M. Lowenstein & Sons, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 26, 1938

6 N.L.R.B. 216 (N.L.R.B. 1938)

In the Matter of M. LOWENSTEIN & SONS, INC. and BOOKKEEPERS',
STENOGRAPHERS ' AND ACCOUNTANTS ' UNION, LOCAL No. 16, UNITED
OFFICE AND PROFESSIONAL WORKERS OF AMERICA, C. I. O.
In the Matter of M. LOWENSTEIN & SONS, INC. and TEXTILE WORKERS'
ORGANIZING COAMMITTEE LOCAL No. 65, C. I. O.
In the Matter of M. LOWENSTEIN & SONS, INC. and UNITED WHOLESALE
EMPLOYEES OF N. Y.
Cases Nos . C-357, C-358, R-524 and R-525.-Decided March 26, 1938
Textile Converting Industry-Interference, Restraint, or Coercion: anti-union
statements; questioning employees regarding union affiliation-Company-Dom-
inated Union: domination of and interference with administration of, and support
to; use of company property ; activity during working hours, disestablished as
agency for collective bargaining-Collective Bargatining: no proof of majority;
charges dismissed-Investigation of Representatives: controversy concerning
representation of employees: substantial doubt as to majority status; refusal
by employer to recognize representatives-Units Appropriate for Collective Bar-
gaining: separate units for office and warehouse; supervisory employees and
private secretaries to executives excluded-Election Ordered: company-dominated
union excluded from ballot.
Mr. John T. McCann, for the Board.
Mr. Benjamin C. Ribman and Mr. William B. Aberson, of New
York City, for the respondent.
Mr. Sidney E. Cohn, Miss Vera Boudin, and Miss Norma Aronson,
of New York City, for the B. S. & A. U.
Mr. Douglass Newman and Mr. David Cohen, of New York City, for
the Employees' Group.
Mr. Joseph B. Robison, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
ORDER
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
On July 9, 1937, Bookkeepers', Stenographers' and Accountants'
Union, Local No. 16, United Office and Professional Workers of
America, C. I. 0., herein called the B. S. & A. U., filed a charge
with the Regional Director for the Second Region (New York
City) alleging that M. Lowenstein & Sons, Inc., New York City,
216
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 217
herein called the respondent, 'had engaged in and was engaging in
unfair labor practices affecting commerce, within the meaning of
the National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein 'called the
Act.. On July 13, 1937, a similar charge, and on August 3, 1937,
an amended charge, were filed with the Regional Director by Textile
Workers' Organizing Committee, Local 'No. 65, C. I. 0., herein
called T. W. O. C. On August 17, 1937, the National Labor Rela-
tions Board, herein called the Board, by the ' Regional Director, is,
sued complaints and notices of hearing in the two cases. Each com-
plaint alleged that the respondent had engaged in' and was engaging
in unfair labor practices affecting commerce, within the meaning of
Section 8 (1), (2), and (5) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
One of the complaints deals with activities of the respondent at its
Leonard Street office; and the other with activities at its warehouse.
Copies of the first of these complaints and notices of hearing were
duly served on the respondent and the B. S. & A. U: and copies
of the second were duly served on the respondent and T. W. O. C.
The respondent filed an answer to each of the complaints, dated
August 27, 1937, which denied all of the material allegations. '
On July 9, 1937, the B. S. & A. U. also filed with the Regional
Director a petition alleging that a question affecting commerce had
arisen concerning the representation of the office employees of the
respondent, and requesting an investigation and certification of repre-
sentatives pursuant to Section 9 (c) of the Act. On August 17,
1937, the Board, acting pursuant to Section 9 (c) of the' Act and
Article III, Section 3, of National Labor Relations Board Rules
and Regulations-Series 1, as amended, ordered an" investigation and
authorized the Regional Director to conduct it and to provide for
an appropriate hearing upon due notice. On August 17, 1937, the
Regional Director issued a notice of hearing, in this case,, copies of
which were duly served upon the respondent and upon the B. S.
&A. U.
On August 17 and August 31, 1937, the Board,' acting pursuant
to Article III, Section 10 (c) (2), and Article II, Section 37 (b),
of the Rules and Regulations, issued orders consolidating the three
cases for the purposes of the hearing.
Pursuant to notices and amended notices of hearing, duly issued
and served upon the respondent and the unions above-mentioned, a
hearing was held in New York City from September 23 to October
7, 1937, before James C. Paradise, the Trial Examiner duly desig-
nated by the Board.
On September 21, 1937, prior to the commencement of the hear-
ing, United Wholesale Employees of N. Y., herein called the U.
W. E., filed with the Regional' Director a petition alleging that a
218 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
question affecting commerce had arisen concerning the representation
of the warehouse employees of the respondent, and requesting an
investigation and certification of representatives pursuant to Sec-
tion 9 (c) of the Act. On September 22, 1937, the Board, acting
pursuant to Section 9 (c) of the Act and Article III, Section 3,
of the Rules and Regulations, ordered an investigation and author-
ized the Regional Director to conduct it and to provide for an
appropriate hearing upon due notice; and the Board further or-
dered, pursuant.to Article III, Section 10 (c) (2), of the Rules and
Regulations, that the case be consolidated with the other three cases
for the,:purposes of the hearing. Copies of the petition of the U.
W. E. were served upon the parties at the hearing on September 24,
1937. The Trial Examiner ruled that since the petition raised no
issues which were not raised by the complaints in these cases, no
prejudice could result to any of the parties from proceeding with
the hearing.
The Board, the respondent, and the B. S. & A. U. were represented
by counsel and participated in the hearing. The Employees' Group
of M. Lowenstein & Sons, Inc., herein called the Employees' Group,
which is described and discussed in Section III B below, appeared
on September 23, 1937, by one of its members. On September 24,
1937, it appeared by counsel and moved to intervene in these,pro-
ceedings. The motion was granted. Thereafter, by answers dated
September 30, 1937, the Employees' Group denied the material allega-
tions of the complaints.
Full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine wit-
nesses, and to produce evidence bearing upon the issues was afforded
all parties. At the commencement of the hearing, the respondent
renewed its motions, previously made in writing, for bills of particu-
lars. The motions were denied. Motions made by the respondent
and the intervenor at various points in the hearing to dismiss the
charges and complaints on the ground that they failed to state the
facts with sufficient particularity, on the ground that the Board
lacked jurisdiction in this proceeding, and on the ground that the
evidence failed to sustain the allegations of the complaints, were
denied. Ruling on the respondent's motion to dismiss those portions
of the complaints which alleged unfair labor practices upon the part
of the respondent, within the, meaning of Section 8 (5) of the Act,
was reserved.
At the conclusion of the hearing, counsel for the Board moved to
amend the complaint in Case No. C-358, by adding an allegation that
Local No. 65 of T. W. O. C., the union which filed the charge in that
case, had changed its affiliation and had assumed the name of
United Wholesale Employees of N. Y.' The motion was granted.
1 The relationship between the U. W E. and T W. 0 C. Is discussed below in Section H.
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 219
The additional allegation was denied on the part of the respondent
and the intervenor at the hearing. The motion of counsel for the
Board to amend the pleadings to conform to the proof was granted.
At the close of the hearing the parties were given ten days for the
filing of briefs. Thereafter, the respondent filed a brief which has
been considered by the Board.
On December 28, 1937, the Trial Examiner duly filed his Inter-
mediate Report in which he found that the respondent had engaged
in and was engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce
within the meaning of Section 8 (1) and (2) and Section 2 (6) and (7):
of the Act. He recommended that the respondent cease and desist
from its unfair labor practices and withdraw recognition from, and
completely disestablish, the Employees' Group as representative of
its employees. In addition the Trial Examiner granted the motion
of the respondent, made at the hearing, to dismiss the allegations in
the complaints of unfair labor practices within the meaning of Sec-
tion 8 (5) of the Act. Thereafter the respondent and the intervenor
each filed exceptions to the findings and recommendations of the Trial
Examiner made in his Intermediate Report.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held before the Board in Wash-
ington, D. C., on February 7, 1938, for the purpose of oral argument.
The respondent and the B. S. & A. U. were represented by counsel.
During the course of the hearing numerous objections and motions
with regard to the introduction of evidence were made by the parties.
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner on objec-
tions to the admission of evidence and on motions made at the hear-
ing and finds that with one exception, which will be hereinafter re-
ferred to, no prejudicial errors were committed. With this exception
the rulings are affirmed. The Board has considered the exceptions'
to the Intermediate Report and finds that, except to the extent that
they deal with the point on which the ruling of the Trial Examiner
is reversed herein, there is no merit in them.
At various times during the hearing counsel for the respondent
objected to the admission of evidence concerning events which took
place subsequent to the filing of the charges and complaints herein.
All of the evidence offered and admitted had a direct bearing on the
chief issue in this case, namely, whether the respondent had com-
mitted unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (2)
of the Act. This issue was properly framed by the charges, com=
plaints, and answers. To the extent that events which occurred sub-
sequent to the filing of such charges and complaints tended to prove
or disprove the allegations of the complaints, they were properly
admitted.
The respondent offered in evidence an affidavit made on March
22, 1934, by one of its employees who testified for the Board, to the
-220 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARI)
effect that he had committed defalcations of the respondent's funds
to the extent of $48.58 during a period of about 10 months in 1933,
and that he promised to make restitution therefor.2 This affidavit
was excluded by the Trial Examiner. This ruling of the Trial Ex-
aminer is overruled, and the affidavit has been taken into considera
tion by the Board. It cannot be taken ,as completely impeaching the
testimony of the witness in question, however, particularly in view
of the fact that the respondent itself has retained the witness in its
employ for more than three years since the defalcations were
admitted.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. TILE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
The respondent, M. Lowenstein & Sons, Inc., is engaged in the
converting of cotton and rayon goods. It employs about 325 em-
ployees at its office at Leonard Street in New York City, and about
50 employees at its warehouse, which is also located in New York
City. It has five wholly owned subsidiaries. Four of these sub-
sidiaries 3 are operated as an integral part of the New York City
operations of the respondent. They have the same officers and oc-
cupy the same buildings as the respondent, and each handles one
or more phases of the respondent's business. Although they have a
few separate employees, all of the business done at the New York
office and warehouse, whether by the respondent or one of these four
subsidiaries, is intermingled. All references hereinafter to the re-
spondent include the four corporations in question. The fifth sub-
sidiary is Rockhill Printing and Finishing Company, Inc., herein
called Rockhill, which operates a finishing plant in Rockhill, South
Carolina. The employees of this corporation are not involved in
this proceeding.
The respondent is one of the biggest cotton and rayon converters
in the country. It does an annual business of $30,000,000 and has
an annual pay roll of $400,000. -
The only raw material of importance purchased by the respondent
is unfinished or greige cloth. The mills which produce this cloth
are located throughout the country, but most of them are in the
South. The contracts for the purchase of the cloth are made by the
respondent in New York City, through brokers or agents. In many
cases the goods are not in existence at the time the contract is made.
2 Respondent Exhibit No 4 for identification
"s Classic Mills, Inc ., Pickwick Diaperies,-Inc., Aleo Mills , Inc., and Eddington Fabrics
Coipoiation -
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 221
The respondent resells some of the greige goods without ,first con-
verting them. The bulk, however, is held at the greige mills for
shipment, on the respondent's instructions, to finishing plants.
Seventy-five per cent of the goods so shipped by the, greige mills
go to States other than those in which they originate.
At the finishing plant, the goods go through processes such as
bleaching, dyeing, and printing. During this time they remain the
property of the respondent, although the raw materials necessary
for the processing are purchased by the finishers. Instructions for
the finishing of the goods are given by the New York office, as are the
instructions for their subsequent shipment. • Seventy-five per cent of
the respondent's goods are finished at Rockhill, and the balance at
various plants located in South Carolina, Rhode Island, Connecticut,
New Jersey, and New York.
After the processing of the goods by the finishing plants, they are
ready for shipment to the respondent's customers. They are held
by the plants for the respondent's instructions. Some are sent to the
New York warehouse. Most, however, are sent directly to the cus-
tomers. The latter are located in many parts of the country, in-
cluding New York, Illinois, Missouri, Michigan, and Pennsylvania,
and include both manufacturers and retailers. Among the latter are
mail-order houses and chain stores. Some of the respondent's goods
are shipped to foreign countries, including Turkey, the Philippines,
and various South American states. In the process of shipment
from the finishing plant to the customers, 75 per cent of the goods
cross State lines.
The respondent uses all kinds of transportation, including parcel
post. It has a trade-mark which is registered for use in interstate
commerce.
The intimate relationship between the respondent's office and the
vast amount of interstate shipments which it directs appears clearly
in the record. The respondent's 30 to 40 salesmen, who travel
throughout the country, operate out of New York, and all of the
orders which they secure are cleared through the office. The con-
tracts of sale made with mail-order houses and chain stores, which
specify shipment to many scattered points, are made in New York.
It has already been pointed out that not a piece of the respondent's
goods moves except on instructions from the office. These instruc-
tions specify the manner of shipment, as well as the amount and
destination, The merchandising of the goods, the selection of styles
and patterns, the determination of the amount of each brand which
is to be made up and, kept on hand, and the securing of a proper
amount of greige goods to supply the finishing plants are all done
in New York. In addition all of the records of the respondent,
222 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
including those for inventory, cost accounting, bookkeeping, and
crediting are handled and kept at the office. Thus that office is an
indispensable nerve-center, which sets into motion all of the exten-
sive transactions which occur in the converting process.'
The respondent keeps between 8 and 14 per cent of its total
inventory at its warehouse, which is situated at some distance from
the office. It is maintained for the convenience of customers in the
New York area and also handles returned goods. Over 75 per cent
of the shipments to the warehouse come from outside of New York,
and 40 per cent of the shipments from the warehouse are made to
States other than New York.
II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
Bookkeepers', Stenographers' and Accountants' Union is a labor
organization which has been in existence for 27 years. On June 1,
1937, it received a charter as Local No. 16 of United Office and Pro-
fessional Workers of America, which is affiliated with the Committee
for Industrial Organization. It admits to membership office and
professional workers, including those employed by the respondent,
but excludes supervisory employees and confidential secretaries to
executives.
Textile Workers' Organizing Committee is a labor organization
affiliated with the Committee for Industrial Organization. It char-
tered Local No. 65 in February 1937. The jurisdiction of Local No.
65 was at first limited to employees in wholesale textile warehouses.
During the succeeding months, however, it started to include em-
ployees in warehouses in lines other than textiles. In September
1937, at the suggestion of Sidney Hillman, chairman of Textile Work-
ers' Organizing Committee, the executive board of Local No. 65
decided to change its affiliation to United Retail Employees of Amer-
ica, herein called the U. R. E. A., which is also affiliated with the
Committee for Industrial Organization. This decision was approved
by the membership. Thereafter the Local assumed the name of
4 The Report of the U. S. Tariff Commission to the President on Cotton Cloth ( No. 112,
Second Series ), 1936 , pp 91-92, 118-119, throws light on the importance of the converters
It states:
The converters occupy the key position in the marketing and distribution of cotton
cloth and constitute the basic points of contact between the producers and the con-
sumers of cotton goods . Using the gray goods from the mills as their raw material
they have it finished to their order in a great number of designs , finishes, and styles.
A large peicentage is bleached , in various finishes from soft to hard ; a certain por-
tion is dyed, in various colors, tints , and shades ; and a substantial portion-in the
case of print cloth the largest portion-is printed, in a great number of colors and
designs . The converters keep in close touch with the fluctuating requirements of the
market and are an important factor in determining, within the limits of fashion
changes, the seasonal drift of style goods
See also Cotton Textile Industry, Report of Cabinet Committee to the President, 74th
Congress , 1st Session , Senate Document No. 126, pp. 119-120.
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 223
United Wholesale Employees of N. Y. and was admitted as Local
No. 65 of the U. R. E. A.
The complaint in Case No. C-358, as amended, alleges that Local
No. 65 of T: W. 0. C. has , since it filed the charges in that case,
changed its name and became affiliated with the U. R. E. A. We
find that the record sustains this allegation. The respondent's con-
tention that the complaint should have been dismissed because the
complaining union had gone out of existence is without merit. The
change in name and affiliation did not affect the structure of the
organization . It retained the same membership , jurisdiction , officers,
and executive committee. The respondent's contention that it might
have been prejudiced by the change , in view of the allegation in the
complaint of unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8
(5) of the Act, need not be considered , since we are not sustaining
that allegation.
The Employees' Group of M. Lowenstein & Sons, Inc., is a labor
organization whose membership is limited to employees of the respond-
ent at the office and the warehouse.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Background of the organization of the respondent's employees
In December 1936, a small group of the respondent 's office em-
ployees who were members of the B. S. & A. U. started a drive for
membership . During the succeeding six months between 20 and 25
leaflets were distributed outside of the respondent 's office, urging the
employees to join, and pointing out the benefits of organization. There
was no open union activity at the office , however. While the record
indicates that some of the organizational work was done on company
time, it was done in secret, in the rest rooms and behind shelves and
filing cabinets.
The B . S. & A. U. by June 1937, had procured a substantial number
of members and , at a meeting on June 10 , 1937, it elected Leona
Cotton as shop-chairman . At a subsequent meeting, on June 16, the
members discussed the contract which they hoped to secure from the
respondent , and authorized Norma Aronson, organizer of the B. S. &
A. U., to negotiate for them with the respondent. A negotiating com-
mittee, which had also been elected on June 10, was to assist Aronson,
who was not an employee , once she had secured recognition from the
respondent.
A similar course of events took place at- the warehouse , where T. W.
0. C. started organizing the employees in May. By the middle of
June it also believed itself to be in a position to negotiate with the
respondent. . . , , I11
224 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The respondent was made aware, through the distribution of the
leaflets, that its employees were being organized. When the first
leaflet was issued in December 1936, Kath, who at that time was the
respondent's personnel manager, went into that portion of the office
in which the cost and converting departments were located and made a
speech to all of the employees present. He stated that there was a
traitor among the employees who should be discovered; and went on
to say that he felt this was an opportune time to announce the Christ-
mas bonus which he had originally intended announcing a week later.
Thereafter, he called Cotton, one of the early members of the B. S. &
A. U., into his office and asked her why she had joined the union.
She denied that she had done so. Kath told her, however, that the
time would come when 'she would have to choose between him and
the union.5 Similar incidents occurred during the following months
with regard to Rose Feldman and Rubin Robinson.
B. Domination of and interference, with the Employees' Group
Formation of a new union at the respondent's office, limited to
employees of the respondent, was first announced on Monday, June
21, 1937. This organization later became known as the Employees'
Group. Testimony for the intervenor indicates that the idea for the
formation of this organization originated with an employee named
Arthur Gross. He first mentioned the idea to Freddie Feitler on
June 19, while they-were playing golf ; and on the following day
these two employees met with Julie Saltzman and Herbert Simon
at Gross' home and decided to launch the organization.
On June 21, at nine o'clock in the morning, these four employees
spoke to Archie O. Joslin, who since May 1937 had taken over the
position of personnel manager for the respondent. They informed
him of the proposed organization and asked him whether he would
recognize it if it obtained a majority. Joslin told them he would,
but asked for no further information.
Thereupon Gross and the others went through the office announc-
ing a meeting for all employees to be held that night, immediately
after working hours, in the respondent's lunchroom. Gross, and
David Cohen, another employee, were particularly active in an-
nouncing this meeting. The method they adopted was also used
for subsequent meetings. They went into each department at, the
office and made their announcement publicly, interrupting the work
of the employees to do so. In some cases, they stayed in the depart-
ment for some time discussing the new organization with the em-
ployees and comparing its merits with .those of the B. S. & A. U.
In fact, on June 21, Gross and Cohen were going in and out of
5 Kath was not called on to testify at the hearing by the respondent.
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 225
the cost and converting departments all day; and the executives
were undoubtedly well aware of their activity.
Certain assistant department heads also participated in the an-
nouncement of the June 21 meeting. Four of these in particular,
Rose A. Levy, Helen Scheideberg, Anna Morrell, and Ida Lessner
took active part in-the formative stages of the Employees' Group..
The respondent contends that these employees cannot be considered
as supervisory employees, and that their activities were entirely inde-
pendent of the respondent. In particular, the respondent points out
that the sole power to hire and discharge rests with its personnel
manager. There can be little doubt, however, that one executive
cannot pass on the merits of more than 300 employees without the
advice of persons in intermediate positions, who are in close contact
with those. under them. The employees named above have the re-
sponsibility, for discipline in their respective departments. They
assign the work that is to be done and report disturbances in office
efficiency to the executives. The extent to which their activities can
be taken to be those of the respondent will be discussed below. -
Levy, Scheideberg, Morrell, and Lessner all encouraged the em-
ployees to go to the meeting on June 21. There is conflict in the
testimony as to the extent to which these employees expressed, on
that and succeeding days, their preference for the new organization.
Nevertheless it appears clearly from their own testimony that they
did express themselves frequently on the subject, and that, as will
further appear below, they were active in the organization -of the
Employees' Group.
The meeting on June 21 was attended by almost all of the respond-
ent's employees, including many supervisory employees and some of
the executives' private secretaries. It was opened by Gross who
spoke generally in favor of the form of organization which he was
proposing and against that represented by the B. S. & A. U. After
he had been speaking for some time a motion was made from the
floor that the employees elect their own chairman. This was done,
and Cotton, the shop-chairman of the B. S. & A. U. was elected, with
practically no opposition. Subsequently it was decided that there
should be two chairmen, one representing each side. The meeting
in general constituted little more than a debate concerning the
relative merits of the two unions.
The meeting lasted one to two hours. After its close about 30 em-
ployees remained behind in the lunchroom and drew up a letter
addressed to the personnel manager, Joslin, expressing a belief that
the B. S. & A. U. did not represent the majority of the employees and,
requesting that no union be recognized until the employees had
chosen between the B. S. & A. U. and the new organization which was
in the process of formation. This letter was signed by 17 persons.
226 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The following day at nine o'clock in the morning it was presented by
Cohen to Joslin who promised to read it. Thereafter, several of the
employees, including Cohen, Gross, Morrell, Lessner, Rubin, and
Frank Cooper, met in a conference room which is located near Jos-
lin's office. The meeting lasted for one hour or more. A leaflet was
drawn up which was to be issued that day." Those present contributed
money and agreed to procure further contributions from other em-
ployees. This was subsequently done, and Morrell acted as treasurer.
Gross and Cooper left the building during working hours to take the
draft of the leaflet to a printer to be mimeographed. Later in the
afternoon Gross again left the building on company time to call for
the finished leaflets. These were distributed in the office by placing
one on each desk. This distribution was done openly on company time.
The same is true as to the distribution of almost all of •the leaflets
`vhich the Employees' Group issued during the following weeks. The
respondent raised no objections to the distribution of the leaflets in
this manner, and on at least one occasion Lath was present when a
leaflet was distributed in the cost and converting departments but
made no objection.
.
Another meeting of the Employees' Group, presided over by Her-
bert Nachman, was held on the following Monday, June 28, imme-
diately after working hours, in the company's lunchroom. The chair-
man limited discussion to the formation of the Employees' Group.
Cohen made a personal appeal to the employees, based on his prior
activities in their behalf, and assured them that the respondent had
had nothing to do with the formation of the Employees' Group.
Nachman announced that on the following day delegates -would be
elected in each of the departments. There is some dispute in the testi-
mony as to whether speakers for the Employees' Group stated that the
respondent would rather recognize that organization than the B. S. &
A. U. At any rate, Nachman stated that the Employees' Group would
give the respondent ten days in which to answer its demands. Also
Cohen described to the employees the Benevolent Association which
had been projected for some time by the respondent. There is cred-
ible testimony that he stated that the respondent would be more likely
to put this plan into effect if the Employees' Group secured a ma-
jority and was recognized by the respondent.
On the following day membership cards in the Employees' Group
were distributed and delegates were elected in some of the depart-
ments. Scheideberg and other assistant department heads helped in
8 The leaflet sets out in full the letter given to Joslin that morning and urges the em-
ployees to help in the formation of the Employees' Group. It recites the benefits which
the respondent's employees had enjoyed in the past and lists eight demands for further
improvement of their conditions. These demands were apparently first formulated at the
conference on June 22, since they were never discussed at the meeting on -Monday
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 227
the obtaining of signatures to the cards. Apparently all employees
were permitted to vote for delegates whether or not they signed cards.
In some of the departments the employees refused to hold elections,
as for example in the cost and converting departments, where the
employees considered that they were already, represented by the B. S.
A. U. Since no one voted, Scheideberg was advised by Cooper to
"elect" herself as delegate.
On June 30 the delegates met. Cohen and Cooper, who had not been
elected as delegates , were permitted to act as advisors . The delegates
elected Julian Eichler as chairman of the Employees' Group, and
selected seven of their number from whom the employees were to
choose an Approach Committee of three. The delegates also drew up
a list ` of demands which were to be presented to the respondent.
Leaflets were distributed by both groups. _
The disturbance which had been caused by the presence of two rival
groups in the office caused the respondent, on June 30, to issue a notice
to all of its supervisory employees requesting them to insist on strict
and undivided attention by employees to their work during office
hours. Despite this notice, however, the activity on behalf of the
Employees' Group continued unabated and was not checked by the
respondent.
On the following day, July 1, another meeting was held by the Em-
ployees' Group in the lunchroom. As before, the meeting was openly
announced in each department. The leaders of the Employees' Group
entertained serious doubt at this time as to the propriety of holding a
meeting on company property. They attempted to arrange for the
holding of the meeting at a restaurant in the vicinity, but were unable
to do so. At the commencement of the meeting , Eichler, who presided,
announced that, according to legal advice which he had received, there
was no impropriety in holding the meeting on company property. The
demands which had been drawn. up were read and the names of the
delegates were announced. Before the meeting proceeded to the dis-
cussion of the demands and the election of the Approach Committee,
however, Eichler received a message which led him to believe that the
meeting was in fact improper , and it was thereupon adjourned.
Another meeting was held on July 6, at a restaurant in the vicinity.
The demands were read and voted on. The employees elected an Ap-
proach Committee consisting of Eichler , Lessner, and Jerry Fmeberg.
This committee was to present the demands to the respondent.
During this period supporters of the Employees' Group had been
active in securing signatures from employees to membership cards.
On July 7 Cohen brought the cards to Joslin with a letter, dated July
6, claiming a majority and requesting recognition . Joslin counted the
cards and found that there were 220. There is,conflict in the testimony
228 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
as to whether he then stated that he would recognize the Employees'
Group as sole collective bargaining agent.' According to Cohen, he
stated at this time that he was busy and requested Cohen to return
later. According to Joslin, he did immediately grant recognition to
the Employees' Group. Late that afternoon after the conference with
representatives of the B. S. & A. U. and T. W. O. C., which is described
below, Joslin, Harry G. Kletcher, the respondent's comptroller, Cohen,
and Cooper checked the signatures on the cards against the respond-
ent's employment cards and found that a majority -of the employees
were represented. On July 7 or 8, the Approach Committee presented
to Joslin the demands of the Employees' Group.
It is necessary at this point to review the negotiations which took
place between the respondent and the representatives of the B. S. &
A. U. and T. W. O. C. during the formation of the Employees'
Group. On June 17 Aronson spoke to the respondent's president
on the telephone and asked for a conference. She was referred by
him to Joslin who, it was stated, had complete power to act for the
respondent on all matters dealing with employee relationship. It
was apparently not until June 21 that Aronson was able to reach
Joslin. A conference was arranged for the following clay, June 22,
which was attended by David Livingston and Kalb, business agents
of T. W. O. C., Aronson, Kletcher, and Joslin. The two unions
stated that they wished to act jointly. There was discussion of the
unions generally and the contracts they had with other firms. Joslin
stated that he would have to be sure that the B. S. & A. U. and
T. W. O. C. were trustworthy because of the confidential work done
by the respondent's employees. Each of the unions claimed a ma-
jority among the employees whom they desired to represent. Joslin
demanded proof of this claimed majority, and Aronson and Living-
ston suggested several ways in which it could be proved, including
a consent election to be held under the auspices of the Board, and
a check of the union membership cards against the respondent's
pay roll, to be made by a representative of the Board. Joslin,
however, demanded that the union membership cards be presented
to him. This the unions refused to do. Joslin pointed out that he
had already been approached by another group of employees who
had given him a letter that morning. He suggested that a second
conference be had with the B. S. & A. U. and T. W. O. C. on June 29.
Livingston and Aronson objected to the delay of one week before
further negotiations and pointed out that the meeting sponsored by
Gross had taken place on company property, that supervisory em-
ployees of the company had been active in supporting it, and that
generally the impression had been created among the employees
that the respondent favored the new organization as tgainst the
B. S. & A. U. They therefore suggested that the respondent eradi-
DECISIONS AND ORDERS, 229 '
'cate the impression which had been created among its employees by
posting a notice stating that it favored neither union . Joslin stated
that he felt that such a notice would be unduly favorable to the
B. S. & A. U. and that the respondent desired to remain completel3
neutral in the situation . Livingston pointed - out that this neutrality
on the part of respondent was in fact partiality to the new group,
since it was well-known that supervisory employees of the respond-
ent were supporting that organization and were spreading the rumor
that the respondent would never recognize the B . S. & A. U. Liv-
ingston drafted a notice which he suggested that the respondent post,
and Joslin promised to consider the matter . When Aronson later
telephoned Joslin to ask him whether the notice had been posted,
Joslin , stated that it had not been because the Employees ' Group had
objected.
On June 29 Joslin called Aronson and requested that the conference
set for that day be postponed and that he meet her alone at some dis-
tance from the office, because of an unpleasant situation which had
been caused by the distribution on the previous day of a B. S. & A. U.
leaflet. At Aronson 's request Louis Merrill , president of the B. S. &
A. U., also attended this conference . It should be remembered that
it was on this day that the Employees' Group at the office was actively
,procuring membership cards and holding elections of delegates. Jos-
lin told Aronson and Merrill that the respondent resented the tone
of the June 28 leaflet , and Aronson expressed regret that the language
had been somewhat provocative . Beyond that , little was accomplished
at the meeting . Joslin again demanded proof of majority and the
B. S. & A. U. representatives again requested that a consent election
be held, or an impartial check of the membership cards.
On the following day -Kletcher and Joslin again met the repre-
sentatives of the two unions. The respondent repeated its.neutral
stand and asked to see the B . S. & A. U. cards . Another draft of a
notice stating that the respondent did not favor the Employees'
Group was drawn up. In addition , the union representatives sug-
gested that the Employees' Group meeting , scheduled for the follow-
ing day, be postponed and that a joint meeting be held at which rep-
resentatives of both sides would be present . The respondent refused
to take any action, but Joslin promised to see the representatives of
the Employees ' Group and ask them whether , they would agree to
issuing a leaflet jointly with the B. S. & A. U. Joslin later informed
Aronson that the Employees ' Group had, rejected the suggestion.
There is conflict in the evidence as to whether Joslin or the union
representatives suggested that there be another conference , with Leon
Lowenstein , president of the respondent, present, as soon as possible.
Joslin told them that July 6 was the earliest date on which such a
conference could be held. It was agreed that they 'would . meet on
230 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
that day. On July 1 Cotton saw Joslin to complain of the activity
of the supervisory employees and again requested him to post a neu-
trality notice. Joslin insisted that he could not do so since such action
would be taken as favorable to the B. S. & A. U.
The July 6 meeting was postponed, at Joslin's request, to. July 7,
on the ground that Lowenstein could not be present until that day.
It is significant that the Employees' Group meeting on July 1 had
been terminated before any action had been taken and that it was
scheduled to be resumed on July 6. The union representatives sus-
pected that the postponement of their conference with the respondent
was a direct result of .the postponement of the Employees' Group
meeting, and they-expressed their suspicions to Joslin the following
day. ,
On July 7, Joslin, Kletcher, and Edward Goldberger, secretary and
assistant treasurer of the respondent, met with Aronson and Liv-
ingston at about noon. Joslin stated that it would not be necessary
to see Lowenstein since the respondent had decided to recognize the
.Employees' Group on the basis of the cards which had been pre-
sented to him that morning and which he intended to check that night.
The union representatives protested this action on the part of the
respondent and pointed out that many of the employees had signed
cards in both unions. They again demanded that an election be held,
but Joslin refused.
Up to this point all of the negotiations had been concerned only
with the employees at the respondent's office. When Joslin stated that
he intended to recognize the Employees' Group as the representative
of those employees, Livingston requested recognition of T. W. O. C.
as the representative of the warehouse employees. Joslin asked to see
the T. W. O. C. membership cards but Livingston refused to produce
them. On the following day, and on July 9 or July 12, telephone con-
versations took place between Livingston and Joslin, during the
course of both of which Joslin refused to act unless he was shown the
T. W. O. C. cards.
As has been previously noted T. W. O. C. had organized part of
the warehouse employees during May and June. On July 12 the first
attempt was made on the part of the Employees' Group to reach the
warehouse employees. On that day, Cohen, Gross, and Cooper went
uptown to the warehouse to speak in favor of their own organization.
They made several visits during the course of the next week. Each of
these visits was made on company time. On at least one of them, the
Employees' Group representatives spent more than two hours up-
town. They spoke to large groups of employees and pointed out
,that in case of trouble, the respondent could close down the ware-
house. A leaflet was circulated uptown asking the warehouse em-
ployees to send representatives to the delegates' meeting of July 13.
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 231
This meeting was held on July 13 or 14 and three delegates from
the warehouse attended . On July 19 and 20, 34 employees at the
warehouse signed membership cards in the Employees ' Group.
Thereafter representatives of this group sent a letter to Joslin re-
questing him not to bargain with any union as to the warehouse
employees until a majority of these employees had made their choice.
On July 23 the warehouse employees' cards were brought to Joslin by
Cohen and were checked against the pay roll by Cohen, Joslin, and
Kletcher. Joslin at once recognized the Employees' Group as the
bargaining representative for the warehouse employees.
In the meantime, Joslin and Kletcher had been considering their
response to the demands which had been presented to them.by the
Employees' Group. On July 21 they conferred with the Approach
,Committee at Joslin's home and outlined the plan which was pre-
sented to the employees the following day. A meeting was called
in the lunchroom on July 22. Eichler was chairman. It was sug-
gested that Joslin and Kletcher be asked to present their plan. This
was done and Joslin gave his answers to the various demands made
by the Employees ' Group. He described a system for the classifica-
tion of the employees which provided minimums and maximums for
certain types of work. He then went over the demands of the Em-
ployees' Group in detail, stating among other things that the demands
for vacations would be granted in 1938, and that he would not pay
extra; for overtime , since he intended to eliminate it altogether. With
regard to the demand for a signed contract he said, "With whom
shall I sign a contract? And why ?" While giving his plan he
noticed Cotton taking notes and requested her to stop doing so. He
also made some rather disparaging remarks about the B . S. & A. U.
A few of the warehouse employees attended this meeting, but the
discussion was concerned only with the office , since no demands had
been presented up to that time on the part of the uptown employees.
On July 28 four of the most active B. S. & A. U. supporters , includ-
ing Cotton, were asked by Kletcher to go to Joslin's office . Joslin
asked them to stop their activity , in view of the fact that the Em-
ployees' Group had been recognized; requested their support for the
plan; and asked that no more leaflets be distributed . He told them
they were lucky to have an employer who had dealt so fairly with
them, because if they had had to strike, as other employees in the
neighborhood had, they would have had difficulty getting new posi-
tions, in view of the fact that they were Jewish.
At a meeting of the Employees ' Group delegates on July 29 a sub-
stantial amount of dissatisfaction on the part of the employees was
reported . It was decided by the delegates that the Employees' Group
should take a ballot to determine whether the employees, wanted to
accept the plan. Joslin announced that he would not go ahead with
80618-38-vor, vi--16
232 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
his plan unless the employees demonstrated confidence in him by a
vote of between 85 and 90 per cent in favor of it. Both the B. S. &
A. U. and T. W. 0. C., realizing that an endorsement of the plan
would not constitute an endorsement of the Employees' Group, advised
their supporters, by means of leaflets, to vote "yes" in the ballot, in
order to get the increases in salary which they desired. As a result,
the vote when it was held gave an almost unanimous endorsement to
the plan. The ballots for this election were printed during working
hours on the company's multigraphing machine. Each ballot con-
tained the name of an employee and a space for his signature, and
unsigned ballots were not considered. The ballots were counted by
employees, including among others the leader of the B. S. & A. U.
forces, Cotton. The plan was put into effect by the respondent on
September 1. During August, also, the Employees' Group at both the
office and the warehouse elected grievance committees, in accordance
with the respondent's agreement to handle grievances through such
committees.
The record does not show clearly the extent to which the Employees'
Group continued to function after the plan went into effect. It is
significant that at the oral argument in this proceeding, on February
7, 1938, counsel for the respondent stated that the Employees' Group
was no longer functioning. This contrasted strikingly with the posi-
tion taken at the hearing that the Employees' Group was a bona fide
labor organization which was actively engaged in furthering the
interests of the respondent's employees through the activity of its
grievance committees and otherwise.
The entire history of the Employees' Group both at the respond-
ent's office and at the warehouse shows clearly that it sprang up and
grew because of the encouragement of the respondent. The respond-
ent maintains that it was in no way responsible for the acts of its
supervisory employees, that these employees cannot be considered as
having acted with its authority.,, It may well be that none of the
respondent's executives ever gave instructions to any of its employees
to form or to encourage an organization in opposition to the B. S. &
A. U. or T. W. 0. C. Nevertheless, it is normal for an employee to
assume that those who are in positions of authority represent to a
large extent the wishes of the employer. The respondent was in-
formed from the start of the activity of the Employees' Group, that
it was being actively supported by several employees who had posi-
tions of authority, and that its supporters were creating the impres-
sion , true or false, that the Employees' Group was the organization
which the respondent favored. Yet no effort was made to correct that
impression, even though the executives were specifically requested to do,
so, on, more than one occasion. The respondent could probably have
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 233
avoided the impression created by the acts of Levy, Scheideberg,
Lessner, and Morrell, as well as the other highly paid employees who
professed to know the respondent's attitude toward the unions, by a
simple declaration to its employees of its true position. It chose not
to do'so. The respondent's contention that a statement on its part
that it was neutral would have been to the advantage of the B. S. &
A. U. cannot be sustained; the only advantage that would have ac-
-crued to the B. S. & A. U. would have been the elimination of an
advantage enjoyed by the Employees' Group which it had no right to
enjoy.
That the respondent was in fact favorable to the Employees' Group
is seen by the fact that company property and company time' were
utilized to the fullest extent by the Employees' Group and that no
attempt was made at any time to curb this activity.? Gross and other
employees who spent a large part of their working hours in activity
in connection with the Employees' Group testified that they were
somewhat concerned about the fact that they were getting behind
in their work, but that they were not concerned with the loss of their
jobs or, in fact, about any prejudice to them which might result in
the eyes of respondent. They were never reprimanded for their
extensive activities.
The activities on the part of the Employees' Group caused a large
amount of discussion in the various departments of the respondent,
which discussion was participated in by supervisory employees. Al-
though this disturbance commenced on June 21, it was not until June
30 that the respondent took any action with respect to it. Until that
time the open support of the Employees' Group by Cohen, Gross, and
others went completely unchecked, and even after that date there was
no substantial diminution in that support.
The record conclusively shows that the respondent was opposed to
the organization of its employees into unions with outside affiliations,
and that it welcomed the formation of an organization limited to its
own employees which it felt it could control." The Employees' Group
7In contrast to the activities of the Employees ' Group, all of the B. S & A U. and
T W O. C. leaflets were distributed off the premises of the respondent , except for one,
which was distributed at the office, before the woikmg day began, and after the Employees'
Group had commenced its activities.
8 That the respondent's hostility to the B S. & A U and T. W. O. C has continued to
exist may be seen in the brief which it filed in this proceeding On page 16, after pointing
out that both of these unions were led by young persons, the respondent states :
It may well be that youth must be served, but we submit that the time has not yet
arrived when an institution the size of respondent will be made subject to the direc-
tion and will of these children-so that they may have an opportunity to tear clown
what it has taken sixty years to build up . And likewise we assert that it is unthink-
able that iespondent 's office woikeis-who become possessed of intimate confidential
knowledge in respect of merchandise costs, sources of supply and the like, all of which
has accounted for respondent ' s great success-should be subject to the orders of an
outside group, with the result that said knowledge which these workers have gained
may become known to these outsiders , who would then be in a position to use it in a
manner that might destroy respondent
234 NATIONAL LABOH RELATIONS BOARD
grew and gained membership because of the encouragement and sup-
port of the respondent and was used by the latter to frustrate the,
attempts on the part of its employees to organize themselves for col-
lective bargaining.
We find that the respondent has dominated and interfered with
the formation and administration of the Employees' Group and has
contributed support to it.
We find that the respondent, by the acts above set forth, has
interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise
of their rights to self-organization, to form, join, or assist labor
organizations, to bargain collectively through representatives of their
own choosing, and to engage in concerted activities for the purposes
of collective bargaining and other mutual aid and protection as
guaranteed under Section 7 of the Act.
C. The alleged refusals to bargain collectively
At the hearing in this proceeding both the B. S. & A. U. and
T. W. 0. C. refused to put in evidence their membership cards or
other records showing how many of the respondent's employees had
designated them as their representatives for the purposes of collective
bargaining. The record, therefore, affords insufficient proof that
either of the unions had been so designated by a majority of the
employees in an appropriate unit. It is therefore not necessary
to consider the other issues raised by the allegations made in the
complaints that the respondent had engaged in unfair labor prat=
tices,within the meaning of Section 8 (5) of the Act. These allega-
tions will be dismissed.
IV. THE QUESTIONS CONCERNING, REPRESENTATION
As noted above in Section III, both the B. S. & A. U. and
T. W. 0. C., during June 1937, demanded recognition by the re-
spondent as representatives of certain employees for the purposes
of collective bargaining. At the hearing in this case, neither of
these unions presented proof that they represented a majority of
the employees in the unit found to be appropriate for the purposes
of collective bargaining. The record shows, however, that both
unions had a substantial number of members among the respondent's
employees, and that both the B. S. & A. U. and the U. W. E., the
successor to T. W. 0. C., still desired sole bargaining rights. We
find that questions concerning representation of employees of the
respondent have arisen and that these questions can best be solved
by the holding of elections by secret ballot. Those eligible to vote
in the elections shall be the employees of the respondent, within
the appropriate units, employed within a period to be determined
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 235
by the Board at the time that it directs the elections in this proceeding
to take place.
Since we have found that the Employees' Group was dominated,
interfered with, and supported by the respondent, its name will not
.appear on the ballot.9
V. THE EFFECT OF TIIE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES AND THE QUESTIONS
CONCERNING REPRESENTATION UPON CODIDIERCE
The activities of the respondent set forth in Section III above,
and the questions concerning representation which have arisen, oc-
curring in connection with the operations of the 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.
VI. THE APPROPRIATE UNITS
The B. S. & A. U. claims to represent all of the employees of the
respondent at its Leonard Street office, exclusive of supervisory em-
ployees and private secretaries to executives. The U. W. E. claims
to represent all of the employees of the respondent at its warehouse,
'exclusive of supervisory employees. The record sustains the con-
'clusion that these two groups of employees constitute appropriate
units. No contention to the contrary was made by any of the parties.
The evidence also shows, as noted above in Section III, that assistant
department heads, as well as department heads, have supervisory
duties, including disciplinary powers, which associate them with the
management. The same appears to be true of the converters, each
.of whom is in charge of a department which handles a particular
type of the respondent's merchandise. The term, supervisory em-
ployees, as used herein, includes department heads, assistant depart-
ment heads, and converters.
We therefore find that the employees of the respondent employed
at its Leonard Street office, exclusive of supervisory employees and
private secretaries to executives, and the employees of the respondent
at its warehouse, exclusive of supervisory employees, constitute two
units appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining and that
said units will insure to employees of the respondent the full benefit
of their right to self-organization and to collective bargaining and
otherwise effectuate the policies of the Act.
"Matter of S Blechman tt Sons, Inc and United Wholesale Employees of New York,
Local 65, Textile Workers Organizing Comintttee-Cominittee tor Industrial Organization,
4 N L. R B. 15, decided November 4, 1937 ; - Matter of H. E Pletcher Co and Granite
Cutters' International Association of America, 5 N. L R B. 729, decided March 2, 1938.
236 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
VII. THE REMEDY
We have found that the respondent dominated and interfered with
the formation and administration of the Employees' Group and con-
tributed support thereto. By such domination and interference the
respondent has prevented the free exercise of ii s employees' right to
self -organization and collective bargaining. Throughout its existence,
the Employees' Group has been used by the respondent as a tool in
preventing the organization of its employees into labor unions of
their own choice. The mere withdrawal of the respondent's domina-
tion and support of the Employees' Group will not be sufficient to
overcome the impression created by the circumstances Which sur-
rounded its origin. Therefore, in order to restore to the employees
the full measure of their rights guaranteed under the Act, we shall
order the respondent to withdraw all recognition from the Employees'
Group and disestablish it as representative of its employees at either
its office or its warehouse for the purpose of dealing with the respond-
ent concerning grievances, labor disputes, rates of pay, wages, hours
of employment, or other conditions of employment. The respondent
will, in addition, be ordered to cease and desist from its unfair labor
practices described above.
The Board will delay the holding of the elections to determine the
bargaining representatives of the respondent's employees until it is
notified that the respondent has substantially complied with the terms
of the Board's order. In addition, as noted above, we shall make no
provision for the designation of the Employees' Group on the ballots.
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and upon the entire
record in the case, the Board makes the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Bookkeepers', Stenographers' and Accountants' Union, Local No.
16, United Office and Professional Workers of America, C. I. O.,
United Wholesale Employees of N. Y., and the Employees' Group of
M. Lowenstein & Sons, Inc., are labor organizations within the
meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
2. Textile Workers' Organizing Committee, Local No. 65, C. I. 0.,
was, prior to the formation of the U. W. E., a labor organization
within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
3. By its domination and interference with the formation of the
Employees' Group, and by contributing support thereto, the respond-
ent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices, within
the meaning of Section 8 (2) of the Act.
4. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in
the exercise of the rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act, the
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 237
respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices
within the meaning of Section 8 (1) of the Act.
5. The afore -mentioned unfair labor practices are unfair labor
practices affecting commerce, within the meaning of Section 2 (6)
and (7) of the Act.
6. The respondent has not engaged in unfair labor practices within
the meaning of Section 8 (5) of the Act.
7. Questions affecting commerce have arisen concerning the repre-
sentation of employees of the respondent , within the meaning of
Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
8. The employees of'the respondent employed at its Leonard Street
office, exclusive of supervisory employees and private secretaries to
executives , and the employees of the respondent at its warehouse,
exclusive of supervisory employees, constitute two units appropriate
for the purposes of collective bargaining, within the meaning of
Section 9 (b) of the Act.
ORDER
Upon the basis of the findings of fact and conclusions of law, and
pursuant to Section 10 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, the
National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the respondent,
M. Lowenstein & Sons, Inc., and its officers, agents , successors, and
assigns, shall :
1. Cease and desist :
(a) From in any manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing
its employees in the exercise of their rights to self-organization, to
form, join, or assist labor organizations , to bargain collectively
through representatives of their own choosing , or to engage in con-
certed activities for the purposes of collective bargaining and other
mutual aid or protection , as guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act;
(b) From in any manner dominating or interfering with the ad-
ministration of the Employees' Group of M. Lowenstein & Sons, Inc.,
or any other labor organization of its employees , and from contribut-
ing support to the Employees' Group of M. Lowenstein & Sons, Inc.,
or to any other labor organization of its employees.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds
will effectuate the policies of the Act:
( a) Withdraw all recognition from the Employees ' Group of M.
Lowenstein & Sons, Inc., as representative of its employees at either
its office or its warehouse for the purpose of dealing with the re-
spondent concerning grievances, labor disputes, rates of pay, wages,
hours of employment , and other conditions of employment, and
completely disestablish the Employees' Group of Al . Lowenstein
& Sons, Inc., as such representatiTe;
238 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
(b) Immediately post notices in conspicuous places throughout its
office and warehouse, and maintain such notices for a period of thirty
(30) consecutive days from the date of such posting, stating (1) that
the respondent will cease and desist in the manner aforesaid, and
(2) that the respondent will withdraw all recognition from the
Employees' Group of M. Lowenstein & Sons, Inc., as representative
of its employees at either its office or its warehouse for the purpose
of dealing with the respondent concerning grievances, labor disputes,
rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other conditions of
employment, and that the Employees' Group of M. Lowenstein &
Sons, Inc., is disestablished as such representative ;
(c) Notify the Regional Director for the Second Region in writ-
ing within ten (10) days from the date of this order what steps
the respondent has taken to comply herewith.
The allegations in the complaints as to unfair labor practices with:
in the meaning of Section 8 (5) of the Act are hereby dismissed.
DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS
By virtue of and pursuant to the power vested in the National
Labor Relations Board by Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act , and pursuant to Article III, Section 8, of National Labor
Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 1, as amended, it is
DIRECTED that, as part of the investigations directed by the Board
to ascertain representatives for the purposes of collective bargaining
with M. Lowenstein & Sons, Inc., elections by secret ballot shall be
conducted at such time as the Board will in the future direct, under
the direction and supervision of the Regional Director for' the
Second Region, acting in this matter as agent for the National Labor
Relations Board, and subject to Article III, Section 9, of said Rules
and Regulations , among those employees of M. Lowenstein & Sons,
Inc., who fall within the groups described below, who were employed
by M. Lowenstein & Sons, Inc., within a period to be determined
by the Board in the future :
(a) Those who were employed at the Leonard Street office, ex-
clusive of supervisory employees and private secretaries to execu-
tives, to determine whether or not they desire to be represented by
Bookkeepers ', Stenographers ' and Accountants ' Union, Local No. 16,
United Office and Professional Workers of America, C. I. 0., for
the purposes of collective bargaining.
(b) Those who were employed at the warehouse , exclusive of super-
visory employees , to determine whether or not they desire to be
represented by United Wholesale Employees of N. Y . for the pur-
poses of collective bargaining.