Kamp Togs, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 5, 1964

148 N.L.R.B. 196 (N.L.R.B. 1964)

196, DECISIONS OF CINATIONAL' LABORTRELATIONS BOARD
DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings, and the entire record in
this proceeding, the Board makes the following determination of dis-
pute, pursuant to Section 10 (k) of the Act :
1. Laborers employed by Mechanical Specialty, Inc., who are repre-
sented by Local 18, International Hod Carriers, Building and Com-
mon Laborers Union of America, AFL-CIO, are entitled to perform
the unloading and positioning of laboratory equipment for their
Employer.
2. United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America,
AFL-CIO, Local 213, is not entitled, by means proscribed by Section
8 (b) (4) (D) of the Act, to force or require the Employer to assign the
above work to carpenters who are represented by the Carpenters.
3. Within 10 days from the date of this Decision and Determina-
tion, the Carpenters shall notify the regional Director for Region
23, in writing, whether or not it will refrain from forcing 'or
requiring the Employer, by means proscribed by Section 8 (b) (4)
(D) of the Act, to assign the work in dispute to carpenters rather than
to laborers.
Kamp Togs, Inc. and International Ladies' Garment Workers'
Union, AFL-CIO. Case No. 14-CA-3167. August 5, 196 .
DECISION AND ORDER
On May 12, 1964, Trial Examiner James F. Foley issued his Deci-
sion in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent had
engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices and
recommending that it cease and deist ' therefrom and take certain af-
firmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Deci-
sion.. Thereafter, the Respondent filed a bill of exceptions and assign-
ment of error to the Trial Examiner 's Decision , and the General
Counsel filed a brief in answer.
Pursuant to, the provisions of Section 3(b) of the Act, the Board
has delegated its powers in connection with this case to athree- member
panel [Chairman McCulloch and Members Fanning and Jenkins].
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 Trial Ex-
aminer's Decision, the exceptions and brief, and the entire record in
the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions , and recommenda-
tions of the Trial Examiner.
148 NLRB No. 21.
i
KAMP TOGS, INC.
ORDER
197
Pursuant to Section 10 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended, the Board hereby adopts as its Order, the Order recom-
mended by the Trial Examiner and orders that Respondent Kamp
Togs, Inc., its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the
action set forth in the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order, as
modified below.
The following language shall follow paragraph 2(a) of the Trial
Examiner's Recommended Order.
(b) Notify Victor Mannahan, if presently serving in the Armed
Forces of the United States, of his right to full reinstatement upon
application in accordance with the Selective Service Act and
Universal Military Training and Service Act of 1948, as amended,
after discharge from the Armed Forces.
The other paragraphs of paragraph 2 shall be relettered accordingly.
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This case, Case No. 14-CA-3167, was brought under Section 10 (b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended •( 61 Stat. 136 , 73 Stat. 519), herein called
the Act, on a charge filed September 5, 1963, against Respondent Kamp Togs, Inc.,
herein called Respondent , by International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union, AFL-
CIO, herein called the Union . On October 30, 1963, the General Counsel of the
National Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board , issued a complaint and
notice of hearing against Respondent , alleging violations of Section 8(a) (1) and (3)
of the Act. On November 8, 1963, Respondent denied the allegations of unfair
labor practices in General Counsel's complaint . On December 31, 1963, General
Counsel amended the complaint , and on January 8, 1963, Respondent denied the
amended allegations of unfair labor practices contained in the amendment . A hear-
ing on the complaint and answer , as amended , was held before Trial Examiner James
F. Foley on January 14 and 15, 1964, at Louisiana , Missouri . General Counsel,
Respondent , and Charging Party were represented at the hearing. The parties were
afforded an opportunity to be heard , make oral argument , and file briefs . General
Counsel and Respondent filed briefs after the close of the hearing.
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
1. THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT
Respondent , a Missouri corporation , with its principal office and place of business
in Clarksville, Missouri , is engaged in the manufacture , sale, and nonretail distri-
bution of children 's clothing and related products. During the calendar year 1963,
Respondent caused goods and materials with a value in excess of $50,000 to be
transported , sold, and shipped directly from its Clarksville, Missouri, place of business,
to points outside the State of Missouri. I find that Respondent is engaged in com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act, and that assertion of
jurisdiction will effectuate the purposes of the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Background evidence
Respondent employs approximately 100 persons at its Clarksville plant.1 In-
cluded in the 100 employees are 9 cutting room employees . This case is concerned
1 Respondent employs SO persons at another plant In Pleasant Rill, Missouri , a short
distance from Clarksville
198 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
with eight of these employees. Four of them are cutters, three of them spreaders,
and one is a pattern marker. The ninth employee is a pattern grader. Their fore-
man is Arnold Shaw. The plant manager is Edward Waxman. Al Kopolow is
president and Jack Kopolow is vice president. They have offices in St. Louis,
Missouri. Jack Kopolow normally visits the Clarksville plant about once a week.
The eight cutting room employees are cutters Victor Mannahan, Luke Swarnes, Alfred
Baumann, and Jack Detienne, spreaders Hurley Conway, Bob Meloan, and John
Robinson, and pattern marker Harry Pilkington. The pattern grader who works
with them in the cutting room is Thomas Phillips. Shaw is also his foreman.
In early March 1963, Local 181 (Cutters' Local) of the Union engaged in an
organizational campaign to organize the four cutters, the three spreaders, and the
pattern marker. On or about April 30, 1963, four of the eight employees signed
cards designating the Union to act as their collective-bargaining representative. On
May 3, 1963, Local 181 filed with the Regional Office in St. Louis, Missouri, a
petition for certification as collective-bargaining representative of the eight cutting
room employees. Respondent received notice of the filing of the petition on May 4,
1963. A Board-conducted election in this unit of eight employees was held on
May 24, 1963. Four of the eight employees voted against the Union, three voted
for it, and one vote was challenged. On June 4, 1963, the Regional Director for
Region 14 issued a certification of results of election in which he stated that a
majority of valid votes had not been cast for any union appearing on the ballot and,
therefore, no such organization was the collective-bargaining representative of the
eight cutting room employees.
B. Interference, restraint, and coercion 2
On April 29, 1963, Plant Manager Waxman held a meeting in the plant for all
employees. At this meeting, Waxman informed the employees that Respondent was
instituting a profit-sharing plan which could provide to each employee at least an
extra week's pay, and perhaps 2 or 3 extra weeks' pay, depending on the
Company's profits. Waxman also said that President Kopolow had told him not to
mention the plan, but he decided to tell them about it anyway, rather than wait until
a later date, that it had been approved by the "Government" but he did not know
too much about it, as it was still in the planning stage. He said he would know
more about it later. At the hearing, Waxman testified that he did not know when
the profit-sharing plan had been submitted to the "Government." Waxman also
testified that he did not know then (January 15, 1964) whether the plan had been
placed in effect. He said the intention was to place it in effect in the year 1964.
He knew no more about the details at the hearing than he knew on April 29, 1963.
Employee Mannahan made the original contact with the Union in early March
1963. On March 12, 1963, Jerry Perlstein, International representative of the Union,
with an office in St. Louis, Missouri, met with Mannahan and three other cutting
room employees in Louisiana, Missouri, a short distance from Clarksville. They
were Swarnes, Pilkington, and Baumann. Swarnes and Mannahan signed authoriza-
tion cards, and gave them to Perlstein. Both were given authorization cards to
distribute to other cutting room employees. The next day Mannahan asked Bau-
mann, Pilkington, and Conway, another cutting room employee, to sign authorization
cards. They did not sign at the time. Perlstein made two or three visits to Louisiana
after the March 12 meeting to call on cutting room employees at their homes to
seek their signatures on authorization cards.
Swarnes did not work on April 29 when Waxman told the employees in a meeting
about the proposed profit-sharing plan. On the morning of April 30, Shaw, the
cutting room foreman, told Swarnes about the proposed profit-sharing plan. He also
said that Waxman would probably explain it to him, but perhaps woud not get
around to it right away. After Mannahan unsuccessfully attempted to reach Perlstein
by long-distance telephone on April 30, Swarnes reached him indirectly through
Erple Reams, another union official. She was able to communicate with him and
inform him that the Respondent's cutting room employees wished to meet with him
that evening in Louisiana. That evening Perlstein again met with the cutting room
employees in Louisiana. Employees Mannahan, Swarnes, Baumann, Meloan, and
Conway met with him. Detienne came to the meeting hall, but did not enter it to
attend the meeting. He waited outside. Perlstein and the four employees discussed
2 In making the following evidentiary findings, I have evaluated the demeanor and other
testimony of Respondent's two witnesses as well as the demeanor and other testimony of
General Counsel's six witnesses I have also considered the arguments of Respondent's
counsel dealing with the credibility of the witnesses.
KAMP TOGS, INC. 199
Respondent 's proposed profit-sharing plan, and Mannahan, Swarnes, Meloan, and
Conway signed authorization cards, and gave them to Perlstein. Baumann kept his
card.
On May 1 or 2 , Plant Manager Waxman came to Pilkington 's work station and
said to him that he had heard some of the fellows had signed union cards, and asked
if he had signed a card. Pilkington answered that he had not . Waxman then said
he thought that he had been fair with the employees , and did not understand why
they wanted a union . He said further that he knew Respondent would never sign a
union contract . On or about May 2, Shaw, the cutting room foreman , came to
Swarnes' work station and said to him that he understood that he had signed a union
card. Swarnes answered that he -had. Shaw asked him why he signed the card, and
said he did not understand him, that he had never laid him off, or had hollered
at him, or bothered him or the other men. Swarnes said that they had never re-
ceived raises, and figured that the only way to get a raise was through the Union.
The next day, May 3, Plant Manager Waxman spoke to Swarnes at his work station.
He said that Shaw had told him that he had signed a union card . Swarnes replied
that he had, and that most of the men in the cutting room had. Waxman then said
that Swarnes had made a mistake in signing the card , and that Respondent 's profit-
sharing plan would amount to more in the long run than what Swarnes would get if
he joined the Union and received a slight raise as a result of his union activity.
Waxman also said to Swarnes that if the employees selected a union to represent them,
the employees would be laid off in slow periods , as the Respondent , under a union
contract , could not afford to pay the employees to stand around , wax tables, and
dust the lights.
As previously stated, Local 181 of the Union, on May 3, filed with the Regional
Director a petition for certification as collective-bargaining representative of eight
of Respondent's nine cutting room employees. Thomas Phillips, the pattern grader,
was not included in the unit for which the Union sought certification as collective-
bargaining representative. On Saturday, May 4, Waxman received a letter from
the Regional Office in which he was informed that the representation petition had
been filed. A copy of the petition was enclosed. On the following Monday or
Tuesday, May 6 or 7, Waxman told Phillips, the pattern grader, about the petition
and that he was not included in the unit. He said he knew four of the eight em-
ployees had signed cards, and wondered who they were.
About May 6, Waxman had another conversation with Swarnes. He said to
Swarnes that he wished to talk with him, and Swarnes replied that he wished to
talk to him. Swarnes first asked Waxman to explain the profit -sharing plan, saying
that he could not see how it could benefit him. After discussing the plan, Waxman
said that Swarnes would receive no benefit by joining the Union, and that if Respond-
ent were to sign a union contract , Swarnes would be laid off during slack periods.
He also said that Kopolow did not have any use for unions, and Respondent would
close the plant down before it would sign a union contract. Waxman then stated
that Mannahan had talked Meloan, one of the spreaders, into signing a union card.
Swarnes asked Waxman how much of a raise the employees would receive if the
Union lost the election. Waxman replied he could not tell Swarnes because it was
against the rules to tell how much of a raise he would give , but that before when they
had union trouble, the boys received a raise about 3 weeks after the election.
Swarnes asked how much of a raise the boys received , and Waxman answered that
it was 10 or 15 cents.
About May 6 , Waxman came to Mannahan's work station and asked him if he
had signed a union card. Mannahan answered that he had. Waxman asked Man-
nahan what he hoped to gain by signing the card . Mannahan replied that the Union
would obtain a raise for him. Waxman then said, "What makes you think that even
if this factory plant does go union that Al Kopolow will ever sign a union contract?"
He stated to Mannahan that Kopolow would rather close the plant down than sign
a union contract . About May 6 or 7, Waxman again talked to Pilkington at his
work station. He said he did not know why the employees wanted a union as he
had treated them fairly. He also said they had steady work, unlike what they
would have if the Union got in , and that Respondent would not go along with a
union contract.
About May 13, Waxman made another speech to the assembled employees, with
the exception of the eight cutting room employees . Waxman again spoke in general
terms about the profit -sharing plan, and what it would mean to the employees, and
also stated that all employees who had been with the Respondent 5 years or more
would get a 2-week vacation instead of a 1-week vacation. The new vacation plan
would become effective in July 1964. About May 13, Waxman went to Baumann's
work station and asked him if he had signed a union card . Baumann answered that
`ZOO DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
he had but tore it up, and did not turn it in to the Union . Waxman then said he was
glad Baumann had done this , that he thought the profit -sharing plan was going to be
a good thing for the employees.
About May 17, Waxman called Mannahan from his work station to the water
fountain nearby, and asked him why he was so set on the Union. Waxman remarked
at this time that he could never get a definite answer out of Mannahan as to whether
the latter was for or against the Union, even though he knew he was for the Union.
Mannahan answered that he was for the Union , and if there was one vote for it in
the election , Waxman should know that it was his. Waxman replied that the factory
would never go union, and that Al Kopolow, the owner, would never sign a union
contract . He then said to Mannahan that he would give him a 10-cent raise if he
voted against the Union . He also said that he could not figure out why the boys did
not favor the profit-sharing plan as it meant more to them than the Union could
give them . He warned Mannahan that if the employees went union , the cutters
could not do spreaders ' work as they had in the past, but would be laid off when work
was slack.
About Tuesday , May 21, Waxman held a meeting of the cutting room employees.
At this meeting , Waxman told the employees that they would be better off without
the Union , that Kopolow would not sign a union contract if the shop went union,
and would close the plant, and that he had paid them for 52 weeks a year, but if
the Union got in, they would be laid off during slack periods. He also said he had
tried to be a good boss, had treated them fairly , and had not closely supervised
them, but that if Respondent became a union shop, he would show them what a
difficult boss he could be . If he caught them huddled in a group talking , he would
fire them. He then referred to the profit -sharing plan . He said it was a good deal,
and that if they understood it more thoroughly , they would not be interested in the
Union. He ended his talk by telling them that if all of them voted against the Union,
he would see to it that everything would come out all right.
On Thursday , May 23, the day before the election , Waxman held another meeting
of the cutting room employees He again told them that the profit -sharing plan was
better than they realized , that they did not understand it, and he could not explain it
to them, and that it was better for them than what the Union could obtain for them.
He said he wanted to see eight "no" votes and no "yes" votes , and that he would
not hold anything against anybody for what they did as long as the election came
out the way he wanted it. He again said that he had been a good boss , but that if
they voted the Union in, he could turn into a very difficult boss. He repeated his
prior statements that Respondent would never sign a union contract , but would close
down and move out, and the employees would lose everything, and that Respondent
had employed them 52 weeks a year, but if they went union , cutters could not do
spreaders ' work , and would be laid off when there was not cutters ' work for them
to do. He ended his talk with a warning that if any of the employees thought about
disclosing what he had said to them, and of filing unfair labor practice charges, they
had better think about such a move because they would have to face him in court,
that he could not be arrested or put in jail , and would be "cited" only, and he could
rephrase his words and tell them the same thing again as he was telling them then.
The election began about noon on May 24 In the morning , Mannahan told
Waxman that he was the Union 's observer . Waxman replied that he knew it was
either he or Luke Swarnes . Shortly thereafter , as Mannahan was walking with
Waxman toward the election area, Waxman said to Mannahan , "Vic, don 't do some-
thine that will hurt yourself . Do right and I will take care of you " The eight
employees , comprised of the cutters , spreaders , and the pattern marker , voted in
the election As previously stated, three votes were cast for_ the Union , four against,
and one ballot was challenged . The Union did not obtain a majority.
The next morning , Saturday , May 25, Swarnes told Foreman Shaw that he was
one of the three employees who voted for the Union , and he did not want anyone
else to be blamed . Shaw told Swarnes that he wanted him to tell this to Waxman.
They both went to Waxman 's office. Shaw telephoned Waxman, who was at home,
and a short time later Waxman appeared at his office Swarnes told Waxman what
he had told Shaw earlier . Waxman replied that he figured Swarnes voted for the
Union , that he knew two of the three who had voted for it , and knew Mannahan
had voted for the Union . Swarnes then said he was ready to take whatever punish-
ment they felt was necessary . Waxman replied that Al Kopolow said that anyone
who voted for the Union would not get a raise. Swarnes said that he would quit
if the others received a raise and he did not receive one . Waxman told him not to
quit before talking to him first . Swarnes then asked Waxman what would havven
to Mannahan , and Waxman said that Mannahan would never receive a raise , and was
working on borrowed time.
KAMP TOGS, INC. 201
About May 27, Waxman, in the presence of Jack Kopolow, Respondent's vice
president, talked to Pilkington at the latter's work station. He asked Pilkington if
he had voted for the Union. The latter answered that he had not, but if he had,
he would not have told him the truth. He also said to Waxman that he thought
the vote at the election was to be a secret one, and that Waxman should not have
asked him how he voted .3 Later that day, Jack Kopolow came to Pilkington's work
station, and said that they had sort of made him mad that morning when they talked
to him. Kopolow further said that it was important for them to know how Pilking-
ton felt concerning the Union, as he had a key position with Respondent and
would be harder to replace than a cutter. Pilkington was a pattern marker. As
Kopolow was leaving, he jokingly referred to an affair that Pilkington had had with
one of the female employees in the plant. She had been discharged on the previous
April 12 because of such a matter.
Effective June 17, 1963, the cutting room employees with the exception of Manna-
han and Swarnes received a 10-cent-per-hour wage increase. When Shaw was
passing out the paychecks on June 14 to the cutting room employees, he told Swarnes
that the other cutting room employees had received a raise, and he had not. Shaw
made reference to the conversation Swarnes had with Waxman on May 25 and
said to him that he would talk to Waxman about the matter. He also said to
Swarnes that he did not have any part in the decision not to give him a raise, that
he deserved it as much as any other man in the cutting room, and hoped that he
would have no hard feelings against him because of the decision. The following
Monday, June 17, Waxman told Swarnes that he had talked to President Kopolow
and the latter had agreed to give him a raise However, he said that Swarnes was
to be penalized for 3 weeks, and that the raise would be on his check for the week
beginning July 8. On July 8, the 10-cent-an-hour wage increase was made effective
for Swarnes. Mannahan never received a wage increase .4
During the first week of September 1963, Waxman came to Swarnes' work station,
and said to him that there would be unfair labor practice charges filed against him,
Waxman, and he did not wish Swarnes to worry about it. Swarnes answered that
he should be the one to worry, and asked Waxman what he was going to say about
his penalizing him for voting for the Union. Waxman replied that he would tell
them that Swarnes was the newest employee. The evidence shows that Swarnes
had spent less time in the employ of Respondent than the other three cutters.
Detienne had left his employment with Respondent, and was hired back after Swarnes
became an employee. Meloan's length of service was shorter than Swarnes', but he
was a spreader while Swarnes was a cutter.
C. Mannahan's discharge
As previously stated, Mannahan had initiated the organizational activity that
resulted in the Board-conducted election on May 24, 1963. He was also the Union's
observer at the election. He was discharged by Waxman on August 15, 1963. At
the time of his discharge, he had been employed for 7 years by Respondent. He
had spent 1 year as janitor, 11/z years as spreader, and 3V2 years as cutter When
Respondent had a fire in its plant in December 1961, Mannahan along with other
employees was temporarily laid off. However, he was immediately rehired to assist
the mechanic in work that was done on the machines. He was the only one of the
cutting room employees assigned to this work. During the 7 years of employment,
Waxman and he had been friendly, and had often engaged in friendly conversation.
The record does not contain any evidence showing that Respondent had any fault
to find with the caliber of Mannahan's work during the time it employed him.
As previously, found, supra, Waxman told Swarnes on May 25 that Mannahan
would never receive a raise, and that he was working in the plant on borrowed time.
Swarnes told Mannahan what Waxman had said to him. About a week later. June 7,
Mannahan started a conversation with Waxman outside Waxman's office. Since the
election, Waxman had not spoken to Mannahan. He did not respond to his saluta-
tions, and otherwise completely ignored him. In the conversation which Mannahan
started with Waxman. he referred to Waxman's statement the day before the election
that he would not hold any grudges against the cutting room employees if the elec-
S This is the testimony of Pilkington. It is corroborated by Jack Kopolow's testimony
' On May 6, 1963 all the hourly employees, with the exception of the cutting room
employees, received a 5-cent-an-hour wage increase General Counsel does not rely on 'the
giving of the wage increase to the cutting room employees effective June 17, but merely
on the failure of Respondent to give Mannahan and Swarnes the same increase that the
others received
202 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
tion turned out the way he wanted . Waxman replied that he was not holding any
grudge against him, that he just did not like him any more. Mannahan asked him
if it was true that he would be fired. Waxman answered that he would be fired some
day, maybe not that day , maybe not the following day, but some day he would be
fired. Waxman continued , "All I can say is work hard and keep your nose clean."
Mannahan said to Waxman that during his period of employment each had done
a lot of favors for the other . Waxman replied that Mannahan had been paid for
the favors he had done. Mannahan , in reference to work he had done after the
December 1961 fire in the plant, said , "Yes, but working out in the cold, in the
grease, in below zero weather, that it was awfully rough and I sure wouldn't like
to do it again ." Waxman asked Mannahan if he was threatening him. Mannahan
replied that he was not. He added , however, that he knew more about the two fires
than Waxman thought he did . There was then a conversation about the machines
damaged in the December 1961 fire. Mannahan conveyed to Waxman his opinion
that Respondent arranged machines in such a way as to make it appear that machines
not there during the fire as well as the machines that were there were damaged by
the fire. Waxman then told him he was fired for threatening him, but that he would
keep him on until he could find another job as it was easier for him to find work
while he was working than when not working .5
Following this conversation with Mannahan , Waxman stated to employees and
others that Mannahan had threatened him. About the middle of June 1963, Man-
nahan sought a conversation with Waxman , and Waxman talked to him outside the
door of his office. He said to Waxman that be had heard that Waxman was telling
plant employees and other persons that he had threatened him, that he did not
threaten him, and that Waxman knew it. Waxman replied that it sounded like a
threat to him. Waxman then said again that he should look for another job, that
some day he would be fired , and it was easier to find a job when he was working
than when he was not working.
On Thursday , August 15 , 1963, about 4.30 p.m ., Mannahan came to Waxman's
office, after being told by Foreman Shaw that Waxman wished to see him . Mannahan
testified that when he entered the office , Waxman , who was sitting at his desk, said,
"Vic, I am sorry that things have to end this way, but this is your last working day."
Mannahan said that he expected it, and then Waxman asked him if he had looked for
another job . He said he had, and then added, "Is that all you have to say, Ed?"
Waxman answered that it was . Mannahan then left. Waxman handed him two
checks. One was for the full week ending the following day, August 16, and the
second check was for the previous week. According to Waxman , when he handed
Mannahan the two checks he said, "Vic , eight weeks ago I told you that I was letting
you go, and I kept you for eight weeks and you have not done anything about getting
another job ." Waxman testified that he then said, "I think I have gone along with
you about as far as I can go, and I won 't need you any more." Mannahan has
never been recalled to employment by Respondent.
Waxman testified that during the morning of August 15, Dola Windmiller , deputy
sheriff of Pike County , in which Clarksville and Louisiana are located , came to his
office and said he had something important to talk to him about . He asked him
to come outside the building with him. Outside the building , the deputy sheriff
asked Waxman if he would swear out a search warrant to search Mannahan 's home.
According to Waxman , he did not ask him for the reason for the search warrant, but
told him that they were not interested in such a thing , and would not want anything
to do with it . Waxman did not mention the visit of Windmiller to Mannahan when
he discharged him later in the afternoon.6
I Waxman testified that he considered Mannahan's statement about the machines to be
a threat He said he did not tell Mannahan that he would be fired until Mannahan began
talking about what he considered Respondent did in connection with the machines after
the December 1961 fire . I do not credit this testimony. Mannahan was obviously pro-
voked into talking about the machines either as a plea for special consideration or a
threat by Waxman's admission that he was going to fire him
5 Mannahan admitted that during the period from his discharge to the hearing , he made
considerable money playing pool and cards While I have considered this evidence along
with that of Windmiller ' s visit with Waxman in weighing Mannahan 's testimony, I find
Mannahan to be a credible witness from his demeanor testimony and from the testimony
he gave of statements , events and other circumstances bearing on the issues , and the
evaluation of his testimony when compared with the demeanor and other testimony of
Waxman
KAMP TOGS, INC. 203
Analysis and Conclusions
On the foregoing findings, I make the following findings and conclusions.
Respondent, in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act, interrogated employees
Pilkington, Swarnes, Mannahan, and Baumann about their union activity in individ-
ual conversations with them prior to the election on May 24, 1963, and interrogated
Pilkington again after the election in the week beginning May 27, 1963.
Respondent, in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act, threatened employees
Pilkington, Swarnes, and Mannahan in individual conversations prior to the election.
Waxman stated to each of them that Respondent, would never sign a union contract,
and stated to Swarnes and Mannahan that Respondent would close the plant down
before he would sign a contract. He also told Swarnes that Respondent had no use
for unions and that he made a mistake when he signed a union card. Just prior to
the election on May 24, Waxman warned Mannahan, who was to be the Union's ob-
server, not to do anything that would hurt him, and to do the right thing and he
would take care of him.
Respondent in violation of Section 8(a) (1) of the Act threatened the cutting room
employees assembled in meetings it called and held in the week prior to the May 24
election. In the first meeting, Waxman told assembled employees that they were
better off without a union, that President Kopolow would not sign a union contract,
and contrary to what he had been, he would become a hard boss, if they selected the
Union to represent them. In the meeting held on May 23, the day before the elec-
tion , Waxman told the eight cutting room employees he wanted eight "No" votes
and no "Yes" votes; that he would hold no grudge against them if the election turned
out the way he wanted; that he would be a hard boss if they selected the Union to
represent them, and that Respondent would close down the plant before signing a
union contract, and the employees would lose everything. Waxman also warned
them against filing unfair labor practice charges against him for what he said in the
meeting. He said they would have to face him in court, and that he would not be
arrested or put in jail, but only ordered not to repeat what he had done. He could
rephrase his words and tell them the same things again.
I do not find that Respondent violated the Act when Waxman told the employees
that under a union contract he would have to lay them off during slow periods. He
explained this statement in some instances by saying that the contract would not per-
mit cutters to do spreaders' work, and in other instances by saying Respondent could
not afford to pay wages under a union contract for cutters' and spreaders' work for
polishing and waxing tables and dusting lights. I find these statements to be ex-
pressions of opinion, and protected by Section 8(c) of the Act.
I conclude and find that Respondent, in violation of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act,
gave the impression that he engaged in surveillance of employees' union activities
when he said to Swarnes on May 6 that Mannahan had persuaded Meloan to sign a
union authorization card.
I conclude and find that Respondent, in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act,
promised a wage increase to Swarnes on or about May 6, and to Mannahan on or
about May 17, if they voted against the Union in the election. I find that Waxman's
announcement on or about May 13 to all the employees, with the exception of the
cutting room employees, that those with 5 years' or more service would receive 2
weeks vacation instead of 1 week, to be a promise of benefit, and violative of Section
8(a) (1) of the Act. The revised plan was to be effective the summer of 1964, not
the approaching summer of 1963. No explanation was given for the announcement
of the additional week of vacation shortly before the election, although it was not
to be effective for another 15 months. The timing of the announcement, and the
date when it was to be effective, absent an explanation, discloses that it was a
promise of benefit designed to influence the cutting room employees in the forthcom-
ing election . While the announcement did not include the cutting room employees,
it clearly conveyed to them notice of a benefit to be received if they would vote
against the Union. They knew they would enjoy the extra week if they did.
I am persuaded that Plant Manager Waxman had knowledge of the union activity
when he announced the profit-sharing plan to the assembled employees on April 29,
1963. Union activity had been started in early March. Perlstein, the Union's
International representative, met with the cutting room employees on March 12,
1963, and made several visits between that date and April 29 to visit homes of indi-
vidual cutting room employees seeking signatures on union authorization cards.
Waxman asked Pilkington on May 1, the day following the union meeting in the
evening of April 30, if he had signed a union card. Shaw informed Swarnes 2
days after the April 30 union meeting he had heard that he had signed a union
card Waxman also talked to him about his signing of the card the next day. In
204 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL, LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
connection with his testimony of a meeting of cutting room employees he claims
he held on May 6, Waxman testified that employees had had conversations about the
union activity, and what they said drifted back to him. Waxman had a source of
information which promptly conveyed to him information about union activity
shortly after it occurred. It appears, therefore, that by April 29 he was well in-
formed about the union activity that had been taking place since early March.7 I
find evidence of knowledge of union activity by Respondent on April 29 in Waxman's
announcement of the profit-sharing plan on that date after a sudden birth, Waxman's
lack of knowledge of any details of the plan at the announcement as well as at the
hearing 9 months later in January 1964, and the failure of Respondent at the hearing
to produce any written evidence of the existence of the plan.
Waxman testified that the plan was first conceived in late March or early April
1963. In his speech to the employees on April 29 he spoke only in a very general
way about it. He said he did not know any of the details. But he also said it
had been approved by the "Government." How it could have been readied for
submission to the "Government," submitted, and approved by April 29, is something
that is beyond my understanding. At the hearing this January 1964, Waxman
admitted he did not know who submitted it to the "Government" or when it was
submitted. He said it was intended- to be effective in 1964. However, he did
not know if it had been placed in effect or when it would be effective. It appears
to me that a plant manager would have this information about a matter so vital to
management and the employees, if it were more than something devised merely
to stave off the union activity of the employees. Nothing was offered by Respond-
ent at the hearing to show that there was a profit-sharing plan at that time, or that
it was something more than a makeshift device conceived to defeat the union
activity of March and April 1963, and abandoned when the Union lost the election
on May 24, 1963.8 -
I conclude and find that the statements Plant Manager Waxman made to employees
about the superior benefits they would receive under the profit-sharing plan are
promises of benefit violative of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act. He made these state-
ments prior to the election to Swarnes, Baumann , and Mannahan in individual con-
versations, and in the two meetings of the cutting room employees he held during the
week of the election. The plan was conceived to defeat the union activity of the
cutting room employees, and the latter statements made by Waxman regarding its
superior benefits had the same objective. It is significant that the record is com-
pletely silent in regard to anything being done about the profit-sharing plan following
the defeat of the Union in the May 24 election.
I conclude and find that Respondent, in violation of Section 8(a)(3) and (7)
of the Act, denied to Swarnes for 3 weeks the wage increase the other cutting room
employees, with the exception of Mannahan, received on June 17. 1963. Respondent
left unrebutted the testimony of Swarnes that he did not receive the increase for
this period , and also his testimony of Shaw's and Waxman's statements to him on
May 25, June 14, June 17, and in the first week of September 1963, that he was
not getting the increase because of his union activity. No explanation of any kind
was offered at the hearing by Respondent for denying Swarnes the increase for 3
weeks.
In reaching a determination as to whether Mannahan was discriminatorily dis-
charged and denied a wage increase , I consider significant the testimony of Man-
nahan's leadership in the union activity starting in March 1963, his competence as
an employee, and the high regard in which he was held by Respondent prior to the
May 24 election ; Waxman 's threats prior to and after the election of reprisals against
employees for engaging in union activity ; Respondent 's penalizing of Swarnes for his
participation in the organizational effort ; Waxman's statement to Swarnes on May 25
' See Angwell Curtain Company , Inc v N.L R B ., 192 F 2d 899 903 (C A 7) ; N.L R B.
v. Abbott Worsted Mills. Inc 127 F. 2d 438, 440 (CA . 1) ; Quest -Shon Mark Brassiere
Co., Inc., 80 NLRB 1149 , 1150 , enfd. 185 F . 2d 285 ( C.A 2), cert denied 342 U S 812;
Stokely Foods , Inc., 91 NLRB 1267, 1270, enfd . 193 F 2d 736 (CA 5)
s Respondent 's counsel questioned Mannahan 's credibiliiv on his testimony that the
announcement of the profit -sharing meeting was on April 29, 196 3, while Pilkinglon testi-
fied that it was made somewhere around April 1, 1963 The testimony of Swarnes,
Baumann, Phillips , and Perlstein corroborates the testimony of Mannalan . So does
Waxman's. He was not asked by his counsel on direct examination when lie announced
it. However , he testified that ie had its origin in late March or early April Two or
three weeks at the least would be needed to have it "whipped up" in some way for
presentation regardless of the motive for presenting it
KAMP TOGS, INC. 205
and to Mannahan himself on June 7; that Mannahan would be fired for his union
activity; Waxman's calculated exploitation of the opportunity he had to spread the
rumor that Mannahan had threatened him after he had provoked him into talking
about work he had done on certain machines in Respondent's plant following the
December 1961 fire; 9 and Waxman's summary discharge of Mannahan on August 15
after Deputy Sheriff Windmiller had asked him to sign a search warrant to search
Mannahan's home, without bothering to find out if there were any grounds in the
sheriff's investigation of Mannahan that would make him an unsuitable employee.
Upon this evidence, I find and conclude that Respondent discriminatorily discharged
Mannahan and denied him a wage increase in violation of Section 8(a)(3) and (1)
of the Act, because of his union activity. He did not discharge Mannahan because
of what he said about the special work he had done following the December 1961
fire. Respondent had not discharged Pilkington on April 12, 1963, as he had a female
employee who had had an affair with him, because he held the important job of
pattern marker. However, Waxman's interrogation of Pilkington on May 1 in
regard to his signing a union card, and on May 27 in regard to the way he voted
in the election, indicates that he would have fired him if he had signed the card or
voted for the Union, and have used the affair as a pretext for the discriminatory dis-
charge. Waxman fired Mannahan because he signed a union authorization card,
voted for the Union in the election, and was a leader in the organizational effort, and
an observer for the Union at the election. His pretext for the discriminatory dis-
charge is what he considers a threat made by Mannahan in early June 1963.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE'UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent set forth in section III, above, occurring in con-
nection with the operations of Respondent described in section I, above, have a close,
intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several
States, and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and
the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent engaged in certain unfair labor practices, I shall
recommend that Respondent be required to cease and desist from such unfair labor
practices and take such affirmative action as appears necessary to effectuate the
policies of the Act. In view of my findings that Respondent not only engaged in
several acts of interference, restraint, and coercion, but also discriminatoiily dis-
charged employee Victor Mannahan and denied him and employee Luke Swarnes a
wage increase because of-their union activity, I shall recommend a broad cease-and-
desist order against any interference with, coercion, or restraint of employees in the
exercise of their protected activities. I shall recommend that Respondent offer
Mannahan immediate and full reinstatement to his former or substantially equivalent
position, without prejudice to his seniority and other rights and privileges, and make
him and Swarnes whole for any loss of pay they suffered by reason of the discrimina-
tion against them as provided in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289, with
interest at 6 percent per annum, as provided in Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138
NLRB 716.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Respondent Kamp Togs, Inc., is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act, and International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union,
AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
2. By interrogating employees in regard to their union activity; by threatening
them with closing down the plant, loss of employment, harsher working conditions,
and denials of wage increases and a contract with a bargaining representative selected
in a Board-conducted election, if. they engaged in union activity or voted for a
collective-bargaining representative in a Board-conducted election; by engaging in
surveillance or giving the appearance of engaging in surveillance of employees' union
activities; and by promising a profit-sharing plan, wage increases, and additional
vacation time if they abandoned union activity or voted against the Union in the
election, Respondent engaged in conduct that interferes with, coerces, and restrains
employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed them in Section 7 of the Act, in viola-
tion of Section 8 (a)( 1 ) of the Act.
6 On -the evidence before me,- it- appears that Mannahan In early June 1963 could have
threatened Waxman upon the latter telling him he would be fired, or could merely' have,
made a plea that he be retained in his job In spite of his union activity,in view of the work
be had done after the December 1961 fire.
206 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
3. By discharging employee Victor Mannahan and failing to reinstate him, and
denying him and employee Luke Swarnes a wage increase because of their union
activity, Respondent discriminated against employees in regard to hire or tenure of
employment and terms or conditions of employment, to discourage membership in
the Union, or in any labor organization, and the selection of the Union, or any labor
organization, as collective-bargaining representative, in violation of Section 8(a)(3)
and (1) of the Act.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, and pursuant to Sec-
tion 10(c) of the Act, I hereby issue the following:
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Kamp Togs, Inc., its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Discouraging membership in International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union,
AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization, by discriminatorily discharging its em-
ployees, denying them wage increases, or in any other manner discriminating against
them in regard to their hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of
employment.
(b) Interrogating employees with respect to union activity or other concerted
activity, in a manner constituting interference with, coercion, or restraint of em-
ployees in violation of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.
(c) Threatening employees with the closing down of the plant, loss of employ-
ment, harsher working conditions, denial of wage increases and a collective-bargaining
contract with a representative they select in a Board-conducted election, or other
reprisals, if they engage in union activity, or other concerted activity, or select the
Union or any other labor organization as their collective-bargaining representative.
(d) Engaging in surveillance, or giving the appearance of engaging in surveillance,
of employees' union activities, or other concerted activities.
(e) Promising employees a profit-sharing plan, wage increases, additional vacation
time, or other benefits, if they abandon union activity, or vote against the Union
or any other labor organization in a Board-conducted election; however, any existing
benefits are not hereby affected.
(f) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees in the
exercise of their right to self-organization, to join or assist the Union, 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, as guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which I find will effectuate the purposes
of the Act:
'(a) Offer Victor Mannahan immediate and full reinstatement to his former or
substantially equivalent position, without prejudice to his seniority or other rights
and privileges, and make him and Luke Swarnes whole for any loss of earnings they
may have suffered by reason of the discrimination against them, together with interest
at the rate of 6 percent per annum, in the manner set forth in the section entitled
"The Remedy."
(b) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the Board and its agents, for
examination and copying, all, payroll records, social security records, timecards, per-
sonnel records and reports, and all other records necessary or useful to determine
the amount of backpay and interest under the terms of this Recommended Order.
(c) Post at its plant in Clarksville, Missouri, copies of the attached notice marked
"Appendix." 10 Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for
Region 14, shall, after being duly signed by the Respondent's representative, be
posted by the Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof and be maintained by
it for a period of 60 consecutive days from the date of posting, 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 notice is not altered,
defaced, or covered by any other material.
101f 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."
KAMP TOGS, INC. 207
(d) Notify the said Regional Director, in writing, within 20 days from the receipt
of this Trial Examiner's Decision and Recommended Order, what steps Respondent
has taken to comply therewith."
It is further recommended that unless on or before 20 days from the date of the
receipt of this Trial Examiner's Decision and Recommended Order the Respondent
notifies the said Regional Director, in writing, that it will comply with the foregoing
recommendations, the National Labor Relations Board issue an order requiring the
Respondent to take the action aforesaid.
"In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board, paragraph 2(d)
thereof shall be modified to read: "Notify said Regional Director, in writing, within 10 days
from the date of this Order, what steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith."
APPENDIX
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, as amended, we hereby notify our employees that:
WE WILL NOT discourage membership in International Ladies' Garment
Workers' Union, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization of our employees,
by discharging employees, denying them wage increases, or refusing to reinstate
them, or in any other manner discriminating against them in regard to their
hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment.
WE WILL NOT question employees with respect to union activity or other
concerted activity, in a manner constituting interference with, coercion, or re-
straint of employees in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended.
WE WILL NOT threaten employees with the closing down of the plant, loss of
employment, harsher working conditions, denial of wage increases and a collec-
tive-bargaining contract with a representative they select in a Board-conducted
election , or other reprisals, if they engage in union activity, or other concerted
activity, or select the Union or any other labor organization as their collective-
bargaining representative.
WE WILL NOT engage in , or give the appearance of engaging in, the sur-
veillance of employees' union activities, or other concerted activities.
WE WILL NOT promise employees a profit-sharing plan, wage increases, addi-
tional vacation time , or other benefits, if they abandon union activity, or vote
against the Union or any other labor organization in a Board-conducted election.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce em-
ployees in the exercise of their rights to self-organization, to join or assist the
above Union, 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, as
guaranteed in Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended.
WE WILL offer Victor Mannahan immediate and full reinstatement to his
former or substantially equivalent position, without prejudice to his seniority
or other rights and privileges, and make him and Luke Swarnes whole for any
loss of pay, including interest, which they have suffered by reason of the dis-
crimination against them.
All our employees are free to become, remain , or refrain from becoming or
remaining , members of International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union, AFL-CIO,
or any other labor organization.
KAMP TOGS, INC.,
Employer.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------
(Representative) (Title)
NOTE.-We will notify Victor Mannahan, if presently serving in the Armed Forces
of the United States, of his right to full reinstatement upon application in accordance
with the Selective Service Act and Universal Military Training and Service Act of
1948, as amended , 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.
208 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Employees may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office, 4459
Federal Building, 1520 Market Street, St. Louis, Missouri, Telephone No. Main
1-8100, Extension 4142, if they have any questions concerning this notice or com-
pliance with its provisions.
Hotel & Restaurant Employees & Bartenders International
Union, Local 343, AFL-CIO and Herman Turner and Resort
Concessions , Inc., Party to the Contract . Case No. 3-CB-678.
August 5, 1964
DECISION AND ORDER
On April 1, 1964, Trial Examiner James T. Barker issued his Deci-
sion in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that it would not effectu-
ate the policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction over Resort Conces-
sions, Inc., and recommending that the complaint herein be dismissed,
as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Decision. Thereafter,
the General Counsel filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision
and a supporting brief, and the Respondent filed a brief in support of
the Trial Examiner's Decision.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with
this case to a three-member panel [Chairman McCulloch and Members
Leedom and Jenkins].
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 entire
record in this case, including the Trial Examiner's Decision, the ex-
ceptions and briefs, and hereby adopts the Trial Examiner's findings,
conclusions, and recommendations.
[The Board dismissed the complaint.]
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon a charge filed on June 21, 1963, by Herman Turner, an individual, the Act-
ing Regional Director of the National Labor Relations Board for Region 3, on Sep-
tember 4, 1963, issued a complaint and notice of hearing designating Hotel &
Restaurant Employees & Bartenders International Union, Local 343, AFL-CIO, as
Respondent, and alleging violations of Section 8(b) (1) (A) and 8(b) (2) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, hereinafter called the Act. In its answer
the Respondent asserted that the operations of Resort Concessions, Inc., have no im-
pact upon commerce and, consequently, Resort Concessions, Inc., is not engaged in
commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. The Respondent
further denied the commission of any unfair labor practices.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held before Trial Examiner James T. Barker at
Monticello, New York, on September 26, 1963. All parties were represented at the
hearing and were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to introduce relevant evidence,,
to present oral argument, and to file briefs with me. The General Counsel presented
oral argument and on November 12, 1963, the Respondent filed a memorandum of
law with me.
148 NLRB No. 20.