Julius Resnick, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 18, 1947

74 N.L.R.B. 184 (N.L.R.B. 1947)

In the Matter Of JULruS RESNICK, INC. and CONGRESS OF INDUSTRIAL.
ORGANIZATIONS AND INTERNATIONAL LADIES' HANDBAGS, LUGGAGE,
BELTS AND NOVELTY WORKERS' UNION, A. F. OF L., A PARTY TO THE
CONTRACT
Case No. 3-C-899.-Decided June 18, 1947
Mr. Francis X. Helgesen, for the Board.
Mr. Sidney H. Greenberg, of Syracuse, N. Y., for the CIO.
1'Passerman, Behar cf Shagan, by -Mr. Al. J. Shagan, of New York
City, for the respondent.
Mr. Max H. Frankle, of New York City, for the A. F. L.
Mr. Julius Topol, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
ORDER
On October 23, 1946, Trial Examiner Thomas S. Wilson issued
his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding
that the respondent had not engaged in the unfair labor practices
alleged in the complaint and recommending that the complaint be
dismissed in its entirety, as set forth in, the copy of the Intermediate
Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the CIO and the counsel for the
Board filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report; the CIO, the AFL,
and the respondent filed briefs.
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner 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 the case, and hereby
adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial
Examiner only insofar as they are consistent with our Decision and
Order herein. For the reasons set forth below, the Board does not
adopt the Trial Examiner's conclusions and recommendations with
respect to the allegation in the complaint that the respondent assisted
the AFL in violation of Section 8 (1) of the Act.
It is clear that virtually all the respondent's employees who had
joined the AFL as of the time of the union-shop contract were re-
cruited by Sumner and Amato, department heads or floorladies, who
74 N. L. R. B., No. 39.
184
JULIUS RESNICK, INC. 185
represented to the employees that they spoke for management and
that membership in the AFL was a condition of employment. Also,
it is undisputed that the respondent's management was aware of their
recruiting campaign, if not of the precise methods they employed.
The Trial Examiner, nevertheless, found that the respondent did not
thereby render unlawful assistance to the AFL, on the theory that
the activities of Sumner and Amato were not properly imputable to
the respondent. We disagree.
The respondent's Syracuse plant was organized into departments,
comprised of varying numbers of employees, a number of years prior
to its closing in 1943. This departmental organization was reestab-
lished soon after the reopening of the plant in January 1946. Sum-
ner is in charge of the handle department; Amato is in charge of the
machine operators. The department heads have complete charge of
production in their respective departments. The next higher ranking
supervisory employee is Kent Sutphin, the superintendent of the entire
plant. Department heads distribute the work to the employees in
their charge, supervise, and criticize their work, reprimand them "if
they get a little rambunctious," and instruct new employees and assign
them their jobs. The department heads have the authority to transfer
employees to easier or more difficult jobs within the department. Al-
though they have no authority to hire, promote, or discharge em-
ployees in their charge, they are asked to make reports on the progress
of employees and, the record shows that at least one employee has
been transferred as the result of an unfavorable report by her depart-
ment head.
Furthermore, we note that, during the entire 4-year period in which
the respondent recognized and bargained with the AFL before the
closing of the plant in 1943, department heads were excluded from
membership in the AFL; and that the same policy was initially ad-
hered to following the execution of the March 15, 1946, contract. It
is true that this policy was abandoned on April 26, 1946, soon after
the CIO had filed its original charge herein alleging that the respond-
ent "through its agents and representatives" had assisted in the for-
mation and maintenance of the AFL. The decision to include the
I In early March 1946 , employee Wingway asked Sumner whether Resnick permitted her
to distribute cards Wingway's testimony concerning Sumner 's answer is as follows
And she says that she was fully in charge of everything there, and that she used to
contact Mr. Resnick in New York and give him any message or anything that went
on in the shop and things that went out or came in, and that she was fully in
charge . . .
Employee Palmisano gave the following account of the discussion that took place when
Sumner solicited her membership in the AFL:
She handed me a Union card and said , " Sign the card ." I said , "What for"'
"Well," she says, "for the Union , the A F. of L " "Well," I says, "What if I won't
sign 9" She says, "You won't be able to work here ." "Well, " I says , "do the Res-
nick's know about it?" She says , "Yes, they know ; it is OIL." So I signed the card.
186 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
employees in question in the bargaining unit at that time was appar-
ently made without consulting some of the department heads them-
selves. In the circumstances, for the purpose of determining the su-
pervisory status of the department heads, we give no weight to the
respondent's belated decision to bring them within the con erage of
the contract. We find that the positions of floorladies or department
heads in the respondent's Syracuse plant are supervisory positions.
The Trial Examiner alludes to the "unsettled and fluctuating char-
acter" of Sumner's and Amato's positions during the period in ques-
tion. The record does show that Sumner was not actually placed in
charge of other employees until about March 11, 1946, when the com-
plement of workers began to increase rapidly,2 although she [lad been
slated since an earlier date to become the head of the handle depart-
ment. It is clear, on the other hand, that, coinciding with the rapid
expansion that took place at the respondent's plant on and after March
11, 1946,3 Sumner was placed in charge of the handle department and
was assigned several girls to work under her direction. We find that
Sumner assumed the position of floorlady of the handle department
several days prior to the execution of the union-shop contract on
March 15, 1946, and that, after attaining that status, she solicited a
large number of the 30 employees hired between March 11, 1946, and
the contract date .4
As to Amato, the record shows that she was placed in charge of a
number of operators on the same day she was reemployed, Jandary
29, 1945.5 It is clear, therefore, that Amato's activities in behalf of
the AFL also coincided with her functioning as a department head.
We attach no significance, as the Trial Examiner apparently does,
to the fact that the ultimate number of employees in both Sumner's
and Amato's departments was still undetermined on March 15, 1946.
The number of employees who were then, or at any time, under the
direction of any department head is, in our opinion, immaterial in
this case, for the record provides no basis for inferring any essential
difference in the status of the various department heads dependent
z Apparently the volume of work in the handle department prior to that date did not
warrant assigning any other emploSees to the department.
3 Of the 53 employees working on the contract date, 'larch 15, 1946, 30 were lined in the
period between Maich 11 and March 15, 1946
4 We are not unmindful of the fact that the respondent had indicated its willingness to
recognize the AFL on or about March 8, 1946. But even disregarding Amato's activities
prior to that date in behalf of the AFL, the law is clear that assistance granted to a recog-
nized union at any time prior to the execution of a union-shop contract places such contract
outside the protection of the proviso to Section S (.3) of the Act See N L R B V Elec-
trna Vacuum Cleaner Company, Inc, 315 U S 685, 693. enf'g IS N L R B 391 'Moreover,
even if this were not a union-shop contract, we would be inclined to hold that it was
vitiated by the assistance rendered to the AFL, after recognition and before execution of
the contract , in obtaining additional members in order to maintain its majority status in a
rapidly growing unit
She was assigned additional employees as the respondent ' s working force expanded.
JULIUS RESNICK, INC. 187
upon the number of employees they supervise ." Moreover , we note
that a large number of the employees hired after the re-opening of
the plant had worked under and were familiar with the respondent's
departmental arrangement prior to the closing of the plant in 1943.
General Manager Carlin admitted that the employees in Sumner's
and Amato 's departments considered both of them to be department
heads from the date that their departments were first reconstituted..
There can, therefore, be little doubt that the employees were aware,.
from the outset , of the nature and scope of the authority vested in both
Sumner and Amato upon their asuming charge of their respective;
departments.
On the entire record in the case, we are of the opinion, and we find,
that in the critical period immediately preceding the execution of
the union-shop contract of March 10, 1940, both Sumner and Amato
were supervisory employees within the Board's usual definition of
that term and that, as such, they were not properly includable in the
bargaining unit of rank-and-file employees. We, therefore, conclude
that the respondent is responsible for the activity of Sumner and
Amato in behalf of the AFL. By placing them in supervisory po-
sitions, the respondent enabled these floorladies to bring the weight
of its authority to bear upon the employees they recruited for the
AFL, and lent color to Sumner's assertions that AFL membership
was a management requirement.' Moreover, despite its attempted
disavowal of responsibility for Sumner's and Amato's conduct, the re-
spondent in this case knew that they were soliciting for the AFL; and
it knew or should have known that the employees night reasonably
conclude that this solicitation was inspired by higher management.
Yet the respondent made no effort to dispel this impression. We
find, accordingly, that the respondent assisted the AFL in recruiting
members and thereby interfered with, restrained, and coerced its em-
ployees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the
Act. The union-shop contract of March 15, 1946, is, therefore, in-
valid, for it was the fruit of the unfair labor practices, and it does not
meet the requirements set forth in the provisio to Section 8 (3) of
the Act.
The effect of the unfair labor practices upon commerce
The activities of the respondent set forth , above, occurring in con-
ne Lion with the operations of the respondent 's business described in
Similarly , in view of all the circumstances , we see no importance in the fact that the
respondent delayed increasing Sumner ' s pay to 90 cents an hour until June 1, 1946, on
which date Carlin was satisfied that Sumner "was efficient enough and capable enough to
run the Handle Department
7 See footnote 1, supra.
188 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the Intermediate Report attached hereto, have a close, intimate, and
substantial relation to trade, traffic , and commerce among the several
States and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing
commerce and the free flow of commerce.
THE REMEDY
Having found that the respondent has engaged in certain unfair
labor practices , we shall order that it cease and desist therefrom and
take certain affirmative action in order to effectuate the policies of
the Act.
We have found that the AFL was unlawfully assisted by the re-
spondent . In order to restore the status quo and to free the employees
from this restraint upon their freedom of self-organization , we shall
order that the respondent withdraw and withhold all recognition from
the AFL as the representative of its employees for the purpose of
dealing with the respondent concerning grievances , labor disputes,
wages, rates of pay , hours of employment , or other conditions of em-
ployment, unless and until it is certified by the Board as such repre-
sentative. Having found that the respondent's contract with the AFL
is invalid , and inasmuch as the existence of the contract perpetuates
the effects of the respondent 's unlawful assistance , we shall order
that the respondent cease and desist from giving effect to its contract
of March 15 , 1946, with the A. F. L., or to any other contract it may
have made with the AFL . Nothing in our order , however, shall be
deemed to require the respondent to vary or abandon those wage, hour,
seniority , or other substantive features of its relations with the em-
ployees themselves which the respondent may have established in per-
formance of the contract as extended , renewed, modified , supple-
mented, or superseded , or to prejudice the assertion by the employees
of any rights they may have under such agreement.
ORDER
Upon the entire record in the case, and pursuant to Section 10 (c)
of the National Labor Relations Act, the National Labor Relations
Board hereby orders that the respondent, Julius Resnick, Inc., Syra-
cuse, New York, and its officers, agents, successors, and assigns shall :
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Assisting International Ladies' Handbags, Luggage, Belts and
Novelty Workers' Union, A. F. of L., by encouraging or coercing
its employees to become or remain members of that labor organization
or to designate that labor organization as their exclusive representative
for the purpose of collective bargaining;
JULIUS RESNICK, INC. 189
(b) Recognizing International Ladies' Handbags, Luggage, Belts
and Novelty Workers' Union, A. F. of L., as the exclusive representa-
tive of its employees for the purpose of collective bargaining, unless
and until said organization shall have been certified by the National
Labor Relations Board as such representative;
(c) Giving effect to its contract of March 15, 1946, with Interna-
tional Ladies' Handbags, Luggage, Belts and Novelty Workers' Union,
A. F. of L., or to any extension, renewal, modification, or supplement
thereof, or to any superseding contract with that. labor organization
or any labor organization or affiliate thereof, unless and until said
organization shall have been certified by the Board as the representa-
tive of the respondent's employees ;
(d) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining, or
coercing its employees in the exercise of the right to self-organization,
to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively
through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in con-
certed activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other
mutual aid or protection, as guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action, which the Board finds
will effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Withdraw and withhold all recognition from International
Ladies' Handbags, Luggage, Belts and Novelty Workers' Union, A. F.
of L., as the exclusive representative of its employees for the purpose
of collective bargaining with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of
employment, or other conditions of employment, unless and until said
organization shall have been certified by the National Labor Relations
Board as such representative;
(b) Post at its plant at Syracuse, New York, copies of the notice
attached hereto, marked "Appendix A." 8 Copies of said notice, to be
furnished by the Regional Director for the Third Region, shall, after
being duly signed by the respondent's representative, be posted by the
respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and maintained by it
for sixty (60) consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places,
including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted.
Reasonable steps shall be taken by the respondent to insure that said
notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material;
(c) Notify the Regional Director for the Third Region, within ten
(10) days from the date of this Order, what steps the respondent has
taken to comply herewith.
8 In the event this order is enforced by decree of a Circuit Court of Appeals, there shall
be inserted before the words "A Decision and Order" on this notice, the words. "A Decree
of the United States Circuit Couit of Appeals Enforcing
190 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
APPENDIX A
NoTicE To ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to a Decision and Order 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 assist International Ladies' Handbags. Luggage,
Belts and Novelty Workers' Union, A. F. of L., by encouraging
or coercing our employees to become or remain members of that
labor organization or to designate that labor organization as
their exclusive representative for purposes of collective bar-
gaining.
AVE HEREBY WITHDRAW RECOGNITION from International Ladies'
Handbags, Luggage, Belts and Novelty Workers' Union, A. F. of
L., as the exclusive representative of any of our employees for
the purpose of collective bargaining with respect to rates of pay,
wages, hours of employment, and other conditions of employment,
unless and until said organization shalt have been certified by the
Board as the representative of such employees.
WE WILL NOT give effect to our contract signed March 15, 1946,
with International Ladies' Handbags, Luggage, Belts and Novelty
Workers' Union, A. F. of L., or to any extension, renewal, modi-
fication or supplement thereof, or to any superseding contract
with said labor organization unless and until said organization
.shall be certified by the Board as the representative of our
employees.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, re-
strain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of their right to
self organization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations to
bargain collectively through representatives of their own choos-
ing, and to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of
collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection.
JULIUS RESNICK, INC.,
Employer.
Dated------------------------ By-----------------
(Repiesentative) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 clays from the date hereof,
and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by an other material.
INTERMEDIATE REPORT
Mr Fi ancr-s Y. Helgesen, for the Board.
Mr Sidney H GI eenberg, of Syracuse, N Y., for the CIO.
Mr. Al J. Sll,agan, of Wasserlnan, Bekr, & Shagan, of New York City, N. Y.,
Mr Max H. Fra7,kle, of New York City, N Y., for the AFL.
for the respondent.
JULIUS RESNICK, INC. 191
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon an amended charge duly filed May 29, 1946, by Congress of Industrial
Organizations, herein called the CIO, the National Labor Relations Board,
herein called the Board, by its Regional Directoi for the Third Region (Buffal),
New York ), issued its complaint dated May 31. 191 6 . against Julius Resnick, Inc,
herein called the respondent , and International Ladies' Handbags , Luggage,
Belts and Novelty Woikers' Union, A F of L, a phrty to the contract, herein
called the AFL, alleging that the respondent had engaged in and was engaging
in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section
S (1) and (3) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations
Act, 49 Stat 449, herein called the Act. Copies of the complaint, amended
charge and notice of hearing thereon were duly sei ved upon the respondent,
the AFL and the CIO
With respect to the unfair labor practices the complaint, as amended at the
hearing, alleged in substance. (1) that from on or about November 5, 1945,
the respondent has urged , persuaded , and warned its employees to refrain,
from assisting, becoming members of, or remaning members of CIO; (2) that
the respondent has urged, persuaded . and warned its employees to become and
remain members of AFL; (3) that the respondent on or about March 19, 1946,
entered into a contract with AFL declaring membership in said organization
as a condition of employment, and providing further for the deduction of AFL
dues, fines and assessments by the respondent in payment to AFL; ( 4) that
said contract of March 19, 1946 , was illegal in that the respondent has assisted
AH'L and executed said agreement at a time when the AFL did not represent
an uncoerced majority of the employees in the appropriate unit; and (5) that
on or about June 3, 1946 , the respondent discharged Rose Vinciquerra Wingway
because she joined and assisted CIO and engaged in other concerted activities
for the purposes of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection'
Thereafter on August 15, 1946, after the close of the hearing in this matter, an
unsigned , unverified answer was filed by the respondent corresponding in detail
with a statement made by respondent ' s counsel at the hearing regarding the
respondent ' s defense Although unsigned and unverified , this ansuter is hereby
ordered included in the record as Board's Exhibit I-K This answer denies
all the material allegations of the complaint.
The AFL did not file an answer.
Pursuant to notice a hean•ni^ was held at Syracuse. New York, on July 26,
27, 29 and 30. 1946, before the undersigned, the Trial, Examiner duly designated
by the Chief Trial Examiner The Board, the respondent, the AFL and the
CIO were represented by counsel. Full opportunity to be heard, to examine
and cross -examine witnesses and to introduce evidence bearing on the issues
Ni as afforded all parties At the close of the Board's case, the respondent moved
to dismiss the allegations of the complaint as they related to Rose Vinciquerra
SVingway and to limit the testimony to the events prior to March 19, 1946. This
motion was denied At the close of the hearing the Board moved to conform
the pleadings to the proof adduced as to such non-essential matters as names,
spellings and places This motion was granted without objection At the
conclusion of the hearing the parties waived oral argument before the under-
I Prior to amendment , said complaint alleged that Sally Cavallaro had been discrimma-
toiily discharged These allegations were struck from the complaint on motion of Board's
counsel The name of Emma Gonveau was first added as in employee discriminatorily dis-
charged and later struck from the complaint on motions of the Board ' s attorney Allega-
tions in the complaint regarding an unfair labor practice strike on April 17 , 1946, were also
struck without objection on motion of the attorney foi the Board
7 55430-4S-vol 74-14
;192 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
signed. The parties were advised that they had the privilege of presenting
briefs for the consideration of the undersigned. The respondent and the Board
have duly submitted such briefs.
Upon the entire record in the case and from his observation of the witnesses.
,the undersigned makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
I THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
Julius Resnick, Inc., is a corporation duly organized and existing by virtue
of the laws of the State of New York. The respondent maintains its principal
office in the City of New York and maintains and operates, among other plants,
a manufacturing plant located in the city of Syracuse, State of New York,
hereinafter referred to as the Syracuse plant. The respondent is now engaged
in said Syracuse plant in the manufacture, sale and distribution of ladies' hand-
bags and related products. During the normal year, the respondent in the
.course and conduct of its operations of the Syracuse plant purchases raw ina-
,terials consisting principally of imitation leather, plastics, rayon, and other
materials and miscellaneous parts and supplies valued in excess of $50,000, of
which approximately 25 percent is purchased from sources located outside the
State of New York and transported in interstate commerce to the Syracuse
plant. During the normal year, the respondent in the operation of the Syracuse
plant, causes to be manufactured and sold finished products valued at in excess
.of $100,000, of which approximately 75 percent represents sales made to cus-
tomers located outside the State of New York and shipped in interstate com-
merce to them.
For the purpose of these proceedings the respondent concedes that it is engaged
in commerce within the meaning of the Act.
II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
Congress of Industrial Organizations and International Ladies' Handbags,
:Luggage, Belts and Novelty `Yorkers ' Union, AFL, are labor organizations ad-
mitting to membership employees of the respondent
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The alleged interference, restraint, and coercion
From 1934 to 1943 the respondent operated a factory in Syracuse, New York,
wherein during peak times it employed approximately 600 persons. Some
years prior to 1943, following the selection of the AFL by its employees as their
ibargaining representative at a Board election, the respondent recognized the
_AFL and entered into contractual relations with it as such representative This
relationship continued thereafter until June 1943, when the respondent was
forced to abandon its Syracuse operations because of war conditions.
The respondent has also executed agreements covering its New York City
plant with an unaffiliated independent union in the pocketbook field. This
,contract was renewed early in the year 1946 The respondent's relationship with
both these organizations appears to have been cordial.
During the war period from 1943 to October 1945, the Syracuse plant owned
by the respondent was leased to the General Electric Company, with the exception
of one floor, which was expressly reserved by the respondent for storage purposes.
,The only employee retained by the respondent in Syracuse was one Kent Sutphin,
JULIUS RESNICK, INC. 193
a machinist, who acted during that period as a sort of caretaker and did some
production work which was shipped to the respondent's New York plant.
After this building had been vacated in Octoaer 1943, the respondent began
to plan for the reopening of the Syracuse factory. On November 25, 1945,
Sutphin` reemployed Viola Stunner to make handles for shipment to New York.
Sumner was a former employee released upon the closing of its plant in 1943.
Prior to her release she had been a member of AFL.
The next person hired was Mary Amato, another pre-war employee and former
AFL member, who began work on January 29. 1946. At or about the time she
was employed she was told by Harry Carlin, respondent's treasurer and general
manager, that she would be put in charge of the operators when a sufficient
number of them had been employed.
Beginning at the end of February or the beginning of March 1946, the respond-
ent began increasing its staff of employees in Syracuse more rapidly. Many of
the newly hired employees were also former employees and former AFL members.
The AFL soon discovered that the respondent intended to reopen its Syracuse
plant and sent Norman Zukowsky, an organizer, to Syracuse to talk to the
respondent and to organize the plant After confirming the fact that the factory
was to be reopened from Sutphin, Zukowsky solicited Sumner to assist him in
organizing the plant. Sometime in February, Zukowsky saw Carlin at the
Syracuse plant and suggested the execution of a contract. Carlin refused saying
that it was up to the AFL to sign up a majority of the employees and that, if
they did, he would consider signing a contract Carlin also expressly refused
permission to Zukowsky to solicit memberships in the plant. Thereafter, al-
though frequently in the plant, Zukowsky appears to have obeyed these instruc-
tions.
Promptly after a person was accepted by the respondent for employment, Viola
Sumner would approach her, give her an AFL card and tell her, in substance,
that if she wanted to continue to AN ork at the plant, she would have to sign with
the AFL as it was an AFL shop. Almost without exception the new employee
signed as requested. Most of this activity occurred during the lunch hour,
although some solicitations were made (luting working time, and all of it was
'clone in the plant Seveial of respondent's responsible officials, including Harry
Carlin and Sutphin, knew that Sumner was carrying on this campaign in the
plant on behalf of the AFL Several of them inquired of Sumner, from time to
time, holy the campaign was progressing Prior to 'larch 19, 1946, Sumner
secured between 60 and 70 such members while Mary Amato secured about 10.
Between these 2 solicitors, substantially the whole staff of the respondent's
production employees wi-ei e signed up as AFL members prior to the middle of
March 1946.
Sometime in February 1946. the respondent was negotiating a contract with
the Independent Union for the New York plant This agreement contained a
provision that any shop of the respondent outside of New York City must come
under the jurisdiction of the Independent Union The respondent objected to
this clause and succeeded sometime subsequent to February 15 in eliminating it
before the contract was executed
On February 16, 1946, the AFL requested recognition as bargaining agent for
the Syracuse employees from the respondent but was refused. On February 28,
it petition for certification was duly filed by the AFL with the Board, asking
2
Since the reopening of the Syracuse plant, Sutphin has been the plant superintendent
with authority to employ, although the respondent contends he is still "being trained"
for that position
194 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
certification of it as the bargaining agent for the employees at the Syracuse
plant. On March 7 , about the time the out -of-town clause in the Independent
contract was removed therefrom on the objection of the respondent , Murray
Resnick' advised a Field Ex