Kahaly Quilting Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 30, 1961

133 N.L.R.B. 1507 (N.L.R.B. 1961)

KAHALY QUILTING COMPANY 1507
that the handbilling is to that extent and in that particular untruthful. It is the
fact that all of the stores where the handbilling took place or where such action was
threatened did business with Servette and purchased from that organization at least
one of the items listed on the handbill. It is also the fact that all of the listed items
were distributed Eby Servette.. I find no misrepresentation to exist in the wording of
the handbill.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Respondent is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5)
of the Act.
2. Servette, Kory, McDaniels, and Daylight are persons within the meaning of
Section 2(1) and Section 8(b)(4) of the Act and each is engaged in commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and 7 of the Act.
3. The Respondent has not engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning
of Section 8(b) (4) (i) or (ii) of the Act.
It is hereby recommended that the complaint be dismissed in, its entirety.
Kahaly Quilting Company and District '65, Retail , Wholesale
Department Store Union . Case No. 92-CA-7961. October 30,
1961
DECISION AND ORDER
On August 31, 1961, Trial Examiner John F. Funke issued his In-
termediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the
Respondent had not engaged in and was not engaging in any of the
unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint and recommending that
the complaint be dismissed in its entirety, as set forth in the Inter-
mediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the General Counsel
filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and a supporting brief.
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 Inter-
mediate Report, the exceptions and brief, and the entire record in the
case, and hereby adopts the Trial Examiner's findings, conclusions,
and recommendations.
[The Board dismissed the complaint.]
INTERMEDIATE REPORT
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This proceeding, with all parties represented, was heard before the duly designated
Trial Examiner on August 14 and 16, 1961, at New York, New York. The com-
plaint alleged that Kahaly Quilting Company, herein the Respondent, violated Sec-
tion 8(a)(1), (3), and (5) of the Act and the answer denied the commission of any
unfair labor practices.
Oral argument was waived and no briefs were submitted.
Upon the entire record in this case, and from my observations of the witnesses, I
make the following:
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
1. THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT
Kahaly Quilting Company is a partnership consisting of Joseph Kahaly , William
Kahaly, and Emil Kahaly, operating a plant at 355 Butler Street , Brooklyn. It is
133 NLRB No. 155.
1508 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
engaged in sewing and manufacturing quilting materials for various firms in the State
of New York and performs services valued in excess of $50,000 annually for firms
which individually ship products valued in excess of $50,000 annually to places out-
side of the State of New York.
I find that the partnership is engaged in commerce and it will effectuate the policies
of the Act to assert jurisdiction over the business of the partnership.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
District 65 is a labor organization within the meaning of the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
In support of the allegations of violation of Section 8(a) (1) and (3), the General
Counsel called two witnesses, Peter Mulero and Ruben Gonzalez. Although under
subpena, neither appeared at the opening of the hearing and it was necessary to post-
pone the hearing until their attendance could be secured.' Each repudiated his pre-
trial affidavit given to a Board agent and each pleaded a failure to recollect any of
the material matters as alleged in the complaint. Since these events took place only
3 months before the hearing and vitally affected their circumstances these pleas were
patently perjurious. Their perjury, however, leaves the record without an iota of
testimony to support the allegations of violation of Section 8(a) (1).
Since I cannot credit any of the testimony of Mulero or Gonzalez, I accept the
testimony of Joseph Kahaly that they, together with Pascuale Gonzalez, told him
they were quitting because they "could do better outside" when they left the plant
on May 16. While they left as a result of a dispute over working conditions, includ-
ing the assignment of overtime, I find no evidence to support the contention of the
General Counsel (if that is his contention) that they went on strike at this time.
Accordingly, I find that Kahaly had a right to refuse them reinstatement when they
appeared at the plant later that day with Walter Wyatt, a representative of District 65.2
Since they lost their status as employees by voluntarily quitting their employment
before they signed authorization cards with District 65, I find that District 65 did
not represent a majority of the employees on either May 16 or 17, when the requests
for recognition were made and renewed. The record does not indicate that any
request for recognition was made after the employees were reemployed at their own
request on May 31.
I find that the Respondent did not violate Section 8(a) (3) or (5) of the Act, either
by refusing to reemploy Mulero and Gonzalez on May 16 or by refusing to recognize
District 65 on that day.
[Recommendations omitted from publication.]
1 They appeared only after the General Counsel sought and obtained the cooperation of
Respondent in effecting their appearance.
2 After the employees left the shop on the morning of May 16 they went to the offices
of District 65 where they signed authorization cards. Walter Wyatt then returned to the
plant with them and demanded recognition for District 65 and reinstatement for the
employees. Both were denied by Joseph Kahaly.
United Steelworkers of America AFL-CIO, Local Union No.
4373 [United States Smelting , Refining and Mining Company]
and Lyman M. Watkins
United Steelworkers of America AFL-CIO, Local Union No.
4292 and Wayne W. Watkins. Cases Nos. 20-CB-827 and f0-
CB-8?8. October 30, 1961
DECISION AND ORDER
On June 19, 1961, Trial Examiner Eugene K. Kennedy issued his
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that
the Respondent had not engaged in the unfair labor practices alleged
133 NLRB No. 160.