Knitgoods Workers Union

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 10, 1957

118 N.L.R.B. 577 (N.L.R.B. 1957)

KNITGOODS WORKERS UNION 577
then classified as layout man A. During the first several weeks on this new
operation, the layout man was closely supervised and instructed in this work by
a member of the Employer's engineering staff, familiarizing him with the use of
the calculating machine and assisting him in adjusting himself to placing the
layout information on paper rather than on a metal template.
During this period when this method of operation was being installed, the
I. A. M. filed a grievance under its contract by which it sought to have the work
of the layout man preparing coordinate charts up-graded, but this grievance was
withdrawn with the agreement that the Employer should be given more time
to study this new operation. The basis of the I. A. M.'s grievance was that the
new job required a higher grade of skill and knowledge than that required of layout
man A. Subsequently, the grievance was resubmitted, the I. A. M. at this time
contending that the job of layout-calculator required, in addition to the work
normally performed by a layout man, that the employees select the particular
machine on which the work was to be performed, determine the sequence of
operations, the ability to mentally visualize the work to be performed, the exercise
of independent judgment and further contended that, in its responsibilities, layout-
calculator compared with the responsibilities of time-study and methods employees.
The Employer disposed of this grievance by reclassifying the job of layout-
calculator to the classification of time-study and methods engineer, thus removing
it from the unit for collective bargaining represented by the I. A. M.3 and placing.
it for the purposes of collective bargaining within the unit represented by Federation
of Westinghouse Independent Salaried Unions. This reclassification became effective
on August 6, 1956.
On August 22, 1956, the I. A. M. filed a charge with the National Labor Relations
Board, First Region, Case No. 1-CA-2156, that this action of the Employer was.
violative of Section 8 (a) (1) (5) of the Act. This charge was withdrawn, the
case being closed by letter dated November 14, 1956. Thereafter, on December 14,
1956, the instant motion for clarification was filed.
Testimony at the hearing as to the job layout-calculator shows that it is a salaried
position and that it is subject to the supervision of the Employer's divisional
industrial engineer who Js charged with the administration of the Employer's
time-study operation. The location of the operation has been removed from the
vicinity of the presses to a location occupied by time-study employees and by
certain clerical employees, some of which clerical employees are within the I. A. M.
unit. The present incumbent is classified as a method and time-study engineer C
and his normal progression from that classification would be through method
and time-study engineer B to time-study engineer A. He is in the process of being
trained for such progressions by attending classes which include instruction in the
taking of time studies, the calculation of time values from such studies, the
methodizing of jobs and the general operations of a method and time-study
engineer.
RECOMMENDATION
The hearing officer is convinced that the classification layout-calculator as it is set
out in this Record is a time-study classification. It is therefore recommended that
the unit found by the Board to be appropriate herein be amended by the addition
of the words "including layout-calculators" after the words "time-study men" as
they appear among the exclusions in the recital of the unit contained on the first
page of this Report.
8 See unit description , above.
Knitgoods Workers Union, Local 155 International Ladies' Gar-
ment Workers' Union , AFL-CIO and Packard Knitwear, Inc..
Case No. 2-CC-407. July 10,1957
DECISION AND. ORDER
On April 15, 1957, Trial Examiner Reeves R. Hilton issued his
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that
the Respondent Local 155 had engaged in and was engaging in viola-
118 NLRB No. 71.
450558-68-vol . 118-88
578 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
tions of Section 8 (b) (4) (C) of the Act, and recommending that it
cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set
forth in the copy of the Intermediate Report attached hereto. There-
after, the Respondent Union filed exceptions to the Intermediate Re-
port together with a supporting brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board
has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-mem-
ber panel [Chairman Leedom and Members Bean 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 Interme-
diate Report, the exceptions and brief, and the entire record in the
case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommenda-
tions of the Trial Examiner.'
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 Knitgoods Workers Union, Local 155, In-
ternational Ladies' Garment Workers' Union, AFL-CIO, its officers,
representatives, and agents, shall :
1. Cease and desist, during the effective period of the certification
issued by the Regional Director of the Board on October 18, 1956,
in Case No. 2-RC-8452, or any other certification of the Board of a
bargaining representative other than the Respondent for employees
of Packard Knitwear, Inc., or of any other employer, from engaging
in a strike or concerted refusal in the course of their employment to
use, manufacture, process, transport, or otherwise handle or work on
any goods, materials, or commodities, or to perform any services; where
an object thereof is forcing or requiring Packard Knitgoods, Inc., to
recognize or bargain with Knitgoods Workers Union, Local 155,
International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union, AFL-CIO, as the
representative of any employees in the collective-bargaining unit cov-
ered by such certification.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Post in conspicuous places in its business offices in the New
York City area where notices or communications to members are nor-
I In his Intermediate Report , the Trial Examiner discussed the relevancy of the Second
Circuit Court of Appeals decision in Douds v. Local 50, Bakery & Confectionery Workers
International Union , AFL-CIO, 224 F. 2d 49 , to the issue of this case . After issuance
of the Intermediate Report, that court refused enforcement of the Board 's Order in Local
50, Bakery and Confectionery Workers' International Union, AFL-CIO, 115 NLRB 1333.
See N. L. R . B. v. Local 50, Bakery & Confectionery Workers International Union ( Arnold
Bakers, Inc.), 245 F. 2d 542, where that court reaffirmed its earlier view on the question
of whether peaceful picketing was unlawful in an analogous situation . With due defer-
ence to the view of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals on this issue, we adhere to our
ruling in 115 NLRB 1333.
KNITGOODS WORKERS UNION 579
orally posted, copies of the notice attached to the Intermediate Re-
port marked "Appendix." 2 Copies of said notice, to be furnished by
the Regional Director for the Second Region, shall, after being duly
signed by an official representative of Local 155, be posted by Local 155
immediately upon receipt thereof and maintained by it for a period of
sixty (60) days thereafter. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Local
155 to insure that such notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by
.any other material.
(b) Notify the Regional Director for the Second Region in writing
within ten (10) days from the date of this Decision and Order what
steps Local 155 has taken to comply herewith.
2 This -notice is hereby amended by substituting the words "A Decision and Order" for
the words "The Recommendations of a Trial Examiner." In the event that this Order is
enforced by decree of a United States Court of Appeals, there shall be substituted for the
words "Pursuant to a Decision and Order" the words "Pursuant to a Decree of the United
States Court of Appeals, Enforcing an Order."
INTERMEDIATE REPORT
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon charges, as amended, filed by Packard Knitwear, Inc., herein called Packard
or the Company, against Knitgoods Workers Union, Local 155, International Ladies'
Garment Workers' Union, AFL-CIO, herein called the Respondent or the Union,
the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board 1 through the Regional
Director for the Second Region (New York City), issued a complaint dated January
21, 1957, alleging that the Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices within
the meaning of Section 8 (b) (4) (C) of the Labor-Management Relations Act,
herein called the Act. In substance the complaint alleges that since about October 18,
1956, the Respondent, through its officers, agents, and representatives, by picketing,
appeals, instructions, and other means, has induced and encouraged the employees
of Packard and of other employers doing business with Packard to engage in strikes
or concerted refusals in the course of their employment to use, manufacture, process,
transport, or otherwise handle or work on any goods, articles, materials, or com-
modities, or to perform services for their respective employers, an object thereof
being to-force or require Packard to recognize or bargain with the Respondent as the
representative of its employees in a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective
bargaining, notwithstanding that another union, Novelty Knitwear Workers Union
(unaffiliated), herein called the Independent, was duly certified by the Board about
October 18, 1956, as the exclusive representative of the employees in said unit. - The
complaint further alleges that the Respondent, since the above date, initiated and
authorized picketing at Packard's plant and otherwise induced and encouraged em-
ployees of Packard concertedly to refuse to perform services, and induced and en-
couraged employees of suppliers and truckers making deliveries to and from Packard,
as well as employees of employers normally doing business with Packard, to refuse
to transport or handle merchandise being delivered to or from its plant.
The Respondent filed its answer to the complaint denying generally the allegations
thereof and the commission of any unfair labor practices. Affirmatively; it states the
picketing was an appeal to Packard's employees to become members of the. Union
and is protected under Section 8 (c) of the Act.
Pursuant to notice a hearing was held at New York City, on February 11 and 12,
1957, before the Trial Examiner. All parties were represented by counsel and were
afforded opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to
introduce relevant evidence upon the issues. At the conclusion of the General
Counsel's case, counsel for the Respondent moved to dismiss the complaint on the
grounds that.the General Counsel had failed to establish any violation of the Act,
which motion was denied. The Trial Examiner, at the conclusion of the case,
afforded counsel opportunity to present argument and to file briefs. The General
i The General Counsel and the staff attorney appearing for him are referred to as the
General Counsel and the National Labor Relations Board as the Board.
580 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Counsel and counsel for the Respondent orally argued the matter and, thereafter,
counsel for the Respondent filed a brief with the Trial Examiner.
Upon the entire record in the case, and from his observation of the witnesses,
the Trial Examiner makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OPERATIONS OF PACKARD
Packard, a New York corporation, maintains its principal office and factory in
Brooklyn, where it is engaged in the manufacture and sale of ladies' sweaters. During
the year 1956, Packard manufactured and sold products valued at approximately
$195,000, of which amount between $85,000 and $90,000 represented direct ship-
ments to customers outside the State of New York. The Trial Examiner finds that
Packard is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
The Respondent and the Independent are labor organizations within the meaning
of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Chronology of events
1. The Company's operations
Benjamin Lippman, president of Packard, stated the corporation was organized
about February 1956,2 and leased 1 floor for its operations in a 4-story building
located at 49 Wyckoff Avenue, between Starr Street and Willoughby Avenue, in
Brooklyn. The building has a front entrance used by the employees of Packard, as
well as those of three other business firms that occupy the building, and at the end
of the building (toward Starr Street) there is a driveway from the street leading into
a yard and loading platform at the rear of the building. Around the first of March,
Packard hired two maintenance men, on a temporary basis, to prepare the factory
for operation.
Leon Hochstadt, secretary-treasurer, said the Company commenced operations
and the hiring of production employees in May and by the latter part of the month
had employed about 30 or 40 persons. He further stated that by the end of June
the Company had about 50 employees and at the peak of its operations had some 60
workers. At the time of the hearing, which was the off-season, the Company had
about 20 employees.
2. The meeting between representatives of Packard and the Union
Lippman testified that sometime in April, Arthur Jacobson and Louis Levinson,
organizer and business agent for the Union, respectively, came to the factory and,
after being introduced to them by Hochstadt, he asked them what they wanted.
They told Lippman, "We want to organize your place, and we want you to sign up
with us." Lippman replied, "I haven't got any employees to sign up, and it is not
my job. It is your job to organize the employees." The conversation thereupon
concluded and Jacobson and Levinson left the plant.
Hochstadt said he saw Jacobson and Levinson at the factory, in the early part
of April, and asked them what they wanted. Jacobson and Levinson introduced
themselves as business representatives of the Union and that they wanted or organize
the shop. Hochstadt informed them, "We haven't got anybody employed over here"
and " :. they answered me in a way that we can work something out anyways
for the future." Hochstadt left the two men and told Lippman about the incident
and who came over and talked to them. Hochstadt did not remain during their
conversation . Hochstadt said one of the union representatives claimed to know him
but he did not recognize either of them.
Both Lippman and Hochstadt admitted that neither Jacobson nor Levinson spe-
cifically requested the Company to recognize the Union as the bargaining repre-
sentative of its employees, nor did they present any agreement to them. The above
meeting was the only one held between the respective representatives and both
Lippman and Hochstadt stated they have heard nothing further from the Union.
2 A11 dates refer to 1956 unless otherwise stated.
KNITGOODS WORKERS UNION 581
Jacobson stated he had information that Packard was opening a mill and that
Hochstadt was one of the partners in the business. Sometime in April he decided
to visit the place and as Levinson knew Hochstadt very well he asked to go with
him. Upon arriving at the factory they met Hochstadt who discussed various in-
dustry matters with Levinson for about 5 or 10 minutes. Hochstadt then called
Lippman, talked to him briefly and left. Lippman then stated: "I know why you
are here. Why don't you go and organize in Ridgewood the German bosses?"
Jacobson and Levinson said nothing and left the factory. Jacobson denied that
either he or Levinson requested recognition of the Union or that the Company
negotiate or sign an agreement with the Union. Jacobson stated he had not talked to
Lippman or Hochstadt since the above meeting.
The parties stipulated that Jacobson submitted an affidavit, dated June 28, in a
State court proceeding about July, in which Jacobson averred, in respect to the
meeting, that he told Lippman he had heard a new plant was being set up, that
he called for the purpose of learning the type of operation to be performed and,
"we would like to organize the workers employed there and persuade them to
join our union." Lippman replied he had nothing going yet, that there was nothing
for us and suggested that they organize in another section of Brooklyn. Jacobson,
according to his affidavit, stated there was nothing more to discuss at that time and
that the Union would engage in organizational activities among the employees.
Jacobson admitted that the averments in his affidavit were made on the basis of his
best recollection at that time , but, having seen the pertinent portions thereof, he
could not definitely remember stating the matters contained therein . He further
stated that his testimony at this hearing constituted his best present recollection of
the events.
3. The picketing
Lippman said that a day or so after the meeting three pickets appeared in front
of the building carrying signs bearing the legend , "Packard Knitwear on Strike,"
and the name of the Union . These signs were carried for about 4 days when
Lippman complained to the police that there was no strike at his factory, whereupon
the legend on the sign was changed to read:
Workers of
Packard Knitwear Inc.
Join the Knitgoods Workers
Union Enjoy Better
Working Conditions
Knitgoods Workers Union
Local 155
International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union
AFL
Jacobson said he placed three pickets at the building, a couple of days after the
meeting , carrying on-strike signs. Jacobson explained these signs were used simply
because they were available. However, when he reported to Union Manager
Nelson, at the conclusion of the first day's picketing, that he had used the on-strike
sign , Nelson told him to change it to organizational picketing . Jacobson changed
the legend to read in the manner above-stated and the signs, as thus changed, have
been displayed since the second day of picketing.
Isidore Levine said he has performed picket duty at the premises , 5 days a
week, continuously from the first day, which he fixed as April 17.
It is undisputed that picketing has been continuous and was in progress at the
date of the hearing.
4. The certification of the Independent ; the agreement between the
Independent and Packard
Alex Musachio, president of the Independent, stated he worked for Packard
as a shipping clerk but quit his employment in June. In September the Independent
was formed and had about 40 employees as members . Musachio said that as of
the date of the hearing the Independent had no other members except the em-
ployees of Packard.
Lippman stated that at some undisclosed date the Company received a demand
for recognition from the Independent.
The Board's records show that the Independent filed a representation petition
with the Regional Office (2-RC-8452 ) on September 11, and on September 28,
582 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
as related by Lippman, the Company and the Independent entered into an agree-
ment for a consent election in a unit comprising all production and maintenance
employees, excluding office clericals, plant clericals, guards, watchmen, and pro-
fessional and supervisory employees as defined in the Act.3 On October 10, the
election was held and as a result thereof, the Independent was, on October 18,
certified by the Regional Director on behalf of the Board as the exclusive bargain-
ing representative, pursuant to Section 9 (a), for all the employees in the above-
stated unit.
Following the certification the Company and the Independent entered into bargain-
ing negotiations which resulted in an agreement between the parties. The agree-
ment is effective from November 8, 1956, to February 1, 1959, with the right
to reopen the same on each anniversary date for the purpose of negotiating ad-
ditional wage increases.
5. The proceedings under Section 10 (1)
Subsequent to the filing of the charge on December 3 as amended on December
6 and 17, respectively , the Regional Director , about January 15, 1957, in accordance
with the provisions of the above section, filed a petition for a preliminary injunction.
to restrain the Union from ' violating Section 8 (b) (4) (C), and on February 19,.
the court entered its opinion denying the relief requested . (Douds v. Knit Goods
Workers' Union, etc., 39 LRRM 2438 (D. C., E. N. Y.).)
B. The General Counsel's case
1. Inducement and encouragement of employees of suppliers
Lippman testified that the employees worked from 8 to 4:30, and that pickets
were, and are, usually present from about 7:45 to 5 o'clock. The pickets ordinarily
walk ,an area from the building entrance used by the employees to the driveway.
or freight entrance, a distance of some 20 feet.
Lippman stated that the Company buys trimmings and sewing threads from
Reliable Yarn and Trim Company and, ,prior to the picketing, placed sample orders
with it which were delivered to the factoryin a truck displaying Reliable's name.
He stated that on one occasion in May he observed Reliable's truck in the yard,
with 1 picket standing in front of it and 1 on each -side talking to the driver.
Lippman went into the yard where the truck was stopped and heard one of the
pickets tell the driver, "Don't you deliver any more goods here." Lippman told
the pickets they were on private property, that they should be outside the gate, and
then instructed the driver to make the delivery, which he did. Thereafter,
Reliable made its deliveries after 5 o'clock when no pickets were present.
David Odesky, driver for Reliable, said that about the middle of April, he
drove into the yard to make a delivery and as he got out of the truck one of the
pickets asked him where he was going. Odesky replied he had a delivery for
Packard, but since pickets were present he would go inside and advise the Company
of the same. , He then went into the factory and stated to some unnamed person
or persons that he would not bring up the merchandise because of the pickets. At
the Company's suggestion he placed the goods on the loading platform. . As Odesky
was leaving the yard one of the pickets told. him the factory was on strike and
that he should not. make any deliveries. Odesky said he would take it up with his
employer. He reported the incident to Reliable and thereafter he has made 1 or,
2 deliveries a month to Packard after 6 o'clock in the evening.
Lippman related the Company used Nylor Dyeing Company, of Brooklyn, for
dyeing its cloth, and before the picketing Nylor picked up and delivered the cloth
with its own truck. After the picket line. was established no pickups or deliveries
were made by Nylor, so Lippman, at his own expense, arranged for an independent
trucker to perform these services. Lippman used the independent trucker for
3 During oral argument and in response to questions by the Trial Examiner, the General
Counsel stated that the petition made no mention of any other labor organization being
interested in the employees and that the Regional Office notified the Union, by ordinary
mail, that a conference was scheduled in the matter and afforded its representatives an
opportunity to attend. The Regional Office received no reply from the Union. The fore-
going statements were not denied or questioned by counsel for the Union. Lippman said no
representatives of the Union appeared at the conference. The Union does not question
the appropriateness of the unit.
KNITGOODS WORKERS UNION 583
about 2 months when Nylor resumed pickups and deliveries, using an unmarked
station wagon.
Willie Louis Wyman, driver for Nylor, recalled driving to the loading platform
around September 12, and as he got out of his truck one of the pickets asked him
where he was going and he replied he had a delivery for Packard. The picket then
asked him not to make it because "they were trying to organize a union." When
Wyman inquired as to what he should do, the picket gave him a dime to call his
employer. Wyman called his foreman and after explaining the situation to him,
the foreman instructed him to return to the shop, which he did. Since this incident
Wyman has made occasional deliveries to Packard, perhaps twice a week, using a
station wagon, which is also used for making deliveries to other customers.
Lippman stated he also does business with Cosmopolitan Knitgoods Processing
Company, which washes and processes the knitgoods, and that the company made
pickups and deliveries with its own truck. Sometime after the picketing no pickups
were made, so Lippman called Cosmopolitan to find out the reason and he was told
by a company representative, "His men would not pass the picket line, and he
can't control them." Lippman thereupon made arrangements for an independent
trucker to make the pickups and deliveries and this arrangement was being used as
of the date of the hearing.
Edward Rockwell, driver for Cosmopolitan, testified that around the middle of
April, he had. a delivery for Packard but when he saw pickets at the building he
returned to Cosmopolitan, without unloading. Rockwell informed his employer
the reason for not making the delivery and he said, "All right, don't go in." He
has not been dispatched to Packard since that occasion. Rockwell stated the
pickets did not speak to him nor attempt to stop him from driving into the yard.
Lippman further stated he has been purchasing yarn from a firm in Gilbertville,
Massachusetts, which, prior to the picketing, made deliveries by Gilbertville
Trucking Company direct to Packard. Sometime after the establishment of the
picket line, Packard failed to receive a shipment from this firm, so Lippman tele-
phoned its Long Island City terminal to inquire of the same. Lippman was advised
the drivers would not cross the picket line and when Lippman said the factory was
not on strike, the individual answered he could not control his men. Lippman then
arranged to have this shipment, and apparently other shipments, delivered to a
different place where it was picked up by an independent trucker, or by station
wagon or private car. As of the date of the hearing the Gilbertville firm makes
deliveries directly to Packard, but under a different name.
Hochstadt said that about April 18, he saw a truck from Gilbertville parked
across the street from the driveway, that the pickets were talking to the driver and
thereafter the driver pulled into the driveway and made his delivery.
No representative or employee of the Gilbertville firm or trucking company
testified at the hearing.
2. Alleged acts of coercion
Pasquale Pazienza (through an interpreter) stated that one morning about -May
or June, he went to the factory with his brother-in-law, Cristofero Vituccio,4 and
the latter's daughter, and as they approached the building entrance two pickets
asked him where he was going. Pazienza said he was going upstairs to look for
work whereupon the pickets stated if he did so he "could undergo some trouble."
Pazienza explained to Vituccio and his daughter, neither of whom could speak
English, that he was "afraid they [the pickets] might kill them," so all of them
went home. Pazienza also said the pickets told them the factory was on strike.
Pazienza further stated that Vituccio's daughter, who was employed by Packard at
the time of the above incident, returned to work the next day and has worked
continuously since that date. Vituccio, who was looking for work at the time,
was, employed by Packard about 1 week later and was so employed as of the
date of the hearing. Pazienza made no further visits to the factory.
Frances Trowell testified she was first employed around April as a machine
operator and 2 or 3 months later was promoted to her present position of forelady.
Trowell said that 2 or 3 weeks after her employment she and her sister, also an
employee, were reporting for work one morning when she observed three pickets.
at the building entrance, one of whom remarked; "There goes one of the s- of b-
that works upstairs. She is really going to get it." Trowell identified Levine, at
the hearing, as the picket making the remark. She also stated that the pickets
say something practically every morning she passes them, but she could not overhear
the remarks, obviously because she was too far from them.
4 These names also appear in the transcript as Ponziano and Pituccio.
584 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL, LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
C. The Union's case
Jacobson, who has been in charge of the picketing at all times, testified he placed
2 pickets in front of the building entrance at 49 Wyckoff Avenue and 1 picket at an
entrance on Willoughby Avenue. He instructed the pickets they were picketing for
organizational purposes and they were to walk up and down with their signs in
front of the entrances and "they shouldn't bother anybody, let the trucks go and every-
thing." Jacobson said he visited, and still visits, the picket line every day, spending
about 15 minutes, and has always found everything peaceful. Jacobson denied that
he, or the Union, ever contacted the Teamsters Union or any suppliers of Packard
in connection with the picketing. Jacobson said the Union prepared a leaflet ad-
dressed to the Packard workers outlining some of the benefits the Union had ob-
tained for workers at other plants and attached thereto was an authorization card,
in postal-card form. The leaflets and cards, according to Jacobson's best recollec-
tion, were distributed about the last part of April by union members (not the pickets)
to everyone coming out of the building. Jacobson denied that he ever spoke to
Pazienza or Trowell.
Levine said when he agreed to perform picket duty at Packard, Jacobson instructed
him to walk up and down with the sign and that, "I should not bother nobody who
goes in and out of the building, or trucks or anybody else. I shouldn't say nothing
to nobody." Levine described the picket line as consisting of 2 or 3 pickets, with
1 or 2 stationed at the Wyckoff entrance and 1 at the Willoughby entrance of the
building. He stated that he was stationed in front of the Wyckoff entrance, which
is about 40 feet from the truck entrance, and walked back and forth a distance of
about 15 or 20 feet in either direction. Levine said he carried out Jacobson's in-
structions and denied that he, or the other pickets, ever requested truckers to refuse
to make deliveries to Packard, or told anyone the factory was on strike. He further
denied that he, or other pickets, ever threatened anyone entering or leaving the
building, or that he ever saw or spoke to Pazienza, or Vituccio or his daughter, or
that he ever spoke to Trowell or made the remarks related by her while on the wit-
ness stand. Levine stated that on 2 or 3 occasions the driver of the Gilbertville
truck asked him if he could "go up to Sapphire Knitting Mill." Levine, who was
certain that Packard was the only knitting mill in the building, replied he was "not
interested in where you are going. You can go up ." Levine said he also saw a sta-
tion wagon deliver bags marked "Nylor" to Packard. Since January 25, 1957, Levine
has kept a record of deliveries made to Packard and stated that from that date
deliveries have been made to Packard, without any interference on the part of the
pickets, by Gilbertville, Nylor, Cosmopolitan, and by other truckers and suppliers.
Concluding Findings
Although it is undisputed that representatives of Packard and the Union met on
only one occasion , the parties are in disagreement as to what transpired at the
meeting. In brief, Lippman related that Jacobson requested him "to sign up with
us," while Hochstadt , after informing Jacobson that the Company had no employees
to organize at that time, quoted Jacobson as saying , "we can work something out
anyways for the future." Jacobson denied that he, or Levinson, requested recog-
nition or that Packard sign an agreement with the Union. In fact Jacobson asserted
that they had no conversation at all with Lippman concerning the factory or the
employees for Lippman opened and closed the meeting by telling them to organize
elsewhere. However, in his affidavit, Jacobson averred that he told Lippman he
wanted to organize the employees and when advised by Lippman there were no
workers at that time, he announced there was nothing to discuss and left the factory.
A day or so later pickets appeared at the building carrying signs declaring that Pack-
ard was on strike, which legend was changed shortly thereafter to show that picketing
was for organizational purposes.
Jacobson's testimony in respect to the purpose of his visit to the factory and his
conversations with Lippman and Hochstadt is neither persuasive nor convincing,
and, to a certain extent is refuted by statements contained in his affidavit. The
Trial Examiner therefore rejects his testimony and, on the basis of the credible
testimony of Lippman, finds that Jacobson requested Packard to sign an agreement
with the Union. Certainly, his request to sign an agreement presupposes recogni-
tion as the bargaining representative of all the employees included thereunder.
Moreover, the prompt picketing by the Union when Packard refused 'to sign an
agreement clearly implies that the Union was demanding recognition, and that the
picketing, therefore, had as an object requiring the Company to recognize the Union
as the representative of its employees. (International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
KNITGOODS WORKERS UNION 585
etc., Local 41 (Union Chevrolet Company), 96 NLRB 957.) The Trial Examiner
so finds.
All of the above-noted incidents involving alleged inducement and encouragement
of employees of Packard 's suppliers by the pickets and the threats directed to Pazienza
and Trowell occurred prior to October 18, the date of the Independent 's certifica-
tion, hence evidence of this character cannot support a finding of violation of Sec-
tion 8 (b) (4) (C) of the Act, nor is there any such allegation in the complaint.
Under the circumstances it is unnecessary to resolve the conflicts apparent in the
background evidence . However, the Trial Examiner wishes to point out that the
testimony of Pazienza and Trowell is rejected even for background purposes.
Pazienza was a confused witness and the that fact that Vituccio and his daughter re-
turned to work the day following the alleged incident , or shortly thereafter, and con-
tinued in their employment without any interference , negates the idea that the pickets
uttered the threats as claimed by him. The Trial Examiner finds Trowell to be an
unreliable witness for it is highly improbable, absent some corroboration , that the
pickets would direct threats exclusively to her and completely ignore the other
employees.
The uncontradicted evidence shows that the Union maintained its picket line at
the factory both prior and subsequent to the date of the Independent 's certification,
and was so engaged as of the date of this hearing. The record also reveals that pick-
eting has been peaceful and there is no indication that any of the employees of
Packard ceased their employment as a consequence of the picketing . While Pack-
ard may have been inconvenienced in the manner of making pickups and deliveries
there is no evidence of specific acts of inducement or encouragement in the post-
certification period towards employees of suppliers.
The General Counsel argues that picketing under the circumstances herein con-
stitutes a violation of Section 8 (b) (4) (C). Counsel for the Respondent contends
that since picketing was, and is , for organizational purposes there has been no
violation of the Act, relying principally upon the decision of the Court of Appeals for
the Second Circuit in Douds v. Local 50, etc., 224 F. 2d 49, herein referred to as the
Arnold Bakers case.
In the Arnold Bakers case the union , immediately following the certification of
another labor organization , picketed the bakery with signs urging the public not to
buy its products but to buy those made by union members, and that working condi-
tions were below union standards . The picketing was without incident and without
any effect upon either the employees of Arnold or employees of trucking com-
panies doing business with Arnold. The court, in upholding the district court's
refusal to grant temporary injunctive relief under Section 10 ( 1), rejected the Gen-
eral Counsel 's theory that picketing inherently encourages workers not to work
behind a picket line and that it must be presumed the union intended such conse-
quences as a result of its actions . The court further held that since none of Arnold's
employees refused to cross the picket line , it might be presumed that the union did
not intend to influence these employees to cease work. Although both courts ex-
pressed skepticism as to whether the professed object of the picketing after certifi-
cation , information to the public, was the real purpose , the circuit court was of the
opinion that the picketing was not violative of Section 8 (b) (4) (C).
Subsequently , the Board in its determination of the case, in a carefully considered
opinion (115 NLRB 1333), found that the picketing was not protected under Section
8 (c), and , following the established principle that the traditional union picket line
before employee entrances constitutes inducement and encouragement of employees
who must work behind the picket line, further found that the Union's picketing con-
stituted , as was intended , inducement and encouragement of Arnold's employees to
concertedly refuse to perform employment for their employer with an object of
forcing or requiring Arnold to recognize or bargain with it as the representative of
its employees at a time when another labor organization had been certified as the ex-
clusive bargaining agent, in violation of Section 8 (b) (4) (C).5 The Board
reaffirmed these principles in Local 25 Bakery and Confectionery Workers, etc.
(King's Bakery, Inc.), 116 NLRB 290 . The Trial Examiner is obliged to apply con-
trolling Board precedents,6 even though they may be at variance with the opinion of
the Court of Appeals.
8 The Board's order in this case is presently before the circuit court on petition for en-
forcement , N. L. R. B. v. Local 50, etc. , the matter having been argued on February 15, 1957.
6 See Coca-Cola Bottling Company of St. Louis, 116 NLRB 923 ; Meat & Provision Drivers
Local No. 626 , etc. (Lewis Food Company ), 115 NLRB 890 ; Bonnaz, etc ., Local 66
(Gemsco, Inc.), 111 NLRB 82; Brewery and Beverage Drivers , etc., Local No. 67 (Wash-
ington Coca Cola Bottling Works ), 107 NLRB 299.
,586 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Having found that an object of the Union's initial picketing, and throughout the
precertification period, was to force or require Packard to recognize it as the bar-
gaining agent of its employees, the Trial Examiner further finds that there is no
evidence in the record to indicate that the Union altered.or changed this objective
in the postcertification period. Of course, it is immaterial whether or not the
picketing, resulted in successful inducement and encouragement of Packard's em-
ployees or those of other employers. Further, the fact that the legend on the picket
signs characterized the picketing as organizational is not controlling in determining
objective,7 but, even assuming employee organization was also an object of the
picketing, that fact would afford no impunity to the Union for Section 8 (b) (4)
speaks of "an" rather than "the" object and the existence of an unlawful object of
the picketing has already been found.
In view of the decisions of the Board in the Arnold Bakers and King's Bakery
cases, on facts and issues substantially the same as those presented here, the Trial
Examiner concludes and finds that the Union by picketing, in the manner and for
an objective found herein, thereby engaged in, and is engaging in, conduct in violation
of Section 8 (b) (4) (C) of the Act.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent set forth, in section III, above, occurring in
connection with the operations of Packard Knitwear, Inc., described in section I,
above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and com-
merce 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 the Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor practices;
it is recommended that it be ordered to cease and desist therefrom and that it take
certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record in
the case, the Trial Examiner makes the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Knitgoods Workers Union, Local 155, International Ladies' Garment Workers'
Union, AFL-CIO, and Novelty Knitwear Workers Union (unaffiliated) are labor
organizations within the meaning of the Act.
2. On and since October 18, 1956, Novelty Knitwear Workers Union (un-
affiliated), has been the exclusive bargaining representative; certified by the Board,
of the employees of Packard Knitwear, Inc., in an appropriate unit, in accordance
with the provisions of Section 9 of the Act.
3. Since October 18, 1956, the Respondent has induced and encouraged em-
ployees of Packard and other employers to engage in a strike or a concerted refusal
in the course of their employment to perform services for their employer, an object
thereof being to require Packard to recognize or bargain with the Respondent as
the representative of employees of Packard notwithstanding that Novelty Knitwear
Workers Union has been certified as the representative of such employees under
the provisions of Section 9 of. the Act. By, such, conduct the Respondent, engaged
in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (b) (4) (C) 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.
[Recommendations omitted from publication.]
7 Local Union .No. 55, etc. (Professional and Business Men's Life Insurance Company),
108 NLRB 363, 370.
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL MEMBERS OF KNITGOODS WORKERS UNION, LOCAL 155,
INTERNATIONAL LADIES' GARMENT WORKERS' UNION, AFL-CIO
Pursuant to. the recommendations of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor
Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the Labor Management
Relations Act,.we hereby, notify you that:
During the effective period of the certification of representatives of employees
of Packard Knitwear, Inc., issued by the Regional Director for the National
LLOYD A. FRY ROOFING COMPANY - . 587
Labor Relations Board in Case No . 2-RC-8452, or any other certification. by
the Board of a bargaining representative other than the undersigned labor
organization , we will not engage in, or induce or encourage the employees of
Packard Knitwear , Inc., or of any other employer , to engage in, a strike or
concerted refusal in the course of their employment to use, manufacture,
process, transport , or otherwise handle or work on, any goods , articles, ma-
terials, or commodities , or to perform any services , where an object thereof
is to force or require Packard Knitwear , Inc., to recognize or bargain with
the undersigned Union in the collective -bargaining unit of employees covered
by such certification.
KNITGOODS WORKERS UNION, LOCAL 155, INTER-
NATIONAL LADIES' GARMENT WORKERS' UNION,
AFL-CIO,
Labor Organization.
Dated------------------- By----------------------- -------------------
(Representative ) ( Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date hereof, and
must not be altered , defaced, or covered by any other material.
Lloyd A . Fry Roofing Company and International Brotherhood
of Papermakers, AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case No. 39-RC-1085.
July 10,1957
ORDER AMENDING CERTIFICATION
OF REPRESENTATIVES
Pursuant to a Board Decision and Direction of Election I an election
was held among the Employer 's production and maintenance em-
ployees on December 12, 1956. Thereafter on February 7, 1957, the
International Brotherhood of Papermakers , AFL-CIO, herein called
IBPM , having received a majority of the valid votes cast in the
election was certified as the exclusive representative of the above
employees?
Thereafter, on March 18, 1957, the United Papermakers and Paper-
workers, AFL-CIO, herein called UPP, successor to the IBPM and
United Paperworkers of America , AFL-CIO, herein called UPA,
filed a motion with the Board requesting that the aforementioned
certification be amended by substituting the name of the UPP in place
and in stead of the IBPM . The Employer opposes the motion to
amend the certification, in substance , on the grounds that: (1) The
Board is without authority to amend the certification ; ( 2) the em-
ployees have a right to select their own representative ; ( 3) the UPP
is a new and different labor organization than the IBPM selected by
' Case No . 39-RC-1085 , not reported In the printed volumes of the Board 's Decisions
and Orders.
2 Following the election the Employer filed objections to the conduct affecting the results
of the election . The Regional Director investigated the objections and on January 17, 1957,
filed his report recommending that the objections be overruled. As no exceptions to the
Regional Director 's report were filed, the Regional Director 's report was adopted, and the
.objections were overruled.
118 NLRB No. 69.