Knitgoods Workers' Union Local 155

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 13, 1967

167 N.L.R.B. 763 (N.L.R.B. 1967)

KNITGOODS WORKERS ' UNION LOCAL 155 763
Knitgoods Workers' Union Local 155, International
Ladies Garment Workers Union, AFL-CIO and
Boulevard Knitwear Corp. Case 29-CP-65
October 13, 1967
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS BROWN , JENKINS , AND ZAGORIA
Union , AFL-CIO, herein called the Union, or the
Respondent . The initial charge was filed on January 18,
1967, and the complaint was issued on February 8, 1967.
The issue presented is whether the Union has violated,
and is now violating Section 8(b)(7)(B ) of the National
Labor Relations Act , as amended . Briefs were filed after
the close of the hearing by the General Counsel and by
the Respondent.
Upon the entire record in the case, and from my obser-
vation of the witnesses , I make the following:
On June 2, 1967, Trial Examiner Thomas A.
Ricci issued his Decision in the above-entitled
proceeding, finding that the Respondent had en-
gaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 8(b)(7)(B)
of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended,
and recommending that it cease and desist
therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set
forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Decision.
Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to the
Decision and a supporting brief, and the General
Counsel and the Employer filed answering briefs.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its
powers in connection with this case to a three-
member panel.
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 Examiner's Decision, the exceptions and
briefs, and the entire record in the case, and hereby
adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommenda-
tions of the Trial Examiner.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended , the National Labor
Relations Board adopts as its Order the Recom-
mended Order of the Trial Examiner and hereby or-
ders that the Respondent , Knitgoods Workers'
Union Local 155, International Ladies Garment
Workers Union , AFL-CIO, its officers, agents, and
representatives , shall take the action set forth in the
Trial Examiner ' s Recommended Order as herein
modified:
Substitute the words "on forms provided" for the
words "to be furnished" in paragraph 2(a) of the
Trial Examiner 's Recommended Order.
TRIAL EXAMINER 'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
THOMAS A. Ricci, Trial Examiner: A hearing in the
above-entitled proceeding was held before me on April 4
and 5, 1967, at Brooklyn, New York, on complaint of the
General Counsel against Knitgoods Workers' Union
Local 155, International Ladies Garment Workers
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY
Boulevard Knitwear Corp., herein called the Company,
or the Charging Party, is a New York corporation en-
gaged as a contractor in the manufacture, sale, and dis-
tribution of ladies' knit goods, sweaters, and related
products, and has its principal office and place of business
in Long Island City, New York. During its last fiscal
year, a representative period, the Company manufac-
tured, sold, and distributed products valued in excess of
$500,000, of which products valued in excess of $50,000
were shipped from its place of business in interstate com-
merce directly to States other than New York. I find that
the Company is engaged in commerce within the meaning
of the Act and that it will effectuate the policies of the Act
to exercise jurisdiction herein.
H. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Knitgoods Workers' Union Local 155, International
Ladies Garment Workers Union , AFL-CIO, is a labor
organization within the meaning of Section 2(11) of the
Act.
IIi. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
Boulevard Knitwear Corp., recently employing ap-
proximately 35 production workers, has operated for up-
wards of 10 years as a nonunion shop. It does not own the
materials, primarily yarn, used in the factory, but weaves
knit goods and then produces garments as a contractor for
various manufacturers. In the few years before the events
of late 1966, between 90 and 100 percent of its work was
performed for two companies, Bobbie Brooks and Russ
Toggs.
For at least the last 5 years Local 155 of the ILGWU,
the Respondent here, has carried on an organizational
campaign to bring this Company's employees into mem-
bership and to obtain a contract with Boulevard, always
without success. The last such effort started on October
10, 1966, when Lewis Nelson, manager-secretary of
Local 155 and a vice president of the ILGWU,
authorized an organizational picket line in front of the
Company's premises. I That day Arthur Jacobson, head
organizer of Local 155, asked the Company to sign a con-
' The October 10 date is established by the corroborative testimony of
Samuel Epstein and Aaron Rubinstein, owners of the Company, and
Anna Saldieven and Catherine Schwinn, two employees Norman Lewis,
a union organizer who appeared at the site on the day of the initial picket-
ing, recalled it as having occurred on October 17, he did not have his per-
sonal notes, on which he said he relied To the owners and the employees
this was an extraordinary event, which they were not likely to forget, to
Lewis it was only another incident of its kind in the work he regularly per-
forms His recollection of the exact date is therefore more likely to fail in
a minor detail
167 NLRB No. 109
764 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
tract, adding that if the Company did so , "the girls would
go along " The Company refused; a week later he was
back and now threatened to have Boulevard's work
supply cut off if it persisted in its refusal. The picketing
continued and in November the Union did cause Bobbie
Brooks, the 'only jobber for whom the Company was then
working, to remove all its materials and products from the
shop, some of it only partially processed. Virtually all the
employees were released in consequence by the end of
that month.
While this was going on, the Company filed a petition
with the Board for an election (Case 29-RM-132), on
November 16 the Union filed with the Board' s Regional
Office a written disclaimer of representatives, the Re-
gional Director ignored it and directed an expedited elec-
tion for December 2, 1966. At the election, held that day,
the vote was 26 to 0 against union representation. The
Regional Director formally advised the Union of the
results on December 12.
The picketing continued uninterruptedly without
change through December 19. It was then discontinued
temporarily and resumed on December 27, with a change
in the sign carried by the two pickets. The picketing was
still going on at the time of the hearing in April.
The complaint alleges that the Union's conduct in
picketing the premises between December 12 and 19,
1966, constituted a violation of Section 8(b)(7)(B) of the
Act, in that its purpose was to prevail upon the employees
to join the Union and upon the Company to sign a con-
tract, notwithstanding the fact the employees had voted,
within the immediately preceding 12-month period,
against representation by this Union in a regularly con-
ducted"Board election. It also alleges that the picketing
which started on December 27, and is going on today, al-
beit with changed legend on the picket signs, still has as
its immediate objective compulsion upon the employees
to join Local 155 and upon the Company to sign a con-
tract, all a continuing violation of the same section of the
Act.
The Union does not concede that the purpose of its
picketing ever was organization or recognition. Indeed,
certain of its correspondence, received in evidence
shows that it denied, even before the December 2 elec-
tion, that it was seeking either of these objectives. It also
defends on the ground that, whatever may have been true
of its initial picketing which ended on December 19, it
has not been proved that the later picketing, beginning on
December 27, was for a proscribed purpose.
A Violation of the Statute from December 12 to 19,
1966
There are two elements of oral testimony in this case
which call for credibility resolutions. The first involves
the version given by Norman Lewis, union organizer, of
what Arthur Jacobson, his superior, said to the owners of
the Company when the two union agents first visited the
office as a related aspect of the picketing on October 10.
The second concerns the conclusionary statement of
Louis Nelson, who as manager-secretary of Local 155
determines policy for that Union in matters of this kind,
that from Decembe 27 on he had no intention of per-
suading. the employees to join the Union, or of obtaining
a contract from this Company. There is a relationship
between the two credibility questions, because these men
both said Nelson told the organizers what to do.
On the morning of October 10, the Union placed two
pickets at the entrance to the Company's premises; these
were Vincent Laviano and Jules Blutstem. The two men
picketed every workday from October 10 to December
19. Each carried a sign reading:
BOULEVARD KNITWEAR CORP.
UNFAIR TO ORGANIZED LABOR
KNITGOODS WORKERS UNION LOCAL 155
AFFILIATED WITH THE
INTERNATIONAL LADIES GARMENT
WORKERS UNION AFL-CIO
As the employees arrived for work, Jacobson and
Lewis distributed union authorization cards in favor of
Local 155; Lewis said he gave out 30 of them to the em-
ployees The union agents simultaneously placed in the
hands of the employees a leaflet explaining the benefits in
working conditions to be gained by joining the Union, and
urging them to sign and mail in the authorization cards.
Soon after starting time, Jacobson and Lewis appeared in
the office of Epstein, the Company's secretary-treasurer,
and Rubinstein, its president. According to Epstein,
Jacobson started by saying: ". . . there was a rumor going
around that we are paying the union off and what is it all
about?" The owners denied any such thing, and Jacobson
then said: "Why don't you join the Union." When Ep-
stein refused on the ground the employees did not wish it,
the agent added he was "sure that if I did sign up that the
girls would go along with it." As Rubinstein recalls,
Jacobson ". . . said that a rumor had been going on in the
industry that we were paying them off to stay away from
us and that his boss was very upset about this." Rubin-
stein also denied paying anyone, and even said he would
sign a statement to that effect if Jacobson so wished. Ru-
binstein, too, testified Jacobson then said "we'd have to
join his union," and "he'd get back to us a few days later."
Jacobson did not appear at the hearing, the following
further testimony of the two company officers is therefore
uncontradicted. Epstein said that Jacobson returned to
the office about a week later, this time alone, wanting to
know what the Company had decided. Told that the
answer was still no, he said: " . . if we didn't join the
union, he would have Bobbie Brooks pull out all the work
from the place, whether it was finished or not ... if we
did join up he would have Bobbie Brooks pay the health
and welfare fund." Epstein responded the damage had al-
ready been done to his business, that he had already
spoken to Bobbie Brooks and was told that Company
would not pay a health and welfare contribution on behalf
of the contractor. At one point Jacobson suggested the
Company work a night shift in order to have enough
money for the welfare payment to the Union; Epstein
said a night shift was not workable in his shop. Faced
with persisted refusal, Jacobson finally said "he would
make sure we don't get any more work from them
[Brooks]." Rubinstein's testimony essentially cor-
roborated that of his partner.
For the Respondent the following is the total
testimony, given by Lewis, concerning the October 10
visit by the two union agents. ". . . Mr. Jacobson
presented a card to Mr. Epstein and he said, `I understand
that you say you are paying off a union official,' and Mr
Epstein replied- he said, `I did say that and I did pay off
a union official , but it is none of you fellows ,' meaning
that it is no union official from Local 155, and he said, `I
would be willing to put that in writing.'. . . After that was
KNITGOODS WORKERS' UNION LOCAL 155 765
settled, he said he didn't pay any of our union officers or
officials, we turned around and went out of the premises
of Boulevard .... That was the entire sum of the conver-
sation."
I credit Epstein and Rubinstein. That the purpose of
the two organizers that day was to obtain signed cards
from the employees and to speak for them with their em-
ployer stands admitted by Lewis' own testimony that he
distributed cards towards that very end. If their talk with
the owners was in truth limited to mere inquiry as to
payoff, with the partners clearing the representatives of
Local 155 and expressing willingness to sign an indict-
ment of wrongdoing by organizers of some other labor or-
ganization , surely Jacobson and Lewis would have ac-
cepted the statement then and there, or at least have
asked Epstein or Rubinstein to give something written.
Instead, they just walked away. Nor is Lewis' story
strengthened by the testimony of Louis Nelson, the top
official of Local 155, who was offered as the principal
witness for the Respondent. He said the entire activity
was prompted by a rumor - brought to his office by a few
employees of Boulevard who refused to divulge their
names to him - that this employer was paying off officers
of Local 155 in order to run a nonunion shop. Nelson ad-
mitted at the hearing that Jacobson and Lewis were the
only two persons associated with this Union who could
conceivably have accepted such bribes. His reaction to
the rumor , as Nelson continued to testify , was to send
Jacobson to the Company ". . . and ask the firm if they
are honorable enough to state whether they did pay him
or anyone of our officers." In his "investigation" of the
rumor, Nelson had already asked Jacobson was it true,
and I must assume Jacobson had already protested his in-
nocence. Did Nelson really believe Jacobson's answer
might change after asking Epstein and Rubinstein, in
private conversation, whether they had made a payoff to
Jacobson? In deference to his years, and his position as
ILGWU vice president, I will say Nelson was pulling my
leg at the hearing. It will also be noted that when a secret
election was held by the Board 2 months later, 26 em-
ployees cast ballots, and all voted against the Union, in-
cluding, apparently, the 2 or 3 who are said to have com-
plained to Nelson about the nonunion shop.
I find that Jacobson asked the Company to sign a con-
tract with Local 155 and threatened to cut off its supply
of work unless it agreed to do so, regardless of the desires
of the employees. Bobbie Brooks, which for 9 years had
been a major supplier of work for this shop, took every
stitch out in November, hastily, even taking care that un-
finished work could be seen in open boxes by the pickets
on the sidewalk. Russ Toggs, the other principal jobber,
did likewise. All the employees were sent home. Jacob-
son's threat was carried out.
In view of the sequence of events , Epstein 's testimony
- that Sam Waterchek and Stan Shofeld, Bobbie Brooks'
production managers, told him they were taking all work
away because "the Union is putting pressure on them" -
suffices to prove, and I find, that the Respondent in fact
caused the complete shutdown of Boulevard 's business
in November.
With the Company' s charge against the Union (Case
29-CP-53) and petition (Case 29-RM-132) pending in
November, and the Regional Director planning to hold
the usual appropriate election, the Union sent a letter to
the Board in an effort to avoid any election. The letter,
dated November 16, reads in part:
With regard to the above captioned proceedings,
please be advised that our client informs us that the
picketing referred to therein has neither a recogni-
tional nor an organizational object, as those terms are
more fully defined in Section 8(b)(7) of the Act.
This statement belied the facts as shown on this record,
and was false. I find, as alleged in the complaint, that the
purpose of the Respondent's picketing of the premises
was to organize the employees into membership and to
force recognition from the Company. There is no indica-
tion of any change of purpose between October 10, when
the picketing started, and December 19, when it was tem-
porarily discontinued. It follows, and I find, that by
picketing the Company's location from December 12 to
19, 1966, the Respondent violated Section 8(b)(7)(B) of
the Act.
B. The Current Picketing
On December 27, 1966, the same two pickets - Lavi-
ano and Blutstein - appeared again at the factory en-
trance, now with the picket signs reading:
Employment conditions of Boulevard Knitwear Cor-
poration are below union conditions in this area.
Knitgoods Workers Union Local 155, affiliated with
International Ladies Garment Workers Union,
AFL-CIO.
They picketed every working day. Laviano is still there;
Blutstein ceased picketing sometime in May.
As stated above, the General Counsel contends that
the true objective of this picketing is still organization and
recognition, as it always was, and therefore a continuing
violation of the Act because a valid election has resulted
adversely to the Union within the past 12 months. There
is no evidentiary basis for holding, nor is it claimed that
the December 2, 1966, election was anything but per-
fectly valid within the meaning of the statute.
In defense, the Union requests that the legality of this
picketing be appraised in the light only of the legend on
the picket signs, and of a letter Nelson had his lawyers
send to the Board's Regional Office on December 20,
1966, with a copy going to the Company. The letter reads
as follows:
In view of the fact that you apparently were of the
opinion that the prior picketing had an objective
proscribed by Section 8(b)(7) of the Act despite the
denial of any such objective as set forth in our letter
to you of November 16, 1966, the picketing of Bou-
levard's premises has been halted as of December
20, 1966, and will not be resumed until December
27, 1966. The intent of this suspension of picketing
is to disassociate the resumed picketing from the
prior picketing in order to avoid any misunderstand-
ing as to the object of the picketing when resumed,
and to make it clear that there is no basis for carrying
forward your impression as to the purpose of the
prior picketing. The Union will picket solely to give
publicity to the fact that the employment conditions
of Boulevard's employees are below union condi-
tions in the area, and the picketing will not have as an
object to force or require an employer to recognize
or bargain with the Union or to force or require em-
ployees to accept or select the Union as their collec-
tive bargaining representatives. The wording on the
picket signs will be appropriate to the Union's
publicity purpose.
In the framework of the total picture of this case, Nel-
766 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
son's letter appears purely as a self-serving denial of il-
legal motivation - in advance of the deed - very much like
a blanket negative answer to a formal complaint after the
event. Nelson did not withdraw from the Boulevard com-
pany his earlier threat of "No ILGWU contract- No
work." At the moment the Company lay prostrate, for the
threat had been carried out fully. Epstein and Rubinstein
had been well taught what Local 155 pickets mean in
front of their establishment. It is true, as counsel for the
Union argues in his brief , that any respondent in a Board
proceeding - be it employer or labor organization - may
mend its ways, and there can be no presumption of illegal
purpose merely because at an earlier period, when a like
purpose was not unlawful, it did exist. In this instance, of
course, the argument does not fit precisely, for the Union
had already been picketing - from December 12 through
19 - in violation of the statute for the very reason that the
now proscribed objective persisted . A critical element in
support of the complaint here is that Nelson was not a
credible witness at the hearing. His explanation of why he
sent Jacobson to the Company in the first instance cannot
be believed . He did not hesitate to write falsely concern-
ing the object of the picketing when attempting to
forestall the expedited election on December 2. His letter
of December 20 again repeated the same untruthful deni-
al of recognition as the initial objective . And when on
cross-examination , Nelson expanded on what changes in
working conditions in the shop would cause him to
remove the pickets, he was careful to avoid the most criti-
cal item which Jacobson attempted to sell Epstein and his
partner in October. This was the 7-1/2 percent of payroll
payments to be made directly to the Union, necessarily
supported by collective -bargaining agreements, for wel-
fare and pension benefits. Jacobson told Epstein to run a
night shift , if he had to , because welfare payments to the
Union are an inseparable part of union conditions. It did
not cease being one of the "union conditions" which, ac-
cording to the new legend appearing on the picket sign
after December 27, were below the area standards in this
shop . And again , the Company was not told this "working
condition" was not a requirement for removal of the
pickets.
There is more in the record requiring a finding that the
original objective of organization and recognition was not
abandoned after December 27. In January 1967 the
Company recalled three or four women to work part time
making samples. Three of them testified that on a number
of occasions Laviano , the picket who started the picket-
ing and never ceased, accosted them as they were leaving
work and urged them to join the Union , adding that the
picketing would never cease until Boulevard signed up
with Local 155. Thus employee Anna Saldieveri: "We
left the place and walked down. And the old gentleman
stopped us and he said , `Why don 't you join the Union?'
He started to tell me about the pension that he gets. `You
will get $60 a month pension when you get old, and
benefits and the union is good .' And he also said it was his
fault that he had to walk- it was our fault that he had to
walk there . If it wasn 't for us, he wouldn 't be there picket-
ing. And he was going to picket there until we decided to
join the union.... He told us of a place that they picketed
for nine years and then they moved out to Jersey, and
when they did come back , they were forced to sign with
the union . So he said eventually you will have to be union,
too."
Catherine Schwinn: "And as we came out of the door
one of the pickets were there and he was sneezing and
blowing his nose and he said to us , ` It is because of youse
girls that I 'm sick with a cold because youse won't join
the union .' And he say, `All America is unionized . I don't
know what 's the matter with youse girls .' So he says if-
'We will be here a long time until you join up .' He says,
`We have picketed a place for nine - for nine , a place, and
then they moved away- for nine years and then they
moved away to Jersey, and when they came back, we
took them over anyway.' . . . Yes, that he gets $60 a
month pension and he gets his eyeglasses and he gets this
from the union , and different things. They union is good,
he said."
Rose Calamia: "... he says, if I would join the union
I would get so much more out of them and I would get
$60 a month when I am 65 and he says to me he retired at,
65 and so far he is 81 years old and he has been getting
$60 a month.... He did say he doesn 't see why we do
not join because all America has joined a union."
Laviano is a very talkative old man. He testified he
never opened the subject of the Union with any of the em-
ployees, that it was always they who teased him and
asked why he favored the Union so, that he even sought
to avoid them at times. He did admit saying he received
many benefits, including a $60-per-month pension and
free eyeglasses. At the hearing Laviano could not be
restrained from explaining why he felt very loyal to Local
155. He said he has worked as a picket for Jacobson for
over 15 years, that he feels greatly obligated to Jacobson
for his influence in having Laviano 's two soldier sons
brought back from Korea during the war there so they
could visit the father on what was then thought to be his
deathbed.
I believe the employees . Their testimony was cor-
roborated by John Shields , an elevator operator who does
not work for Boulevard and whose freight elevator opens
on the sidewalk next to the shop entrance , where he
sometimes stands and waits. He said he once heard Lavi-
ano approach the departing employees and "He told them
to join the union and they get more money in a pension
and their operators would get more money, or something
like that."
What instructions Laviano's friend and boss, Jacobson,
gave him do not appear , for the chief organizer , although
sufficiently recovered from his November illness to
return to his office, did not testify. The Union cannot dis-
associate itself from the activities of this picket. He was
present while Jacobson and Lewis distributed the union
cards on the sidewalk on October 10, and heard them try
to talk the employees into joining. Laviano 's apparent in-
ability to restrain his enthusiasm for the Union which
once befriended him and even now helps sustain him, sug-
gests he may have spoken as he did to the employees
quite apart from anything his superiors instructed him to
do, or not to do. It is equally likely, however, and for the
same reason , that Jacobson well knew what the picket's
penchant is, and therefore could , and did intend to rely on
him to continue the solicitation to membership even ab-
sent specific restrictions. The picket speaks for the Union
in a case like this.
In any event , "An unlawful objective in picketing is
rarely proved by admission, but, rather , must be ascer-
tained from Respondent's overall conduct , which would
include the past relations between the parties as well as
the context in which the picketing occurred ."2 And the
2 International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 953,
AFL-CIO (Erickson Electric Company), 154 NLRB 1301
KNITGOODS WORKERS ' UNION LOCAL 155 767
Board does not "regard self-serving legends on picket
signs as conclusive evidence of the real objective of the
picketing." In the light of the evidence on the record in its
totality , I conclude that the Union 's purpose was, even
after the resumed picketing of December 27, and still is
today, recognition by the Company and execution of a
collective -bargaing agreement . This has long been the ad-
mitted object for many years , as organizational cam-
paigns were carried on annually . This was the object be-
fore the election and through December 19, with the
picket signs remaining unchanged . Nelson 's bland denial
of illegal intent , in his letter of December 20, is no more
credible than his clearly false letter of November 16. Sig-
nificantly , the postelection letter did not withdraw the
persistent demand for a contract from Boulevard. It was
Nelson who reworded the picket 's legends , he is no more
credible now . And the picket not only continued to tell
the employees they had to join the Union , but even re-
peated the threat that the Company would be put out of
business unless it yielded. I find that the Respondent at
no time before or after the election abandoned its original
object of recognition and a contract ; that its disclaimer to
the Regional Director of the existence of such an object
was a sham ; that the election conducted by the Regional
Director on December 2, 1966, was a valid one under
Section 9(c) of the Act; and that its postelection picketing
within 12 months of said election was, and is, in
furtherance of its aforesaid original (and continuing) ob-
jective , and, as such , violative of Section 8 (b)(7)(B) of the
Act.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON
COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent set forth above, oc-
curring in connection with the operations of Boulevard
Knitwear Corp., 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 the Respondent engaged in certain
unfair labor practices, I shall recommend that it be or-
dered to cease and desist therefrom and take certain affir-
mative action designed to remedy and remove the effects
of the unfair labor practices and to effectuate the pur-
poses of the Act.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Boulevard Knitwear Corp., is an employer engaged
in commerce within the meaning of Section 2 of the Act.
2. Respondent is a labor organization within the mean-
ing of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3 By picketing Boulevard Knitwear Corp ., between
December 12 and 19 , 1966, and from December 27,
1966, up to and including the present, with an object of
forcing and requiring Boulevard to recognize and bargain
with the Respondent as the collective-bargaining
representative of Boulevard's employees, or forcing or
requiring Boulevard's employees to accept and select the
Respondent as their collective-bargaining representa-
tive, although the Respondent was not currently certified
as such representative, and a valid election under Section
9(c) of the Act having been held within the preceding 12
months, the Respondent engaged in and is engaging in un-
fair labor practices within the meaning of Section
8(b)(7)(B) of the Act.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor
practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Sec-
tion 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and
conclusions of law and the entire record in the case, it is
recommended that Respondent, Knitgoods Workers'
Union Local 155, International Ladies Garment Workers
Union, AFL-CIO, its officers, agents, and representa-
tives, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Picketing, or causing to be picketed, for a period of
1 year from April 6, 1967,3 Boulevard Knitwear Corp.,
Long Island City, New York, an object thereof being to
force or require Boulevard Knitwear Corp. to recognize
or bargain collectively with the Respondent, or to force
or require the employees of Boulevard to accept or select
the Respondent as their collective-bargaining representa-
tive.
(b) Picketing, or causing to be picketed, Boulevard
Knitwear Corp., for any of the above-mentioned objects,
where within the preceding 12 months a valid election
under Sction 9(c) of the Act has been conducted which
the Respondent did not win.
2. Take the following affirmative action which I find
will effectuate the purposes of the Act:
(a) Post at the Respondent's business offices and
meeting halls, copies of the attached notice marked
"Appendix."4 Copies of said notice, to be furnished by
the Regional Director for Region 29, after being duly
signed by the Union's representative, shall be posted by
the Union immediately upon receipt thereof, and be main-
tained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in con-
spicuous places, including all places where notices to
members are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall
be taken by the Union to insure that said notices are not
altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
(b) Mail to the Regional Director for Region 29,
signed copies of the aforementioned notice for posting by
Boulevard Knitwear Corp., if it is willing, in places where
notices to employees are customarily posted. Copies of
said notice to be furnished by the aforesaid Regional
Director, shall, after being signed by the Union as in-
dicated, be returned forthwith to the Regional Director
for disposition.
S The record indicates that the Respondent was picketing Boulevard on
April 6, 1967, the close of the hearing To effectuate the policies of the
Act, the 1-year ban against the picketing shall run for I year from the day
when the illegal picketing was, or will be discontinued If in fact such
picketing continued after April 6, 1967, the order recommended herein
shall be amended on motion so as to require the Respondent to cease and
desist from picketing for a period of I year from the date of the actual
cessation of such picketing
" In the event that this Recommended Order is 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 is enforced by a decree of a United States
Court of Appeals, the words "a Decree of the United States Court of Ap-
peals Enforcing an Order" shall be substituted for the words " a Decision
and Order "
768 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
(c) Notify said Regional Director, in writing, within 20
days from the receipt of this Decision, what steps have
been taken to comply herewith.5
5 In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board,
this provision shall be modified to read "Notify the Regional Director for
Region 29, in writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order, what
steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith "
APPENDIX
NOTICE To ALL MEMBERS OF KNITGOODS WORKERS'
UNION LOCAL 155, INTERNATIONAL LADIES GAR-
MENT WORKERS UNION, AFL-CIO, AND To ALL
EMPLOYEES OF BOULEVARD KNITWEAR CORP.
Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial Ex-
aminer of the National Labor Relations Board and in
order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, we hereby notify you that:
WE WILL NOT, for a period of 1 year from April 6,
1967, picket or cause to be picketed, Boulevard
Knitwear Corp., Long Island City, New York,
wherein an object thereof is to force or require Bou-
levard Knitwear Corp. to recognize or bargain col-
lectively with us, or its employees to accept or select
us as their collective-bargaining representative.
WE WILL NOT picket, or cause to be picketed, Bou-
levard Knitwear Corp , Long Island City, New
York, wherein an object thereof is to force or require
Boulevard Knitwear Corp. to recognize or bargain
collectively with us, or to force or require its em-
ployees to accept or select us as their collective-bar-
gaining representative, where a valid election, which
we did not win, has been conducted by the National
Labor Relations Board among the employees of Bou-
levard Knitwear Corp. within the preceding 12
months.
KNITGOODS WORKERS'
UNION LOCAL 155 , INTER-
NATIONAL LADIES GAR-
MENT WORKERS UNION,
AFL-CIO
(Labor Organization)
Dated By
(Representative) (Title)
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.
If members or employees have any question concern-
ing this notice or compliance with its provisions, they
may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Of-
fice, 4th Floor, 16 Court Street, Brooklyn, New York
1120 1, Telephone 596-3535.