15 84 15.84 14 11
All above classifications combined* II
Union--------------------------- 8 88 6 95 9 34 10 85 9 47 7 25 8 79,
Non-Union---------------------- 9 76 11.53 14 10 16 09 15 02 12 30 13 13
The union twisters are Margy Barry, Dorothy Callo, Elsie Hall , Ann Marotta , Mane Marotta, and
Ann Zanowick Barry is included for the full period because we view, and find , her lay-off in connection
with the Wilson incident as discriminatory , within the meaning of the Act Martin Iannaconne, Rae
Callo, and Leona Pallughi are excluded from the table in accordance with the respondent's contentions
2 The non-union twisters are Rose DeFina , Agnes Dunphy , Margaret Durkin, Theresa La Mura, and
Mary Morley Freida Bettiger, Jean Mrozek , and Marie Reuter are excluded from the table , as the re-
spondent contended , because they are twister-binders . All night twisters are excluded from the table as
they are paid at a different hourly rate
3 The union binders are Pauline Biedenkapp , Rae Cello, Molly Goldstein , Leona Pallughi . Gladys
Plohn, Margaret Vigno. and Margaret Zanowick . Molly Goldstein was excluded from the table after the,
period ending September 25, 1937, because it does not appear that she was discharged discriminatorily
4 The non-union binders are Angelina Carpinella , Florence Deffenbaugh , Julia Scanlon, and Margaret
Wilson
5 The union reelers are Genevieve Dercia , Marcelle Eitzenhoffer , Rose Giordano, Betty Leone. Florence-
Luedeke , Fay Raia , Regina Serafin , Helen Tames , Edna Testa, and Emily Testa Angela Borealine,
Vincent Rivelli , and Maria Testa are not included in the table because they were not reinstated
5 The non-union reelers are Theresa McNulty and Margaret Silvers Nicholas Provizano and Michael
Karp are excluded from the table as the respondent contends , because they are not reelers7 The union winders are Bessie Abrams , Edith Diehl, Frances Fiala , Josephine Fiala, Irene Garton,
Ester Krausner , Barbara Laub, Emily Menigaz , and Frances Schmale Bertha Downey, Catherine Han-
son, Lena Livesey, and Anna Maine are not included in the table because they were not reinstated Matilda
Alford is excluded from the table, as the respondent contends , because she is a toner Edith Diehl, Irene
Garton, Barbara Laub , Emily Menigaz , and Frances Schmale were included in the table only for the period
following their reinstatement
8 The non-union winders are Bertha Boos , Clara De Burgh , Anna Gehrman , Josephine Goerther, Emma
McMannus , Kate Matys . and Elva Smith Grace Valenti and Bertha Landrock are excluded from the
table, as the respondent contends , because they are examiners Likewise , Wilhelmina Mayer is excluded
because she is a coner
8 The only union toner is Matilda Alford
le The only non-union toner is Wilhelmina Mayer
n Only the employees named above as being included in the table are included in this classification.
It is apparent from the foregoing table, and we find, that in each
week during the period commencing with the week ending Septem-
ber 11 and concluding with the week ending October 16, 1937, except
for 1 week in one classification,9" that the non-union employees in
each classification earned substantially more than the union employees
in the same classification. During the 6-week period under con-
sideration, the average amount of earnings received by non-union
employees was 49 per cent greater than the average amount of earn-
ings received by union employees.
Prior to the strike of June 21 the respondent allocated the avail-
able work equally among all employees in each of the occupational
classifications. The draft contract attached to the memorandum of
settlement speaks of such equal distribution. Littman, the general
97 Week ending September 11-Twisters
HARRY SCHWARTZ YARN Co., INC. 1187
manager, testified that after August 30 he instructed the foreman
to distribute the work evenly , in the most "economic way." He
admitted , however, that the union employees consistently had received
less work and, consequently they had earned less than the non-union
employees , but urged that the difference was explicable in terms of
the relative efficiency of employees . Dubin , the foreman in charge
of the winders , testified that Littman instructed him to distribute the
work equally between the union and non-union employees , but was
unable to explain why, after August 30, the average earnings of the
non-union winders were consistently higher than the average earn-
ings of the union winders.
On the other hand, Barkan , the union organizer , testified that
when he complained to Littman about the uneven distribution of
work Littman replied that he would "run the company as he saw
fit." Toulson , the plant superintendent, testified that after August
30 Littman from time to time "checked up" on the amount of work
given to the various employees , chiefly to the union employees; that
thereafter Littman would instruct him, Toulson , to lay off certain
employees ; that invariably these were the union employees. Elsie
Hall, one of the employees who we have found was discriminatorily
laid off on June 21 for union membership and activities was told by
her superior , "I would give you more work if it was up to me. You
are a very good worker . If it was up to me I would let you work
all week but I get half a hundred [$50] . . . to do as I am told."
Pallughi, Iannaconne, and Dorothy Callo each were told by their
superior upon requesting more work that they could not be given
more because of "Littman 's orders."
We are satisfied , and find, that the respondent , after August 30
gave union employees less work to perform than it gave non-union
employees , that it so discriminated against the union employees be-
cause of their union affiliation , to discourage membership in the
Union. The widespread and substantial nature of the discrimina-
tion does not yield to an explanation based on a variation or differ-
ence in the capabilities between the union and the non-union em-
ployees. We find that the respondent subsequent to August 30, 1937,
discriminated in regard to the terms and conditions of the employ-
ment of its employees to discourage membership in the Union ; that
by such acts the respondent has interfered with, restrained, and
coerced its employees , and is interfering with, restraining , and co-
ercing them, in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of
the Act.
There are set forth in the table below, in the last column thereof,
the respective amounts of money which the union employees, whose
169134-39-vol. 12-76
1188 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
names are listed in the table,98 would have earned during the period
'from September 6 to October 16, 1937, apart from and in addition
.to that which they did earn, had the respondent during said period
given each of said union employees following his or her reinstate-
ment an amount of work equal to that which, as an average, the
,non-union employees in his or her occupational classification were
-then given. The other columns of the table set forth the following:
In the first column are stated the names of the union employees; in
,the second their respective occupational classifications; in the third
the number of weeks during the period from September 6 to October
16, 1937, which ensued following their reinstatement;99 in the fourth
the average weekly earnings of each employee for the period set
;forth in the third column opposite his or her name; and in the fifth,
,the average weekly earnings of all the non-union employees in the
;respective occupational classifications during such period. We find
.as a fact all of the facts set forth in said table. Each of the amounts
listed in the last column of the table represent, respectively, the
,difference between the figures in the fifth and fourth columns opposite
such amount, multiplied by the number in the third column opposite
,such amount,
ame of employee Occupationalclassification
Number of
weeks rein-
stated in
period
Sept 6-
Oct. 16, 1937
Average
weekly
earnings
same
period
Average weekly
earnings of non-
union employ-
ees in the same
occupational
classification
same period
Amount
to be
received
Margy Barry__________________ Twister_____ ______ 6 $5 34 $12 92 $45.48
Dorothy Cello_________________ _____do_____________ 6 7.41 12 92 33 06
Elsie Hall_ ____________________ _____do_______ 6 7 72 12 92 31.20
Ann Marotta__________________ _____do =_________-_ 6 10 02 12 92 17 40
Marie Marotta ________________ -----do------------- 6 9 48 12 92 20 64
Ann Zanowick _______ _________ _____do------------- 6 10.10 12 92 16 92
Pauline Biedenkapp------------ Binder ____________ 6 6 08 8 92 17 04
Rae Cello_____________________ _____ do_____________ 6 5 71 8.92 19.26
Molly Goldstein_______________ _____do_____________ 3 5 66 8 47 8 43
Leona Pallughl ---------------- _____ do_____________ 6 6 61 8 92 13 86
Gladys Plohn_________________ _____ do_____________ 6 8 00 8 92 5 52
Margaret Zanowick___________ _____do____________ 6 7 12 8 92 10 80
Genevieve Dercia _____________ Reeler_ ____________ 6 2 06 14 79 76 38
Marcelle Eitzenhoffer_________ _____ do_____________ 6 6 06 14 79 52 38
Rose Giordano________________ _____ do_____________ 6 3 71 14 79 66 48
Betty Leone ___________________ ----- do------------- 6 6 59 14 79 49 20
Florence Luedeke_____________ _____ do_____________ 6 8 35 14 79 38 64
Fay Rala---------------------- _____do_____________ 6 12 06 14 79 16 38
'Regina Serafln___________ ______ _____ do_____________ 6 9 50 14 79 31 74
Helen Tames__________________ _____ do_____________ 6 7 89 14 79 41 40
Edna Testa ___________________ _____ do_____________ 6 8 95 14 79 35 04
Emily Testa ____________ _______ ----- do------------- 6 11 89 14 79 17 40
Edith Diehl___________________ Winder----------- 2 15 04 15 74 4 20
Frances Fiala__________________ _____ do_____________ 6 14. 13 15 57 8 64
Josephine Fiala ____ _______r____ _____do_____________ 6 13 53 15 57 12 24
Irene Garton __________________ -----do------------- 2 13 37 15 74 14 22
Esther Krausner______________ _____dc_____________ 6 14 61 15 57 5 76
Barbara Laub _________________ _____ do_____________ 3 11 88 16 43 27 30
Emily Memgaz________________ _____do_____________ 3 12 84 16 43 21 54
Frances Schmale ______________ _____ do_____________ 3 14 . 37 16.43 12 36
Matilda Alford________________ Coner_____________ 6 .53 14 11 81.48
98 Bessie Abrams and Margaret Vigno are excluded from the table as it does not appear
,that they were discriminated against.
01 Thg1e was some aelfy after August 30 in reinstating employees.
HARRY SCHWARTZ YARN CO., INC. 1189
Discrimination against the union employees after August 30 was
not limited to the unequal distribution of work discussed above.
'The record shows that on or about August 30 Harry Schwartz
'directed Toulson "Now Toulson, this strike is about over. When
.the girls come back to work, I want you to treat them like the sons
.of bitches that they are. Sweat them ! Hustle them all the time,
.and I will help you to do it." Herman and Harry Schwartz also
told Toulson that if he "could put anything in the way, such as
finding some bad bobbins on the machines of these girls, that they
•could be discharged for, to put them on there because they got back
to work on the machines." Thereafter, some of the union employees
were required to clean the twisting machines which the non-union
'employees operated, although prior to the strike this unpleasant
task was performed by the machine operators themselves. Some
women union employees were required to lift rails from the machines,
:a task formerly performed by men employees. Elsie Hall, the
shop chairlady of the Union, was required after August 30 to operate
three twisting machines although the non-union girls only operated
two. Hall received no additional compensation for operating the
additional machine.
It is manifest that the respondent, after August 30, proceeded
methodically to discriminate against the union employees in order
to compel them to abandon the Union. We find that the respondent,
by giving the union employees more difficult and less pleasant work
than the non-union employees received because of their union affilia-
tion and activities, has discriminated against said union employees
with respect to the terms and conditions of their employment, thereby
discouraging membership in the Union ; that by such acts the re-
spondent has interfered with, restrained, and coerced, and is inter-
fering with, restraining, and coercing, its employees in the exercise
of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the respondent set forth in Section III above,
occurring in connection with the operations of the respondent de-
scribed in Section I above, have a close, intimate, and substantial
relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States,
and have led and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and
obstructing .commerce and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
It is essential in order to effectuate the purposes and policies of
the Act that the respondent be ordered to cease and desist from
1190 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
certain activities and practices in which we have found it to have
been engaged, and in aid of such order and as a means for removing
and avoiding the consequences of such activities and practices, that
the respondent be directed to take certain affirmative action, more
particularly described below.
We have found that the respondent in many ways has interfered
with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the
rights which the Act has secured to them. It is plain that the re-
spondent must cease and desist from such practices, and we shall
so order.
We also have found that the respondent has persistently refused
to bargain collectively in good faith with the Union, as the rep-
resentative of the respondent's employees. We, therefore, shall
order the respondent to cease and desist from its said refusal, to
bargain collectively with the Union as such representative, and if
any understanding is reached upon request to embody such under-
standing in a written signed agreement.100
We have found that the respondent on June 21, 1937, discrimina-
torily laid off Margy Barry, Dorothy Callo, Rae Callo, Elsie Hall,
Leona Pallughi, Gladys Plohn, Margaret Rist, Ethel Rogazza, and
Margaret Vigno, and discriminatorily discharged Salvatore Corsetti,
Martin lannaconne, and Nataline Panarenato.101 Since Barry,
Dorothy and Rae Callo, Hall, Pallughi, Plohn, and Vigno were rein-
stated by the respondent on or about August 30, 1937,102 to employ-
ment which we have not found to be irregular or lacking in con-
tinuity, it is unnecessary, and we shall not order, that the respondent
offer reinstatement to them. However, Corsetti, Iannaconne,
Panarenato, and Rist, while reinstated, were reinstated to employ-
ment which was not substantially equivalent to the employment each
respectively had enjoyed prior to his or her respective discriminatory
lay-off or discharge.103 Accordingly, to effectuate the policies of the
Act we shall order the respondent to offer them the full reinstate-
ment to which they are entitled, upon the terms, however, more fully
set forth below. Rogazza was not reinstated because she was unavail-
able when the respondent made its offer after August 30 to reinstate her.
Since this offer was in response to the Union's request of that date
in her behalf, at a time when the strike had, terminated, we do not
feel that it will effectuate the purposes and policies of the Act to
100 Matter of Inland Steel Company and Steel Workers Organizing Committee and
Amalgamated Association of Iron, Steel and Tan Workers of North America , Lodge Nos 611,
1010, and 1101, 9 N. L. R B. 783; Matter of Globe Cotton Mills and Textile Workers
Organizing Comomettee, 6 N L It . B 461, enforced in part in Globe Cotton Mills v.
Notional Labor Relations Board, 103 F. (2d) 91 (C. C. A. 5)
101 See Section III C 1.
102 See Section III C 3.
103 See Section III C 3.
HARRY SCHWARTZ YARN CO., INC. 1191
require the respondent to make a second offer of reinstatement to
her. 114 We shall omit her from among the persons whom the re-
spondent will be ordered to offer reinstatement.
All of the above employees who were discriminatorily laid off or
,discharged on June 21, 1937, will be made whole for any loss of
pay they may have suffered by reason of the illegal termination of
their employment. The amount of compensation to be paid them
shall not be diminished on account of the strike, for it was the
respondent's acts in unlawfully discriminating against their tenure
of employment, and its other unfair labor practices, which caused
and prolonged the strike.105 With respect to Dorothy Callo, Rae
Callo, and Leona Pallughi, the compensation to be paid these em-
ployees shall be for the period from June 21, 1937, until the dates
of their respective reinstatements by the respondent after August
30, 1937100 The record shows that while the strike was in progress
the respondent offered to reinstate Plohn and Rogazza on August
19, Barry and Vigno "during July," and Hall "three or four weeks
after the strike." Each of these employees refused such offer and
elected to remain with the employees who were seeking by the strike
to remedy the respondent's unfair labor practices. By reason of
their election to continue with those on strike rather than to return
to work, the status of these employees changed upon their refusals of
such offers, from employees discriminatorily discharged to employees
engaged in a strike induced and prolonged by unfair labor prac-
tices.101 Accordingly, the order shall provide that the compensation
to be paid to Barry, Hall, Plohn, Rogazza, and Vigno shall cease
on the date when each respectively refused such offer of reinstate-
ment. We do not find that the respondent unequivocally offered-rein-
statement to any of the other employees discriminatorily discharged
or laid off on June 21, 1937. With respect to Corsetti, Iannaconne,
Panarenato, and Rist, compensation will be ordered, since they were
not fully reinstated prior to the hearing, from June 21, 1937, until
the respondent's offer of full reinstatement to them, pursuant to the
order, or if they have already been reinstated, until the date they
received full reinstatement. In all cases a deduction from the com-
pensation to be paid will be made on account of the net earnings,b08
if any, of the respective employees to be compensated.
104 Matter of Precision Castings Company, Inc. and Iron Molders Union of North America,
Local 80, 8 N L. R. B 879.
105 National Labor Relations Board V. William Randolph Hearst et al, 102 F. (2d) 638
C. C. A. 9).
100 These employees were reinstated, as follows : Dorothy 'Callo, September 1, 1937;
Rae Callo, September 3, 1937; and Leona Pallughi September 3, 1937
107 Matter of Harter Corporation and International Assn. of Machinists , 8 N. L R B. 391.
109 By "net earnings" is meant earnings less expenses , such as for transportation, room,
and board, incurred by an employee in connection with obtaining work and working else-
where than for the respondent, which would not have been incurred but for his or her
1192 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
We have found that the respondent has not reinstated the follow-
ing striking employees employed by it in the week of June 14, 1937:109,
Harold Beilan, Angela Borealine, May Campbell, Carmen Carbello,.
Catherine Casserly, May Castor, Joseph DePerna, Catherine Hanson,.
John Karkowski, Irving Keith, May Kerrigan, Juliette Kilian, Lena
Livesy, Alexandra Monsoig, George Perrenod, Eleanor Peters, Vin-
cent Rivelli, Gertrude Strubel, and Marie Testa. Since the strike
was caused and prolonged by the respondent's unfair labor practices,,
we shall, in accordance with our custom in such cases, order the
respondent to offer each of these employees who has not since been
fully reinstated, as well as to Salvatore Corsetti, Martin lannaconne,
Nataline Panarenato, and Margaret Rist, immediate and full rein-
statement to his or her former position with the respondent, or to
a substantially equivalent position, without prejudice to his or her
seniority and other rights and privileges. All of the employees
presently working, for the respondent who were hired by it since.
June 21, 1937, and were not in its employ during the week of June
14, 1937, shall, if necessary, be dismissed by the respondent to provide
employment for the above employees ordered to be offered and who,
shall accept reinstatement. If, despite and after a dismissal of ally
such employees, there is not sufficient employment immediately avail-
able for the employees presently working for the respondent, exclud-
ing those dismissed, and for the employees ordered to be offered and'
who shall accept reinstatement, then all positions of employment
shall be distributed by the respondent among the employees presently
working for it, excluding those dismissed, and the employees ordered
to be offered and who shall accept reinstatement, in accordance with
the- respondent's usual method of reducing its force, without dis-
crimination against any employee because of his or her union
affiliation and activities, following such a system of seniority or other
non-discriminatory procedure as has been heretofore applied by
the respondent in the conduct of its business. Those employees,
remaining after such distribution for whom no employment is im-
mediately available shall be placed by the respondent on a prefer--
ential list, with priority determined among them in accordance with,
such system of seniority or other non-discriminatory procedure as=
has been heretofore applied by the respondent in the conduct of its:
unlawful termination of employment and the consequent necessity of his or her seeking
employment elsewhere . See Matter of Crossett Lumber Company and United Brotherhood
of Carpenters and Jotiners of America , Lumber and Sawmill Workers Union , Local 2590,
8 N. L. R . B. 440. Monies received for work performed upon Federal, State, county,
municipal , or other work-relief projects are not considered as earnings , but, as provided
below in the Order, shall be deducted from the sum due the employee , and the amount
thereof shall be paid over to the appropriate fiscal agency of the Federal , State , county,
municipal , or other government or governments which supplied the funds for said work-
relief projects.
' See Section III C 2.
HARRY SCHWARTZ YARN CO., INC. 1193,
business, and, thereafter, in accordance with such list shall be offered-
reinstatement by the respondent in their former or substantially
equivalent positions, as such employment becomes available and.-
before other persons are hired for such work.110
Because they were unavailable when the respondent's offer after
August 30 to reinstate them was made, Hilda Frasca and Mary Tilki
were not reinstated by the respondent. The reasons above mentioned-
which have led us to conclude not to require of the respondent that
it again offer reinstatement to Rogazza apply equally with respect
to the reinstatement of Frasca and Tilki. Hence, they, too, will not
be included among those the respondent will be ordered to offer
reinstatement.
We have found that the respondent discriminated against union
employees whom it reinstated after August 30 by refusing to give-
them regular and continuous employment, because of their uniom
membership and activities. The respondent,will be ordered to cease
and desist from such unfair labor practices. We also have found-
that the respondent discriminated against 31 named employees,
whom it reinstated, in the amount and kind of their work, because-
of their union membership and affiliation."' These unfair labor
practices the respondent also will be ordered to cease. Moreover,
since we have found the respective amounts of money these employees
would have earned during the period from September 6 to October
16, 1937, apart from that which they did earn, had the respondent,
during said period given each of them following his or her rein-
statement an amount of work equal to that which, as an average,.
the non-union employees in his or her classification were given, we
shall order the respondent to pay to each of said employees, such--
respective amounts of money. We are of the opinion that where
employees are paid on an hourly basis, and where, as here, those who-
are union members are consistently given less work to perform than
those who are non-union employees, for the purpose of discouraging
union affiliation and activity, the proper remedy, in effectuating
the purposes and policies of the Act and in removing the consequences.
of such discrimination, is to require the employer to pay to those of
its union employees who were given less work, an amount of money
sufficient to place their earnings on a parity with the average earn-
ings of the favored non-union employees in their respective occu-
pational classification. The consequences of the discrimination will
most appropriately be removed and avoided by equalizing the earn-
110 Matter of The Louisville -Refining - Company and , International Association, Ott Field,
'gas Well and Refinery Workers of America, 4 N. L. It . B. 844 ; order enforced In National
Labor Relations Board v. The Louisville Refining Company, 102 F. ( 2d) 678 ( C. C. A. 6).
m See Section III C 4.
1194 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ings of the union employees at the level of earnings attained by the
non-union employees.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the
entire record in the case, the Board makes the following :
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Textile Workers Organizing Committee is a labor organization,
within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
2. The employees of the respondent at the North Bergen plant,
.:except-supervisory, salaried, and clerical -employees -and foremen,
constituted and constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of col-
lective bargaining, within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
3. Textile Workers Organizing Committee was on June 19, 1937,
and at all times thereafter has been, the exclusive representative of
all the employees in such unit for the purpose of collective bargaining,
within the meaning of Section 9 (a) of the Act.
4. By refusing to bargain collectively with Textile Workers Or-
ganizing Committee, as the representative of its employees, on or
about June 22, 1937, July 13 and 19, 1937, and August 23, 1937, and
,on each of said occasions, and at all times after August 23, 1937, the
respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices,
within the meaning of Section 8 (5) of the Act.
5. By discriminating in regard to the hire or tenure of employment
,of its employees, and their terms and conditions of employment,
thereby discouraging membership in the Textile Workers Organizing
'Committee, the respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair
labor practices, within the meaning of Section 8 (3) of the Act.
6. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in
the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the
respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices,
within the meaning of Section 8 (1) of the Act.
7. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices
affecting commerce within the 'meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7)
of the Act.
8. By refusing after August 30, 1937, to reinstate the 24 employees
named in the complaint, as amended, or to reinstate Barry, Dorothy
and Rae Callo, Elsie Hall, Marie Marotta, Leona Pallughi, Nataline
Panarenato, Gladys Plohn, Margaret Rist, and Margaret Vigno to
regular and continuous employment, the respondent has not engaged
in unfair labor practices, within the meaning of Section 8 (3) of the
Act, as alleged in the complaint, as amended.
HARRY SCHWARTZ YARN Co., INC. 1195
ORDER
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and conclusions of law,
and pursuant to Section 10 (c) of the National Labor Relations
Act, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the re-
spondent, Harry Schwartz Yarn Co., Inc., and its officers, agents, suc-
cessors, and assigns, shall :
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Refusing to bargain collectively with Textile Workers Or-
ganizing Committee, as the exclusive representative of all its em-
ployees, at the North Bergen plant, except supervisors, salaried, and
clerical employees and foremen ;
(b) Discouraging membership in Textile Workers Organizing
Committee, or any other labor organization of its employees, by dis-
charging or laying off its employees, or any of them, or in any other
manner discriminating in regard to hire or tenure of employment of
its employees ;
(c) Discouraging membership in Textile Workers Organizing
Committee, or any other labor organization of its employees, by dis-
criminating in regard to earnings of employees, or to the kind of
work given employees to perform, or in regard to any other term or
condition of their employment;
(d) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing
its employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to
form, join, or assist labor organisations, to bargain collectively
through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in
concerted activities, for the purposes of collective bargaining or other
mutual aid or protection, as guaranteed in Section 7 of the National
Labor Relations Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action, which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Upon request, bargain collectively with Textile Workers Or-
ganizing Committee, as the exclusive representative of all its em-
ployees at the North Bergen plant, except supervisory, salaried, and
clerical employees, and foremen, in respect to rates of pay, wages,
hours of employment, and other conditions of employment ; and, if
an understanding is reached on any of such matters, embody said
understanding in a written signed agreement, if requested to do so
by Textile Workers Organizing Committee;
(b) Offer to Harold Beilan, Angela Borealine, May Campbell,
Carmen Carbello, Catherine Casserly, May Castor, Salvatore Corsetti,
Joseph DePerna, Catherine Hanson, Martin Iannaconne, John Kar-
kowski, Irving Keith, May Kerrigan, Juliette Kilian, Lena Livesey,
Alexandra Monsoig, Nataline Panarenato, George Perrenod, Eleanor
Peters, Margaret Rist, Vincent Rivelli, Gertrude Strubel, and Marie
-1196 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Testa, and each of them, who have not since been fully reinstated,
immediate and full reinstatement to their former or to substantially
-equivalent positions with the respondent, without prejudice to their
seniority and other rights and privileges. All of the employees pres-
ently working for the respondent who have been hired by it since
June 21, 1937, and were not in its employ during the week of June
14, 1937, shall, if necessary, be dismissed by the respondent to provide
employment for the above employees to be offered and who shall
.accept reinstatement. 112 If despite and after a dismissal of all such
employees there is not sufficient employment immediately available
for the employees presently working for the respondent, excluding
-those dismissed, and for the employees to be offered and who shall
-accept reinstatement, then all positions of employment shall be dis-
tributed by the respondent among the employees presently working
for it, excluding those dismissed, and the employees to be offered and
who shall accept reinstatement, in accordance with the respondent's
usual method of reducing its force, without discrimination against
any employee because of his or her union affiliation and activities,
following such a system of seniority or other non-discriminatory pro-
cedure 113 as has been heretofore applied by the respondent in the
-conduct of its business. Those employees remaining after such dis-
tribution for whom no employment is immediately available shall
be placed by the respondent on a preferential list, with priority
-determined among them in accordance with such system of seniority
or other non-discriminatory procedure as has been heretofore applied
by the respondent in the conduct of its business, and, thereafter, in
accordance with such list, shall be offered reinstatement by the re-
spondent in their former or substantially equivalent positions, as
such employment becomes available and before other persons are
hired for such work;
(c) Make whole Margy Barry, Dorothy Callo, Rae Callo, Elsie
Hall, Leona Pallughi, Gladys Plohn, Ethel Rogazza, and Margaret
Vigno, and each of them, for any loss of pay they have suffered by
reason of their respective lay-offs by the respondent on June 21, 1937,
by payment to each of them of a sum of money equal to the amount
she normally would have earned as wages from June 21, 1937, to
the date that the respondent reinstated such employee 114 or that
such employee during the strike refused reinstatement,115 without
112 The names of all employees employed in the week of June 14, 1937, are set forth
In Board Exhibit 4.
113 By "non-discriminatory" as used in this Order is meant without discrimination,
within the meaning of the Act.
114 Dorothy Callo was reinstated on September 1, 1937 ; Rae Callo on September 3, 1937 ;
Leona Pallughi on September 3, 1937.
115 Margy Barry refused such an offer of reinstatement during July 1937 ; Elsie Hall,
3 weeks after June 21 , 1937; Gladys Plohn on August 9, 1937; Ethel Rogazza on August
9, 1937 ; Margaret Vigno during July 1937.
HARRY SCHWARTZ YARN Co., INC. 1197
:any diminution in the amount thereof on account of said strike, less
her net earnings 118 during such period, deducting, however, from
the amount otherwise due to each of said employees, monies received
by her during said respective period for work performed upon
-Federal, State, county, municipal, or other work-relief projects, and
pay over the amounts so deducted to the appropriate fiscal agency of
the Federal, State, county, municipal, or other government or gov-
-ernments which supplied -the funds for such work-relief projects;
(d) Make whole Salvatore Corsetti, Martin Iannaconne, Nataline
_Panarenato, and Margaret Rist, and each of them, for any loss of
pay they have suffered by reason of their respective discharges and
lay-offs by the respondent on June 21, 1937, by payment to each of
them of a sum of money equal to the amount he or she normally would
have earned as wages from June 21, 1937, to the date of his or her
reinstatement or placement on a preferential list pursuant to para-
graph 2 (b) above, or if such employee already has been fully rein-
stated by the respondent, then to the date of such reinstatement,
without any diminution in the amount thereof on account of said
strike, less his or her net earnings 118 during such period ; deducting,
however, from the amount otherwise due to each of said employees,
monies received by him or her during said respective period for work
performed upon Federal, State, county, municipal, or other work-
relief projects, and pay over the amounts so deducted to the appro-
priate fiscal agency of the Federal, State, county, municipal, or other
government or governments which supplied the funds for such work-
relief projects ;
(e) Make whole each of the persons, excluding Salvatore Corsetti,
Martin Iannaconne, Nataline Panarenato, and Margaret Rist, to be
offered reinstatement pursuant to paragraph 2 (b) above, for any
loss of pay he or she will have suffered by reason of a refusal by
the respondent so to offer him or her reinstatement, in accordance
with the said paragraph 2 (b) above, following the issuance of this
Order, by payment to each such employee so refused, of a sum of
-money equal to that which he or she normally would have earned
:as wages during the period from five (5) days after the date of
this Order to the date he or she is offered reinstatement or placed
upon the preferential list, as required by paragraph 2 (b) above,
less his or her net earnings 118 during said period; deducting, how-
-ever, from the amount thus to become owed to him or her, monies
received by him or her during said period for work performed upon
Federal, State, county, municipal, or other work-relief projects, and
pay over the amount so deducted to the appropriate fiscal agency of
ue See footnote 108.
1198 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the Federal, State, county, municipal, or other government or govern-
ments which supplied the funds for said work-relief projects;
(f) Place on a parity the earnings of the following named em-
ployees with the average earnings of non-union employees within
their respective occupational classifications, for the period from Sep-
tember 6 to October 16, 1937, by payment to each of such named
employees, apart from and in addition to any other monies pay-
able to such employees under this Order, the following re-
spective sums of money : Matilda Alford-$81.48, Margy Barry-
$45.48, Pauline Biedenkapp-$17.04, Dorothy Callo-$33.06, Rae
Callo-$19.26, Genevieve Dercia-$76.38, Edith Diehl-$4.20, Mar-
celle Eitzenhoffer-$52.38, Frances Fiala-$8.64, Josephine Fiala-
$12.24, Irene Garton-$14.22, Rose Giordano-$66.48, Molly Gold-
stein-$8.43, Elsie Hall-$31.20, Esther Krausner-$5.76, Barbara
Laub-$27.30, Betty Leone-$49.20, Florence Luedeke-$38.64, Ann
Marotta-$17.40, Marie Marotta-$20.64, Emily Menigaz-$21.54,
Leona Pallughi-$13.86, Gladys Plohn-$5.52, Fay Raia-$16.38,
Frances Schmale-$12.36, Regina Serafin-$31.74, Helen Tames-
$41.40, Edna Testa-$35.04, Emily Testa-$17.40, Ann Zanowick-
$16.92, and Margaret Zanowick-$10.80;
(g) Immediately post notices in conspicuous places throughout its
North Bergen plant, and maintain such notices for a period of sixty
(60) consecutive days, stating that the respondent will cease and
desist in the manner set forth in paragraphs 1 (a), (b), (c), and
(d) of this Order, and that it will take the affirmative action set
forth in paragraphs 2 (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), and (f) of this Order;
and
(h) Notify the Regional Director for the Second Region in writ-
ing within ten (10) days from the date of this Order what steps
the respondent has taken to comply herewith.
AND IT IS FURTIhER ORDERED that the complaint, as amended, in
so far as it alleges that the respondent discriminatorily discharged
Helen Condor on June 21, 1937, that subsequent to August 30, 1937,
it discriminatorily refused to reinstate 24 employees herein named,
and that it discriminatorily refused to give Margy Barry, Dorothy
Callo, Rae Callo, Elsie Hall, Marie Marotta, Leona Pallughi, Nata-
line Panarenato, Gladys Plohn, Margaret Rist, and Margaret Vigno
regular and continuous employment, within the meaning of the Act,
be, and the same hereby is, dismissed.