I. Taitel & Son

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 13, 1942

45 N.L.R.B. 551 (N.L.R.B. 1942)

In the Matter of IRVING TAITEL AND RUTH TAITEL DOING BUSINESS AS
1. TAITEL & SON and AMALGAMATED CLOTHING WORKERS OF AMERICA,
AFFILIATED WITH THE C. I. O.
Case No. C4289. Decided November 13, 1942
Jurisdiction : garment manufacturing industry.
Unfair Labor Practices
In General: employer held responsible for activities of working foreladies and
foremen.
Interference, Restraint, and Coercion: interrogation of employees as to union
membership and activity by high ranking officials and supervisory, employees ;
anti-union statements ; threats of plant shut-down and loss of employment for
union membership, support, and success in consent election ; circulation of
and inducing employees to sign anti-union petitions ; offering refreshments, en-
tertainment, and other inducement to retard union organization.
Company-Dominated Union: participation of supervisory employees in forma-
tion and administration of Grievance Committee, organized at meeting held
on company property and required to be attended by employees.
Remedial Orders : employer ordered to cease and desist unfair labor practices
and to disestablish company-dominated union.
Mr. Robert E. Ackerberg, for the Board.
Sehortemeier, Eby cQ Wood, by Mr. Frederick E. Schortemeier, of
Indianapolis, Ind., and Lundin d Lundin, by Mr. Charles M. Lundin,
of Knox, Ind., for the respondents.
Mr. Frank Schaps, of Chicago, Ill., for the Union.
Mr. Max E. Halpern, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
ORDER
STATEMENT OF' THE CASE
Upon charges and amended charges duly filed by Amalgamated
Clothing Workers of America, affiliated with the C. I. 0., herein called
the Union, the National Labor Relations Board, herein called the
Board, by the Regional Director for the Eleventh Region (Indian-
apolis, Indiana), issued its complaint, dated June 3, 1942, against
Irving Taitel and Ruth Taitel, doing business as I. Taitel & Son,
Knox, Indiana, herein' called the respondents, alleging that the respond-
45 N. L. R. B, No. 81.
551
552 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ents had engaged in and were engaging in unfair labor practices affect-
ing commerce, within the meaning of Section 8 (1) and (2) and Section
2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein
called the Act. Copies of the complaint, accompanied by notice, of
hearing thereon, were- duly served upon the respondents, the. Union,
and the.Grievance Committee, herein called the Committee.
With respect to the unfair labor practices,, the complaint alleged. in
substance that the respondents: (1) since August 1,.1941; had inter-
fered with. the rights of their employees to self-organization and
discouraged membership in the Union by interrogation of employees
concerning their union membership and activity; disparagement of
the Union and outside labor organizations; threats of discharge of
employees and their relatives, employed elsewhere, for the employees'
membership in and support of the, Union, threats to shut down or
iraiisfer the plant if the employees joined or voted for the Union in an
election held on September 30, 1941; fostering and permitting circu-
lation of, and inducing employees to sign, various petitions disparag-
,ing the Union and outside labor organizations; requiring employees to
attend. a meeting on September 23, 1941, at.the plant; offering free
entertainment, refreshments, a movie, and other inducements to dis-
courage union membership and to influence the results of the Board
election; maintaining surveillance and espionage of union meetings
and activities;, encouraging "loyal employees" to disrupt the Union's
meeting on September 19, 1941; and by other similar and related acts;
(2), on or about September 23, 1941, proposed, formed, and sponsored
the Committee, and 'thereafter dominated and interfered with its ad-
ministration and contributed support thereto; and (3) by the fore-
going acts interfered with, restrained, and coerced their employees_ in
the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7,of the Act. On
June 10, 1942, the respondents filed their answer denying that they had
engaged in the unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held at Knox, Indiana, on June
15 and 16, 1942, before Earl S. Bellman, the Trial Examiner duly
designated by the Chief Trial Examiner. The Board, the respond-
ents, 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. At the close of the hearing, a motion by
counsel for the Board was granted, without objection, to conform the
pleadings to the proof in respect to names, places, dates, and figures.
During the course of the hearing, the Trial Examiner made rulings on
various motions and on objections to the admission of evidence. The
Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner and finds that
I The Committee filed no answer and made no appearance at the hearing.
I. TAITEL - & - SON 553
no prejudicial errors were committed. The rulings are hereby af-
firmed. Subsequent to the hearing counsel for the Board and the
respondents filed briefs with the Trial Examiner.
On August 6, 1942, the Trial Examiner issued his Intermediate Re-
port, copies of which were duly served upon the respondents and the
,Union, in which he found that the respondents had engaged in and
were engaging in unfair labor practices , within the meaning of Section
8 (1) and ( 2) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act, and recommended
that the respondents cease and desist therefrom and take certain af-
firmative action deemed necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act.
On September 11, 1942, the respondents filed exceptions to the Inter-
mediate Report and a brief in support thereof.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing for the purpose of oral argument
was held before the Board at Washington , D. C., on September 29,
1942. The respondents were representdd by counsel and participated
therein. The Board has considered the respondents' exceptions to the
Intermediate Report and brief, and insofar as the exceptions are in-
consistent 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
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENTS
Irving Taitel and his wife , Ruth Taitel , the respondents , are and
have been since January 1, 1941, a partnership doing business under
the firm name of I. Taitel & Son . The respondents operate plants in
Knox, Bremen, and Scottsburg , Indiana, where they are engaged prin-
cipally in the manufacture , sale, and distribution of corduroy pants
and jackets . Only the Knox plant is involved in this proceeding.
In 1941 the respondents purchased raw materials for use at their
Knox plant valued in excess of $500,000 , all of which was shipped
to the Knox plant from points outside the State of Indiana. During
this period the respondents sold finished products valued in excess
of $1,000,000 , 90 percent of which was shipped to points outside the
State of Indiana.
II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America is a labor organiza-
tion affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations. It
admits to membership employees of the respondents.
The Grievance Committee is an unaffiliated labor organization
composed of employees of the respondents. _
554 IYECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Sequence of events
In 1928 the firm of I. Taitel & Son, then composed of Isaac Taitel
and his son, Irving Taitel, entered into a verbal agreement with
several residents of Knox to manufacture clothing in one of the
town's factory buildings which was then not in operation. It was
agreed that the firm should purchase the plant equipment for $1,200
in cash and the building for approximately $7,700, plus accrued
taxes, payable at the rate of $75 per month, which sum was computed
to cover interest, amortization, and the cost of repair. In 1931 the
community, concerned that the firm might move out of town to
larger quarters, erected a plant addition at a cost of $6,000, pur-
suant to an agreement that the firm would purchase the necessary
land and install the heating equipment. Thereafter various residents
of Knox and the firm entered into a lease covering the plant ad-
dition. ' The lease provided for a term of 50 years at a rental of
$1 per year, and the firm covenanted to provide a pay roll aggregat-
ing $200,000 during the first 6 years of its occupancy of the plant
addition. The firm has conducted its business under the same name
in Knox, continuously since 192&, and in 1941 when the population
of Knox numbered approximately 2,300, employed 175 people.
According to the respondents, Irving Taitel, who also spent about'
one-third of his time in Chicago and at the two other plants of the
respondents in Bremen and Scottsburg, was general manager, and
Henry Schwartz was superintendent of the Knox • plant, and, no
other employed exercised any supervisory authority. The respond-
ents specifically denied that Helen Lindstrand, Alice Marsh, Elsie
Juday,2 William C. Storey, and James R. Sides, all of whom played a
'large part in the activities hereinafter set forth, were supervisory
employees and that their activities are attributable to the respondents.
Numerous witnesses for the Board,3 most of whom were no longer
in the respondents' employ and who appeared at the hearing-pursuant
to subpenas, testified that Lindstrand, Marsh, and Juday were the
,foreladies of the 3 sewing machine lines and that these foreladies
worked directly under Superintendent Schwartz, receiving instruc-
tions from him and transmitting them to the employees. Whitaker,
Simpson, and Ewing testified specifically that the foreladies assigned
the work to the operators on the sewing machine lines, informed them
when they were to be laid off and when they were to return to work,
instructed beginners, and criticized employees for defective work. In
a Also referred to in the record as Elsie Swanson , her maiden name.
Ethel Whitaker, Ruby Maggard, Ruth Simpson, Laverna Ewing, Maxine Crossgrove,
Carrie Collins, Adeline Lechiy, Melba Easterday, Gertrude Alt, Fay Baker, Hannah Rock,
Lillian and Jane Jordan.
I. TAITEL & SON 555
addition, the pay-roll record for September 13, 1942, which was intro-
duced into evidence, indicated that Lindstrand ,received $25.03, and
Marsh and Juday each $22.56 as their weekly wages, whereas the aver-
age weekly earnings of the machine operators was approximately $15.
Lindstrand, Marsh, and Juday denied that they exercised supervisory
authority, and asserted that they were employed as "pinch hitters"
working from one line to the other, wherever help was needed. How-
ever, Lindstrand's testimony is contrary to a written statement, which
she admitted she signed and gave to a Board agent prior to the hearing,
in which she stated that for 4 or 5 years she has, been "responsible for
the production on line one, on which 36 girls work at full capacity."
Moreover, Marsh admitted that she "[got] the work prepared for the
girls on her line," received instructions from Superintendent Schwartz
and gave them to the employees. Juday's denial of supervisory status
was contradicted by her own testimony to the effect that after 5 years
of employment as a machine operator and "pinch hitter," she "took a
department where [she] distributed the work," that she was an "over-
seer of one department," and that she gave the orders, which she re-
ceived from Schwartz, to the girls on her line and not on the other
lines, since "each forelady has so many girls under her." Her denial
is further contradicted by her signed statement,4 which was read into
the record, and which recited that, "During 1937 she became forelady
of line making boys' jumpers. She instructed the new employees on
her line. She didn't hire or fire, but did recommend same if operators
don't do good work they are turned over to Mr. Schwartz. She assigns
the work to [the operators]. If the girls have trouble she helps them
with it. She lets the girls know the night before if they are to come
in or not the next day." In view of the obvious contradictions in their
testimony, we do not credit, nor did the Trial Examiner, the denials
of Lindstrand, Marsh, and Juday that they were supervisory
employees.
William C. Storey was "the head cutter," according to Horace Bar-
num, who was employed by the respondents as a cutter for about 5 .
years. Other witnesses 5 referred to Storey as foreman of the cutting
department. Storey testified that he was a garment cutter, but
admitted that he received the orders, marked the patterns on the cloth
which was to be cut by the five cutters in his department, and that he
supervised their work "to 'that extent." He denied that he had any
discretionary powers over the employees in the cutting department.
Although confronted with a statement, which he admitted'he made
4 Juday admitted in response to questions addressed to, her by the Trial Examiner
that the statement , which admittedly she read , signed, and gave to a Board agent prior
to the hearing , was correct except that it attributed to her more authority than she
believed she had.
s Maggard and Ewing.
5,56 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL, LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
to, a Board agent, and signed after it was written out by the Board
agent as Storey had stated it to him, to the effect that "if a cutter
doesn't keep up with his end of the work, Storey usually tells
Schwartz and has him laid off," and further that Storey "usually in-
structs new men and if he thinks [anew man] isn't any good he tells
Superintendent Schwartz," Storey persisted in his denial of super-
visory duties with respect to reporting incompetence, recommending
discharge, and instructing new men. He admitted, however, that his
signed statement was correct in that he transmitted Schwartz's orders
to the cutters as to lay-offs, and in that his earnings averaged $45 per
week and amounted to as ninth as $58 per week in,the busy seasons,
whereas the cutters earned from $20 to $30 per week. We do not
credit, nor did the Trial Examiner, Storey's denials which are incon-
sistent with his express admission of supervisory duties and in con-
flict with his signed statement.
James R. Sides was the "stock foreman" in charge of five or six
men who worked in the stockroom, according to the testimony of
Storey. A sworn statement 6 of David Shapiro, who was in the
respondents' employ from August to December, 1941, recited that.
Shapiro worked in the stockroom under Sides, who directed his work.
Max White, who worked in the shipping room which was next to
the stockroom, testified that Sides was the "stockroom boss" and "gave
,orders" to the boys in the 'stockroom. Ruth Simpson also testified
that it was generally understood, and that her forelady told her that
Sides was a foreman. Moreover, the September 13 pay-roll record
indicated that Sides earned $24.41 for that week and that the other
employees in the department averaged $15 or $16 per week. Sides
testified that he had no supervisory authority and that he worked
in the stockroom as a stock clerk under Taitel and in- Taitel's absence,
under Schwartz. However, he admitted that "he felt free to in-
struct" new men and "may have gone up" and complained about an
employee, if it were- "someone that [he] didn't like, [as] is done in
.any firm." In view of the admissions implicit in Sides' own testi-
mony, Storey's description of Sides' position, and, the credible
testimony of the above-named Board witnesses, we do not credit,
nor did the Trial Examiner, Sides' denial of supervisory status.
While Lindstrand, Marsh, Juday, Storey, and Sides, according to
the respondents, had no authority to hire or discharge, the record
establishes that it was their duty to take charge of the work per-
formed in their respective departments, to transmit the orders of,
6 It was stipulated at the hearing that the foregoing statement which was signed and
sworn to on June 12, 1942 , by David Shapiro, who was unavailable to attend the hearing
and whose testimony was(to be taken by deposition , be introduced into evidence together
with the statement 6f the Indiana State Police Bureau of Identification as to his past
criminal record, in lieu of taking his deposition.
I. TAITEL & SON 557,
and report incompetence to, the general manager or superintendent of
the plant, and to inform their subordinates when to lay off and ,when
to return to work. Moreover, their weekly wages, on the average,
were 50 percent higher than those of the employees in their respec-
tive departments and they were regarded as supervisors by the em-'
ployees, according to the testimony of numerous Board witnesses,
whose testimony we credit, as did the Trial Examiner. Admittedly,
plant operation was divided into various departments, i. e., cutting,
pressing, cleaning and inspecting, shipping, stock, and the 3 sewing
machine lines. Admittedly, Irving Taitel spent approximately one-
third of his time away from the Knox plant and Schwartz 'vas
"foreman all the way through" of this manufacturing enterprise,
which employs 175 people. ' In view of the number of employees at
the Knox plant, its size, the nature and method of its production, it
appears incredible that Taitel and Schwartz were the only super-
visory employees, in the plant. Upon the entire record, we find, as did
the Trial Examiner, that Lindstrand, Marsh, Juday, Storey, and
Sides were supervisory employees, and that the respondents are re-
sponsible for their activities as hereinafter set forth.'
In August 1941, the Union commenced an organizational drive at
the plant, and an organizer for the Union, named Sheets, distributed
union literature among the employees. The Union's activities evoked
immediate opposition from the respondents. About the middle of
August, according to the testimony of Forrest Rock, an employee who
had worked at the plant over 12 years, Taitel asked Rock how his
friend, Sheets, was. Rock asked Taitel who had told him that Sheets
was his friend. Taitel replied, "Well, I have ways of hearing," and
also that he had heard that Rock had joined the Union. Rock stated
that he would not say whether he had or had not joined the Union.
Rock also testified that sometime thereafter, Forelady Lindstrand
accused him of being the "main instigator" in bringing the Union into
the plant. Her accusations'led to a heated discussion, and Lindstrand
went to Superintendent 'Schwartz and reported Rock for "talking
Union." Schwartz then reprimanded Rock' for the way he had talked
to Lindstrand. At about this time, according to Harry Conner, who is
no longer in the respondents' employ, Schwartz had a conversation
during working hours at the plant with Conner during which Schwartz
told Conner that the Union would not get him anywhere; that the 40,
cents an hour then being received was "good wages"; that the Union
would not increase it; that they would have to pay 'union dues and
7 N. L. R. B v Link-Belt Co, 311 U S 584; International Association of Machinists V
N. L R B, 311 U S 72; Matter of Ely & Walker Dry Goods Company and Amalgamated
Clothing Workers of America, 40 N. L R B. 1262; Matter of Aintree Corporation and
International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union, Local 373, 37 N. L. R. B . 1174;' Matter
of Germain Seed and Plant Co. and International Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen & Helpers of America, Local 575, AFL, 37 N. L R. B. 1090
1
558 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
fees; and that if the Union got into the shop, Taitel would shut down
and they would all be out of work. Schwartz also said, "You would
just have a union button. What are you going to do with it, sit on
it?" According to Nova Baughman, whose memory was refreshed by
a written statement which she herself had prepared shortly after the
occurrence of the incident, about August 27 Schwartz told a group of
women working in the cleaning and inspecting department that the
respondents could take care of things without a union; that a union
would do the employees no good; that if the Union got in the factory
would close; and that if employees joined the Union they would be
discharged. According to Gertrude Alt, ' after the Union started
organizing, Forelady Marsh told a group of employees including Alt,
Ewing, Elsie Metz, and Marcella Reinholt; one noon in the plant, that
if the Union got in, Taitel would "move out" and the plant would
"shut down"; that none of them would have their jobs and it would
"break up our happy family."
For the most part Taitel made only general denials of the conversa-.
tions or statements attributed to him. Schwartz denied talking "to
any [of the employees] about the union proposition." Lindstrand
and Marsh also made general denials of interest in and discussion of the
Union. The Trial Examiner was not convinced by these general
denials, but was impressed by the testimony of the Board witnesses
named above, who in each instance testified in detail concerning the
time, place, and persons involved. Upon the entire record we find,
as did the Trial Examiner, that the statements attributed to Taitel,
Schwartz, Lindstrand, and Marsh by Rock, Conner, Baughman, and
Alt respectively, were made substantially as set forth above.
Late in August or early in September, a long poem which had
appeared in a newspaper sometime in 1933 praising Taitel as the
"Saviour of Knox," was posted on the bulletin board near the time
clock. Taitel testified that he saw the poem and that it had been
posted by Dessie Myers, "a very valued old employee." Whitaker,
Simpson, and Jane Jordan testified that Marsh and Juday, their
respective foreladies, told them or sent them to read the poem. Fore-
ladies Marsh and Juday, although called as witnesses for the respond-
ents, did not testify concerning the poem. We find, as did the Trial
Examiner, that the poem characterizing Taitel as the "Saviour of
Knox" was posted on the respondents' bulletin board with the respond-
ents' knowledge and approval and that employees in the plant were
required by their supervisors to read the poem.
According to the testimony of union representatives Mildred Stout
and 'Harold Freed, on September 15, they and organizer Sheets met
with Taitel in the evening at his uptown office. Freed told Taitel that
the Union represented a majority of the employees and requested Taitel
I. TAITEL & SON 559
to enter into bargaining negotiations. Taitel replied that he was
entitled to an election conducted by the Board, and Freed agreed.
Taitel also indicated that he would not deal with the Union until it
was certified by the Board S As the three union representatives were
leaving, Taitel told Freed that if the Union won an election, he would
consider Freed "a smarter man" than he., Taitel did not deny that he
had made this statement. We find, as did the Trial Examiner, that
Taitel made the statement attributed to him by Stout and Freed.
After entering into the agreement for a consent election, to be held
on September 30, the respondents redoubled their efforts to discredit
the Union and entered upon an intensive campaign to,revive loyalty to
themselves and to influence employees to vote against the Union in the
election. About the middle of September, Taitel had a talk in the
plant with Enoch Carlson, a 53-year-old presser who had been em-
ployed by the respondents for about 5 years. According to Carlson's
versioli of the conversation, Taitel told Carlson that he thought Carl-
-son was a friend of his, to which Carlson replied that he did not think
that he had been unfriendly. Taitel also told Carlson that certain
unnamed individuals had discussed with Carlson's wife the matter of
nis union membership. He then asked Carlson if he had joined the
Union. Carlson would not commit himself. Taitel then asked Carl-
son what; he thought of a union and Carlson replied that a good union
was all right. Taitel said, "You better think the matter over." Taitel
testified that he recalled "this incident of Mr. Carlson very distinctly,"
but that he had stated to Carlson that as a friend he would like to have
Carlson's help in, stopping "all this monkey business" ; that Carlson
evidently misunderstood; and that the had referred to loud conversa-
tion among the pressers and had come to Carlson in order to get the
noise stopped rather than bother Schwartz. Taitel's explanation is not
persuasive, and we find, as did the Trial Examiner, that the conversa-
tion took place substantially as testified to by Carlson.
About this time, according to the testimony of Harry Conner, Taitel
met Conner in the washroom and told him that Forrest Rock should not
have brought the Union into the plant. He asked Conner_ if he knew
how to vote in the election, and Conner said that he did. Taitel said
he hoped that Conner spoke from the bottom of his heart. Taitel then
informed Conner that from time to time he had helped boys who needed
medical care. He told Conner, who had a facial disfigurement, that
he would be glad to arrange to get Corner's "face straightened" and
that Conner would not have to pay him back unless he felt like doing
On September 20, after the filing of a petition for certification by the Union, the
respondents entered into a consent election agreement with the Union. On September
25, a second election agreement was made between the respondents, the Union, and the
United Garment Workers of America, affiliated with the American Federation of Labor,
herein called the United.
560 D'EQISIONS OF NATIONAL -LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
so. ' Taitel suggested that Conner think it over and ask his folks about
it. Conner did not accept Taitel's assistance. ^ Taitel admitted offer-
ing Conner medical aid for his facial disfigurement, but-denied speak-'
ing to 'Conner about the - Union. Under all of the circumstances,
Taitel's partial denial is not convincing and we find, as did the Trial
Examiner, that Taitel had this conversation with Conner substantially
as Conner testified. ,
During the 2-week period prior to the election, Superintendent
Schwartz and the foreladies were particularly active in fomenting
fear of plant shut-down and loss of employment, and in inciting union
opposition. According to the uncontradicted testimony of Carlson
and Rock, on the occasion that a clerk of the respondents came into the
plant and began taking down the, serial numbers of the machines,
Schwartz told Carlson that if the Union got in, the respondents could
not continue to operate and were going to sell the machinery. Edward
Falls, an employee, who was present and who shortly thereafter took
part in breaking up a meeting of the Union on September 19, as here-
after discussed, stated to Rock that if the Union got into the plant
"that was the end of it" and that the respondents were going "to sell
the machines all out." As Rock was leaving the plant shortly there-
after, he heard Schwartz tell two women. employees, Maggie Wheeler
and Marie Stailey, "Now it is up to you folks, over there is the insti-
gators. Just talk to them." Rock punched out his card and walked
out past Schwartz and the two employees ° About this time Forelady
Lindstrand and Mary Corneil, an employee, who circulated one of the
petitions discussed below, told Whitaker that if she was in the Union
she would have to get out of it, and that if the Union won the election
Taitel would move the factory out of town. On 'another occasion,
Lindstrand asked Alt if she had signed a union card.- When Alt
replied in the affirmative, Lindstrand asked her why she had done so, if
she was not happy, and if she did not think Taitel was treating her
right. Either Lindstrand or Marsh told Alt, upon another occasion,
that if the Union failed to get *in, those who had signed union cards
would lose their jobs. - At another time Forelady Juday asked Jane
Jordan if she had joined the Union, and when Jordan admitted signing
a union card, Juday asked her if she did not know that by signing
up with" the C. I. 0., Jordan would cause her husband', who was a
member of an A. F. L. union in another plant, to lose his job. Juday,
as did Lindstrand and Marsh, denied that she ever discussed union
matters with any of the girls. The Trial Examiner did not credit
5 Taitel testified only that the numbers of the machines were taken "quite often" because
dealers might come in and want to buy equipment, but that he did not know of any clerk
in his "present employ" who ever took such numbers Schwartz did not testify concerning
the incident and Falls, Wheeler, and Stailey, who were presents at the time, were not,
called as witnesses.
I. TAITEL '& SON 561
these general denials, nor do we. ' We find, as did the Trial Examiner,
that during this comparatively short period before the election,
Schwartz made the statements attributed to him by Carlson and Rock,
and that Lindstrand, Marsh, and Juclay made the statements attributed
to them by Whitaker, Alt, and Jane Jordan, substantially as set forth
above.
During this same period, a number of so-called petitions were circu-
lated in the plant and were also taken to the homes of the respondents'
employees. While none of these several papers could be produced at
the hearing, the evidence establishes that there were Several such docu--
ments pertaining to such subjects as whether or not employees were
in favor of the Union ; whether individual employees were willing to
withdraw from membership in. the Union ; whether or not the employees
were in favor of the respondents' keeping their plant in Knox; and that
Taitel was a fair employer and the employees could get along, without
the Union. According to Barnum, a cutter, he conceived the idea
of getting up the petitions from a discussion with some 12 women
in the' cleaning department who were unfavorable to the Union, only
2 of whom he was able to name, and not 1 of whom was called to testify
by the respondents. According to Barnum's testimony, - Barnum,
accompanied by a group of employees who were opposed to the Union,
went to a local attorney who aided them in the preparation of the
petitions, for which service the attorney made no charge. Barnum
admitted that shortly thereafter this group of, employees, including
himself and also Ross Wiles, circulated these petitions in the plant
and made a ,systematic canvass of the respondents' employees at their
homes in an effort to induce them to sign the petitions. Foreladies
Lindstrand and Marsh admitted that they assisted in securing signa-
tures to these petitions by taking them to the homes of several
employees.
Taitel himself attempted to induce employees to sign petitions.
Arofind noon on oi, about September 15, Taitel invited' Adeline
Lechiy'° into his office and asked her to sign a petition which stated
in substance that the employees did not want the Union; that the
Union was not necessary; and that the respondents' employees were
being satisfactorily paid. When Lechiy refused to sign, Taitel
inquired whether she had joined the Union, to which Lechiy replied,
"Well, not necessarily," and then left the office. A- day or two there-
after, Lechiy was absent from work for 2 days because of illness.
When she-returned on Friday morning, September 19, Schwartz told
her in Taitel's office and in his presence that her place had been taken
and that she could get her pay check at 8 o'clock.. Later, Lechiy
received her separation report and applied for unemployment coln-
10 Also referred to in the record as Adeline Dortsch , her maiden name
403508-43-vol 45-36
562 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELAT IONS BOARD
pensation . Thereafter the government representative to whom Lechiy
had applied for unemployment compensation called at her home,
gave her a card, told her that she could go back to work at any time,
and that Taitel did not even know that she had been out of the factory.
When Lechiy reported to the plant, Schwartz asked her whether she
wanted her old job back and put her to work immediately . Schwartz
,made no explanation of this termination of Lechiy 's employment,
although he denied it was for union activity . Schwartz 's testimony
that Lechiy discontinued her employment because of some domestic
trouble related to an incident subsequent to her reinstatement, and
not to the discharge concerning which Lechiy testified . Taitel did
not testify specifically concerning Lechiy, but testified generally that
he did not discuss the Union with employees or ask them to sign peti-
tions. We do not credit Taitel's general denial or Schwartz 's inade-
quate explanation and we find, as did the Trial Examiner, that Taitel
sought to induce Lechiy to sign a petition as Lechiy testified.
Less than a week before the election , and the day after Lillian
Jordan, her sister, and several other employees had signed union
application cards, Superintendent Schwartz 'and Forelady Lindstrand
asked Jordan while she was at work if she had signed a membership
card. When Jordan answered in the affirmative, Marsh, her fore-
lady, advised her that Taitel wanted to see the girls in his office. The
two Jordan sisters and Marcella Reinholt , another employee, then
went into Taitel 's office, where Taitel and another' man , unknown to
the employees , were present . According to the testimony of Lillian
Jordan, Taitel asked the girls if they had signed union cards and if
they would like to renounce their signature of the Union's cards
Taitel told them they were not required to do so. He also told their]
that if any fees had to be paid to the Union in the event that the Union
succeeded , he would make the payments for them. The employees,
having heard that if the Union succeeded in organizing the plant,
Taitel was going to sell out, and not wishing. to lose their jobs,
"unsigned" their union cards , and signed a statement to the effect that
Taitel had not coerced them into renouncing the Union. Taitel
admitted that the Jordan sisters had been called into his office, but
explained , that their presence was occasioned by Schwartz having
reported to him that the girls had been threatened. He admitted also
that without knowing the nature of the threat , he telephoned for a
deputy sheriff and his attorney and upon their arrival , left the girls
with them in his office . Taitel denied that he was present when any
papers were signed, although he admitted that the papers which were
signed had been prepared by his attorney . Schwartz did not testify
concerning this incident , and neither Taitel's attorney nor the deputy
sheriff was called as a witness by the respondents . Taitel's explana-
tion and his partial denial are not,persuasive and were not credited
I. TAITEL & SON 563
by the Trial Examiner. 'We find, as did the Trial Examiner, that
the above,incident occurred substantially as Lillian Jordan testified.
On another occasion, when Alt was in front of the plant and Taitel
was standing in the hallway about 5 or 6 feet from her, employees
Mary Corneil and Bessie Anderson asked her whether she had signed a
union card and presented her, in Taitel's presence, with a petition for
her' signature. According to Hannah Rock, at the meeting in the
plant on September 23, discussed below, Foreman Storey, who was
then presiding, announced that almost 100 persons had signed a peti-
tion expressing themselves as 'opposed to the Union, and that "they
wanted to have the entire shop to sign that paper before they were
through." Storey admitted that he had made this announcement at
the meeting. The following day, Ida Lockridge, who had been elected
to the Grievance Committee on September 23, as is discussed below,
attended a conference in Taitel's office and thereafter came to Ruth
Simpson with a petition and said that she had been asked "to bring
it to each girl on the line to have it signed." 11
The respondents contend that no persons were authorized to act or
speak for them in circulating any,petitions. The testimony of the
above-named Board witnesses, which was credited by the Trial Ex-
aminer, together with the admissions of Foreman Storey, and Fore-
ladies Lindstrand and Marsh as to the circulation of the petitions,'and
Taitel's unpersuasive explanations of his own connection with the
petitions do not sustain such a contention. Upon the entire record, we,
find that the respondents were responsible for the circulation of peti-
tions in the plant and at the homes of the respondents' employees and
for the concerted efforts to induce employees to sign them in order to
effect withdrawals from the Union and to regain support for the
respondents.
On Thursday, September 18, after work, a picnic was held in Wytho-
gen Park, which was attended by the respondents' employees, super-
visors, and by Taitel, and at which ample food and refreshments were
served. Several Board witnesses 12 testified, without contradiction,
that their respective foreladies invited them to attend the picnic.
They also testified that so far as they knew everything was free. The
following day during working hours at the plant, soft drinks were
passed around to the employees without any charge. Soft drinks had
never been thus served in the plant previously.
According to Taitel, a few picnics had been held in prior years;
one in 1931, which had been arranged by the employees, and another in
1934, which was provided by the respondents for the employees of
their Knox and Bremen plants. Taitel also testified that the picnic
11 The testimony of Alt, Rock, and Simpson was undenled and was credited by the Trial
Examiner
12 Alt, Ewing , Simpson, Maggard , and Baker.
564 DECISIONS OF 1\r PIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
of September 18 was a spontaneous affair, and that he had only heard
of it the very day it was held when some of the girls invited him to
attend. Schwartz testified that "all kinds of girls" collected for the
picnic, but that he had made his donation to one of the men employees.
Sides, the stockroom .foreman, testified that the employees contributed
to the picnic, that he had contributed $1, and had "carried some of
the groceries down in [his] car." Only one employee, Marv Peskie, a
witness called by the respondents, testified to having made a con-
tribution. She did not recall the amount of her contribution, but
believed it was a quarter; nor did she recall the circumstances of, the
time when, or the person to whom she had made the contribution.
No one was able to identify the employees who made arrangements
for the picnic or who handled the collections.
The picnic occurred a little less than 2 weeks before the Board elec-
tion and the night before the first public meeting of the Union. At
that time the respondents were endeavoring to will their- employees
away from the Union and to intensify their loyalty to the respondents,
While some of the employees may have contributed toward the picnic,
it is admitted that supervisors also made contributions. Furthermore,
employees who were members of or interested in the Union, were in-
vited to attend by their foreladies and testified that the picnic and
the soda pop served in the plant the next day were free. Under such
circumstances and upon the basis of the Trial Examiner's finding,
we find- that the picnic and the free distribution of soda pop the
following day were activities engaged in by the respondents' super-
visors with the knowledge and approval of the respondents for the
purpose of curtailing union support and enhancing loyalty to the
respondents.
The following evening the Union held its first open meeting of the
respondents' employees in a- local hall. Sometime after the meeting
began, a group of 10 'male employees came into the meeting in a
body.13 Most of these employees took seats toward the front of the
hall, while a few stood against the wall along the sides. Shortly after
entering the meeting, they started shuffling their feet, stomping the
floor, and talking in loud voices. When questions were asked, several
would jump up at one time without giving the speaker an opportunity
to answer questions, and shout remarks at the speaker. They later
started moving forward toward the speaker, making remarks to the
effect that they did not need a union. They asked "what in hell" the
speaker was doing around Knox since they had not asked him to come.
The conduct of these employees was such that the meeting had to
13 An analysis of the testimony of 9 Board witnesses shows that ' the 10 employees who
went ' into the meeting were Barnum , Lockridge , Engelthaler , Wheeler, Edward Falls,
Robert Krathwohl , John Lockridge , Ross Wiles, Richard Gollhofer, and David Shapiro,
5 of whom , Barnum , Lockridge , Wiles, Engelthaler , and Wheeler had commenced circu-
lating the anti -onion petitions the afternoon of that same day.
I. TAITEL & SON 565
be adjourned and-one employee, Ethel Whitaker, summoned the'police.
.Several Board witnesses 14 testified, without contradiction,, that they
.saw various members of this group- before or after the meeting or
upon both occasions at the respondents' uptown office. ' Other Board
witnesses 15 testified, without contradiction, that they saw Foreman
.Sides outside the hall after the meeting. Barnum, one.of , the mem-
bers of the group, admitted that he came to the meeting with Sides
and several of the others and that after the meeting most of the group
.went to the, respondents' uptown office. Barnum further testified that
the arguing and commotion started when Wheeler, Falls, and Krath-
wohl interrupted-Barnum, who was asking a question of the speaker,
and that they acted this way because of their dissatisfaction with
promises of wage increases which one of the union organizers pur-
portedly made. Taitel did not specifically deny that any of these
,employees were in his office before or after the meeting. He testified
only that many employees come to his office almost every night and
that he does not, know where they have been before coming or where
,they go after'leaving his office. Upon all the surrounding circum-
stances, and particularly in view of Barnum's admissions, the un-
explained presence at the respondents' uptown office of this group
of employees, some of whom were for various personal, financial, and
other reasons indebted and subservient to the respondents, and the
presence of Sides outside the meeting, we conclude, in accordance with
-the finding of the Trial Examiner, that the respondents are chargeable
,with the'activity of these employees in breaking up the union meeting.
On September 23, a meeting of the respondents' employees was
held at the plant. Early Sunday morning, 2 days before the meeting,
according to Hannah Rock, Schwartz broached the subject of holding
a meeting at the plant, when he paid the Rocks an unexpected call
at their home, which is across the alley from his home. -Both Hannah
and Forrest Rock testified that Schwartz inquired how they felt about
the union activity in the plant and what they would do if "Mr. Taitel
-would leave "town" and warned them that they had their family to look
after and that if the Union was successful, Taitel would shut down
the plant. Schwartz admitted that he visited the Rocks "on a Sun-
day," but asserted that it was a neighborly call of some 10 minutes,
that he visited them "not so much, just occasionally" and that "we
never talked about any union. We talked about different things, but
not about the union." 16 Hannah Rock also testified, and it was not
14 Hannah and Forrest Rock , Harry Conner, and Harold Freed, one of the Union's
representatives
16 Whitaker , Ewing, Jane Jordan , Collins, and Carlson.
Is In the light of the fact that the Union had held its first public meeting only 2 days
before this visit, and of all the existent conditions at the plant at this time , Schwartz's
version of his visit is not credited , nor was it credited by the Trial Examiner and we
find, in accord with the Trial Examiner , that Schwartz 's conversation with the Rocks
occurred substantially as they testified.
566 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
denied, that on the next day in the plant, she heard Foreladies Lind-
strand and Marsh discuss with Marie Stailey, an employee; the meet-
ing to be held the following day, Tuesday, September 23. At 3 p. in.
of that day, an hour earlier than was customary, all the employees
were required to punch out their time cards and to attend the meeting
in the rear of the plant.17 The respondents' version of the calling of
the meeting is contradictory. Taitel testified that he gave permission
for the use of the plant for a meeting to a group -of girls, none of whom
he could identify, and consented to leave the plant during the meet-
ing, but gave the matter little attention because he was engaged in
a long-distance telephone conversation at the time' the request was
made. Schwartz, however, testified that it was he who gave Storey
and some girls , whom he also could not identify, permission to hold
the meeting in the plant. Storey testified that some girls, whose
names he too did not recall, asked him to call the meeting; that he
thought it would be a good plan to call together those "not interested
in the Union"; that he asked for and received permission from
Schwartz to use the building 3 or 4 days before the meeting; and that
he explained to Schwartz that since a number of the employees left
promptly at 4 o'clock, it would be better to hold the meeting earlier
than 4, o'clock. The Trial Examiner did not credit the testimony of
Taitel, Schwartz, and Storey to the effect that the meeting was a
spontaneous activity of the respondents' employees, nor do we.
Foreman Storey opened the plant meeting and stated that almost
100 employees had signed a petition expressing opposition to the
Union and that he wanted them all to sign . He also stated that he
felt that the employees could figure out some way to get along
without a union and that the expense of union fees and assessments
would be greater than the employees realized. He then introduced
as an "impartial chairman" a retired druggist, named Charles Koffel,
who was a member of the Town Board of Knox and who had been
17 The pay-roll record for September 23 shows that practically all of the employees,
except some of the supervisors , worked only 7 hours that day Whitaker , Maggard,
Simpson , Ewing, Collins , Alt, and Baker testified , and from Shapiro ' s signed statement
it appears that , employees were instructed by their respective supervisors to check out
an hour earlier in order to attend the meeting . Forelady Juday admitted that at 3
o'clock of this day the power was shut off. Forelady Marsh testified that she did not
know whether she was paid for this hour and that "we checked out," contradicting the
pay-roll record. Forelady Lindstrand could not recall whether she punched out or whether
there were any_ instructions requiring punching out an hour earlier. As to whether or
not the respondents had required employees to check out earlier than usual on this day,
Taitel testified , "it would be optional, didn't make any difference to me whether they
punched out or not," in spite of the fact that employees at Christmas time are required
to check out early in order to exchange gifts and celebrate . The finding in the text,
which is in accord with the finding of the Trial Examiner , to which the respondents took
no exception , that the respondents closed down their plant and required their employees
to attend the plant meeting, is based on the testimony of the above-named Board'wit-
nesses . Juday's admission , Marsh's contradiction , Lindstrand 's lack of memory, and
Taitel's unpersuasive explanation confirm the finding.
I. TAITEL & SON 567
asked to attend the meeting by Foreman Sides. Koffel spoke well
of Taitel, but- stated that he did not know very much about -the
situation in the plant and asked for suggestions. When no response
was forthcoming, Forelady Lindstrand admonished the employees
to speak up. Sides then suggested selecting a Grievance Committee
with representatives from the various departments. When Koffel
asked for the employees' opiniofls and there appeared to be no dis-
sent, the employees were requested to go to their respective de-
partments to select `their representatives for the Committee. The
elections,, at least among the women employees of the 3 sewing
machine line's, were conducted by the foreladies who took charge of
the elections in their departments, called for nominations, conducted
the balloting by a show of hands, and announced the results of the
elections is
Although the Committee was supposed to consist of representa-
tives of the seven or eight departments in the plant, the record reveals
that Foreman Storey, Edith Marsh, sister of Forelady Marsh, Ida
Lockridge, and Robert Krathwohl were the only members , whom
witnesses at the hearing could recall. The Committee, the purpose
of which was to discuss working conditions and individual griev-
ances with the respondents, has no officers, constitution, bylaws,
clues, or minutes, and makes no reports to the employees. Storey, who
has acted as so-called chairman, testified he "just kind of went ahead
with it." . The Committee had its first meeting with Taitel' and
Schwartz immediately following the plant meeting, when Taitel
was informed that it had been selected to take up grievances with
him. According to Storey, the Committee was td meet with Taitel
each Friday night at the uptown office and thereafter met with
him on three or four occasions, although Taitel insisted that until
he read of it in the complaint herein, -"he never knew of a Grievance
Committee." Storey testified, however, that the Committee is still
in existence, should there be any occasion for its services, but that
after a few meetings it "just ran out of grievances" and has held no
further meetings.19
As the date of the election approached, the respondents pursued
their- plan of -threat of reprisal for union support. According to
Whitaker, on the Thursday before the election'20 a telegram, ad-
dressed to the respondents, was circulated in the plant stating :
18 The respondents excepted to the above finding merely upon the ground that the
foreladies were not supervisors and that the respondents are not responsible for their
activities. The finding is based upon the uncontradicted testimony of Board witnesses
Crossgrove , Simpson , and Alt which we credit , as did the Trial Examiner
10 The above findings of the Trial Examiner with respect to the Committee , which we
adopt, are based upon undenied testimony and were not excepted to by the respondents.
20 The telegram , a copy of which was introduced into evidence , bore no date , and other
Board witnesses fixed the date of its circulation as within a week or two before the election.
568 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL, LABOR, RELATIONS BOARD
CAN COME THURSDAY'TO TAKE INVENTORY ON YOUR PLANT CAN PAY
BEST CASH PRICES FOR SEWING MACHINES AND, EQUIPMENT NO DEAL
TOO LARGE
GARFIELD SEWING MACHINE AND EQUIPMENT CO
Numerous Board witnesses 21 testified that the telegram was circu-
lated in the plant under the direction of the foreladies. Alt' testi-
fied that Superintendent Schwartz and Foreladies Lindstrand and
-Marsh discussed the telegram before' the foreladies passed it'down
,the sewing machine line. Schwartz.denied ever having seen the tele-
gram or having shown it to anyone. Forelady Lindstrand testified
that she did not remember seeing the telegram in the plant at any
time. Foreladies Juday and Marsh did not testify concerning the
telegram. Taitel testified that he had received the telegram over
the telephone and had never actually seen the copy of the telegram,
until it was produced from the respondents' files during the hearing.
He also testified, that prior to the receipt of -the telegram, the pur-
ported purchaser, a Chicago company, made inquiry by telephone as
to whether respondents had "some equipment" to sell, and that
'Taitel's reply was that he had "something around," meaning "obso-
lete sewing machines and pressing machines." Taitel admitted that
this purported purchaser never appeared. Taitel's explanation of
this inquiry would not warrant the language of the telegram. In
view of this patent inconsistency, and the Trial Examiner's estimate
of the credibility of the witnesses, we conclude, as did the Trial Ex-
aminer, that the telegram was circulated in the plant, shortly before
the election, by the respondents' supervisors with the respondents'
knowledge and approval.
Two or three days before the election, while Forelady Marsh was
-telling LaVerna Ewing, whose testimony was credited by the Trial
Examiner, about the "bad points" of the Union, Lindstrand joined
them and said that if the Union won the election, Taitel would move
to another community and, open under an assumed name. The day
before the election, Forelady Lindstrand told a group of girls, in-
cluding Ruby Maggard, whose testimony was credited by the Trial
Examiner, while they were working on her line, "You know that
the shop belongs to Taitel . . . stay away from the Union,,and if
they come to you, tell them to keep out of your face." According
-to the und'enied and credible testimony, of Gertrude Alt, the day
before the election, when union girls were placing sample ballots on
The sewing machines, the foreladies picked up the ballots, which had
been placed upon the machines and told the union girls to stop
passing out ballots. Other than their general denials of engaging
,in any anti-union activity, this testimony was undenied by the
21 Whitaker , Maggard , Simpson , Lillian Jordan , Ewing, Alt, Collins , and E, asterday.
-1. 1ArIEL,_& SO 569'
forelaclies 22 and in view thereof we concur in the concluslolis of the
Trial Examiner that the foreladies engaged in the conduct attributed
to them. - ' .
'
On the afternoon of September 29, after notices had been issued
by both the Union and the United for meetings at 7: 30 p. in., Presi-
dent Hill of the Knox Kiwanis Club went through the respondents'
plant passing out free tickets to the employees for a motion picture
scheduled for 6: 45 that same evening at the Knox Theater.' Taitel,
a member of the Knox Kiwanis Club, testified ,that he, saw Hill come
into the plant and hold up something in his hand, and that he indi-
cated to Hill that he might come in, as he customarily permitted'
people to distribute cards and handbills 'in the plant. Charles F.
Gardner, secretary of the Kiwanis Club, testified that he, knew nothing
about the free movie before it was given and did not know that the-
Board of Directors had been consulted. He testified that he knew
of no other free movie which had been given by the Club;, that,in
the monthly report, credit for the free movie had been given, to the
educational committee; that Irving Eibe, chairman of the educa-
tional committee, was out of town-at the time the free movie.was
given; that he recalled no discussion of the movie among the member-
ship; that he did not know the extent of the distribution of the
tickets; and that the Club's president, Eugene Hill, was, in Texas,
and the vice president, Al Jonas, was in Cleveland at the time of the
hearing. The treasurer of the Kiwanis Club, Edward Musser, testi-
fied that Jonas had served as chairman of the committee giving
the free. movie and that Jonas and Hill had made all the arrange-
ments; that he did not know anything about the movie and that it
was the only free movie given by the Club; that Jonas gave him a
personal check for $106 which he deposited to the account of the-
Club on September 29; and that he paid out the $106 in three items,,
$75 to the Knox Theater, $16 to Hill for printing, and $15 to a
speaker. Jonas, apparently the owner of the Reiss Clothing Store,
is a customer of the respondents and maintains a running account
for the purchase of merchandise front them.23
The record establishes that the free movie, the only program of
its type ever given by the Knox Kiwanis Club, coincided with the
meetings of both unions scheduled for the same night in preparation
for the Board election to be conducted the following day; that the
responsible officials of the Club professed to have no knowledge
22 Forelady Lindstrand testified that she did not recall seeing the sample ballots. Fore.
ladies Marsh and Juday were not asked concerning Alt's testimony as to the sample ballots.
22 According to the, respondents' accountant, the Reiss Clothing Stoie was indebted to.
the respondents in the sum of $134 92 as of January 1, 1941 , and in the sum of $101 99,
as of December 31, 1941, having made purchases during the year amounting to $636.33,
and payments on account amounting to $669.26.
570 DECISIONS OF. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
concerning the arrangements or reasons for the movie ; that its cost
equalled approximately one-third of the total 'annual dues of the
entire membership ; 24 and that it Was given principally , if,not solely,
for the employees of the respondent . 25 Under all the circumstances,
and particularly in view of Taitel's position in the community and
his expressed opposition to the Union, we find that the movie was
given with the respondent 's knowledge and consent , for the purpose
of inducing employees to stay away from , the meetings on the night
prior to the scheduled election and generally to wean support from
the Union.
Ori September 30, the consent election was held and substantially
more votes were cast for neither organization than for both the
Union and the United.
B. Concluding findings
The foregoing facts make evident that at the very outset of the
Union's attempts at employee -organization , the respondents declared
and demonstrated to the employees their opposition to the Union, and
forthwith adopted measures designed to frustrate self-organization.
The main contention of the respondents is that the events which oc-
curred during August and September 1941 were the spontaneous
activities of certain of the employees and various townspeople, all of
whom acted well within their constitutional rights, and that such
activities may not be attributed to the respondents. We find this con-
tention to be without merit. The record establishes that both Taitel
and Schwartz personally interrogated employees as to their union
membership and activity , made statements inimical to, evinced hos-
tility toward , and incited others to similar efforts against union mem-
-bership and activity . Due to the importance of so large a plant in
this small community and to his past favors to employees , Taitel was
able to attract to his support many who aided him in his plan to
thwart the Union. Taitel 's attitude is patently illustrated by the
boast he made to union representative Freed, that if the Union won any
election, Freed was "a smarter man" than he. The pattern of anti-
union activity pursued by Taitel and Schwartz was followed closely by
Foreladies Lindstrand , Marsh, and Juday. Their joint and several
activities in the circulation of petitions in the plant and at the homes
of employees to intensify loyalty for the respondents and to withdraw
support from the Union , -in the repeated utterance of statements in
derision of the Union , and in the spread of rumors , threats, and warn-
ings that plant shut-down or transfer and loss of employment would
ensue as a result of the selection of the Union as bargaining representa-
" The Club had 29 members during 1941 and the dues were $10 per year.
25 Musser , a grocer in town , testified he knew that "the clerks in the store had tickets
and went."
I. TAITEL & SON 571
tive were plainly designed to discourage outside union activity. That
the telegram , which insinuated the possibility of a wholesale disposal
of the respondents ' plant equipment , emanated from the desire of the
respondents to instill such fear in the employees , is indisputable.
The activities of the foreladies and Foremen Storey and Sides in the
creation of the Committee , which formed an integral part in the re-
spondents ' pattern of anti -union activity , are not controverted in the
record. It is undenied that the Committee was suggested and formed
at a meeting held in the plant with the respondents ' permission, re-
quired to be attended by the employees, and discussed in advance, ar-
ranged, and conducted by supervisory employees . Foreman Storey
started the meeting, was selected as a department representative, and
served as the so-called chairman of the Committee . Foreman Sides
arranged for the outside "impartial chairman" and suggested the
formation of the Committee . The foreladies participated in the meet-
ing and conducted the elections of representatives from their respective
departments . The elections of all department representatives were
held in the plant. While the Committee possesses no constitutional
organization, independent finances, or functions other than the sub-
mission of grievances , of which there were reputedly none, it is still
,in existence for the performance of such functions , should occasion
arise.
We find that the respondents interfered with, dominated , and sup-
ported the formation and administration of the Committee , and that
thereby, and by a continuous course of anti-union conduct, including
interrogating employees concerning their membership and activity
in the Union, threatening plant shut -down and loss of employment
for union membership , support, and success, circulating petitions urg-
ing repudiation of the Union and reaffirming loyalty to the respondents,
and in repeatedly making statements , giving warnings, and spreading
rumors in derogation of the Union and in detriment of employee self-
organization ; the respondents have interfered with, restrained, and
coerced their employees in the exercise of the rights to self-organization,
to form, join , or assist labor organizations , to bargain collectively
through representatives of their own choosing , and to engage in con-
certed activities for the purpose of collective bargaining , as guaranteed
in Section 7 of the Act.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
We find that the activities of the respondents set forth in Section III
above, occurring in connection with the operations of the respondents
described in Section I above, have a close, intimate , and substantial
relation to trade, traffic , and commerce among the several States and
tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and
the free flow of commerce.
572 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
V. THE REMEDY
Since we have found that the respondents have engaged in unfair,
labor practices, we shall order that they cease and desist therefrom and
take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of
the Act.
We have found that the respondents dominated and interfered
with the formation and administration of the Committee and con-
tributed • support to it. 'Since the respondents' domination and
interference render the Committee incapable of acting as the rep-
resentative of the respondents' employees for the purposes of collec-
tive bargaining, in order to free the respondents' employees from such
domination and interference, we shall order the respondents to with-
draw all recognition from the Committee as the representative of any
of their employees for the purpose of dealing with the respondents
concerning grievances, labor disputes, -wages, rates of pay, hours of
employment, or other conditions of employment and completely to
disestablish the Committee as such representative.
The respondents' unlawful course of conduct discloses a purpose
to defeat self-organization and its objectives. Because of such con-
duct and its underlying purpose, it may reasonably be anticipated
that* the respondents may seek to attain'these objectives by various
other means prohibited by the Act.' The preventive purpose of the
Act will be'thwarted, unless our order is made coextensive with such
threat. In order, therefore, to make effective the interdependent
guarantees of Section 7, to prevent a recurrence of unfair labor prac-
tices, and thus to effectuate the policies of the Act, we shall order the.
respondents to cease and desist from in any manner infringing the-
rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
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. Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America, affiliated, with the
C. I. O., and the Grievance Committee are labor organizations, within
the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
2. By dominating and'interfering with the formation and admin-
istration of the Grievance Committee and contributing support
thereto, the respondents have' engaged in and are engaging in unfair
labor practices, within the meaning of Section 8 (2) of the Act.
3. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing their employees
in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the
respondents have engaged in and are engaging in unfair labor prac-
tices, within the meaning of Section 8 (1) of the Act.
N. L R . B. v. Express Publishing Company , 312 U. 8 426.
I. TAITEL & SON 573
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices
affecting commerce, within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of
the Act.
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
respondents , Irving Taitel , and Ruth Taitel , doing business as
1. Taitel & Son, their agents, successors, and assigns, shall :
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Dominating or interfering with the administration of the
Grievance Committee or with the formation and administration of
any other labor • organization of their employees , and from contrib-
uting support to said Grievance Committee or to any other labor
2)rganization of their employees;
(b) Recognizing the Grievance Committee as the representative of
any of their employees for the purpose of dealing with the respond-
ents concerning grievances , labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours
of employment , or any other conditions of employment; and
(c) In any ' other manner interfering , with, restraining , or coercing
their employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to
form, join, or assist labor organizations , to bargain collectively through
representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted
activities for the purpose of collective bargaining and other mutual
aid or protection , as guaranteed in Section 7.of the Act.
2. Take the following 4ffirmative action which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Withdraw all recognition from the Grievance Committee as
the representative of any of their employees for the purpose of dealing
with the respondents concerning grievances , labor disputes , wages,
rates of pay , hours of employment , and other conditions of•employ-
ment , and completely disestablish said Grievance Committee as such
representative;
(b) Post immediately in conspicuous places throughout their plant
at Knox , Indiana, and maintain for a period of at least sixty (60)
consecutive days from the date of posting, notices to their employees
stating: ( 1) that the respondents will not engage in the conduct from
which they have been ordered to cease and desist in paragraphs 1 (a),
(b), and ( c) of this Order; and ( 2) that the respondents will take
the affirmative action set forth in paragraph 2 (a) of this Order; and
(c) Notify the Regional Director for the Eleventh Region in writ-
ing. within ten (10 ) days from the date ' of this Order, what steps the
respondents have taken to comply herewith.
MR. WM . M. LEISERSON took no part in the consideration of the
above Decision and Order.