Int'l Ladies Garment Workers' Union, AFL-CIO

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 18, 1963

142 N.L.R.B. 82 (N.L.R.B. 1963)

82 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
other labor organization , by laying off , discharging or refusing to reinstate
any of our employees or in any other manner discriminating against our em-
ployees in regard to their hire or tenure of employment, or any term or condi-
tion of employment.
WE WILL NOT threaten our employees with shutting down our plant or
with other economic sanctions , nor will we offer our employees promotion or
other economic benefits, to discourage their union affiliation or adherence.
WE WILL NOT engage in surveillance of union meetings or activities.
WE WILL NOT prohibit or restrict our employees from talking about unions
or from engaging in union activities in our plant during nonworking hours.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain , or coerce our
employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization , to form labor
organizations , to join or assist United Rubber, Cork, Linoleum and Plastic
Workers of America, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization , to bargain
collectively through representatives of their own choosing , and to engage in
other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other
mutual aid or protection , and to refrain from any or all such activities.
WE WILL offer to Earl Gerald McClung immediate and full reinstatement
to his former or substantially equivalent position , without prejudice to any
seniority or other rights and privileges previously enjoyed, and make him
whole for any loss of pay suffered as a result of the discriminations against him.
All our employees are free to become or remain, or to refrain from becoming or
remaining , members of United Rubber, Cork, Linoleum and Plastic Workers of
America, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization.
RUBBER FABRICATORS, INC.,
Employer.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------
(Representative ) (Title)
NoTE. We will notify any of the above-named employees presently serving in
the Armed Forces of the United States of their right to full reinstatement upon ap-
plication in accordance with the Selective Service Act after discharge from the
Armed Forces.
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting,
and must not be altered , defaced , or covered by any other material.
Employees may communicate directly with the Board 's Regional Office, Transit
Building, Fourth and Vine Streets , Cincinnati 2, Ohio, Telephone No. Dunbar
1-1420 , if they have any questions concerning this notice or compliance with its
provisions.
International Ladies Garment YÌ€orkers' Union , AFL-CIO and
Federation of Union Representatives . Cases Nos. O-CA-7857-1
and P-CA-7923. April 18, 1963
DECISION AND ORDER
On August 10, 1962, Trial Examiner George A. Downing issued
his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that
the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair
labor practices and had not engaged in others,. and recommending
that it cease and desist from the unfair labor practices found, and
take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Intermediate
Report. Thereafter, the General Counsel, the Respondent, and the
Charging Party filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report together
with supporting briefs.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board
has delegated its powers in connection with these cases to a three-
142 NLRB No. 10.
INT'L LADIES GARMENT WORKERS' UNION, AFL-CIO 83
member panel [Chairman McCulloch and Members Rodgers and
Leedom].
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made
at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed.
The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the
Intermediate Report, the exceptions and briefs, and the entire record
in these cases, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recom-
mendations of the Trial Examiner, with the following modifications.
The Trial Examiner found that Respondent had violated Section
8 (a) (1) of the Act by failing to grant wage increases to its employees
in accordance with past practice, because of FOUR's recognition re-
quest. In prescribing a remedy for this unfair labor practice, the
Trial Examiner recommended only that Respondent cease and desist
from such practice. We believe that this remedy is inadequate be-
cause it looks only to the future and does not in fact remedy the past
unlawful withholding of wage increases. Accordingly, in order more
effectively to remedy the unfair labor practice found, we shall also
order Respondent to make employees whole for loss of earnings suf-
fered as the result of Respondent's unlawful withholding of wage
increases, automatic or merit, during December 1960.1 The back-
pay obligation of Respondent shall include the payment of interest
at the rate of 6 percent per anum to be computed in the manner set
forth in Isis Plumbing c6 Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716.2
ORDER
The Board adopts as its Order the Recommended Order of the Trial
Examiner, with the following additions and modifications : 9
Revise paragraph 1(f) to read : "Failing to grant automatic annual
and/or merit wage increases to its employees, in accordance with its
past practices, because of FOUR's recognition request."
Renumber paragraphs 2 (a) and 2 (b) as 2 (b) and, 2 (c) respectively
and insert the following as paragraph 2(a) : "Make whole its em-
ployees for loss of earnings suffered as the result of the unlawful with-
holding of automatic annual and/or merit increases in the manner
set forth in this Decision and Order."
See Peyton Packing Company, Inc ., 129 NLRB 1275, 1276. An award of backpay in
order to remedy a violation of Section 8(a) (1) of the Act is appropriate. See N.L.R.B. V.
Guernsey-Muskingum Electric Cooperative Inc., 285 F. 2d 8 (C.A. 6) ; N.L.R.B. v. Buzza-
Cardoza, 205 F. 2d 889 (C.A. 9). In view of our remedy provided herein, we find it
unncessary to consider whether or not Respondent 's conduct in this regard is also violative
of Section 8(a) (3) of the Act.
2 For reasons stated in the dissenting opinion in the Isis case, Members Rodgers and
Leedom are convinced that the award of interest in this case exceeds the Board's remedial
authority. While adhering to such view , for the purposes of this decision they are acced-
ing to the majority Board policy of granting interest on moneys due.
a Amend the notice to all employees by changing the first sentence below the signature
line to read : "This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of
posting."
712-548-64-vol. 142-7
84 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Substitute the following for the sixth paragraph of the notice :
WE WILL NOT fail to grant automatic annual and/or merit wages
increases to our employees in accordance with our past practices
because of Federation of Union Representatives' recognition
request.
Add the following to the notice following the seventh paragraph
therein :
WE WILL make whole our employees for loss of earnings suf-
fered as the result of our unlawful withholding of automatic
annual and/or merit increases.
INTERMEDIATE REPORT
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This proceeding , brought under Section 10 (b) of the National Labor Relations
Act, as amended ( 161 Stat . 136; 73 Stat. 519), was heard before Trial Examiner
George A. Downing in New York City on various dates from December 18, 1961,
to March 5, 1962, inclusive . The amended consolidated complaint , issued on Octo-
ber 19, 1961 , and based on charges dated March 10 and April 25, 1961, alleged
in substance ( as ultimately amended at the hearing ) that Respondent , as an em-
ployer within the meaning of the Act, had engaged in unfair labor practices proscribed
by Section 8 (a) (1) and (3) of the Act by reason of certain specified conduct, from
December 1960 through June 1961 , in relation to its employees , because of or
concerning their membership and activities in, affiliation with, or adherence to,
Federation of Union Representatives (herein called FOUR), more specifically (1)
by interrogations , warnings , directions , solicitations , and threats ; (2) by the transfer
and discharge of Constantine Sedares and Theodore Bloom, and by the refusal
to transfer Louise Krepshaw; (3) by the reduction and/or elimination of allow-
ances for per diem , auto expenses , and telephone calls; (4) by increasing job tasks
and duties ; (5) by failing to grant wage increases in accordance with past prac-
tices; and ( 6) by establishing committees to consider and resolve grievances and to
make wage recommendations and by promising benefits to encourage employees to
present their grievances to said committees.
Respondent answered , denying the unfair labor practices as alleged ; it denied
further that it is engaged in commerce , that it is an employer, that its personnel
involved in the complaint are employees , and that FOUR is a labor organization
within the meaning of the Act.
Upon the entire record in the case, and from my observations of the witnesses, I
make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. JURISDICTIONAL FINDINGS
Upon facts pleaded in the complaint and admitted by answer , upon the record
in the representation proceeding , Case No . 2-RC-11158 , (not published in NLRB
volumes ) and upon the Board 's decision in said case , 131 NLRB 111 , I find that
Respondent (herein called ILG) is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the Act , and that it is an employer of employees within the meaning of the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
I find from . the evidence in the present case and from the record and the Board's
decision in the representation proceeding above, that FOUR is a labor organization
within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
. III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES ,
A. Background; the representation proceedings; the issues
Respondent is itself an international labor organization consisting of numerous
locals, joint boards , district councils, and regional departments, with a membership
of over 400 ,000, and it employs numerous business agents, organizers , and educa-
INT'L LADIES GARMENT WORKERS' UNION, AFL-CIO 85
tional directors, as well as other personnel who do union label and political work.
The present proceeding against it, as an employer, arose out of the organizational
efforts of some of such persons in forming an organization to represent them, vis-a-vis
Respondent, for purposes of collective bargaining.
Informal discussions and meetings looking to such an end had gone on for more
than a year before December 1960, although the participants were few and well
screened and the activities were kept a close secret. The first formal organization
meeting was held on December 11, 1960, when FOUR came into existence. Con-
stantine (Gus) Sedares, who was one of the leaders in the preorganizational ac-
tivities, was chosen as temporary chairman and Marvin Rogoff as temporary
secretary-treasurer. On December 18, a telegram was dispatched to President David
Dubinsky of ILG in which FOUR claimed a majority and made a formal demand
for recognition.
On December 27 FOUR filed its representation petition in Case No. 2-RC-1 1158,
seeking a unit of staff members on the ILG payroll (as distinguished from its locals),
and on April 14, 1961, the Board issued its Decision and Direction of Election, 131
NLRB Ill, supra. An election was held on May 12, whose result is still nominally
in doubt (see Second Supplemental Decision, 137 NLRB 748, issued June 22, 1962,
and Third Supplemental Decision, 137 NLRB 1681, issued July 26, 1962), though
it seems apparent from the unusual circumstances which the Board refers to in the
latter decision that FOUR will ultimately receive a majority of the votes cast.
Briefly, the issues in the present proceeding involve the alleged discriminatory
transfers and discharges of Sedares and Theodore (Ted) Bloom, an alleged dis-
criminatory refusal to transfer Louise Krepshaw, and alleged coercive and discrimi-
natory conduct which followed FOUR's demand for recognition and which occurred
in various regions and departments of ILG. Except for Sedares' transfer on No-
vember 30, 1960, and his discharge on December 9, all of the alleged conduct
occurred after FOUR was organized on December 11.
As to Sedares, Respondent denies that it had knowledge of his organizational
activities and avers that it transferred and discharged him for cause. Respondent
also denies knowledge of Bloom's activities in FOUR, denies that he was discharged,
and denies that he was discriminatorily transferred. In Krepshaw's case, it denies
a discriminatory motivation.
Much of the General Counsel's evidence concerning the remaining incidents of
coercion and discrimination is disputed, and other portions are defended as privileged
under Section 8(c).
Respondent's contentions concerning commerce, the employer-employee questions,
and FOUR's status as a labor organization were decided by the Board adversely to
Respondent in the representation proceeding, 131 NLRB 111, supra, which decision
is binding upon the Trial Examiner. There was no relitigation of those questions
herein, though the record in the representation proceeding was physically incorpo-
rated as an exhibit without objection.'
B. The discharge of Sedares; the formation of FOUR
1. Introduction; the Tiny Town campaign
The hardest fought and most important issue in this case concerns the discharge
of Constantine Sedares, who came with ILG in 1958 as an organizer and who was
finally discharged on December 9, 1960. Sedares played a leading part in the
activities which preceded the formal organization of FOUR on December 11, 1960.
Whether Respondent had knowledge of those activities is one of the two crucial
issues surrounding his discharge, the other being whether the discharge was made
discriminatorily, as contended by the General Counsel, or whether it was for the
causes assigned by the Respondent. Those causes related immediately to certain
aspects of Sedares' conduct during the last 2 or 3 months of his employment, though
Respondent contended that such conduct was no more than a continuation of similar
conduct throughout the course of his employment and that it resulted from, and
was an outgrowth of, certain personality traits which Respondent had labored long
and unsuccessfully to correct.
Much of the voluminous evidence concerning Sedares was devoted to tracing
his employment history, step by step. Vice President Kramer, who discharged
Sedares, was directly acquainted with portions of Sedares' record and with his
1 Since the present proceeding does not involve'a -refusal to bargain, the record in, the
representation case would not, under Section 9(d), automatically become a part of "the
record to be included in the present one in review or enforcement proceedings under Sec-
tion 10(e) or (f) proceedings.
86 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
personality traits, and was familiar generally with his reputation and with his
performance record. However, in effecting Sedares' first discharge and/or transfer
on November 30, Kramer referred only to specific instances of Sedares' conduct
during the preceding 2 months or so, and he ordered Sedares' final termination on
December 9 on the basis of Sedares' performance for a single week while on the
staff of Peter Detlefsen, manager of Newark locals. For those reasons Sedares'
employment history prior to October 1960 is relevant mainly as background evidence
and as constituting in part the basis for Kramer's overall evaluation of Sedares.
Although I do not, therefore, consider it necessary to encumber the body of this
report with a detailed tracing of Sedares' career as developed under Respondent's
evidence, I have compiled a brief summary of it in the attached Appendix A.2
Before proceeding to the events which led immediately to Sedares' discharge, it
will suffice to note here briefly that Sedares was first employed in May 1957 by
Local 190 in Philadelphia, that he was then admitted to the Training Institute,3 that
he did fieldwork while in training at the Institute on a part-time basis until his
graduation in June 1958; and that thereafter he worked full time as an organizer
in the following areas and departments: in Virginia and Maryland, with the Upper
South Department; in Upper New York and Vermont, with the Northeast Depart-
ment; in New York City and Pennsylvania, with the Dressmakers' Joint Council; 4
and finally in the upper Hudson Valley and in Newark, New Jersey, with the Eastern
Region.
The Eastern Region was under the management of General Manager Edward
Kramer, who was also a vice president of ILG, and Sedares' assignment or transfer
to that region was made in March 1960. Sedares' tenure under Kramer was in two
segments: The first, in the upper Hudson Valley under Walter DeYoung, a former
classmate of Sedares at the Institute, ended on November 30, when Kramer dis-
charged and/or transferred Sedares to Newark, under Detlefsen. The second ended
on December 9, when Detlefsen finally discharged him at Kramer's direction. The
General Counsel relies upon the same body of evidence to establish both Respond-
ent's knowledge of Sedares' pre-FOUR activities and its alleged discriminatory moti-
vation, contending that both are to be inferred 5 from the timing and from certain
suspicious circumstances surrounding Kramer's handling of Sedares' termination.
The events which led to the November 30 action began early in October, when
Sedares was placed in charge of the final stages of the Tiny Town Togs campaign
in Troy, New York, which had been going on for some 3 or 4 months. The issues
under the evidence involved a minor one as to the tenor of Sedares' instructions and
a major one as to the proper evaluation of Sedares' role in conducting the campaign,
specifically whether (in the General Counsel's view) Sedares should receive the lion's
share of the credit for winning an outstanding victory or whether, under Respond-
ent's evidence, it was Kramer's masterminding of the overall strategy which ac-
counted for the result. On both points, Sedares' testimony, which furnished the
bulk of the General Counsel's showing, was overborne by the preponderant weight
of cumulative and corroborative testimony by Respondent's witnesses.
Briefly, the evidence showed that because of DeYoung's involvement in the
critical stage of another campaign, Kramer decided to place Sedares in charge of
getting out the vote at the Tiny Town plant (on which it had been decided to pro-
2 Though Sedares took Issue with Respondent's witnesses as to the details of some of
the incidents which they testified to and though he claimed justification as to others, his
admissions confirmed both the fact that most of the matters occurred and that there was
resultant criticism from his supervisors and complaints from his associates. For example,
Sedares admitted that Edward Banyal (director of organization, Dressmakers' Joint
Council), Sol Chaikin (assistant director, Northeast Department), and Kramer had dis-
cussions with him concerning his alleged irresponsibility ; he admitted engaging in the
altercations and assaults which led to his arrest on two occasions (see Appendix A,
items 4 and 9) ; he admitted acquiescing in Bloom's bitter criticism of Clifford W. Depin,
manager of the Scranton Local (id. Item 9) ; and he admitted other instances of conduct
which caused difficulties between him and other supervisors. Though the resolution of
conflicts is, therefore, not important, it is to be noted that Respondent supported most of
its charges against Sedares by witnesses whose testimony was mutually corroborative.
3 Maintained by Respondent at its headquarters in New York City for selecting and train-
ing employees for leadership.
4 The Northeast Department, the Eastern Region, and the Dressmakers' Joint Board of
New York combined into the Dressmakers' Joint Council for the purpose of organizing
dress plants in their respective areas, serving the New York market.
5There was no evidence of actual knowledge of Sedares' pre-FOUR activities unless
DeYoung's knowledge can be found to be attributable to Respondent.
INT'L LADIES GARMENT WORKERS' UNION, AFL-CIO 87
ceed to an election), speculating that Sedares might work out better on an assign-
ment which involved greater responsibility. Sedares was accordingly summoned
to a meeting in Kramer's office, which was also attended by DeYoung, Sam Janis,
Kramer's assistant, Ray Bramucci, then educational director of the Eastern Region,
and Julius Topol, assistant general counsel of ILG.
Sedares was informed that because of DeYoung's other commitment, Sedares was
being placed in charge of the campaign to get out the vote because of his talents
for leaflet writing, but that Sedares should clear all leaflets 6 and all major expenses
with Kramer. Expressing opposition to checking out such "routine elements" with
the vice president in charge of the department and a desire to "run the show" him-
self, Sedares suggested that Kramer should put Murray Markoff (another organizer)
in charge. Kramer replied that if he had wanted to put Markoff in charge, he
would have done so, and finally put it up to Sedares that he should "take it or
else." After conferring privately with DeYoung, Sedares announced his acceptance.
Sedares testified that he thereafter directed the activities of four other organizers
who had been working on the campaign (Joseph D'Agostino, Julius Sippen, Virginia
O'Toole, and Murray Markoff) and that he himself drew up all leaflets that were
distributed, drafted the letters that were sent to the workers, and engaged in other
miscellaneous activity. Acting on his own decision, he arranged through Topol to
have the election held away from the shop. The Union won the election, by a margin
of nine votes, and was certified.
Sedares testified that Topol and Kramer later congratulated him on winning the
election; and the General Counsel also introduced a new story in "Justice," Respond-
ent's official organ, under date of November 15, which played up the importance of
the victory but which made only passing reference to Sedares among the staff mem-
bers who had assisted in the drive under DeYoung. Kramer testified (with cor-
roboration from DeYoung and Bramucci) that he congratulated both Sedares and
DeYoung a day or so after the election, but that he attributed the result in large
measure to his own strategy in having directed them to avoid any attack on the
Employer.
In the meantime Kramer had assumed that Sedares had complied with his instruc-
tions regarding the clearing of leaflets and expenditures. No issue arose as to leaflets,
but Kramer learned later of two major expense items which Sedares had not cleared
with him, and in checking on those, he learned of other misconduct by Sedares, both
at Troy and at Newburgh. As all of the foregoing constituted the matters with which
Kramer confronted Sedares on November 30, it is necessary to consider them in some
detail.
(a) The first item (and the one which sparked Kramer's inquiries) was a bill and
a check for approximately $250 which reached Kramer's desk in the first week of
November and which covered a hotel bill for a dinner for some 50 persons 7 during
the Tiny Town campaign. Kramer called Manager Nash of the Troy local, who
disclaimed responsibility and who stated that Sedares had made the arrangement,
though Nash had tried to get the amount reduced. Nash also informed Kramer
that he had "plenty of troubles" with Sedares, mentioning specifically the matters
listed in items b and c, infra.
(b) Sedares had offered, without authorization from Kramer, to pay the Tiny
Town employees for the time they lost while voting in the election, which was held
away from the plant. Kramer knew of no such offer being made in some 22 years of
his experience with ILG.
(c) Immediately following the announcement of the election results, Sedares had
yelled at Nash, kicked over a chair, and stormed out of the room when Nash sought
to open negotiations with the employer. Nash reported that Sedares' conduct
(which was also in the presence of the employer's attorney and a Board agent)
greatly embarrassed him, particularly when. the employer asked him about the "kind
of people" he was to deal with.
(d) Because of Nash's disturbing reports, Kramer decided to check further with
Sol Goldberg, manager of the Newburgh office, whose territory, together with Nash's,
covered the entire upper Hudson Valley area. Goldberg reported he had "enough
experiences" with Sedares, and supplied the following particulars: Sedares had
e Kramer's earlier negotiations with the employer and his attorney had convinced him
that the employer's attitude was cooperative and that it was strongly advisable to avoid
provocative statements which would incite the employer to retaliation.
70f whom only 20 were employees at the Tiny Town plant, the remainder being em-
ployees and officers of ILG locals, members of the executive boards, and their respective
husbands and wives.
88 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
refused to follow office procedures, thereby adding to the burdens of the clerical
staff; Sedares was discourteous, extremely rude, and insolent to the clerical staff,
particularly to the office manager, Janet Ryan; and he read to Kramer the following
note which Sedares had written him on September 27.
SOL: The copy and stencil to which this memo are attached comprise the
substance of a leaflet which must be ready for distribution tomorrow, (2:30
p.m.) Wednesday, September 28, 1960. Kindly see to it that it is ready and
available at the time indicated in the foregoing.
I do not propose to argue with, cajole, or in any other way play games with
the office staff in Newburg in order to get something done.
I suggest that you properly instruct them as to what their function is if you
have not done so already. They somehow have the impression that the clerical
work required by the organization department is something that they need do
only as they so elect.
It wouldn't be possible, would it, that they have misinterpreted something
you said in this regard.
Gus SEDARES.
The foregoing reports convinced Kramer that Sedares was running "true to form"
as regarded his past record and that his discharge was called for absent a satisfactory
explanation. Because of impending Tiny Town negotiations, however, and uncer-
tainty as to the bearing which Sedares' status might have on them, Kramer did not
take immediate action. Kramer testified to a series of attempts, which he made to
reach Sedares, beginning around November 14 or 15. These included unsuccessful
attempts by the switchboard operator to get him on the telephone and a series of
calls to the Newburgh office to Goldberg and Janet Ryan, the office manager. Ryan
in turn called the offices in the vicinity of Newburgh, checked with the hotels, and
spoke also to DeYoung and other members of his staff who usually worked with
Sedares. Finally, sometime prior to November 23, Kramer instructed his secretary,
Jo Krieger, to send Sedares a memorandum to make an appointment to see him.
Sedares testified that following the Tiny Town election, he participated in one of
some three meetings of the negotiating committee and that thereafter, he worked on
various projects under DeYoung's supervision on which the Hudson Valley organiz-
ing staff were engaged, as well as on the J. R. McMullen Company retail campaign
in New York City. Among the Hudson Valley projects, Sedares mentioned specifi-
cally Lily of France and Modern Manufacturing Company, in Newburgh, and a
Korell firm and a uniform manufacturing firm in Troy, but he was unable to state
what specific projects he worked on at any given time, particularly during the week
before November 23. Furthermore, though Sedares claimed that he had left word
from time to time where he could be reached at various offices, he could not relate
his testimony to any given time, and he was unable to recall the name of anyone
whom he called or left word with as to his whereabouts.
DeYoung testified that sometime after the Tiny Town campaign, he assigned
Sedares to work under Julius Sippen on the Lily of France and Modern campaigns
and directed Sippen to get in touch with Sedares. When Sippen reported later
that he had been unable to locate Sedares, DeYoung took a hand at it for about a
week, around mid-November, but was unsuccessful until some 3 or 4 days before
Thanksgiving, when he located Sedares in New Jersey. Sippen testified similarly
concerning his attempts to locate Sedares for more than a week, and he denied that
Sedares spent any time working on the Lily of France or the Modern Manufacturing
situations.
2. The pre-FOUR activities; the meeting of November 22
In the meantime Sedares had been, since October 1959, an active member of a
small group of Respondent's employees who were discussing the advisability of
forming a union to represent staff members vis-a-vis ILG. Meetings were held
from time to time, with Sedares acting as chairman of the so-called organizing com-
mittee, and the size of the group was slowly and quietly increased by contacting and
bringing in, after careful and close screening, other staff members in whom the
original group had complete confidence and who it was felt could be completely
trusted not to divulge their closely guarded secret to the ILG leadership. Indeed, there
was no evidence that either Kramer or Detlefsen, who alone participated in the dis-
charge of Sedares, had any knowledge of the activities which preceded the formal
organization of FOUR on December 11, or of Sedares' participation in such activities,
unless it can be inferred under the evidence that the secret was leaked to them
by someone who had been invited into the group. The leading suspect in that
INT'L LADIES GARMENT WORKERS' UNION, AFL-CIO 89
regard was Walter DeYoung, to whom the General Counsel points as the source of
Kramer's knowledge .8
The pre-FOUR organizing committee had arranged a regional meeting for the
Eastern Region staff employees at the home of Business Agent James Amos in
East Orange, New Jersey, on the evening of November 22. Sedares invited DeYoung
to attend the meeting . DeYoung admitted that he had had prior discussions with
Sedares about some procedure to correct the problems of organizers and testified
that he understood that the meeting at Amos' home was to form a committee to
see what course of action should be taken. Though DeYoung did not attend
the meeting, he telephoned Amos' home twice, once to report that Sedares was on
the way and later to report that he (DeYoung) would probably not be able to
come but could be reached by telephone at Newburgh if it were necessary for him
to cast a vote on anything under discussion.
Sedares served as chairman of the meeting, at which committeemen were designated
by consent of the group, with DeYoung being among those who were so designated.
When Sedares later informed DeYoung of his designation, DeYoung made no
comment as to whether he would or would not serve.
It was against that background that Kramer's secretary sent out the note to
Sedares dated November 23 to arrange an appointment.
3. The conference of November 30
Sedares met with Kramer on November 30, with DeYoung and Janis also present
at Kramer's request. During the course of the lengthy conference, Kramer proceeded
to criticize Sedares severely, particularly concerning the four matters which are
listed under section 1, supra.
Kramer began by confronting Sedares with his memorandum to Goldberg, item
(d), supra, and another memorandum which Sedares had written to Kramer him-
self inquiring why Kramer directed the discontinuance of certain activities which
Sedares had recommended in connection with the McMullen campaign . Defend-
ing Kramer's criticism that the memorandums were snotty, Sedares denied that they
were impudent and took the position they were addressed squarely to the issues.
Kramer testified that Sedares made no explanation of the note to Goldberg save to
acknowledge his signature, and that when he (Kramer) mentioned Ryan's com-
plaints concerning Sedares' discourteous conduct toward her and the clerical staff,
Sedares simply shrugged his shoulders and made no answer.
Kramer then sought an explanation of the hotel bill, item (a), supra, and re-
peatedly inquired who had authorized Sedares to make the expenditure. Sedares
took the position that he had been placed in charge of the campaign and he regarded
that as proper authorization of the expenditure of funds; he defended it further as
a necessary and proper expenditure in view of the importance of the election and
the small per capita cost if measured by the size of the Local. Kramer retorted
that justification of the expenditure was not the point at issue, that if Sedares had
sought approval as directed, Kramer might well have given it, but that Sedares had
at no time requested approval.
Kramer then inquired who had authorized Sedares to pay the Tiny Town em-
ployees for time lost in voting in the elemtion (item (b), supra)', asking if Sedares
did not know it could be the basis for setting aside the election. Sedares explained
he had discussed the matter with Topol, who advised him that the matter could not
be so used if the offer were made without discrimination as concerned employees'
feelings toward the Union. Kramer inquired whether the clearing with Topol was
on the point of legality or whether Topol approved the expense. Sedares admitted
that Topol had not approved the making of the expense.
9 Though the pre-FOUR group included others, who were later determined or conceded
to be of supervisory ran k(i.e., Frank Lyons, Joseph Shane, and Sol Hoffman), they, like
DeYoung, were persons in whom full confidence was reposed and who had been brought
into the group on the assumption that they were eligible for membership in a staff union.
Their status as supervisors was a matter of considerable doubt at the time and remained
so during at least the earlier stages of the representation proceedings. Certainly prior
to December 11 their sympathies lay with the organizing group, and, except in DeYoung's
case, there is no basis under the evidence for an inference that they divulged to the ILG
leadership their knowledge of the pending activities. Even were it possible to impute to
ILG their knowledge (again excepting DeYoung) now that their status has been resolved,
the evidence does not suggest that such knowledge reached Kramer and Detlefsen, who
alone of Respondent's officials participated in the termination of Sedares.
90 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Kramer then turned to the chair -kicking incident ( item (c), supra ), which Sedares
admitted but which he defended on the ground that Nash should not have intruded
into the matter of negotiations at that time, particularly since Kramer was himself
engaged in negotiations with the chief attorney for the firm . Kramer agreed that
Nash was wrong but pursued Sedares to explain "What has that go to do with
screaming and kicking over a chair and storming out of the room?" Sedares'
only explanation was that "we were tense" as a result of 2 weeks of hard work; he
agreed that if Nash had been near him, he might have kicked Nash or knocked
him across the room; but he would not acknowledge that his conduct was wrong or
state that he was sorry for it.
Kramer testified that at that point, despairing of his attempts to obtain acknowl-
edgment from Sedares that his show of violence under the circumstances was im-
proper conduct , he informed Sedares that since he could not see that he had done an
improper act for a union official who was supposed to be a responsible person, there
was no place for him in the Eastern Region , and he was discharged . Though
Sedares denied that Kramer discharged him, DeYoung and Janis corroborated
Kramer 's testimony to the contrary.
Kramer and DeYoung testified (with Janis ' corroboration ) that Kramer and
DeYoung then left the room . DeYoung pleaded with Kramer to give Sedares
another chance under a different supervisor , suggesting that he himself may have
shared some of the responsibility or blame for Sedares because their personal rela-
tionship was such that possibly he had not been able to exert enough influence over
Sedares. DeYoung suggested the possibility that Newark might be a better area
for Sedares to work in as it was closer to his home ; that Detlefsen, the manager,
having a smaller geographical area, kept closer tabs on the organizers , and that they
might work out very well together . Kramer acquiesced , and when they returned
to the room , Kramer informed Sedares that he would give him a last chance, but
that he would be taken out of the Hudson Valley and put to work for Detlefsen,
"the last of the old line organizers ." Although Sedares expressed a preference to
stay in the Valley, Kramer ordered him to report to Detlefsen on Monday morning
(December 5) in company with DeYoung, and instructed him to stay in close con-
tact with Detlefsen , because Sedares would be working under closer supervision
there. Though Sedares continued to protest , Kramer was adamant.
Kramer later called Detlefsen , informed him that Sedares was being assigned to
him, and gave an appraisal of Sedares substantially as follows: A good capable
organizer but one who was not easy to get along with , one who had a tendency to
operate on his own and who had no concept of the meaning of money, especially
the Union 's, one who needed supervision and watching , but if Detlefsen would "run
herd" on him, Sedares could prove of great value in the organization drive in New
Jersey. There was no evidence that Detlefsen was informed of the events which
led to, or the reasons for , the transfer.
4. The Newark assignment ; the December 9 discharge
Sedares was accompanied to the Newark office on Monday by DeYoung. He
made no attempt to report to Detlefsen , but did attend a staff conference in
Detlefsen's office around 10:30 a.m., during the course of which DeYoung casually
introduced Sedares to Detlefsen . Sedares testified that following a discussion of
various organizing situations in which others were involved and of which he knew
nothing, Detlefsen assigned him to work with Sol Nesselroth on the Acmi firm in
Perth Amboy, and that he and Detlefsen discussed certain features of that situation,
including a connection with Fort Lee Knitting Mills, to which Morton Oransoff was
assigned.
Detlefsen testified that because of Kramer 's instructions to "keep tabs" on Sedares,
he made it a point to inform Sedares of the rules and procedures of the office , includ-
ing a direction that Sedares was to report either to Detlefsen or his secretary,
Constance Woodruff, each morning or evening so that Detlefsen could locate him
in the event he needed to do so, because the staff was engaged in an organizing
campaign and it was essential that Detlefsen know the whereabouts of the organizers
at all times . A telephone call would suffice if the staff member were busy. Detlef-
sen testified that Sedares ' attitude throughout was one of aloofness and that he did
not appear to be paying attention and that he looked away even when Detlefsen was
speaking directly to him. Neither did Sedares make any comment when Detlefsen
gave him instructions concerning his assignment to the Acmi campaign , which in-
cluded a direction to stay away from Fort Lee Knitting (Oransoff's assignment).9
0 Though Richard Kasten endeavored on rebuttal to refute Detlefsen 's testimony as to
Sedares' attitude , the grouping in the office was such that he could not accurately have
INT'L LADIES GARMENT WORKERS' UNION, AFL-CIO 91
Following the meeting, Detlefsen informed Woodruff that Sedares had joined the
staff, that his assignment was to Acmi, that Sedares had been instructed to call in
at least once each day, and that Woodruff was to note particularly when Sedares
called and what he reported.io
Though Detlefsen was out of the office much of the time during the remainder of
the week (in connection with a visit from his nephew from Denmark) he and Wood-
ruff testified that on occasions when he came into the office he inquired what reports
Woodruff had received from Sedares (and other staff members) and that during
periods of his absence he called Woodruff once or more a day and made similar
inquiries. Woodruff reported consistently that Sedares had not called in and that
she had not seen him. Sedares in turn admitted that he made no report or call to
Woodruff, though he testified that he came to the office on each day during the week
and testified further to the work he did each day, both in and out of the office,
including assistance to Oransoff on the latter's request at a meeting of Savoy em-
ployees on Thursday evening.
Though Woodruff saw Sedares sitting in the office lobby on Thursday morning, she
did not know who he was until she inquired of someone who the stranger was.
Around 10 a.m. on Thursday, Detlefsen also saw Sedares pass by while he was
talking with someone else in the lobby but Sedares did not speak. By now thoroughly
annoyed by Sedares' conduct, Detlefsen went to his office and requested Woodruff
to send Sedares in. Woodruff reported after a few minutes that she was unable to
find Sedares and that he must have left.
Detlefsen testified that by then he was quite provoked by Sedares' failure to
speak to him in the lobby or to report to him in the office and by Sedares' failure
to follow the instruction to contact the office as to his whereabouts or to report on
the progress of his assignments . Having decided that he did not want Sedares on
his staff, Detlefsen called Kramer to request that Kramer take him back. In brief,
Detlefsen informed Kramer that Sedares did not fit in on the staff, that he did not
have the courtesy of introducing himself, that he did not report or contact the office,
that he was annoyed at Sedares' aloofness, that though Sedares might be "very
smart" and an excellent man, he was afraid Sedares would spoil his "whole setup,"
and he wanted Kramer to take him back. Kramer, however, directed Detlefsen to
inform Sedares that he was discharged on Kramer's orders. Although Detlefsen
stated he only wanted Sedares transferred, Kramer nevertheless repeated the direc-
tion that Detlefsen tell Sedares he was through.
Thereupon Detlefsen directed Woodruff to locate Sedares and to enlist the aid
of other staff members if necessary. Despite repeated efforts, Woodruff was unable
to find Sedares, and so informed Detlefsen as he was leaving the office around 6 p.m.
Woodruff continued her efforts on Friday morning at Detlefsen's direction, but still
without success, and so reported to Detlefsen when he came in around noon.
In the meantime Detlefsen, who had not expected that Kramer would discharge
Sedares, testified he became concerned about the fact that he himself had become the
avenue for the discharge, particularly because he felt there existed on his staff a
belief or impression that he was not favorably disposed toward Institute graduates,
and he did not want his staff to construe his action as "picking on" Sedares because
he was a graduate of the Institute. For these reasons, Detlefsen testified, he called
Richard Kosten and Phillip Goodman into his office to be witnesses while he placed
a second call to Kramer and repeated the substance of Thursday's call. When he
reported, among other things, that he had been unable to find Sedares to fire him,
Kramer directed Detlefsen to send Sedares a letter. Either while waiting for the
call to go through or after it ended, Kosten made some remark to the effect that
determined the extent to which Sedares was paying attention or whether he was looking
away when Detlefsenl addressed him. I find, however, that Sedares did join in the dis-
cussion of matters pertaining to his own assignment.
10 Beginning in October, with the inception of the organization drive, Woodruff had kept
a record, on office forms devised for that purpose, of daily calls from staff members con-
cerning their whereabouts. Woodruff testified that she made the entries on the permanent
forms usually on a weekly basis, by postings from her notes made daily on office pads,
which were thereupon destroyed.
Testimony by Kosten that Woodruff made out at his request in January his weekly re-
port for the week ending December 9 did not refute Woodruff's testimony, as the General
Counsel claimed. Kosten's reports were something separate and apart from the record
which Woodruff was keeping at Detlefsen 's direction , and Kosten was obviously in no
position to know what office records Woodruff was keeping nor the source or the timing of
the entries made thereon.
92 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
it was a shame because Sedares was "a savvy guy." Thereupon Kosten and Good-
man left the office together."
Kosten and Oransoff testified to a later conversation with Detlefsen during which
Detlefsen elicited their opinions concerning Sedares' competence and ended by
stating he had to discharge Sedares because Sedares did not fit into the setup at
Newark.
As late as 2:30 p.m., Woodruff reported that she still had heard nothing from
Sedares, and around 4 p.m. Detlefsen called her in and dictated a discharge letter
to Sedares, which read in pertinent part as follows:
Since I did not hear from you or see you before the end of the day as I had
expected to, it leaves me no alternative but to communicate with you in this
manner.
I wish to inform you that I have come to the conclusion that your affilia-
tion and services with our Locals will not work out satisfactorily either with
our Locals or for yourself as well.
Your manner or working and keeping in contact with the office is not in keep-
ing with our policies. I have so informed General Manager Edward Kramer,
today.
He advises me that if that is the case, that I inform you that he will inform the
payroll department of the International that your services are terminated....
Woodruff testified that she typed the letter immediately, that Detlefsen signed
it around 4:15, and that it was sent out with the mail around 4:45.
Woodruff testified that around 4:30 she answered a call from someone who asked
for Gloria Lopez (who was frequently used by staff members as an interpreter
and who was currently working with Sedares), and that Kosten stated he would take
the call. Kosten testified in turn that the caller, Sedares, asked for certain informa-
tion on a knitting mill in the area. As the directory containing the information
was in Detlefsen's office, Kosten went in there, informed Detlefsen that Sedares
was on the telephone and asked if he wanted to speak to Sedares and whether Kosten
should tell him what had transpired. Detlefsen answered both questions in the
negative, but directed Kosten to give Sedares the information which he sought.
Lopez testified that around 4:30 p.m. she spoke with Detlefsen, who asked her
opinion of Sedares, and that she reported in substance that he was not very friendly
but seemed okay. She also reported having worked with him 2 nights before and
that she was going out with him again that evening. Detlefsen showed her a copy
of the discharge letter, and Lopez commented, "Just like that, Pete?" Detlefsen
gave her no message to Sedares, and did not tell her either to tell him or not to
tell him of his discharge.
Sedares learned around 7:30 that evening that he was going to be discharged
when he talked on the telephone with Herbert Levitt, who had been told by Good-
man and Kosten of the happenings in Detlefsen's office. Though Sedares worked
on with Lopez until around 9:30 p.m., neither mentioned to the other what they had
heard.
Upon receipt of Detlefsen's letter on December 13, Sedares sought out Detlefsen
and inquired why he was discharged. Sedares testified that Detlefsen replied that
Sedares was riot fitting into his team and his kind of operation and was not working
out and that Kramer had advised him to let Sedares go. Detlefsen's testimony was
substantially to similar effect, though he added that he referred also to Sedares'
failure to call in or to report and that Sedares excused his failure to report on the
ground that as "nothing jelled," there was nothing to report.
On December 14 Sedares went to see Kramer and inquired the "real reasons"
for his discharge. Sedares testified that Kramer replied "You didn't work out in
the Hudson Valley, you didn't work out in Newark, I let you go." Sedares pro-
tested that that was not the real reason for his discharge, because there had never
been any complaint about his work and stated that he proposed to find out the
real reason.
Kramer testified that he answered Sedares by reminding him that he had spent
quite a bit of time with him 2 weeks earlier concerning his behavior and conduct;
that against his better judgment and because of DeYoung's intervention, he had
31 Kosten testified that Goodman left first and that while he and Detlefsen were alone,
Detlefsen made the statement that, "There are some things you do for the union that you
take to the grave with you." Detlefsen denied making the statement, and both he and
Goodman testified that Kosten and Goodman left together. I credit their mutually cor-
roborative testimony.
INT'L LADIES GARMENT WORKERS' UNION, AFL-CIO 93
given Sedares another chance with Detlefsen; but that no sooner had Sedares started
with Detlefsen, than he did "the same damn things all over again ." Sedares pro-
tested that was not the real reason for his discharge and that Kramer had fired him
for union activity. Amused by that claim, Kramer commented that he had fired
Sedares for not enough union activity. Sedares responded that Kramer knew
what he meant , and told Kramer that he had all of Kramer's organizers signed up
and that Kramer would have to deal with him whether he liked it or not. Kramer
testified that Sedares made no reference to FOUR as such, and that that was the
first time he had heard anything about union activity among staff members.
When Sedares left, Kramer called in Ray Bramucci, repeated to him what Sedares
said, and asked Bramucci if he knew anything about it. Bramucci stated that he
heard "the boys" met over the weekend, but that he was not at the meeting. Kramer
then reported to General Secretary Stulberg the conversation with Sedares. Stulberg
laughed and said he did not believe it, but that "we should look into it."
We revert briefly to other events between November 22 and December 11 which
are relevant to the General Counsel's contention that Respondent had knowledge of
the staff union activities prior to Sedares' discharge.
5. The December 11 meeting; the formation of FOUR
Sometime following the meeting . of November 22, at Amos' home, three of the
leaders of the staff union group ( Sedares, Rogoff, and Martin Waxman ) learned that
the National Legislative Conference was being scheduled in New York City on
December 8 and 9, which would bring in people from all parts of the country,
and that by a coincidence the Northeast Department was holding its annual con-
ference on December 10 and 11. They decided to proceed with the formal organiza-
tion of a staff union on the weekend of December 10 and 11, choosing ultimately
the 11th. Sedares testified that he had discussions of those facts with DeYoung and
invited him more than once to attend the December 11 meeting. Rogoff testified
that he had two conversations with DeYoung on December 6, in the first of which
DeYoung was noncommittal to his request for help in arranging a meeting place for
the meeting and in the other of which DeYoung not only indicated lack of interest
in the meeting but expressed concern about his career should it become known that
he was sympathetic toward a staff union because, "You never know who is going
to stab you in the back."
DeYoung admitted that Rogoff asked him to arrange for a meeting place, asked
for his support as a committeeman, and told him among other things that both
their names were on Dubinsky's desk as committeemen. DeYoung testified that
he told Rogoff that he did not wish to be involved except passively, and admitted
he may well have said something about someone stabbing him in the back.12
Rogoff testified further that subsequently during the legislative conference he
invited about 20 persons ( all apparently qualified for membership ) to attend the
organization meeting, again limiting the invitations to those whom it was felt would
not reveal the secret to their supervisors . 13 Sedares testified that he invited some 15
persons to attend the meeting.
The meeting was held in New York City on the morning of December 11, as
scheduled , with 25 persons in attendance . Temporary officers were elected, as well
as a temporary executive committee, and a temporary constitution and a declara-
tion of principles were adopted.
A large Christmas party of New Jersey locals was held on the evening of Decem-
ber 11 , at which there were discussions between Detlefsen , Kosten , and others of
the fact that a group of staff people had met earlier in the day to form a union.
See section D, 1, infra.
Also relevant on the question of discriminatory motivation were certain subsequent
events, to which we now turn.
12 Though it is of no particular significance , the inference can reasonably be drawn that
DeYoung's defection from the group may well have been sparked in part by Rogoff's sug-
gestion that their names were on Dublnsky's desk.
33 The General Counsel also made an offer of proof through Rogoff that on the evening
of December 8, two nonsupervisors (one a reporter for "Justice" and the other a public
relations director for the Northeast Department) informed him that they knew about
"you guys" forming a union, and that one of them referred to Sedares ' connection with
it. However, the General Counsel made no attempt to connect their knowledge to ILG,
and it is also significant that the offer related to a time after Kramer first ordered
Detlefsen to discharge Sedares.
94 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
6. Subsequent events; the discharge is reviewed
Sedares made no attempt , following his discharge on December 9, to talk with
President Dubinsky or General Secretary Stulberg or to seek a review of his dis-
charge under ILG procedures . Though he and Rogoff met with Dubinsky on
January 9 ( concerning FOUR 's request for recognition ), it was Dubinsky 's sugges-
tion which led to Sedares ' request that his discharge be reviewed . Sedares' posi-
tion as stated to Dubinsky was that his discharge was unwarranted because his
performance "was equal to everybody elses," and he admitted on cross-examination
that he made no claim at that time that either his transfer on November 30 or his
discharge on December 9 was because of his affiliation with FOUR.14
The review committee which Dubinsky specially constituted held hearings on
January 16 and 23, with Sedares actively participating and producing witnesses in
his behalf . Though considerable testimony was offered on both sides, concerning
the conduct of the hearing , the General Counsel makes no reference to the hearing
in his brief and Respondent devotes only a few lines to it. What is chiefly signifi-
cant is that Sedares sought it and willingly participated in it and that he made no
claim and gave no testimony that his FOUR or pre-FOUR activities formed any
part of the cause of his transfer and discharge . Though Sedares testified on cross-
examination for the first time that he made a statement in summation to the com-
mittee on January 23 that Kramer discharged him on December 9 because of his
membership in FOUR , both Julius Hochman, chairman of the committee, and
James Lipsig ( who acted as secretary and who testified from his notes ) testified there
was no summation and that Sedares made no such statement . Neither did Sedares'
affidavits to the Board make any reference to a summation , though one of them went
into the review hearing in considerable detail . I do not credit Sedares' testimony
that he made a claim that his FOUR activities were responsible for his discharge.
7. Concluding findings
I have found that on November 30 Kramer first discharged Sedares and then,
swayed by DeYoung 's intercession , transferred Sedares to Newark. There was no
evidence that Kramer had actual knowledge at the time of Sedares ' pre-FOUR
activities , and the record suggests no means whereby he would have learned of them
save through the obvious source, DeYoung, who was fully acquainted as early as
November 22 with what was going on. But both Kramer and DeYoung denied
that DeYoung informed to Kramer on Sedares , and the events of November 30
strongly support their denials.
It is significant first that it was on DeYoung's intercession that Kramer revoked
the discharge action. As Kramer had already made out a case for a discharge for
"cause" and had actually made the discharge before leaving the room to confer with
DeYoung, it is incredible that once he was apprised by DeYoung of Sedares ' activities
he did not let the discharge stand.15 Secondly , and just as significant , assuming that
DeYoung informed on Sedares , it is incredible that Kramer would have transferred
Sedares to Newark, a location which to DeYoung's knowledge was a more con-
venient one for enabling Sedares to maintain closer touch and more frequent con-
tacts with the other leaders in the staff union activity.ls
14 Though the conflicts in testimony about that interview do not concern matters of any
particular significance , I credit the mutually corroborative testimony of Stulberg and
Daniels over the uncorroborated testimony of Sedares ( Rogoff ' s testimony not covering
the interview ). In particular I do not credit Sedares' claim , denied by Stulberg and
Daniels, that Dubinsky stated he would not appoint an outside impartial committee to
review the discharge.
1E If DeYoung in fact informed to Kramer, the time most reasonably suggested by the
record was during their private conference after Kramer had informed Sedares he was
discharged . I reject the General Counsel ' s "speculation" that DeYoung informed to
Kramer on the night of the 22d or on the morning of the 23d and that it was that fact
which led to the sending of the Krieger note of the 23d. Kramer testified among other
things that he directed the sending of the note a day or two before the 23d.
1e It might here be appropriately noted that at various points in his oral argument on
the Sedares and Bloom discharges , the General Counsel advanced the claim that Respond-
ent's officials were a shrewd , intelligent , and trained group who knew exactly how to stage
the discharge of unwanted employees for "cause ." Were it to be assumed , however, that
they acted in fact from discriminatory motivations , their handling of the Sedares-Bloom
matters would qualify them, not as shrewd manipulators , within the General Counsel's
characterization , but as crude bunglers.
INT'L LADIES GARMENT WORKERS' UNION, AFL-CIO 95
The foregoing considerations offset much of the suspicion which was generated
by a number of circumstances to which the General Counsel points. Those included
certain inconsistencies in Kramer's explanations of his actions in checking on Sedares'
conduct after receipt of the hotel bill, of his delay in sending for Sedares, and of his
subsequent attempts to locate Sedares, including his failure to check with DeYoung
or Janis.
In some respects the record supported the General Counsel's claims of incon-
sistency and implausibility, whereas others evaporated upon analysis of the evidence.
For example, on the face of it Kramer's explanations concerning his lengthy and
unsuccessful search for Sedares seemed plainly implausible if considered alone. It
is to be noted, however, that testimony by DeYoung, Sippen, Goldberg, and Ryan
corroborated Kramer on significant details, and that Sedares' own testimony as to
his whereabouts and doings was not only vague and general, but that it was refuted
by Sippen on the claim that he worked in part on Lily of France and Modern Manu-
facturing, and that otherwise Sedares studiously avoided committing himself on any
detail which might present an opportunity for, refutation.
Similarly dissipated was the significance urged by the General Counsel as to
Kramer's failure to check with Tyler as head of the Training Institute 17 concerning
the possibility of arranging an assignment elsewhere. Thus, with considerable
knowledge of Sedares' past record, Kramer had taken Sedares onto his staff on a
"last chance" basis and had decided to discharge him rather than to transfer him
elsewhere. Secondly, Tyler had informed Kramer prior to the Tiny Town incidents
that he had no more places for Sedares and could not use him. (See Appendix A,
item 11.) Of course, Kramer's ultimate decision to transfer Sedares to Newark
(within his own region) required no contact with Tyler.
Finally it is necessary to consider the question whether DeYoung's knowledge can
be imputed or attributed to ILG. The evidence showed that by November 22
DeYoung had become intimately involved in the pre-FOUR activities, having been
chosen for admission into the inner circle because of complete confidence in his
integrity and because it was assumed he would be eligible for membership in the
contemplated labor organization. Though it developed later, during the course of
the representation proceedings, that DeYoung had such supervisory status as would
remove him from FOUR's unit, his status was assumed during the pre-FOUR
activities to be such as would not disqualify him for membership. Furthermore his
interest and his sympathies lay with the staff group, as was apparent from his
discussions with Sedares and from his contacts with the group at Amos' home on
November 22. Though it was plain that DeYoung later suffered a complete change
of heart and that he abruptly deserted the group, the first evidence of that occurred
midweek of December 5 to 9, which was after Sedares' transfer to Newark.
Under these circumstances it cannot be found that DeYoung's knowledge. of
Sedares' activities must as a matter of law be imputed to Respondent, absent evidence
of actual communication of that knowledge. Not only was there no evidence of such
a communication, as previously found, but the circumstances of DeYoung's inter-
cession and Kramer's change of heart support their denial that there was in fact
communication. Thus, certainly as of November 30 DeYoung's sympathies lay
with the pre-FOUR group, and his interests at the time lay in concealing, not reveal-
ing, what he knew about them.18 I therefore conclude and find under all the cir-
cumstances that DeYoung's knowledge of Sedares' activities cannot as of Novem-
ber 30 be imputed to Respondent.
As the General Counsel failed to prove knowledge of Sedares' pre-FOUR activi-
ties-an essential affirmative element of a violation-it follows as a matter of course
that he likewise failed to prove that Kramer's discharge and subsequent transfer
of Sedares on November 30 were discriminatorily motivated. I also conclude and
find that Kramer discharged Sedares on that date and then transferred him to
Newark for the reasons which Kramer assigned at the time.
When we turn to the final discharge on December 9, we face again the necessity
for inferring knowledge, if it is to be found, for here also the General Counsel
failed to establish actual knowledge on the part of either Kramer or Detlefsen.
What we have again are certain suspicious circumstances surrounding the termina-
17 In that capacity Tyler performed a continuing liaison function in attempting to re-
locate institute graduates from one region or department to another. A rather complete
illustration of that functioning was shown by the part which Tyler played in effecting
Bloom's later transfer. See section C, infra.
is Even were it assumed to the contrary that DeYoung's knowledge was attributable
to ILG, there would remain the obstacle, not surmounted by the General Counsel's case,
of tracing it to Kramer and of establishing that it motivated Kramer's actions toward
Sedares.
96 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
tion, plus the fact that Sedares and his group were busily engaged in making arrange-
ments and preparations for the formal organization meeting which they had set up
for Sunday morning, December 11, plus the fact that DeYoung had suffered a change
of heart and was backing rapidly away from all association with the organizing
group.
But the record does not trace to Respondent knowledge of the latter facts nor
suggest by what means Respondent would have become aware of them. No con-
tacts or communications were shown between DeYoung on the one hand, and Kramer
or Detlefsen on the other, following Sedares' reporting to the Newark office on
December 5. Indeed, testimony by Richard Kosten and Detlefsen concerning a con-
versation at a Christmas party on the evening of December 11 (see section D, 1,
infra), indicated strongly that Detlefsen had no prior knowledge of the pre-FOUR
activities, no matter whose version of the conversation be credited. In addition,
Kosten admitted that Detlefsen had made no reference on prior occasions to any
organizing activities on the staff, though on possibly two occasions considerably prior
to December he and Detlefsen had had "academic discussions" concerning the ad-
visability of a staff union.
As to Kramer's knowledge, the record stood where it did on November 30.
We consider then the suspicious circumstances, among which the following were
of most significance:
Though Kramer transferred Sedares to Newark so that he would be working under
Detlefsen's closer supervision, Detlefsen's absence from the office for most of the
week meant that Sedares got less, not more, supervision.
Following Kramer's direction on Thursday to discharge Sedares, Detlefsen directed
his secretary to locate Sedares by inquiring of everyone who called in, but he him-
self made no inquiry of either Kosten or Oransoff, with whom he talked.
On Friday afternoon Detlefsen not only called Kramer again, but proceeded to
go through essentially the same conversation that he held on the preceding day, but
this time in the presence of Kosten and Goodman, whom he had summoned to be
witnesses.
Shortly after the discharge letter was dispatched for mailing, Kosten reported
to Detlefsen that Sedares was on the telephone, but Detlefsen stated that he did not
want to speak with Sedares.
Offsetting much of the significance of the foregoing was the following evidence:
Despite Detlefsen's absence for a large part of the week, he testified (and was
corroborated by his secretary, Woodruff), that he stayed in close touch with
Woodruff, made frequent inquires of her concerning Sedares, and was consistently
informed that Woodruff had neither seen nor heard from Sedares. Furthermore,
Sedares admitted that he at no time reported to either Detlefsen or Woodruff during
the entire week.
Detlefsen's call to Kramer on Thursday was provoked by Sedares ignoring him
in the lobby and by Sedares leaving the office without reporting either to him or
to Woodruff; and his report to Kramer was consistent with his complaints against
Sedares.
The apparently anomalous circumstances of the second call were accounted for
by the following: Detlefsen on Thursday had sought only to have Kramer transfer
Sedares out of Newark; he had not sought to have Sedares fired, nor had he an-
ticipated any such action , being unaware of Kramer's earlier experiences with
Sedares. Realizing that he had himself become the avenue for the discharge and
being sensitive to a feeling on the part of his staff members that he was unfavorably
disposed toward graduates of the Training Institute, Detlefsen "staged" the second
,call to Kramer in the presence of two staff members, and for their benefit went
through the act of repeating the substance of his previous call. Kramer's participa-
tion at the other end, however, was plainly genuine and unstaged; he simply re-
minded Detlefsen that he had ordered Sedares' discharge the day before, and re-
peated the direction.
The reasons which Detlefsen assigned to Sedares on December 13 were consistent
with those which he had given Kramer. Kramer in turn reminded Sedares on the
14th that, against his better judgment, he had given Sedares another chance because
of DeYoung's intervention, but that Sedares had proceeded to "do the same damn
things all over again."
Detlefsen's part in the week's activities was played without knowledge of the
background of Kramer's experiences with Sedares and without knowledge of the
latter's staff-union activities. The entire' responsibility, therefore, for the ultimate
'discharge (as the General Counsel conceded in argument) was Kramer's. Though
Kramer's final action seemed quickly triggered, it was not out of character and it was
also consistent with the outcome of the November 30 conference, i.e., a transfer
to Newark on a "last chance" basis.
INT'L LADIES GARMENT WORKERS ' UNION, AFL-CIO 97
The evidence does not support the General Counsel's theory that Kramer sent
Sedares to Newark as part of a scheme to set him up for discharge. That theory
seems necessarily to rest on an assumption that Detlefsen's part in the scheme was
to get something on Sedares to serve as ostensible ground for discharge. Not only
was there no evidence that Detlefsen was acting as a conspirator, but, as previously
found, Kramer had all the "cause" he needed on November 30, and his transfer
of Sedares to Newark on that date was consistent with and supported his claim that
he was unaware of Sedares' activities.
The foregoing analysis dissipates much of the suspicion which was generated
by the handling of Sedares' discharge. What remains does not rise to the level
of a preponderance of the evidence, required of the General Counsel, to establish
either knowledge of Sedares' activities of motivation based thereon. I therefore
conclude and find that by discharging Sedares on December 9, Respondent did not
violate Section 8 (a) (3) and (1) of the Act.
C. The discharge and/or transfer of Bloom
As in the case of Sedares, the crucial issues here are whether Respondent had
knowledge of Bloom's participation in the organization of FOUR and whether the
alleged discharge and transfer were made because of those activities or were for
the reasons assigned by Respondent. The General Counsel argues that Bloom's
importance in the case is that he was known to be Sedares' best friend, and it is
partly on that basis that the General Counsel urges that an inference is warranted
that Respondent would know that Bloom was involved in FOUR. Thus, DeYoung
(who was in no manner connected with the events concerning Bloom) testified that
he could "make a very legitimate assumption that Ted Bloom would be involved in
anything that Gus was involved in." Both issues turn in part on disputed testimony
as to when Respondent decided to terminate the operation in which Bloom was en-
gaged and when Bloom was first informed of that decision. To place the events
in proper focus, we review briefly Bloom's employment with Respondent.
Bloom was graduated from the Training Institute in June 1957, and was assigned
to the Dress Joint Board under the supervision of Edward Banyai. Though late
in 1959, Bloom was transferred to the payroll of the Northeast Department, he was
simultaneously placed on detached service of the organization department of the
Dress Joint Council, where he continued to work under Banyai.
From late 1959 through 1960, Bloom was engaged in a single activity, the col-
lecting, sorting, and processing of discarded rubbish, which he picked up usually
at night from plants of jobbers engaged in producing and selling women's garments.
From that debris, Bloom was frequently able to extract records which showed
exactly which contracting shops a jobber was using and which would establish both
the identity of the contractors in case of a dispute with the jobber and a description
of what they were producing. Bloom had arranged for access to such debris in
some cases by payments of money to undisclosed "contacts," but only after prior
approval by Banyai. In those cases Bloom was reimbursed, by agreement with
Banyai, by submitting phony vouchers. There was dispute between them as to
whether some of Bloom's other expenditures could also be covered by phony
vouchers. Following his sorting operation , Bloom prepared and submitted to
Banyai reports which contained the results of his "processing." For some time be-
fore the end of 1960, the rubbish was being stored and processed by Bloom in the
basement of the Passaic (New Jersey) Local, whose manager was Richard San
Fillippo.
Bloom testified that around December 13 or 14, Banyai informed him that the
rubbish operation was to be ended, though only a scant day or so earlier Banyai
had told him the operation was to be expanded. Banyai denied the latter testimony;
he testified to the contrary that Zimmerman, manager of the Dress Joint Board,
instructed him early in October to terminate the operation by the end of the year,
that he informed Bloom of that decision within a few days, and that he and Bloom
discussed the matter on three or four occasions in October.
What is determinative of this preliminary, but most significant, credibility issue
is that (1) neither of Bloom's two written statements furnished to the Board, con-
tained Banyai's alleged prediction of expansion, though both of them covered the
occasion of his discussion with Banyai; and (2) testimony by Gus Tyler, of the
Training Institute, supplied indirect corroboration of Banyai in two respects: First,
Tyler had learned from representatives of the Dress Joint Council that the Council
was facing insurmountable organizational problems augmented by the Landrum-
Griffin Act and the new Taft-Hartley amendments and would have to find new
approaches to its work, and second, Bloom had hinted to Tyler on several previous
occasions that his work was running out. I therefore credit Banyai's testimony.
98 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The remainder of the case presents similar credibility issues, with Bloom's testi-
mony, corroborated on one point by Charles Lang, being pitted against that of
Banyai, Tyler, Sol Chaikin, and Herbert Pokodner. And though it must be noted
that the testimony on both sides was unsatisfactory, particularly on the exact time-
table of events, the burden was on the General Counsel, of course, to make out his
case by a preponderance of the evidence. On that score, it is not only to be noted
that Bloom's testimony stands alone except for the limited corroboration by Lang
but also in some respects it was in conflict with his statements to the Board, that in
certain respects it was inconsistent and improbable, and that in others it bordered
on the bizzare.19 For those reasons, and despite certain inconsistencies and con-
flicts on Respondent's side, I credit Bloom's testimony only to the extent that it is
reconcilable with that of Banyai and Tyler, on which the following summary is
based.2°
Sometime prior to the week of December 19, Bloom had acquainted Tyler with the
fact that the operation he was engaged in with the Dress Joint Council was running
out and that he was facing reassignment.21 Tyler, who was unaware at the time of
the nature of Bloom's attachment to the Council, mentioned the fact that Local 98
and its manager, Herbert Pokodner, had been pressing him for some time for an
organizer, and he sent Bloom to see Pokodner on December 19 22 after first making
an introductory call himself.
As Bloom's report back to Tyler on the 20th seemed to make it fairly certain that
Pokodner wanted Bloom to come with him after the first of the year, Tyler dictated
a letter to Pokodner under that date, which confirmed an understanding to that
effect. Before mailing the letter, however, Tyler decided to check on Bloom's uni-
lateral representations by calling Pokodner. Learning that Pokodner had made no
definite decision, but wanted a further look at Bloom, Tyler did not mail the letter,
but sent Bloom back for a further interview.
In the meantime, sometime after December 12, Banyai had become puzzled about
a receipt for $20 which Bloom had submitted for garaging the Council's truck at a
filling station in Rutherford, New Jersey, instead of some New York City garage,
as customary. About the same time, Banyai learned, during the course of a tele-
phone conversation with Richard San Fillippo, manager of the Passaic office, that
Bloom's records, which had been stored for safekeeping in the basement, were no
longer there. When Banyai called Bloom about the foregoing matters, Bloom
replied that he would tell Banyai about the storage receipt when he saw him, and
as to the records, Bloom claimed they were in the basement. Banyai thereupon
arranged to meet Bloom and San Fillippo at the Passaic office on December 21.
When Banyai arrived, he noticed Bloom's truck in front of the office with a filing
cabinet on it, and when he asked Bloom what was in the filing cabinet, Bloom replied
that the records were in it, and that, "I thought you wanted them there." Banyai
ordered Bloom to put the cabinet and the records back into the basement. There-
19E g , Bloom plainly exaggerated the dangers he faced in his job, and his explanation
for leaving in the open for several weeks of bitter winter weather the filing cabinet con-
taining the fruits of his labors was incredible.
Bloom's testimony and his statements contained many variances on dates. For ex-
ample, he fixed variously as December 12 or 13, and December 13 or 14, Banyal's first
direction to report to Gingold (of Northeast) for reassignment; he fixed variously as
December 13, 14, and 16 his visit to Tyler during which he testified he told Tyler he
was up for reassignment ; and he fixed variously as December 21, 22, and 23, the date
of his Passaic meeting with Banyai.
20 Chaikin's testimony related mainly to the date on which Bloom appeared for reassign-
ment, and on that point, I accept Lang's testimony, corroborating Bloom, that the date
was the 19Th, rather than the 21st.
Though Pokodner's testimony was in conflict with Tyler's concerning the dates of con-
tacts with Tyler and Bloom, Tyler's testimony was supported by documentary evidence as
well as by Bloom's admission on cross-examination that on December 21, Tyler had
already assigned him to Pokodner's Local. Except for the General Counsel's suspicions,
there Is no basis in the record for his assertion that Tyler may have fabricated certain
documents which he identified.
21 Tyler acted as a short of clearing house, or "marriage broker," for graduates of the
Institute, on the one hand, who desired transfers or needed reassignment, and for depart-
ment (heads, on the other, who were seeking personnel. His services were available on a
purely voluntary basis where desired by the persons involved.
22 It was earlier that day that Bloom and Lang had reported to Chaikin for reassign-
ment and had been informed that there were no openings in the Northeast Department.
Though Bloom suggested the possibility of a position on Sol Hoffman's staff in Pennsyl-
vania ( also in Chaikin's department ), Chaikin denied that there was any such opening.
INT'L LADIES GARMENT WORKERS' UNION, AFL-CIO 99
after, failing to get from Bloom a satisfactory explanation of the garage receipt,
Banyai drove to the address of the gas station listed on the receipt and discovered
that the firm had gone out of business on November 1 and that there was in any
event no space there to store a truck. Suspecting that the false receipt indicated
that Bloom had not used the money "for an ILG purpose," Banyai returned to the
office and questioned Bloom further about the garaging of the truck. Bloom claimed
that he had garaged the truck elsewhere but had submitted a receipt from a false
address in line with the custom of covering up other expenditures to contacts for the
collection of rubbish. Banyai pointed out, however, that in the latter cases, the
expenditures were not accompanied by a receipt and were made only with his prior
approval.
Banyai turned again to the subject of the records, and after checking the contents
of the filing cabinet, learned that certain records were not in the cabinet. Bloom
claimed that the missing records were at his home. Banyai then learned from
San Fillippo that the filing cabinet had been outside on the parking lot for some 6
weeks and that San Fillippo, not knowing what it was, had tried to get the rubbish
collector to take it away. Bloom claimed that he had moved the cabinet there from
the basement because of a burglary some weeks before at the Local's office, and that
the records had been in the filing cabinet during the entire time. Banyai insisted
that Bloom must have had the records at some other undisclosed location, since it
was clear from his examination of them and their good condition that they could
not possibly have been in the filing cabinet during several weeks of severe winter
weather.
Having become more concerned about the use which Bloom may have been making
of the records, Banyai asked for the name of his contact, but Bloom refused,
despite repeated demands, to give Banyai the contact's name. Also at some point
during the conversation Banyai criticized Bloom for his personal appearance, i.e.,
he was wearing dirty pants and was unshaven. Blom's excuse was that he was
wearing his working clothes.
Deciding that he no longer wanted Bloom working with him, Banyai directed him
to report back to the Northeast Department for reassignment. Banyai testified,
however, that but for the day's events, he had contemplated assigning Bloom to other
work in his department.
In the meantime the Bloom-Tyler-Pokodner negotiations had proceeded without
interruption. Nor did Bloom's report to Tyler that he had had a "run-in" with
Banyai cause any hitch, for Banyai immediately confirmed to Tyler the fact of the
run-in and the fact that he had sent Bloom back to Northeast, and he readily agreed
that Tyler should get Bloom "out of [his] hair" by proceeding with an assignment
to Local 98. Though Bloom expressed to Tyler a positive preference for working
either in the Northeast Department or the Eastern Region, Tyler pointed out that
Northeast had already eliminated the possibility of an assignment with it, and added
that he did not believe the Eastern Region was looking for an organizer. They also
discussed the possibility of other non-New York assignments, but Tyler pointed out
that in view of Bloom's total family situation, an assignment to Local 98, in New
York City, seemed the perfect answer.
Further negotiations for Bloom's transfer between Bloom, Tyler, and Pokodner
were completed on December 23,23 whereupon Tyler sent to the payroll department
the following memorandum under that date:
This is to inform you that Ted Bloom who has been on the Northeast Depart-
ment payroll will be working for Local 98 starting January, 1961 (Tuesday,
January 3rd to be exact).
Turning to the question of Respondent's knowledge of Bloom's connection with
FOUR, we have already noted DeYoung's commentary concerning the close relation-
ship between Sedares and Bloom. Tyler admitted knowing of their friendship, and
Bloom testified that during a conversation on December 13 or 14, Tyler referred
to Sedares as one who was on the way out and to Bloom as one who was on the
way in, and that following a discussion of the Kennedy administration, Tyler com-
mented, "I guess you will stick with your FOUR buddies." Tyler denied making
the latter comment at any time. He admitted that he had discussed the subject of
FOUR with Bloom on a number of occasions after Christmas, but testified that
he first learned of FOUR some time after the telegram requesting recognition was
received (on December 19). I credit Tyler's testimony, particularly since Bloom's
23 Bloom admitted on cross-examination that as of December 21, Tyler had already
assigned him to Local 98. See footnote 20, supra.
712-548-64-vol. 142-8
100 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
reference to the Kennedy administration (which did not begin until January 20)
itself indicated that the conversation occurred at a later time than Bloom claimed.
The General Counsel also introduced a leaflet which was issued by FOUR, which
bore the date of December 21, and which listed Bloom's name among the members
of its organizing committee. Tyler admitted that Bloom had shown him some FOUR
literature at an Institute party at a much later time than December 21, 22, or 23;
he testified that if he saw the December 21 flier, it was some time after its date and
that he knew nothing of Bloom's connection with FOUR until after Christmas. His
testimony is credited.
There was no direct evidence that Banyai or Chaikin had knowledge of Bloom's
connection with FOUR at any time before Banyai returned Bloom to Northeast for
reassignment on December 19, or before Tyler completed the negotiations to transfer
him to Local 98 on December 23. However, the General Counsel elicited from Ray
Shore, on cross-examination, testimony that on or before December 13, 1960, while
he was Pennsylvania State Supervisor, Chaikin, his immediate supervisor, asked
him to find out what he could about a staff organization and that he later made some
inquiries in Pennsylvania after literature concerning FOUR was distributed to staff
members.
Concluding Findings
I find preliminarily that Banyai's action in returning Bloom to Northeast for
reassignment did not constitute a discharge. The organizational structure of the
two departments and the nature of Bloom's attachment to Banyai's staff was such
that Bloom remained the employee of Northeast, over whose tenure Banyai had
no jurisdiction. Furthermore, Banyai's direction to Bloom to report back to North-
east (his employer) was plainly inconsistent with any view that Bloom was dis-
charged, as was also the fact that Bloom remained on the Northeast payroll until
he went with Local 98 on January 3.
Turning next to the question of knowledge I have found that the evidence did
not directly establish knowledge by Banyai, Tyler, or Chaikin of Bloom's connec-
tion with FOUR. Whether knowledge can be inferred on their part turns on an
analysis of the same evidence on which the General Counsel relies in claiming that
their treatment of Bloom was discriminatorily motivated. As the General Counsel's
brief sums up his argument, the finding is warranted-from the facts surrounding the
sudden transfer, the timing, and the fact that the asserted reasons were demonstrably
unfounded-that the transfer was effected in order to take Bloom out of the bargain-
ing unit sought by FOUR and was intended as an obvious threat to all who might
be influenced by Sedares and therefore, was discriminatory.
Pointing to inconsistencies and suspicious circumstances in Respondent's case as
establishing his contentions, the General Counsel overlooks the weaknesses in his
own case. The chief of those were that Bloom's testimony was not corroborated
save on a single point by Lang, that Bloom had known for several weeks that the
rubbish operation was to be wound up, that he informed Tyler around the 14th
that he was up for reassignment, and that he admitted that as early as the 21st
Tyler had already assigned him to Local 98. Cumulatively, those weaknesses not
only constitute a serious handicap to the General Counsel in making out his own
case, but they go far to offset the suspicions which were generated by certain aspects
of Respondent's case.
Before proceeding further with a resolution of the issues involving Bloom, it is
also to be noted, unfortunately, that though dates and time were of great importance,
the evidence was singularly unsatisfactory on those matters on both sides. Con-
clusions must be reached on the basis of the few dates which were the more firmly
established.
I find first that Bloom had discussed with Tyler in the week before the 19th, the
fact that he was to be reassigned; .and, accepting Lang's corroboration of Bloom,
I find that Banyai sent Bloom and Lang separately to Northeast for reassignment on
the 19th. I find that the Passaic incident occurred on the 21st. I find on Tyler's
testimony, his unmailed letter of the 20th, his memorandum of the 23d to the
payroll department, and Bloom's admission on cross-examination, that arrange-
ments for Bloom's transfer to Local 98 were effectually completed on December 23.
What is surprising about the foregoing timetable is not that Banyai had sent
Bloom up for reassignment on the 19th (since Bloom had already invoked Tyler's
services), but that Banyai admitted that except for the Passaic incident on the 21st,
he intended to assign Bloom to other work in his own department. That statement
plainly does not square with Banyai's earlier act in sending Bloom to Chaikin, nor
with Tyler's earlier efforts to place Bloom with Pokodner-a match which Tyler
originally thought he had consummated as early as the 20th. It is the strongest
INT'L LADIES GARMENT WORKERS' UNION, AFL-CIO 101
indication in the record that Banyai was motivated by reasons other than those he
assigned and that he was seeking to support his jettisoning of Bloom by a belated
showing of "cause."
We examine the evidence further to determine whether that circumstance of deep
suspicion , when added to the other circumstances , resulted in a preponderance of
the evidence to establish the General Counsel 's contention that Respondent effected
Bloom's transfer to take him out of the bargaining unit sought by FOUR.
The difficulty with the General Counsel 's position is that it necessarily rests on
the unstated assumption that Banyai , Chaikin , and Tyler acted in a three -way con-
spiracy in the Bloom matter . Thus, Banyai 's act in sending Bloom back to North-
east would plainly not affect Bloom's status in the unit . Chaikin's part in negativing
an opening in Northeast similarly left Bloom's unit status unaffected . It was only
Tyler's matchmaking which finally operated to remove Bloom from FOUR's unit.
The record is silent , however , as to how or when the conspirators were able to
plot out their scheme to discriminate against Bloom . FOUR's telegram to Dubinsky
(which first specified the unit ) was received sometime on the 19th , but according
to both Bloom and Lang it was in the previous week that Banyai had directed them
to report to Chaikin for reassignment . Aside from that, it defies credulity to assume
that on the very day that FOUR's telegram was received Banyai, Chaikin , and Tyler
were able somehow to get together and to concoct a three-step plot to remove Bloom
from FOUR's unit, two steps of which had already been completed by lunch time 24
Though the possible theory of conspiracy fails, there remains the possibility that
Tyler's actions effected a discrimination . The record stands no better for the
General Counsel on that score, for it shows that Bloom himself had already alerted
Tyler to his anticipated need for reassignment and was voluntarily availing himself,
as customary among Institute graduates , of Tyler's usual services as a matchmaker.
We must consider also the question whether Chaikin's conduct established dis-
crimination against Bloom. Though it was shown that Chaikin had made inquiries
of Shore concerning staff union activities prior to December 13, and that Shore later
made inquiries of his staff in Pennsylvania and reported to Chaikin, no attempt was
made to ascertain what Shore reported or that he learned or reported anything con-
cerning Bloom . It is difficult against that background to infer that Chaikin some-
how learned of Bloom 's connection with FOUR and to infer further that it was
because of that knowledge that he informed Bloom on the 19th that there was no
opening in Northeast at the time . Furthermore , no attempt was made to show that
Chaikin had any hand either directly or indirectly in collaborating with Tyler in
arranging the match which took Bloom out of the unit.
The conclusion which must be drawn from the foregoing analysis is that Banyai's
statement of his intention of keeping Bloom , though plainly inconsistent with his
earlier direction to Bloom to report back for reassignment , does not lift the General
Counsel 's case to a preponderance of the evidence . Though it was furnished by
Respondent 's case and though the General Counsel can properly claim it as adding
to the weight of his own showing , the General Counsel has yet failed to establish
the affirmative elements of a violation (i.e., knowledge of Bloom's connection with
FOUR and a discriminatory motivation ), particularly since his theory of the dis-
crimination necessarily required proof of some plot or conspiracy , evidence of which
was not only lacking, but which was effectually disproved by the time sequences as
reviewed above. We conclude, then , with suspicion; but suspicion is not proof,
Lo-K Foods, Inc., 134 NLRB 956, even where furnished by Respondent 's case.
I therefore conclude and find that the General Counsel did not establish by a
preponderance of the evidence on the entire record that Respondent discharged
and/or transferred Bloom with knowledge of, and because of, his connection with
FOUR.
D. Interference , restraint , and coercion; miscellaneous discrimination
The remainder of the General Counsel 's case concerned Respondent 's conduct
after FOUR's existence became known to it and, except for certain incidents of
interrogation , after FOUR made its demand for recognition . In order to achieve,
as far as possible , both chronological and topical order, the early interrogations will
be first reviewed ( section 1 , infra ), and we shall then move to the conduct which
the General Counsel assigns as the most serious of the violations and which is
claimed to be coercive because it occurred against a background of opposition and
24 Le., the direction to report for reassignment and Chalkin 's negativing of a job open-
ing in Northeast. Bloom and Lang had lunch with Tyler after they saw Chaikin. The
record does not establish when on the 19th Dubinsky received FOUR 's telegram or that
Banyal, Chalkin , and/or Tyler learned of it on that day.
102 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
hostility to FOUR as repeatedly expressed by President Dubinsky, by other ILG
officials, and in official ILG publications and releases. Initially relevant to the
latter contention is the record of ILG's official reaction to FOUR (section 2, infra),
and from that we shall move to certain staff meetings held by Respondent's officers
(section 3, infra), and to subsequent individual solicitations and miscellaneous
peripheral incidents (section 4, infra).
1. Miscellaneous interrogations, etc.
Introductorily, we note again Kramer's testimony that when he reported to
Secretary-Treasurer Stulberg on December 14 Sedares' claim that he had all of
Kramer's organizers signed up, Stulberg suggested that they should "look into it."
Whether the interrogations which followed were or were not the result of that sug-
gestion, the evidence showed that a number of Respondent's officers forthwith pro-
ceeded to inquire into FOUR activities among the staff.
We begin with Kramer himself, who admitted that he called in Raymond Bramucci
(his education director who voted without challenge in the election), repeated
Sedares' claim, and inquired what Bramucci knew about it. Bernard Cohen testi-
fied at length to conversations with Kramer on December 14 and 15. In the first,
a group meeting with the Union City (New Jersey) staff, Kramer held out the
possibility of a promotion for Cohen to an opening in Suffolk County, and in the
latter, with Cohen alone, Kramer engaged in a lengthy discussion of, and interroga-
tions concerning, FOUR literature and activity and solicited Cohen's assistance in
checking on and "evaluating this thing" and in reporting back to him what he had
learned, particularly as concerned James Amos.
Kramer denied that he made any reference to Suffolk County on the 14th or to the
possibility that Cohen would be chosen for that location, and he testified that he
sent for Cohen on the 15th because on the preceding day Cohen had expressed ob-
jection to doing organization work in New Jersey because of a prior conviction of
disorderly conduct in a picket line fracas. Kramer admitted that, following a dis-
cussion of raises and promotions, he asked whether Cohen had heard anything "about
the guys organizing" and whether he had received any literature from anyone.
Cohen reported that he had not been contacted and had received no literature, but
suggested there might be some in his mail at home. Cohen asked whether he should
call his home to check on the receipt of literature, and Kramer asked him to do so,
and was able to determine from Cohen's end of the telephone conversation that
Cohen had received no literature.
Kramer testified that as of that time he himself had seen no literature, that there
was no discussion with Cohen of FOUR as such because he did not know that such
an organization had been formed, and that his views and Cohen's were very much
in agreement at the time, in that both were very much opposed to a staff union.25
Kramer testified further that at the end of the session Cohen promised to let Kramer
know if he heard anything, and that a few days later Cohen called in to report he
had received some literature and inquired whether he should send it in. Kramer
declined the offer, stating he already had the literature. Kramer entered specific
denials to a number of statements which Cohen attributed to him, including his
alleged request that Cohen check and report on FOUR and on Amos.
In resolving the credibility issue, it is to be noted that witnesses were available
who might have resolved the crucial conflict as to the 14th, i.e., whether Kramer
discussed the Suffolk County situation in the group meeting and whether he desig-
nated Cohen as a likely prospect to fill an opening there. It is also to be noted that,
with advance knowledge of Kramer's testimony (through preheating affidavits), the
General Counsel did not seek to corroborate Cohen. Under the circumstances,
and as I consider Kramer's testimony to be the more reliable, I credit his version of
the discussions on the two occasions, and I have, therefore, not summarized Cohen's
testimony in detail.
Robert Fontaine and Cecilia Leshyk, of the Fall River staff, testified to an occasion
around mid-December when their State Supervisor Louis Rona called them into
his office and, after telling them they were free to answer or not, questioned them
concerning their knowledge of FOUR and whether they had signed a FOUR card,
Rona admitted the interrogation, but testified he prefaced it by the statement that
his questions were not put officially in his position as State supervisor, but more
as a friend and colleague, and that they were free to answer yes or no or to tell
25 Actually Cohen had been a member of the pre-FOUR group since sometime in 1959,
and had attended a number of meetings , including the November 22 meeting and the
organization meeting on December 11.
INT'L LADIES GARMENT WORKERS' UNION, AFL-CIO 103
him to "go some place." Though denying that he asked whether they had signed a
card, Rona testified that he phrased his interrogation as follows: "Do you know
anything about FOUR and are you a member?" 26
Michael J. Gross testified that between Christmas and New Year's Ray Shore,
State supervisor of Pennsylvania at the time, asked him during a telephone conversa-
tion whether he had signed a FOUR card. When Gross replied that he could not
say anything, Shore stated that that was all right, because "we have a list of all
the people who signed" and "we are just checking."
Though Shore denied Gross' testimony, he admitted on cross-examination that
sometime in December, Chaikin asked him to find out what he could about a staff
organization and that he thereafter spoke with staff people, asking them what they
knew about FOUR. Shore also admitted that his affidavit to the Board contained
the following statement:
I do not remember if I spoke to Mike Gross on December 13, 1960, but I very
well might have. I do not recall the conversation but I might have questioned
him about labor organizations , about any labor organization organizing our
staff. I could have mentioned the name FOUR if Chaikin had mentioned it
to me, but if he had not I would not have.
Shore also admitted that he reported back to Chaikin after discussing FOUR with
his staff.
In view of Shore's admissions on cross-examination and the statements contained
in his affidavit, I do not credit his denials of Gross' testimony 27
Shore's inquiries were extended to the Shamokin Local, of which Martin Rosato
was manager. Velma Haugh testified that in December Rosato informed her, after
taking a telephone call, that the call was from Shore, and inquired whether Haugh
had joined FOUR and if Louise Krepshaw and John Crowley (other business agents)
had done so. Rosato admitted that around mid-December he asked Haugh whether
she knew anything about FOUR or whether she was a member, and whether she
knew if the other agents on the staff were members of FOUR or knew anything
about FOUR.
Richard Kosten, who worked under Detlefsen at Newark, testified that on the
evening of December 11 (following the meeting that morning at which FOUR was
formed) Detlefsen told Kosten that a meeting had been held earlier that day by
staff people, who "got together to form a union," and that some 25 people attended.
Detlefsen asked Kosten if he knew about it and told him it would be best that he
stay away from Herbert Levitt (another business agent), because Detlefsen was sure
that Levitt was "a part of this."
Detlefsen testified that there was a discussion around him (at a large Christmas
party on December 11) of some meeting which had been held that morning and
that, confused at first, he thought the discussion related to a meeting which he had
held at Passaic. As the discussion continued, he learned he was mistaken, and he
inquired whether the meeting was another of the annual "end-of-the-year gripe
meetings." Detlefsen admitted asking Kosten if he attended.
As the evidence otherwise failed to establish that Detlefsen had any knowledge
of the FOUR activities prior to December 11 (see section B, 7, supra), I credit
Detlefsen's testimony.28
Bernard Koozman testified concerning a number of coercive statements made in
mid-December by Richard R. Cerbone, manager of Respondent's Jamaica office, in
which Koozman was a business agent. Though most of the statements were al-
legedly made in the presence of other staff members, and though the Trial Examiner
observed on the record that there were plainly other witnesses available to resolve
the credibility issues between Koozman and Cerbone, neither the General Counsel
nor Respondent called a corroborating witness. As Koozman's testimony appeared
-re The distinction which Rona attempted to make appears to be without significance in
determining whether his interrogation was violative of the Act.
The General Counsel did not clearly disclaim as to this incident during oral argument,
and it was in any case parallel to, and part of the pattern of the interrogations which
are summarized in this section.
n I do not credit Gross' other testimony concerning an interrogation and a warning
about FOUR by Joseph Horowitz, district manager at Johnstown, which Horowitz denied.
21 The General Counsel disclaimed during oral argument reliance on the testimony of
Herbert Levitt concerning alleged statements made by Detlefsen at an office party on
December 28, denied by Respondent 's witnesses . The General Counsel also dismissed
during oral argument an amendment made at the hearing which charged Detlefsen with
the solicitation of resignations in April 1961.
104 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
to be somewhat imaginative, and as he admitted that his affidavits prepared with
Sedares' assistance shortly after some of the conversations, contained no reference
to Cerbone's statements, I am able to credit Koozman's testimony, in the absence
of corroboration, only insofar as it is reconcilable with Cerbone's, as summarized
below.
Cerbone admitted that around December 15 or 16 he received a call from Minna
Morton, of his staff, who reported receipt of an application card from FOUR and
who asked if others on the staff had also received cards. Thereupon Cerbone inter-
rogated Joe Manenti, Howard Kaufman, Jerry Taylor, and Koozman concerning
their knowledge of FOUR and whether they had signed for it. Cerbone's exchanges
with Manenti bordered on vehemence. Cerbone testified that when he inquired of
Manenti, Manenti requested him not to ask him any questions, but when he pursued
the inquiry, Manenti stated his intention to sign with FOUR. Cerbone thereupon
upbraided Manenti, reminding him that Cerbone had sent him to the Training In-
stitute, and stated that Cerbone now had "a revolution" on his hands and that Manenti
was not to be trusted.
Later when some of the staff brought to Cerbone application cards from FOUR,
Cerbone told them to "watch out what [they were] doing." Koozman stated that
he proposed to join FOUR, but would discuss the matter with Cerbone if he did
so. Cerbone admitted also that Kaufman and Koozman informed him that Rogoff
was a leader of FOUR that he commented he thought Rogoff had more sense, that
Sedares was just "a bum," who was good only "for picketing schuls," and that if
they were smart they would get out of FOUR. Cerbone also testified that he in-
formed his staff in January that in his opinion it was a violation of the ILG constitu-
tion to be a member of FOUR, and that it constituted dual unionism, and on another
occasion he also informed them that he did not "give a damn" whether they joined
FOUR or not.
Koozman also testified to an occasion when he was called into Kramer's office
on February 28, and questioned first about an altercation he had engaged in with
other staff personnel which grew out of a discussion of FOUR. Kramer admitted
the incident, and his testimony varied from Koozman's mainly on details and in
negating the more emphatic and colorful portions of Koozman's testimony. For
reasons stated previously in resolving the Koozman-Cerbone issue, I credit Kramer's
version.
Briefly summarized, and insofar as relevant to the issues, Kramer testified that
after reprimanding Koozman for his part in the altercation (which Kramer assumed
was related to FOUR), he questioned Koozman as to his reasons for joining FOUR,
and subsequently in responding to Koozman's observation that "this is probably
going to be a long drawn out business," Kramer agreed that it would be and that
ILG felt so strongly about the issue whether its business agents were its officers or
its employees that it would take the issue to "the highest court." When Koozman
commented further about the holding up of wage increases, Kramer pointed out that
a review committee was being established and that it should "come up with an
answer" within a couple of months.
2. The official position; the GEB committees
FOUR's telegram demanding recognition was received by President Dubinsky on
December 19, and on December 27 FOUR filed its representation petition. On
December 29, President Dubinsky dispatched to all regional directors a letter which
quoted FOUR's telegram and which continued as follows:
This development creates a situation never experienced in the history of our
union. It therefore involves an important policy decision on our part. I have
refrained from making any decision because I have no authority to act in such
a situation; this is a matter for the General Executive Board to consider and
decide upon. On December 13th the New York Board scheduled the Fourth
Meeting of the GEB to take place the week of January 30th.
As you are aware, it has been the practice in our union at this time of the
Year to review payroll matters. The review of the payroll in every respect will
be held in abeyance pending formulation of a policy by the GEB at the end
of January.
I am sending you this information for your guidance in the event you should
be questioned by any of your staff who may have expected a wage adjustment at
this time 29
=s The record showed that graduates of the Training Institute on the payroll of the
International who earned less than $120 per week received annually automatic increases
INT'L LADIES GARMENT WORKERS ' UNION, AFL-CIO 105
On December 28, Sedares and Rogoff, temporary chairman and secretary respec-
tively, wrote Dubinsky requesting a meeting to discuss the matter of recognition
and referring in part to "a series of irresponsible and unnecessary acts on the part
of certain department heads and managers," including "the discharge of the Chair-
man of FOUR, threats of discharge to other staff members, a systematic and
methodical interrogation of staff members regarding their membership in and atti-
tude toward FOUR, and threats of other reprisals if they join FOUR." Expressing
belief that Dubinsky was personally unaware of, and would not condone, such prac-
tices, the letter expressed the hope that Dubinsky would remedy the situation.
Dubinsky replied by letter of December 30, addressed to Rogoff, in part as
follows :
Your request to discuss a union within our union concerns an unprecedented
matter which involves an important policy decision by the ILGWU. This is a
matter upon which only the General Executive Board has authority to act.
On December 13th, the Fourth Meeting of the GEB was scheduled to take place
the week of January 30th in Atlantic City. The entire matter will be placed
on the GEB's agenda. Should any individual or committee wish to appear
before the GEB on this matter , I am certain that the Board will, as has been its
usual practice, make such opportunity available.
During the meeting on January 9 between Rogoff and Sedares and Dubinsky,
Stulberg, and Daniels (section B, 6, supra ), reference was made to FOUR's claims
of discrimination, as a result of which Dubinsky agreed to send , and later did send,
on January 13, the following letter to all regional directors:
A question of discrimination was raised in connection with the move to
organize a union within our union.
To my knowledge , there has been no discrimination against any officer or
staff member at any time.
You are advised to continue to adhere to this policy of non-discrimination.
On February 15, Respondent's official magazine "Justice" contained on its editorial
page a reprint of a speech which Dubinsky made to the GEB on January 30. There
Dubinsky expressed at length his views on the concept of "a union within a union."
Though the General Counsel does not contend that any part of Dubinsky's state-
ment was violative of the Act , he relies upon it as support for his premise that
Respondent has at all times manifested intense and bitter opposition to FOUR,
pointing specifically to the following: that Dubinsky expressed his conviction that
"a union is a crusade"; that "the ILGWU has always stood for a missionary concept
of the labor movement"; that at least some of those involved with FOUR were
"acting out of evil motive," and that FOUR was a group masquerading as a union
whose purpose was to win control of Respondent . Thus it is made understandable,
the General Counsel argues, how ILG, a union with an outstanding reputation, could
have engaged in a ruthless antiunion campaign to stamp out a union of its employees
and how, having equated FOUR from the first with evil, it set out with religious fervor
to destroy it.
In the meantime , the GEB met in the week of January 30 , and rejected FOUR's
request for recognition . It did not act to restore the normal year-end wage in-
creases which Dubinsky had suspended , but it did set up a group of three com-
mittees as follows: One committee was to consider on a continuing basis grievances
and suggestions of officers and staff members and to make recommendations on wages
and other personnel problems to the GEB. The second committee was to consider
whether or not to continue staff people on Respondent 's own payroll or to re-
distribute them to the payrolls of departments , regions, and locals. The third com-
mittee was to consider whether to continue allowing graduates from the Training
Institute to become members of Respondent after 1 year and members of its retire-
ment fund after 31/2 years.
The establishment of those committees is itself claimed as a violation of the Act,
the General Counsel asserting that they were created in response to FOUR's request
of $7.50 ; that the performances of all other Institute graduates on the International's
payroll and of all other staff members on that payroll were reviewed at year end for a
possible merit increase; and that staff members of autonomous locals and joint boards
involved solely in the dress industry bad their salaries reviewed after the execution of
each successive 3-year contract.
'Vice President Kramer testified that normal wage increases were thereafter held up and
that he explained to employees who inquired that it was due to "the unique situation of a
union within a union" and because "we might get involved in unfair labor practices if we
gave increases."
106 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
for recognition and to undercut FOUR. As supporting that claim, the General
Counsel points to Dubinsky's letter of December 29, to his speech to GEB, and to
an official press release, dated February 6, which, after setting forth Respondent's
explanations of its refusal to recognize FOUR, concluded as follows:
The General Executive Board has, therefore, instructed the ILGWU legal
staff to oppose recognition of a bargaining unit in this category [of business
agents].
The Board has also designated a Review Committee on personnel matters,
composed of GEB members. On a continuing basis, this committee will con-
sider grievances and suggestions of any officer or staff members and will make
recommendations on wage and other personnel problems to the General Execu-
tive Board.
That release was republished in the February 15 issue of "Justice," which con-
tained also a news item which reported the establishment of the three committees.
Relevant also was the following portion of Dubinsky's speech before GEB as re-
printed in "Justice":
I am not here discussing the question of whether members of the ILGWU have
grievances that deserve redress. I am certain that there are such grievances-
real and imagined. And I believe it is one of the responsibilities of the ILGWU
to use existing and develop new channels for handling such problems.
3. The staff meetings; group solicitation
Respondent's attitude of opposition to FOUR, as officially made known to its em-
ployees (section 2, supra), was brought closer home to them, both in a series of
group meetings which were held by Kramer, for Eastern Region personnel, by
Chaikin, for Fall River (Northeast Department) personnel, and by E. T. Kehrer, for
Southeast Region personnel, as well as in individual acts by them and other supervis-
ors (section 4, infra) of interrogation, of solicitation to abandon FOUR and/or to
submit their grievances to the GEB committees, and of implied and express threats.
We start with the meeting of the Eastern Region staff, which was held in New
York City on February 17, immediately following the publication of Dubinsky's
speech. That meeting, over which Kramer presided, at which Dubinsky spoke, and
at which attendance was compulsory, was illustrative, generally, of the conduct of
Respondent's other officials and supervisors. The General Counsel accepts Kramer's
testimony as supporting his contentions concerning that meeting.
Kramer told the staff that the issue of FOUR was one "that the ILGWU felt very
strongly about, which I felt strongly about, that we were not employers and they
weren't employees . that we were not a business; that we were a movement."
Kramer testified that some of his managers took the floor to attack FOUR's ad-
herents (a) as creators of an internal faction who "ought to be kicked out of the
union," a position which Kramer himself disavowed at that point; (b) as "vicious,
because instead of keeping their grievances within the union, they went to the
press . . ."; and (c) as "going about it the wrong way. Instead of going to an
outside organization ... they should have stayed within the family of the union."
Other speakers attacked the leadership of FOUR.
Kramer testified that he called out the names of persons whom he thought were
members of FOUR, and testified further as follows:
I told the men I was interested in knowing what the grievances were, I mean
what this was all about, and I wanted them to speak and to voice their feelings
about this thing, and I even told them that I was aware that some of these
were members of FOUR.
There was no concealment as to who was who once the thing was out into
the open, and I even named some of the boys and I said . . . the only reason
I'm naming you is I want you to feel free to speak because this union is not
a union of vengeance against people who are in opposition. I said we have a
man who is sitting here, and I pointed to Arthur Stolnick, who in 1926 was a
Communist. He was one of the members who fought the ILGWU and today
he is an officer of the union and holds a respected position.
I pointed out that Mr. Zimmerman, who was the general manager of the
Dress Joint Board, was probably the outstanding Communist leader in 1926,
one of the outstanding leaders, and that he had seen the light and understood
the nature of Communism, and the internal difficulties had been composed, he
returned to the union and became manager of Local 22, and became a vice
president....
INT'L LADIES GARMENT WORKERS' UNION, AFL-CIO 107
The General Counsel also cites the fact that Dubinsky spoke at the meeting, and
that he, like Kramer, pointed out "that others had gone out of the fold, had been
Communists, and had gone out of the fold and had been taken back and had been
forgiven," and that on the other hand, he promised FOUR a long and hard fight up
to the Supreme Court.30
On February 20, a meeting of the Fall River staff was held at Chaikin's request
after regular working hours and after Chaikin had completed other union business.
It ran for some 3 hours up to about 1 a.m., or later. After about half an hour,
the discussions concerned only the subject of FOUR and the decisions which the
GEB had made in relation to it. Though a number of witnesses testified concerning
the discussions, the General Counsel cites and relies on the following testimony given
by Ralph A. Roberts, a witness for Respondent:
Chaikin outlined the grievance procedure that was in the offing, that the General
Executive Board was going to set up some kind of a grievance board, and then
there was a discussion between Chaikin and Fontaine as to the question of
whether or not FOUR had merit, and Roussos entered into that discussion.
By and large it dealt generally with the whole subject of FOUR and it was a
give and take propositions. I think what Chaikin was seeking, and he sought
and did get responses from some of the people sitting there, particularly
Fontaine and Roussos, and I believe Cecelia Leshy made some contributions to
the discussion.
Roberts testified further as follows:
Q. Was there any discussion at that meeting by anybody as to whether or
not any person assembled there was a member of FOUR?
A. I think it was apparent that some people were members of FOUR, the
way they contributed to the conversation, that still belonged. I think it was
obvious, for example, that Fontaine, Roussos, Leshy and perhaps the others were
members of FOUR by nature of the conversation and discussion. This was
a-in my opinion, a really broad discussion. It ranged all over the place on
the subject of FOUR, ethics, as to what we were trying to do in the trade union
movement. I think Chaikin indicated that he refused to be categorized as an
employer in a sense that somebody who ran a dress shop was an employer, and
that we and the others had entered this movement for another reason entirely,
to-it was a cause to him and he hoped it was a cause to others, and so forth,
and a cause for doing good.
E. T. Kehrer, regional director of the Southeast Region, held a total of three
meetings (January 3, and February 13 and 17) of staff personnel in Atlanta at which
FOUR was discussed. Kehrer testified that he held the January 3 meeting in part
for the purpose of "laying the whole matter [of FOUR] before the staff if they
chose to discuss it"; that he did so at the request of two members of his staff; but
that he himself did not participate in the discussions because he was under President
Dubinsky's instructions not to discuss that matter with the staff pending a determina-
tion of policy by GEB. The speakers included, Kehrer testified, one who made a
strongly anti-FOUR statement to the effect that he was withdrawing from FOUR
because he had signed a card "under false pretenses," that he had been duped and
lied to, and that he was publicly renouncing the organization. Another staff mem-
ber spoke of her long connection with ILG, called it her union, and stated in part
she could see no useful purpose to be served by having an outside union trying to
bargain for her.
30 The General Counsel's bill of particulars did not charge to Dubinsky personally any
conduct or statement as violative of the Act, and his brief claimed no such violation.
During the course of the hearing the General Counsel expressly disclaimed a violation
"based on Mr. Dubinsky's utterances at that meeting [of February 171," and elsewhere
he disclaimed any Section 8(a) (1) conduct on Dubinsky's part. During the course of oral
argument, However, .the General Counsel while admitting his disclaimers at the hearing,
lay claim to a violation on Dubinsky's part by his statements referred to in the text
above, interpreting them as a solicitation of resignations.
In view of the General Counsel's failure to include Dubinsky in his bill of particulars
and his repeated disclaimers at the bearing, I feel that rudimentary standards of fair
play (if not, indeed, of due process) preclude the General Counsel's belated attempt to
claim, over Respondent's objection, a Section 8(a) (1) violation by Dubinsky personally,
and I make no finding thereon.
108 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
In the subsequent meetings on February 13 and 17, of business agents and or-
ganizers, respectively, Kehrer himself took the lead in denouncing FOUR.31 He told
his listeners, among other things, that they would have an opportunity to discuss
FOUR but that he was going to give his own opinion at the risk of having some of
them file unfair labor practice charges against him; that he thought FOUR was a
disaster; that membership in it constituted dual unionism and was a fundamental
violation of the ILG constitution, from which he read pertinent portions. Kehrer
also told the staff that GEB had set up a committee which was considering the ques-
tion whether business agents should be elected instead of appointed.32
Kehrer also spoke deprecatingly of the appearance of FOUR's representatives
before the GEB, criticizing particularly "the performance" of J. W. Mitchell of his
own staff. At the meeting with the organizers he passed around photostatic copies
of telegrams of resignation from FOUR by some of the business agents on his staff.
Kehrer concluded the meetings by pointing out that even if FOUR should succeed in
achieving a collective-bargaining agreement with ILG, his own authority as a regional
director would be in no way diminished with reference to hiring, firing, transferring,
promoting, or demoting.
Individual solicitations and other conduct by Kehrer which followed the staff
meetings is set out in the next section.
4. Individual solicitations ; alleged discrimination
(a) Chaikin
On February 25 (5 days after meeting with the Fall River staff), Chaikin invited
to his home for an overnight visit, Marvin Rogoff, who was FOUR's secretary-
treasurer and who was attached to the Harrisburg district within Chaikin's North-
east Department. Chaikin testified that his purpose was to talk with Rogoff "about
the ILGWU and FOUR." The discussions, which ranged over the whole question of
FOUR and its relationship to its members and to ILG, lasted until 3 a.m.
Rogoff testified that among other things, Chaikin requested him to "drop your
petition and leave the whole matter in Dubinsky's hands, let him settle the whole
thing," and that he refused to do so. At another point Chaikin stated angrily,
"You're stupid, you have made all the wrong moves in FOUR. I once recommended
you for promotion. I will never recommend you for a promotion again because you
are stupid."
Chaikin denied that he asked Rogoff to drop the petition, denied that he told
Rogoff to leave the whole matter in Dubinsky's hands, and denied saying that Rogoff
was stupid, though he admitted he told Rogoff that some of the actions Rogoff had
taken in connection with FOUR were stupid actions and that he would "have to
re-evaluate [his] opinion of [Rogoff's] intelligence and the value of the experience
he gained. . Chaikin reminded Rogoff that he had recommended Rogoff for a
higher position several months before in the belief that Rogoff was a man of intelli-
gence and experience, but he continued that Rogoff's actions (vis-a-vis FOUR) con-
vinced him that Rogoff did not measure up to Chaikin's belief in him. Chaikin
denied telling Rogoff that he would never recommend him for a promotion again
because he was stupid.
Gus Tyler, of the Training Institute, was present for a brief portion of the discus-
sions, but his testimony did not relate to the specific points of conflict between Rogoff
and Chaikin. He testified that Rogoff was informed that they were meeting to
see whether a rapprochement could be effected between FOUR and ILG, that the
"general office" was interested in making some informal explorations toward a settle-
ment of the FOUR problem, that neither Dubinsky nor the GEB was looking for
blood, and that the first thing to do was to determine what the grievances were
and to resolve them without internal warfare. As Chaikin was opening the discus-
sion of the nature of the grievances , Tyler was called away.
In resolving the conflicts in the Rogoff-Chaikin testimony, there are two points
which are of significance. The first is that Tyler's description of the purpose of
3' Although a number of witnesses testified to the discussions at those meetings, the
General Counsel relied-as he did as to the January 3 meeting-on Kehrer's own testi-
mony when called as his witness under Rule 43(b), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
32 That announcement was significant in relation to Kehrer 's position that dual unionism
(i.e., membership in FOUR) was in conflict with the constitution since it was necessary
for an elected business agent to be a member of ILG, whereas ILG membership was not
required of appointed business agents.
INT'L LADIES GARMENT WORKERS' UNION, AFL-CIO 109
the meeting tended to confirm Rogoff's version of the nature of Chaikin's proposals.33
Secondly, Chaikin attempted glib evasions of direct questions put by the Trial Ex-
aminer before entering denials of the statements which Rogoff attributed to him
as quoted above, and on the question of the recommendation for promotion his
ultimate answers seemed to constitute, in the phraseology of "double talk," a sub-
stantial admission of Rogoff's version, i.e., he admitted referring to his former
recommendation of Rogoff for promotion based on his appraisal of Rogoff's intel-
ligence, that he criticized Rogoff's moves on FOUR as stupid ones, and that he
stated that because of them he would have to reevaluate his opinion of Rogoff.
I am therefore convinced and find that Chaikin made the statements substantially
in the terms which Rogoff testified to, and that in any case Chaikin plainly implied,
if he did not baldly state, the substance of Rogoff's version.
(b) Roberts
Ralph A. Roberts, district manager of the Southern New England District, and
Louis E. Rona, supervisor of Upstate New York and New England, both attended
Chaikin's meeting with the Fall River staff on the evening of February 20, and both
engaged in subsequent conduct which the General Counsel assigns as violative of
the Act. We begin with Roberts.
Nicholas Roussos, Cecilia Leshyk, and Robert Fontaine, business agents under
Roberts, testified to separate occasions in March when Roberts called them into his
office and solicited their resignations from FOUR. Roussos and Fontaine refused,
but Leshyk, upon further consideration, sent in her resignation.
Roberts denied those individual solicitations, but he affirmed the accuracy of one
of Roussos' affidavits to the Board, which the Respondent offered without limitation
and which ended with the statement that Roberts said that he "wasn't really asking
anyone to resign-that he just wanted to know exactly how everyone felt." The
General Counsel disclaimed Roberts' discussion in the group session as a violation,
and Respondent attacks the credibility of the three witnesses against Roberts on the
ground that their affidavits to the Board contained no reference to the individual
solicitations . Leshyk was apparently not questioned about the contents of her
affidavit, nor was Roussos. Fontaine admitted that he did not refer to Roberts'
individual solicitation in his affidavit, but testified that he told the Board attorney
about it sometime later.
I credit the mutually corroborative testimony of Roussos, Fontaine, and Leshyk
as to the individual solicitations.
(c) Rona
In Rona's case, the General Counsel stands, for one of his charges, on Rona's own
affidavit, which was received by stipulation, and which was to the following effect:
In February or March 1961, Elliott Klitzman, a business agent subordinate to
Rona, reported to Rona during a telephone conversation that he would like to with-
draw from FOUR and would like Rona's idea on how Klitzman and others might
withdraw in such a way as to save face. Rona suggested to Klitzman that he repeat
at a regional meeting of FOUR in Boston on the coming Sunday (of which Klitzman
had informed him) exactly what Klitzman had told him on the telephone and that
as long as Klitzman and others felt that their primary purpose in joining FOUR was
to have an outlet for their grievances and financial problems, "why not take advan-
tage of the committees set up for this purpose by the GEB on January 30."
Rona subsequently telephoned Business Agent Nicholas Roussos, inquired whether
Roussos knew anything about the regional meeting scheduled for Sunday, and Roussos
replied that he would be in attendance. Rona thereupon related to Roussos his
prior conversation with KIitzman and suggested that if Roussos were sincere in
some of his earlier conversations to the effect that he was only interested in a medium
for presenting his grievances, then he should listen to Klitzman's proposals at the
meeting, which would give Roussos the "out" he' was looking for and still save face,
i.e., that they present their grievances to the review committee without resigning from
FOUR.
33 In view of Respondent's unremitting opposition to FOUR's recognition demands, it was
plain that any settlement without "warfare" would necessarily involve capitulation by
FOUR-not by ILG !-and naturally the resolution of existing grievances was an essential
prerequisite to moving to that end. At no point during the lengthy debate was there the
slightest suggestion that the settlement toward which Chaikin was working would involve
recognition of FOUR.
110 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Roussos testified that at the meeting on Sunday (about which Rona telephoned
him), Klitzman and Levine made the statement that so far as FOUR was concerned,
"we probably lost the battle," and they suggested that the solution lay in the use of
the grievance procedure which the GEB had set up for the consideration of
grievances 34
Rona's affidavit also covered the subject of his discussions with staff members
while at dinner on various occasions during which,
I suggested several times that they contact the Board of Review set up by the
GEB at the end of January and place their grievances before the board and
see what results they would get. I believe I indicated that if the question of
FOUR were resolved, there was the possibility that the Board of review will
react favorably to their grievances 35
I told them that the board of review could not act now because of the pend-
ing petition.
Rona was also involved, along with Martin Rosato, manager of the Shamokin
(Pennsylvania) Local, in an alleged discriminatory failure to transfer Louise Krep-
shaw, for whom Rona had been a sort of godfather in ILG. Krepshaw testified,
and Rona admitted, that at a Christmas party around December 6 (prior to her
connection with FOUR), she asked if Rona would give her a job in New England.
Rona stated that he might have an opening in a couple of months and promised to
keep her in mind. Krepshaw admitted that Rona questioned her seriousness and
that he expressed doubt that she was ready to leave Pennsylvania.
Rona testified that he did not take Krepshaw's request seriously and that he told
her so, pointing to a number of things concerning her family situation in Pennsyl-
vania (including certain personal problems which they had discussed) which militated
against her moving at the time. Though Rona denied that he had an opening or
was expecting one at the time, he testified that he promised to consider Krepshaw's
request if in the future her personal problems developed a necessity for a transfer.
Krepshaw testified further that in late January or early February, Rosato informed
her that he had talked to Rona and that Rona would not hire her. When Krepshaw
replied she would believe it only if Rona told her, Rosato placed a call to Rona,
who confirmed Rosato's statement. When Krepshaw asked if the reason was that
she was a member of FOUR, Rona affirmed that it was.
Krepshaw's testimony was sharply disputed by Rosato and Rona, whose testimony
was mutually corroborative. They both agreed that the occasion arose after the
publication of the Dubinsky editorial in "Justice" on February 15. Rosato testified
that it was during a discussion of that editorial that he made one of his suggestions
that Krepshaw resign from FOUR and that led, among other things, to a question
by Krepshaw as to Rona's opinion of FOUR. When he informed Krepshaw that
Rona was opposed to FOUR, Krepshaw expressed disbelief unless she heard it
from Rona directly. It was then that he placed the call to Rona, and he testified
that after informing Rona of his discussion of FOUR with Krepshaw, Krepshaw
came on to the telephone in another office, and Rosato hung up.
Rona's testimony confirmed Rosato's as to the initiation of the conversation. He
testified that during a lengthy conversation, he discussed the question of FOUR with
Krepshaw and that he explained to her his reasons for his opposition to it. Rona
denied that there was any mention of a transfer in that conversation and denied
that he told Krepshaw that he would not hire her because she was a member of
FOUR.
I credit the mutually corroborative testimony of Rona and Rosato over the
uncorroborated testimony of Krepshaw.
(d) Rosato
Intertwined with the evidence set forth in the preceding section was testimony by
Krepshaw and Velma Haugh that on numerous occasions Rosato pressed them
persistently to withdraw or resign from FOUR, coupling his solicitations with veiled
threats and suggestions of possible reprisals. Haugh testified that finally, unable
to withstand longer his importunings, she agreed to resign; that Rosato directed her to
send a telegram to Rogoff; and that he dictated to his secretary an outline of the
telegram which was sent.
14 In view of the contents of Rona's affidavit, I now overrule Respondent's objection to
Roussos' testimony above, on which I reserved ruling at the hearing.
35 I do not credit Roussos' testimony, which Rona denied and which was not corroborated
by other witnesses, that Rona stated that the matter of wage increases would depend upon
when the question of FOUR was settled, "perhaps favorably."
INT'L LADIES GARMENT WORKERS' UNION, AFL-CIO 111
Rosato admitted discussing with Krepshaw the question of resigning from FOUR,
and he admitted also that he requested Haugh to withdraw and that when she asked
for help in phrasing the telegram, he referred her to his secretary. Rosato denied
making the threats and suggestions of reprisal which Haugh and Krepshaw attributed
to him.
As the Haugh-Krepshaw testimony was in a sense mutually corroborative in that
it related to similar conduct by Rosato toward each of them, and as Rosato's own
testimony itself went far to confirm the truth of the accusations against him, I
credit the Haugh-Krepshaw testimony.
(e) Kehrer
We return now to Kehrer's conduct which followed the staff meetings in Atlanta
on February 13 and 17 (section 3, supra). At the conclusion of those meetings,
Kehrer scheduled individual conferences with the staff members, at each of which
his assistant, Nicholas Bonanno, was also present. According to the testimony of
business agents Albert Gross and D. O. Warren and Organizer James S. Temple, the
sole topic of their brief interviews was FOUR, with Kehrer either inquiring about,
or referring to, the fact of their membership and requesting them (except Gross)
to withdraw. The interviews ended abruptly in each case, with Kehrer ordering
them to "Get out," and in Temple's case by accusing Temple of being a "traitor"
whom he could not trust again . Temple also testified that he brought up the ques-
tion of the license plates and the titling of his car, suggesting a preference for
Tennessee (where his home was located). Kehrer peremptorily ordered him to title
the car in South Carolina, where Temple was assigned at the time, and added, "Let
me tell you right now you are not going to work in Tennessee anymore."
The testimony of Kehrer and Bonanno was in sharp conflict with that of Gross,
Warren, and Temple save for admissions that individual interviews were held and that
the subject of FOUR was discussed in each case. Kehrer also admitted that he
expressed surprise at Warren's membership and that, having become considerably
exasperated at the end of the discussion, he informed Warren that he could leave.
Kehrer denied that he ordered any of them to "Get out," though he also admitted
telling Gross that he might as well go. Indeed, Kehrer also admitted (as a Rule
43(b) witness) that he had questioned other organizers during the course of their
individual interviews as to where they stood on FOUR, naming Ed Sharp as one
and Carl Stafford as another.
As the testimony of Gross, Warren, and Temple was in effect mutually, though
indirectly, corroborative, and as Kehrer's admissions also lent a further measure of
confirmation, I credit their testimony in resolving the conflicts with that of Kehrer
and Bonanno.
Although the General Counsel's bill of particulars also charged Kehrer with
various discriminatory acts and practices from January 3 through July 25, his in-
ability to procure the attendance of certain witnesses from the Southeast Region
apparently dealt a heavy blow to that portion of his case. As a direct result the
General Counsel dismissed at the hearing an allegation that J . W. Mitchell was
discriminatorily discharged, and during the course of the oral argument he conceded
that he had not "sufficiently established" some of the other allegations. Ultimately
his claims boiled down to a contention that Kehrer had discriminated against Gross
and Temple by reducing their per diem allowances from $3.50 to $1.50 on weekends
when spent at home. The General Counsel admitted that the remainder of his case
so far as Temple was concerned was "to abstruse" and "too minute" to warrant the
effort, but he maintained his contention as to the reduction in Temple's per diem
because it paralleled the same alleged discriminatory treatment of Gross.
Though the parallel in the fact of the deduction was evident, the difficulty in
Temple's case was that the amount was entirely trivial and insignificant when
measured against the extremely generous treatment which Kehrer had accorded
Temple contemporaneously during a 9-week period of illness and injury when
Kehrer (1) continued to pay Temple his full salary; (2) continued to give him his
regular rent allowance; and (3) authorized his continued use of the ILG car for
personal reasons and the incurring of expenses in its operation. It is inconceivable
that Kehrer, if discriminatorily motivated, would have filched from Temple com-
paratively trifling amounts of expense money in the face of the readymade oppor-
tunity to deal Temple a substantial hurt, and this aside from Kehrer's explanation
which I consider in connection with Gross' case.
Gross' per diem allowance, like Temple's, had been cut beginning February 17,
from $3.50 a day to $1.50 on occasions when Gross was at home. Kehrer testi-
fied credibly that the deductions were made to conform to a longstanding rule which
had not previously been stringently enforced; that partly as a result of President
112 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Dubinsky's criticism of laxity, he began to enforce the rule more stringently after
warning his staff at the meetings that they were to request only a $1.50 allowance
while they were at home. Gross in turn admitted that Kehrer announced in the
meetings that he had been lax in the matter of the per diem allowances, that Kehrer
made specific reference to staff people in Atlanta in stating that those who had been
getting $3.50 at home would be cut to $1.50, and that Kehrer also referred to the
necessity for cutting expenses and for staff members to tighten their belts on such
expenditures as per diem, telephone, hotel, and travel.
What the General Counsel points to as establishing a discriminatory motivation
is the evidence previously summarized of Kehrer's anti-FOUR utterances in the
meetings and of his individual solicitation of resignations from Warren, Gross, and
Temple, as well as the subsequent act of assigning Gross to Greenville, of suspending
him when he refused to accept the assignment, and of revoking the suspension after
Gross informed Kehrer he had withdrawn from FOUR. Although I credit Gross'
testimony that Kehrer admitted on the latter occasion that the transfer to Greenville
was a part of the pressure Kehrer had used upon Gross to induce his withdrawal from
FOUR (knowing as he did that Gross' wife would probably oppose the move), it
does not establish that the reduction in Gross' per diem allowance was discrimina-
torily motivated, whatever else it might have established.36
Thus, it is plain that when Kehrer succeeded in getting Gross to resign from
FOUR, he immediately lifted Gross' suspension and restored him to his former
job in Atlanta. That action plainly indicated Kehrer's full satisfaction at the ac-
complishment of his purpose. That Kehrer did not immediately revert to his former
laxity on the per diem allowance does not establish that any modicum remained
either of animus or of coercive intent. In short, the General Counsel's evidence
does not establish that Kehrer was moved to enforce the per diem rule in Gross'
case by reason of FOUR, rather than by Dubinsky's criticisms of his previous laxity 37
5. Concluding findings
It is now definitively settled that, "[W]hen a labor union takes on the role of
an employer the Act applies to its operations just as it would to any other employer."
Office Employees' Union v. N.L.R.B., 353 U.S. 313, 316. When so acting as an
employer, then, a union becomes subject to the provisions of Section 8(a)-just as
the Section 8(b) proscriptions apply to it as a labor organization-and no valid basis
can be suggested for distinguishing it from any other employer or for calculating on
different scales the coercive effect or weight to be accorded to statements and conduct
by its officers, agents, and supervisors vis-a-vis its employees.
Respondent's main contention is that the conduct complained of occurred only as
"philosophical discussions" among "colleagues" of the concept of a union within a
union. Certainly discussions which were maintained on such a basis would plainly
qualify as free speech and as the kind of "non-coercive anti-union solicitation" re-
ferred to in N.L.R.B. v. United Steelworkers of America (Nutone, Inc.), 357 U.S.
357, 362, (relied upon by Respondent), which the Supreme Court held would be
protected by Section 8(c) of the Act where made "under proper circumstances."
But the record here showed the following situations where the acts and conduct of
Respondent's officers and supervisors, departing from that protected area, plainly
"Neither the complaint nor the bill of particulars assigned Gross' transfer and 806-
pension as an unfair labor practice, and the General Counsel made no motion to amend
at the hearing when comment was made on that fact. Finally, in oral argument, when
the point was again adverted to, the General Counsel asserted reliance on the incident
only as part of the solicitation of Gross to withdraw from FOUR.
87 Although it was not entirely clear from the oral argument whether the General Counsel
waived his contention concerning the "docking" of the Mitchell brothers during a 4-day
period following the January 3 meeting, the evidence does not establish a violation. The
Mitchells failed to honor the General Counsel's subpena, and the only evidence suggestive
of a discriminatory intent was testimony that during the course of the discussion of
FOUR at the January 3 meeting, J. W. Mitchell made some comment to the effect that,
"Well, we could all use more money ." A reduction was made in the per diem allowance
only of the Mitchell brothers for 4 days over the following weekend, although there were
three others similarly situated in their five-man group. Kehrer testified without denial that
the other members in the group requested and received permission to leave for home dur-
ing the period in question, whereas the Mitchells failed to request or to receive such per-
mission, and that the reduction was made pursuant to the longstanding policy that when
a member leaves his post for a period of 1 or more days without prior authorization, be
will not be reimbursed for expenses incurred while he is away from his post.
INT'L LADIES GARMENT WORKERS' UNION, AFL-CIO 113
tended to interfere with, restrain, and coerce its employees in the exercise of their
right themselves to enjoy what they had so long preached, as Respondent's disciples,
to the employees of other employers-to bargain collectively with their own em-
ployer through representatives of their own choosing:
(a) In the context of Dubinsky's published statements of hostility to FOUR, Re-
spondent's officers staged open-forum meetings for the discussion of FOUR during
which they stated their own opposition to it and either called for, or permitted, violent
attacks on FOUR and its leadership. The staging of such open debates was neces-
sarily calculated to result in disclosure to Respondent of the identities both of em-
ployees who opposed and those who adhered to FOUR, and the intent to expose
was further high-lighted in the New York meeting by Vice President Kramer's open
identification of employees whom he knew or thought to be members of FOUR.
A further calculated object was the solicitation of defections, as indicated by
Kramer's reference to the ex-Communists who had left the fold and who had at-
tained high office after returning to ILG and by Kehrer's circulation of telegrams of
resignation from FOUR. In addition, at two of the meetings (Fall River and New
York) the discussions of FOUR were coupled with the subject of employee griev-
ances, with reference also being made to the GEB's action in setting up a committee
to handle grievances; and in the Atlanta meeting, Kehrer coupled his reference to
the constitutional proscription of dual unionism (vis-a-vis FOUR) with references
to the fact that one of the new GEB committees was considering a proposal to have
its business agents elected (thereby disqualifying members of FOUR).
In short, I conclude and find that the meetings were so staged and conducted that
they necessarily constituted a form of coercive interrogation of employees, Trans-
Oil, Inc., 86 NLRB 136, 137; of coercive solicitation of withdrawals or defections
from FOUR, The Jefferson Co., Inc., 110 NLRB 757, 769; Overnite Transportation
Company, 129 NLRB 1026, 1031-1032, 1034, and of the undercutting of FOUR
through soliciting resort to the newly created GEB committee for handling
grievances.
(b) Similarly, against the background of Respondent's official position of opposi-
tion to FOUR, Respondent's supervisors, adding their own expressions of hostility,
engaged in individual solicitations of employees to resign or withdraw from FOUR.
In some cases the employees were subjected to persistent importunings and in one
case was given assistance in effecting the resignation. In others the employees'
refusals were met with angry and abrupt termination of the interviews. Suggestions
of close friendship between Rosato, on the one hand, and Haugh and Krepshaw on
the other, plainly could not overcome the coercive impact of Rosato's persistent
importunings, particularly in the light of his suggestions of possible reprisals.
I conclude and find that the individual solicitations to resign (including Chaikin's
solicitation of Rogoff to withdraw the petition) were also violative of the Act, falling
plainly outside the scope of the expression of views which is protected by Section
8(c). Southeastern Pipe Line Company, 103 NLRB 341, 353, and cases there
cited.
Also to be considered are the suspension of wage increases and the establishment
of committees by GEB. Respondent defends its suspension of increases on the
ground that it feared both a plethora of charges of individual discrimination and that
it wished to avoid any claim that it was seeking to affect the outcome of the
election (if one were directed by the Board). It is true that Respondent faced a
sort of Hobson's choice insofar as increases were to be based on Respondent's
appraisal of comparative merit and individual job performances, since charges of
discrimination seemed reasonably predictable if it proceeded on those. Its defense
was, however, just as plainly invalid as concerned the annual increases which by
its normal practice were given automatically in fixed amounts to employees in
certain categories ( see footnote 29, supra), since the granting of such automatic
increases would entail no risk or danger. To withhold such increases while publicly
assigning FOUR's request for recognition as an excuse plainly constituted inter-
ference with and restraint of the employees in the exercise of their right to join
FOUR and to participate in the organizational campaign. By such action I conclude
and find that Respondent engaged in unfair labor practices within Section 8(a)( I).
Concerning the three new committees established by GEB during the week of
January 30, the General Counsel complains chiefly of the one which was to handle
grievances and to make recommendations on wages and personnel problems to
GEB. To that committee GEB delegated the handling of the annual increases which
President Dubinsky referred to it on December 29 when he suspended such in-
creases because of FOUR' s recognition demand. Furthermore, insofar as the com-
mittee's function involved the handling of employee grievances, it was plain from the
publicizing of the committee, from the discussions in the staff meetings (section 3,
supra), and from Rona's suggestions to Klitzman and Roussos and to his other staff
114 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
members that they look to the GEB committee rather than FOUR for solution of their
grievances and other problems (section 4, supra), that the committee was created
and was held out as a device for undercutting FOUR. I therefore conclude and
find that its establishment constituted a violation of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.
As to the other two committees, the General Counsel did not establish by a
preponderance of the evidence that their creation constituted interference with the
FOUR campaign. No reference was made to them, so far as the record shows,
either in the staff meetings or in individual discussions by Respondent's officers or
supervisors, and there was no evidence that they have functioned at all, or that, if
they have done so, it was in a manner which interfered with FOUR. Respondent
was free, of course, to appoint committees to consider recommending changes in
its constitution and in its fiscal organization, and there was, as to these two com-
mittees, no suggestion that they were to function as an instrument for undercutting
FOUR.
Turning to the incidents of interrogation, most of them occurred prior to announce-
ment of Respondent's position of hostility to FOUR, and they must, therefore, be
considered without reference to that factor. Respondent's contentions run substan-
tially to the following effect: that the interrogations were privileged as free speech
under Section 8(c) and were permissible under the Board's doctrine in Blue Flash
Express, Inc., 109 NLRB 591, because there was no showing that they contained
promises of benefit or threats of reprisal, or that they occurred in a setting of other
conduct creating a coercive atmosphere, or were for an unlawful purpose.
There is no merit to those contentions. The tests which the Board applies to
determine whether interrogation is lawful or unlawful have been repeatedly expli-
cated; they are concisely summarized in the Intermediate Report in The Southland
Corporation, Case No. 5-CA-2051, IR-198-62, by Trial Examiner Arthur Leff,
from which I quote:
Section 8(c) is not involved , for interrogation cannot be classified as the
expression of views, argument, or opinion. It is quite true that the Board no
longer follows a per se approach which would hold any employer inquiry di-
rected to employees concerning union matters a violation of the Act for that
reason alone. Blue Flash Express, Inc., 109 NLRB 591; see also Ainsworth
Manufacturing Company, Springfield Division of Precasco Corporation, 131
NLRB 273, 274, footnote 3. But neither does the Board woodenly confine
itself to rigidly formulated rules as circumscribed as those the Respondent
posits. In determining whether given interrogation is lawful or unlawful, it
considers each case on its own facts, each interrogation in its own setting. The
broad test it applies is that enunciated in Blue Flash, "whether under all the
circumstances the interrogation reasonably tends to restrain or interfere with
the employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed by the Act." In that con-
nection, "the time, the place, the personnel involved, the information sought and
the employer's conceded preference must be considered," N.L.R.B. v. Syracuse
Color Press, Inc., 209 F. 2d 596, quoted by the Board with approval in Blue
Flash. Whether the particular interrogation involved is, as here, systematic,
rather than a casual, friendly, isolated instance of interrogation is a significant
consideration to be taken into account, although not alone conclusive. See,
Charlotte Union Bus Station, Inc., 135 NLRB 228; cf. Blue Flash. A showing
that the interrogation occurred in a context of threats, promises of benefit, or
other employer activity creating a coercive atmosphere is, to be sure, highly
material in assessing the coercive force of the interrogation involved. But such
a showing is not an indispensible prerequisite to a finding of illegality. Where
the interrogation itself is conducted under such circumstances as to disclose on
its face that it is of a kind which reasonably may be expected to impede and
coerce employees in the free exercise of their statutory rights, the absence of
independent unlawful conduct does not detract from its otherwise unlawful
character. Charlotte Union Bus Station, Inc., 135 NLRB 228. Nor under such
circumstances does the absence of a purpose to put the interrogation to unlawful
use excuse the unfair labor practice. Section 8(a)( I) conduct does not turn
on the employer's motive (e.g, Republic Aviation Corporation v. N.L.R.B., 324
U.S. 793; N:L.R.B. v. Illinois Tool Works, 153 F. 2d 811; American Freight-
ways Co., 124 NLRB 146). Legitimacy of purpose may in certain situations
bear on the factual question of whether the interrogation is such as to have a
reasonable tendency to coerce. But even then it can have relevance only where,
as in Blue Flash, that purpose is communicated to employees along with assur-
ances that the information is neither sought nor will be used as a basis for un-
lawful action. For only then can it be argued that the communicated purpose
and accompanying safeguards designed to assure employee understanding are
INT'L LADIES GARMENT WORKERS' UNION, AFL-CIO 115
countervailing circumstances to be weighed in the balance in determining whether
the particular interrogation involved reasonably had a tendency to coerce.
In the present case the inquiries were not shown to be for the purpose of deter-
mining that FOUR actually represented a majority of the employees, as in Blue
Flash, supra, nor were they explained to the employees on that basis. Cf. S. H.
Kress & Co., 137 NLRB 1244. Indeed, with one exception the interrogations pre-
ceded FOUR's demand for recognition; all were made without explanation of their
purpose; and Respondent has since suggested none save (in Rona's case) that the
questioning was an invitation to the employees to discuss their views on the subject
of a union within a union 38 Furthermore the employees were given no assurances
against reprisals, and neither was the interrogation limited to the employees' desire
to be represented by FOUR. Orkin Exterminating Company of Kansas, Inc., 136
NLRB 630.
Though as Respondent contends, the interrogations occurred during friendly con-
versations (save for Cerbone's bitter comments to Manenti), they were neither
casual 39 nor isolated incidents, but were plainly connected with, and were a part of
Respondent's efforts to learn from the employees whether they had become involved
in, and what they knew about, the staff union activities. And whether systematic
or not, a clear pattern was discernible from the time of Stulberg's suggestion to
Kramer that they should look into Sedares' claim that the staff was being organized.
The final incident of interrogation, of Koozman by Kramer, was even more plainly
coercive. It occurred not only after the publication of Respondent's statements of
opposition to FOUR and after Kramer's meeting with the Eastern Region staff on
February 17, but also in the context of Kramer's reprimand of Koozman for an
altercation which Kramer assumed (correctly) concerned FOUR.
Recent court decisions reflect continued enforcement of Board findings based on
interrogation which were more limited in scope than those here involved. Thus, in
N.L.R.B. v. Harbison-Fischer Manufacturing Co., 304 F. 2d 738, (C.A. 5), the
court refused to regard interrogation of employees by supervisors as protected free
speech, despite the fact that the employer had no history of unfair labor practices.
The court cited as comparable the case of N.L.R.B. v. Mid Western Instruments, Inc.,
264 F. 2d 829 (C.A. 10), where in ordering enforcement of the Board's decision,
the latter court held as follows:
The evidence with respect to violation of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act is rather
meager. There is, however, no conflict in this part of the record. It stands
admitted that Superintendent Prister questioned employee Cart as to the identity
of the union leaders and that foreman Lowe questioned Navarro as to whether
Neuman had tried to persuade her to join the union. Such conduct could
well intend to influence the employees and interfere with the free exercise of
their organizational rights under the Act.
Remaining complaint allegations of warning and threats and of promises of bene-
fit require a rescanning of evidence previously adverted to.
I conclude and find that Rosato warned and threatened Haugh and Krepshaw in
connection with soliciting their resignations from FOUR; that Cerbone's exchanges
with Manenti and his statements to staff members that they should watch out what
they were doing (Alamo Linen Service, 136 NLRB 1127), and should get out of
FOUR constituted warnings and implied threats; that Kehrer warned and threatened
Temple in the individual interviews; and that Kehrer's coupling of the constitutional
proscription against dual unionism with FOUR and with anticipated committee ac-
tion in requiring business agents to be elected, plainly implied a warning and threat
as regarded joining or adhering to FOUR. I also find that Chaikin, as part of his
solicitation of Rogoff, impliedly threatened not to recommend Rogoff for promotion
because of Rogoff's actions concerning FOUR .40
38 As so regarded the questioning would seem plainly intended to create a situation
similar to that in the staff meetings as later conducted by Kramer, Chaikin, and Kehrer.
Cohen's denial of knowledge and his pretense of cooperation with Kramer were sig-
nificant in attesting to some measure of coercive effect; for the concealment by an em-
ployee of his knowledge of union activities "would appear to speak more persuasively"
than the seeming casualness of the supervisor's questions. N.L.R.B. v. W. T. Grant
Company, 199 F. 2d 711, 712 (C.A. 9), cert. denied 344 U.S. 928.
I do not find, however, that Detlefsen's Interrogation of Kosten was coercive, because of
Detlefsen ' s original misapprehension of the subject under discussion.
40 Threats are not less coercive because expressed in veiled or indirect terms. Sunny-
land Packing Company, 106 NLRB 457, 461, enfd. 211 F. 2d 923 (C.A. 5).
712-548-64-vol. 142-9
116 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
One allegation concerned a promise of benefits to encourage employees to present
grievances to the GEB committee. Though the meetings and the subsequent individ-
ual efforts of Respondent's supervisors established, as previously found, solicitations
to abandon FOUR and encouragement to resort instead to the GEB committee for
the settlement of grievances, there was no evidence of a direct promise of benefits
and little from which such a promise can be inferred. To solicit the taking of griev-
ances to an employer committee as a substitute for self-organization is not to promise
or to imply either benefits or a favorable disposition of grievances. The closest ap-
proach to a promise was contained in Rona's statement to his staff members that if
the question of FOUR were resolved, the review board might react favorably to
their grievances. Though I find that Rona's conduct was violative of Section 8(a)
(1) as a solicitation to abandon FOUR and as an attempted undercutting of FOUR,
I do not find that his statement contained a promise of benefit.
Neither do I find that Respondent's announcement of April 26, 1961, of increases
to employees who were outside the unit constituted either a promise or a penalty
to those who were within it. Indeed, in offering evidence of that announcement,
the General Counsel specifically disclaimed a contention that it constituted a viola-
tion of the Act. Respondent could not at that time have given increases to em-
ployees within the bargaining unit without running an almost certain danger of
claims that it was thereby seeking to affect the outcome of the election (which was
held on May 12).
I have previously found that the General Counsel failed to establish that Re-
spondent discriminatorily refused to transfer Louise Krepshaw and similarly, that
he failed to establish either discrimination or interference, restraint, and coercion
through Kehrer's actions in reducing and/or eliminating per diem and auto allow-
ances and reimbursement for telephone calls.
Though the foregoing findings do not reach every item of the bill of particulars,
they do cover all matters which the General Counsel relied upon in his brief and
in his oral argument. In any event, I conclude and find that, except as found above,
the preponderance of the evidence does not establish that Respondent engaged in
unfair labor practices, and I shall recommend that the complaint be dismissed ex-
cept as so found.
IV. THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent engaged in certain unfair labor practices, I shall
recommend that it cease and desist therefrom, and that it take certain affirmative
action of the type conventionally ordered in such cases, as provided in the Recom-
mended Order below, which I find necessary to remedy and to remove the effects of
the unfair labor practices and to effectuate the policies of the Act.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record in the
case, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Respondent is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act and is an
employer of employees within the meaning of the Act.
2. FOUR is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise of
rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, Respondent engaged in unfair labor prac-
tices proscribed by Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
5. Respondent has not engaged in unfair labor practices proscribed by Section
8(a) (3) as alleged in the complaint.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law and the entire record,
and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, I hereby recommended that the Respond-
ent, International Ladies Garment Workers' Union, AFL-CIO, its officers, agents,
successors , and assigns , shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Interrogating coercively its employees concerning their membership in, ac-
tivities on behalf of, and sympathy for FOUR.
(b) Soliciting coercively its employees to renounce their affiliation with FOUR,
to drop the representation petition, and to resign or withdraw from FOUR.
(c) Warning its employees concerning their membership in or contemplated mem-
bership in FOUR.
INT'L LADIES GARMENT WORKERS' UNION, AFL-CIO 117
(d) Threatening its employees with reprisals unless they resign or withdraw from
FOUR.
(e) Soliciting and encouraging its employees to submit their grievances to a
committee established by its General Executive Board in lieu of and as a substitute
for further participation in self-organization and for membership and activities in
FOUR.
(f) Failing to grant automatic annual wage increases to its employees, in accord-
ance with its past practices, because of FOUR's recognition request.
(g) In any like or similar manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its
employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist
Federation of Union Representatives, or any other labor organization, to bargain
collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in other
concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or
protection, or to refrain from any or all such activities except to the extent that
such right may be affected by an agreement authorized by Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action:
(a) Post in its offices in New York City, in the offices of its departments, regions,
and joint boards, and in the offices of all of its Locals at which it employs or
stations employees who are on its payroll, copies of the attached notice marked
"Appendix B." 41 Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director
for the Second Region, shall, after being signed by a representative of Respondent,
be posted by Respondent, immediately upon receipt thereof, in the aforesaid offices
and maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter in conspicuous places, in-
cluding all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable
steps shall be taken by Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, de-
faced, or covered by any other material.
(b) Notify the Regional Director for the Second Region, in writing, within 20
days from the date of the receipt of this Intermediate Report what steps Respondent
has taken to comply herewith.42
I further recommend that the complaint be dismissed insofar as it alleges viola-
tions of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act and insofar as it charges Respondent with
unfair labor practices under Section 8(a)(1) except as concluded and found in
section D, 5, supra.
41 In the event that this Recommended Order be adopted by the Board, the words "A
Decision and Order" shall be substituted for the words "The Recommended Order of a
Trial Examiner" in the notice. In the further event that the Board's Order be enforced
by a decree of a United States Court of Appeals, the words "A Decree of the United States
Court of Appeals, Enforcing an Order" shall be substituted for the words "A Decision
and Order."
4" In the event that this Recommended Order be adopted by the Board , this provision
shall be modified to read: "Notify said Regional Director within 10 days from the date
of this Order what steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith."
APPENDIX A
Summary of Sedares' Employment History
1. Local 190; Philadelphia; May to August 1957
Manager Schwartz concluded that Sedares was too rigid in his approach to em-
ployees, did not know how to handle people, and was building up a hostile attitude
toward ILG. He severed Sedares' connection with Local 190 in August, when a
specific organizing task which Sedares was working on was terminated.
2. Field trip; Local 190; September to December 1957
Field trips were made as part of the program conducted by the Training Institute.
At the urging of Director Gus Tyler, Manager Schwartz agreed to take Sedares on
his first 3-month field trip. The first business agent with whom Sedares worked
found him uncommunicative and difficult to understand, and the second complained
to Schwartz that Sedares embarrassed him unnecessarily in front of an employer.
Schwartz thereupon put Sedares to work preparing a shop steward's manual, which
removed him from any relationship with other persons in the Local. Schwartz later
informed Tyler that he did not want Sedares assigned to Local 190.
3. Field trip; Local 91; February 1958
Sedares was assigned to be trained to fill the vacant position of education director.
He reported to duty on February 24, and stayed only 1 week. He took the position
early in the week that he considered the education program as conducted by the Local
118 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
and the International a waste of time and stated his preference for organization
work. Manager Greenburg then assigned Sedares to the director of the organization
to investigate certain nonunion shops, but neither Greenburg nor the director saw
or heard from Sedares again. Greenburg complained to Tyler, "What kind of jerk
did you send us over here?" and asked Tyler to relieve Sedares from duty.
4. Field trip; Upper South Department; March to May 1958
Sedares spent the remainder of this field trip in the Upper South Department under
the direction of Vice President Angela Bambace, who assigned him to work on a
strike at Hagerstown, Maryland. Disregarding specific instructions to staff members,
Sedares on the first day of the strike led the workers in an effort to stop a truck and
was arrested after a violent altercation with a policeman. Sedares refused to
apologize, as suggested by ILG counsel, in order to get his fine or sentence reduced;
and when later asked by Bambace for an explanation of his conduct, he made no
explanation, stating, "I don't apologize to anyone."
At the end of Sedares' field trip, Bambace submitted to the Training Institute an
appraisal of Sedares which was in part as follows:
This boy has some problems I am sure. . He is a completely withdrawn
person & I wonder whether he should be assigned to any function that would
put him in contact with people. Seems to be very intelligent.
5. Northeast Department; June and July 1958
Upon Sedares' graduation from the Institute, Tyler assigned him to the Northeast
Department, which placed him with Alec Karesky, manager of its Upper New York
and Vermont District Council. Within a few weeks, Sedares had embarrassed
Karesky publicly by taking a position in a meeting of the District Council which
was directly in opposition to one which Karesky had taken and which resulted in
Karesky charging Sedares with an act of insubordination.
Subsequently, Hedy Ferreira, a business agent in charge of a strike at Burlington
on which Sedares was assisting, called Karesky to come up to straighten things out,
reporting to him that Sedares "couldn't get along with people. Bill Karker was
quitting, Steve Kakle wouldn't work with him, and he had Ferreira in tears."
Karesky informed Sedares he would either have to toe the mark and get along with
everyone, or he would be sent back to New York City. Having received the same
sort of reports a week later, Karesky ordered Sedares back to New York.
6. Northeast Department; July and August 1958
A few days after Sedares returned, Tyler persuaded Karesky to give Sedares
another trial until Tyler could reassign him. Karesky again placed Sedares with
Ferreira at Burlington, but after a short time he began to receive the same sort
of complaints as before concerning Sedares' conduct. Finally, on August 29, Karesky
informed Sedares he could not cope with him and ordered him back to the North-
east Department for reassignment. Contemporaneously, Karesky wrote to Jack
Halpern, assistant director of the Northeast Department, stating in part:
This young man I cannot use in our organization up here. While he is a hard
working boy he does not know how to take orders. He seems to be of the
opinion he knows more than anyone working for the International. .
I don't know what they teach these young men at the school, but it is not
for this area. Please place him elsewhere.
Karesky also set forth certain bills which Sedares had incurred, termed them
outrageous, but stated he had no choice but to pay them.
Tyler informed Sedares on his return to New York that it was becoming difficult
to place him because he had not worked out in four previous assignments, that
people did not want him, and that he always ended up "out." However, Tyler agreed
not to stand in Sedares' way if he could get a job on his own.
7. Dressmaker's Joint Council; New York City; August 1958 to October 1959
Before accepting Sedares, Edward Banyai, director of organization, checked with
Karesky, who reported that Sedares acted on his own, did not know how to follow
instructions and "rubbed everyone the wrong way," but that if Banyai could straight-
en Sedares out, he would have a very good employee. Deciding to take Sedares,
Banyai explained to Tyler he thought he could handle Sedares because, "He is a
tough customer but so am L"
In January 1959, Sedares was assigned to work closely with the staff of Local
99, whose manager was Douglas Levin. Around March, Levin requested Banyai
to take Sedares off, because he had generated a substantial amount of antagonism on
the part of Local members , union officials, and employers. Levin reported that
INT'L LADIES GARMENT WORKERS' UNION, ArL-CIO 119
Sedares "just rubs people the wrong way. He does not know how to talk to my
members, he does not know how to talk to my employers, he acts in the office as
though he is taking over."
Thereupon Banyai put Sedares to work on union label promotion. He then
noticed that Sedares had become cynical and bitter; that he was criticizing the conduct
and attitude of many officers of ILG, usually ignoring the possibility of honest
mistakes or inability to handle problems, and going so far as to impugn the integrity
and honesty of those whom he criticized. By the fall of 1959, Banyai decided that
he might accomplish more with Sedares by sending him to a different environment,
and sent him to Scranton, Pennsylvania.
8. Scranton; October to December 1959
Banyai assigned Sedares to participate in organizing work, specifically to organize
the Jay-Cee plant in Carbondale, and also to survey other nonunion shops in the
Scranton area. Though Sedares was thoroughly briefed as to his relationships with
the Scranton Local, its manager, Clifford W. Depin, and his staff, and the procedures
for clearing expenditures, Sedares' conduct in ignoring those instructions shortly made
him persona non grata both to Depin and to his office manager, Ann McGraw.
Depin was finally provoked into seeking Sedares' removal by Sedares' attempt to in-
duce Ben Turnabe, one of Depin's organizers, to go behind Depin's back to make a
secret investigation in a union shop for which Depin was responsible. Banyai re-
called Sedares to New York City, but soon found it necessary, because of develop-
ments in the Jay-Cee strike, to send Sedares back to Scranton after enlisting the aid
of Sol C. Chaikin, assistant director of the Northeast Department, to obtain Depin's
acquiescence.
9. Scranton; December 1959 to February 1960
Though there was no substantial improvement in Sedares' conduct toward the office
personnel, it was his conduct in connection with the Jay-Cee strike, which led in
February to Banyai's second demand for Sedares' removal. Among his actions
were: engaging in violence with a policeman on the first day of the strike; failing to
set up a strike kitchen as instructed to feed strikers in order to avoid high restaurant
costs; increasing strike benefits without authorization; and paying unauthorized sums
for assistance and for picket duty during the strike.
Shortly before the strike ended Banyai briefed Sedares concerning the status of
negotiations and instructed him that he was not under any circumstances to provoke
any incident with the employer and that if the employer provoked him, he was to
walk away. Almost immediately Sedares engaged in an altercation with and an
assault upon the employer, and was arrested. When Depin, who arranged for
Sedares' release from jail, asked Sedares why he struck the employer, Sedares replied
that he wanted to give the employer something to remember him by. Deploring such
an attitude, Depin referred to an incident on the first day of the strike when Ted
Bloom (who was assisting in the strike) had called Depin "a coward, a scab, and
a strike breaker." Sedares expressed acquiescence in Bloom's description.
Depin called Banyai at once, described Sedares' attack on the employer and Sedares'
explanation, and demanded Sedares' removal.
10. Salvage interlude; Kramer checks
Despite his prior failures with Sedares, Banyai persuaded Vice President Zimmer-
man (who headed the Dress Joint Council) to let him make a final effort at "salvage,"
and in a subsequent interview informed Sedares that if he wished to stay with Banyai,
he would have to follow orders. Noncommittal at the time, Sedares later informed
Banyai he preferred to work elsewhere, and still later, that he had a chance to work
in the Eastern Region under Vice President Kramer. Banyai agreed, but gave Kramer
a complete report on Sedares' background and performance and suggested that the
only possible way of salvaging Sedares was under very close supervision.
Kramer also checked with Chaikin, who reported that Sedares had capabilities but
had a tendency not to respond to discipline or to orders, and he informed Kramer of
Sedares' conflicts and difficulties with Karesky and Depin. Kramer also noted in
Sedares' file kept by the Institute Bambace's appraisal as quoted under item 4,
supra. Going even further back, Kramer made inquiry of an attorney for IUE (with
whom Sedares had served as shop steward before coming with ILG) who had repre-
sented Sedares in connection with the arbitration of a disciplinary action resulting
from his striking of a foreman. The attorney described Sedares as "a capable guy,
intelligent, bright, but on the wild side," and stated that "if he could be bridled,
brought under some form of discipline, he would be a very effective person in the
trade union movement."
120 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Kramer also discussed with Sedares his problem of getting along with people and
suggested to him he was unfairly critical of the union officials with whom he worked.
Sedares' view was that it was not he who was at fault. Deciding that he might
nevertheless accomplish something with Sedares, Kramer decided to accept Sedares,
but told him he would have to learn how to take orders and execute them in accord-
ance with instructions and would generally have to behave like a disciplined trade
union officer. He thereupon assigned Sedares to work under the supervision of
Walter DeYoung (a classmate at the Institute) in the upper Hudson Valley area.
Approximately a week after Sedares' transfer, Banyai and Chaikin also joined in
an interview with Sedares in an effort to point out his good points and his bad points
and to straighten him out if it was at all possible. During that interview Chaikin
analyzed Sedares' difficulties (and so informed him) as arising not from intelligence
and ability but from "arrogance of mind, where he superimposed his judgment on the
judgment of his superiors and to a large extent on the judgment of his associates."
11. Upper Hudson Valley; March to October 1960
Kramer informed DeYoung that Sedares had had difficulties in three or four other
departments, that he wanted to give Sedares a last chance in the Eastern Region, and
he requested DeYoung to do what he could to fit Sedares in. DeYoung in turn re-
ported Kramer's statements to other staff members and asked them to help Sedares
work into the group and to get him acclimated.
Within a few weeks other staff members began complaining to DeYoung about
various facets of Sedares' conduct, as for example, the taking upon himself of the
supervising of his associates, the issuing of orders in a rude and imperious manner,
and the shirking of distasteful tasks such as house visiting. On one occasion in April,
Sedares peremptorily ordered D'Agostino not to pick up Virginia O'Toole in his car
as he had promised, with the result that O'Toole was left stranded without transpor-
tation to a Board election in a matter that they were working on. As a result O'Toole
informed DeYoung she would refuse to work with Sedares on another campaign.'
DeYoung gave his first hint at a union label convention in Albany at the end of
May that he was unhappy with Sedares. Kramer had noted during the course of
the convention dinner that Sedares was not acting cordially toward important rank-
and-file members and asked DeYoung what was wrong with Sedares. DeYoung
replied that that was the way that Sedares was, and that maybe it was tough on him
as a single man to be away from home in small towns, and that "quite possibly
he would be better off working closer to his home in Jersey."
Complaints from other staff members continued to reach DeYoung during the
Little Tots campaign in July and August, particularly concerning the shirking of
distasteful tasks and his inability to work in harmony with the staff. When DeYoung
finally confronted Sedares with their critcisms and their view that he was acting
like "some type of privileged character," Sedares retorted angrily, "What are you
doing comparing me with those schmucks?"
Deciding that some other type of work might be the solution, DeYoung later
suggested to Sedares that because of his abilities as a writer, he edit a local newspaper
for the entire Hudson Valley, but Sedares summarily rejected the idea. Later making
explicit his disillusionment with Sedares and the fact that he was not compatible
with other organizers on the staff, DeYoung suggested to Kramer that because of
Sedares' abilities as a writer, he could do a good job with Tyler in the educational
department.
Tyler, when approached, expressed doubt on that score, feeling that Sedares had
already been in so many places there were few places left. Tyler nevertheless inter-
viewed Sedares, explaining that a job in his department would require Sedares to
make drastic changes in the points of his personality where his chief weaknesses lay.
Ignoring Tyler's inquiry whether he could make the changes, Sedares walked out and
did not return.2 Tyler later informed Kramer that, "If you have difficulties with
the man, I have no more places for him, and I certainly cannot use him."
'In the meantime Kramer had, at Secretary Stulberg's insistence, sought an explana-
tion from Sedares of certain excessive expenditures incurred during the Jay-Cee strike.
Sedares claimed that the picketers had held him up and he denied that he had acted con-
trary to instructions in making the expenditures. When Kramer reported back, Stulberg
commented that Sedares would have to be watched and should have some supervision be-
fore expenditures of that sort were made.
2 News of DeYoung's efforts to effect Sedares' transfer apparently reached Ted Bloom
in the form of a rumor that DeYoung had sought Sedares' dismissal. When Bloom
questioned DeYoung about it, DeYoung denied it as a lie.
LIEBMANN BREWERIES, INC. OF NEW JERSEY 121
APPENDIX B
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor
Relations Board and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Relations
Act we hereby notify our employees that:
WE WILL NOT interrogate coercively our employees concerning their member-
ship in, activities on behalf of, and sympathy for Federation of Union Repre-
sentatives.
WE WILL NOT solicit coercively our employees to renounce their affiliation
with Federation of Union Representatives, to drop the representation petition,
and to resign or withdraw from Federation of Union Representatives.
WE WILL NOT warn our employees concerning their membership in or con-
templated membership in Federation of Union Representatives.
WE WILL NOT threaten our employees with reprisals unless they resign or
withdraw from Federation of Union Representatives.
WE WILL NOT solicit and encourage our employees to submit their grievances
to a committee established by our General Executive Board in lieu of and as a
substitute for further participation in self-organization and for membership and
activities in Federation of Union Representatives.
WE WILL NOT fail to grant automatic annual wage increases to our employees
in accordance with our past practices because of Federation of Union Repre-
sentatives' recognition request.
WE WILL NOT in any like or similar manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce
our employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to form, join,
or assist Federation of Union Representatives, or any other labor organization,
to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, or to
engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or
other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any or all such activities
except to the extent that such right may be affected by an agreement authorized
by Section 8(a)(3) of the Act.
All our employees are free to become or to refrain from becoming members of
the above union or any other labor organization.
INTERNATIONAL LADIES GARMENT WORKERS' UNION, AFL-CIO,
Employer.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------
(Representative) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof, and must not be
altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
Employees may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office 745 Fifth
Avenue, New York 22, New York, Telephone No. Plaza 1-5500, if they have
any question concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions.
Liebmann Breweries , Inc. of New Jersey and Salesmen's Divi-
sion Local 153, Office Employees International Union, AFL-
CIO,' Petitioner. Case No. 22-RC-1825 April 18, 1963
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed, a hearing was held before a hearing officer
of the National Labor Relations Board. The hearing officer's rulings
made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby
affirmed.
'The Petitioner's name appears as amended at the hearing.
142 NLRB No. 9.