Magic Slacks, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 27, 1962

136 N.L.R.B. 607 (N.L.R.B. 1962)

MAGIC SLACKS, INC.
V. THE REMEDY
607
Having found that Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices in violation
of the Act, I recommend that Respondent to effectuate the policies of the Act cease
and desist therefrom and take the affirmative action herein specified.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
In summary , I find and conclude:
1. The evidence adduced in this proceeding satisfies the Board 's requirements for
the assertion of jurisdiction herein.
2. United Retail and Wholesale Employees Union, Local 115, International
Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America,
Independent , is a labor organization within the meaning of the Act.
3. The following employees of Respondent constitute a unit appropriate for pur-
poses of collective bargaining within the meaning of the Act.
All production and maintenance employees of Respondent employed at Respond-
ent's Philadelphia, Pennsylvania , place of business exclusive of all supervisors as
defined in Section 2 (11) of the Act.
4. At all times since May 16, 1961 , the Union has been the exclusive representa-
tive of all the employees in the aforementioned unit for the purposes of collective
bargaining with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment , and other
conditions of employment.
5. The evidence adduced establishes that Respondent violated Section 8(a) (1)
of the Act by interrogating employees and inducing them to bypass the Union.
6. The strike which began on May 17, 1961, was an unfair labor practice strike.
7. The strikers mentioned in the preceding paragraph made unconditional applica-
tion for reinstatement on June 7 and thereafter which Respondent failed and
refused to honor until after the strikers renounced the Union and Respondent thereby
engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of
the Act.
8. The evidence adduced establishes that on June 22, 1961, Respondent laid off
Jose Candelaira and Getulio Salas Pagan because of their union activities and thereby
violated Section 8 (a)(1) and (3) of the Act.
9 The evidence adduced establishes that Respondent refused to bargain in good
faith and thereby engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section
8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act.
10. The aforesaid activities are unfair labor practices affecting commerce within
the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
[Recommendations omitted from publication.]
Magic Slacks, Inc. and International Ladies' Garment Workers'
Union, AFL-CIO. Case No. 13-CA-4233. March 27, 1962
DECISION AND ORDER
On November 17, 1961, Trial Examiner Horace A. Ruckel issued
his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that
the Respondent had engaged in certain unfair labor practices and rec-
ommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirma-
tive action, as set forth in the Intermediate Report attached hereto.
The Trial Examiner also found that the Respondent had not engaged
in certain other alleged unfair labor practices, and recommended that
those allegations of the complaint be dismissed. Thereafter, the Re-
spondent and the General Counsel filed exceptions to the Intermediate
Report together with supporting briefs.
136 NLRB No. 56.
608 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board
has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member
panel [Members Leedom, Fanning, and Brown].
The Board has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner
at the hearings and finds that no prejudicial error was committed.'
The rulings are hereby affirmed .2
The Board has considered the Intermediate Report, the exceptions
and briefs, and the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the
findings,' conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner
with the following modifications.
The Trial Examiner dismissed the alleged Section 8(a) (3) and (1)
violations predicated on the discharge of Joyce McMahon solely on
the ground that the record provided no direct evidence of the Respond-
ent's knowledge of McMahon's union activity. The General Counsel
excepts, pointing out that in light of the small number of employees
in the plant, the fact that all of them worked in one large room, where
supervisors had a clear view of all employee activity, that the Union
was openly discussed, and that solicitation was carried on in the plant,
knowledge is fairly inferable. However, the question of whether or
not the Respondent in fact had knowledge of McMahon's union ac-
i During the bearing Rosemary Rolla was called by the General Counsel and in response
to his questions gave testimony as to her supervisory status that was contrary to her pre-
hearing affidavit . The General Counsel claimed surprise and sought to impeach her testi-
mony on this point The Trial Examiner refused to permit him to do so. We agree with
the General Counsel that the refusal constituted error See Caroline O'Shea v. Jewel
Tea Co., 233 F. 2d 530 , 535 (C.A. 7), and Weaver v. United, States, 216 F. 2d 23, 25
(C.A. 9). However, in light of the Trial Examiner's finding, with which we agree, that
Rosemary Rolla was in fact a supervisor , as contended by the General Counsel, we hold
that this error was not prejudicial.
2 Respondent contends that the amended charges are invalid because they were prepared
by the General Counsel and that therefore the Trial Examiner erred in not striking those
paragraphs of the amended complaint which were based thereon. We find no merit in
this contention . In the course of investigating the original charges , the General Counsel
discovered further evidence of possible discriminatory acts of the Respondent , and, as was
his duty, brought such matters to the attention of the Charging Party who thereupon
signed an amended charge. See Petersen Construction Corp ., etc., 128 NLRB 969, 972-973
Furthermore , the Respondent was not prejudiced by the introduction of the amended
charge and amended complaint at the hearing without prior notice For the Respondent
had full opportunity to and did litigate all allegations contained in the amended com-
plaint. We note in this connection that Respondent did not claim surprise and did not
request a continuance.
While Member Leedom dissented in the Petersen case on the issue here involved, there
are, in his view, marked disimilarities between that case and the instant case . Thus, in
Petersen the effect of action taken by Board personnel was to bring into the case some
24 additional respondent unions against which the charging parties had no specific com-
plaint and which had not, in fact , interfered with such parties' rights under the Act.
Here, however , the additional charges, assertedly sponsored by Board personnel , involved
conduct which , like that in the original charge , interfered with the employees' rights to
join or otherwise support the charging union Under these circumstances , Member
Leedom concludes that Regional personnel properly sought to have the charges elaborated
in order to seek a remedy coextensive with the alleged unlawful antiunion conduct which
gave rise to the original charge.
S We hereby correct the following inadvertent error in the Intermediate Report which
does not affect the Trial Examiner 's findings , conclusions , and recommendation, or our
agreement therewith : The record shows that Fonte asked Katz if anything was going to
be done about the Committee ' s demands several days after the Committee met, rather
than 2 weeks thereafter, as stated in the Intermediate Report.
MAGIC SLACKS, INC. 609
tivity is one we need not here decide' For we are satisfied that, in
any event, the General Counsel failed to establish that McMahon's
layoff was based on the discriminatory factors he alleged, rather than
the economic factors asserted by the Respondent. Thus, the latter
proved that, because of a substantial decline in its business, it laid off
36 of its complement of 50 employees between March 21 and May 17,
1961. Four such employees were laid off before April 14, the date of
McMahon's layoff, and five were laid off during the following week.
At the time of her layoff, McMahon was working in the repair de-
partment which consisted of three employees. Several days later an-
other employee in that department was laid off, and the remaining em-
ployee was a part-time worker. While the Respondent's employees
have similar skills and are largely interchangeable, there is no evidence
that the Respondent followed any system of seniority in its layoffs.
Moreover there is no proof of a disproportionate selection of prounion
employees for layoff.
It is true that the Respondent rehired some of those employees laid
off, including the other employee who had been laid off from the repair
department and had promised McMahon she would be rehired. How-
ever, the Respondent explained that it did not offer to rehire her be-
cause, unlike the others, she had obtained other work. The record
supports this explanation. Accordingly, in agreement with the con-
clusion of the Trial Examiner, we shall dismiss the Section 8(a) (3)
and (1) allegations of the complaint.
ORDER
The Board adopts as its Order the Recommended Order of the Trial
Examiner, with the following addition, in view of the breadth and
nature of the unfair labor practices found : 5
1. (d) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or
coercing its employees in the exercise of their right to self-
organization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain
collectively through representatives of their own choosing, to engage
' We therefore neither adopt nor pass on the validity of the Trial Examiner 's resolution
of this fact issue.
5In the notice attached to the Intermediate Report as the Appendix the following
paragraph is hereby added as the fifth paragraph.
We wine NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees
in the exercise of their right to self-organization , to form, loin, or assist labor
organizations , to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing,
and to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other
mutual aid or protection , or to refrain from any and all such activities, except to the
extent that such right may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a
labor organization as a condition of employment, as authorized in Section 8(a) (3) of
the Act, as modified by the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959.
Also, the following sentence is to be included in the last paragraph which appears at
the foot of the page: "Employees may communicate directly with the Board ' s Regional
Office, 176 West Adams Street, Chicago, Illinois, telephone number Central 6-9660, if they
have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions "
610 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
in concerted activities for the purposes of collective bargaining or
other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any or all such ac-
tivities except to the extent that such right may be affected by an
agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition
of employment, as authorized in Section 8(a) (3) of the Act, as
modified by the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of
1959.
INTERMEDIATE REPORT AND RECOMMENDED ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon a charge filed on May 16, 1961 , by International Ladies' Garment Workers'
Union, AFL-CIO, herein called the Union , the General Counsel of the National
Labor Relations Board on June 30, 1961 , issued his complaint against Magic Slacks,
Inc., herein called Respondent . On August 22, 1961 , at the hearing , the Union filed
an amended charge and the General Counsel filed an amended complaint. The
complaint , as amended , alleges in substance that Respondent ( 1) interrogated em-
ployees concerning their union activities , conducted a private poll to determine
whether its employees wished to be represented by the Union , created the impression
that it was keeping under surveillance the union activities of James Fonte, an em-
ployee, and promised and effectuated improved working conditions to induce em-
ployees to abandon the Union , ( 2) on or about April 14, 1961 , discharged one Joyce
McMahon because of her union affiliations , and (3 ) from about April 3, 1961, domi-
nated , assisted , and interfered with the administration of an employees ' committee,
thereby violating Section 8 ( a) (1), (2), and ( 3) of the National Labor Relations Act,
as amended ( 61 Stat . 136, 73 Stat . 519). Respondent filed an answer and an amended
answer denying the commission of any unfair labor practices.
Pursuant to notice the duly designated Trial Examiner conducted a hearing at
Chicago, Illinois, from August 22 to 24, and from September 5 to 8 , 1961 , at which
all parties were represented.
The parties have filed briefs which I have considered . Upon the entire record and
from my observation of the witnesses , I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. RESPONDENT 'S BUSINESS
Respondent is an Illinois corporation having its principal place of business at
McHenry, Illinois, where it is engaged in the manufacture of women's clothing.
During the year preceding the issuance of the complaint Respondent manufactured,
sold, and shipped from its plant products valued in excess of $50,000, directly to
States of the United States other than the State of Illinois. Respondent normally
employs approximately 50 employees, Respondent's answer admits that it is engaged
in commerce within the meaning of the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union, AFLr-CIO, is a labor organization
within the meaning of the Act, and admits employees of Respondent to membership.
The Employees' Committee here involved also is a labor organization within the
meaning of the Act for the reasons set forth below.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The discharge of Joyce McMahon
1. Preliminary
Joyce McMahon last came to work for Respondent in October 1959. Her employ-
ment was terminated on April 14, 1961, under circumstances hereinafter related.
During the latter part of March 1961, the Union began to organize Respondent's
employees. Its representatives passed out literature at the plant entrance and enlisted
the help of James Fonte, a cutter, one of Respondent's more responsible employees
who had previously been active in an employee committee in the plant. Fonte spoke
to various employees about the Union including McMahon, Rosemary Rolla, alleged
by the General Counsel to be a supervisor, and others, and asked them to come to a
MAGIC SLACKS, INC. 611
union meeting . McMahon and others did so and received union authorization cards
which they distributed to other employees. McMahon, according to her testimony,
received 10 cards and returned 7, signed, to the Union.
It is not disputed that Respondent was aware of the Union's organizing activities.
Any conclusion that it knew of McMahon's own activities, or of their extent or in
relation to those of other union adherents, must be drawn, if it is to be drawn at all,
from a conversation between Fonte and Rolla and a conversation between Rolla
and a group of employees of which McMahon may have been one.
The first of these conversations took place during the early part of April, during
a day on the evening of which the Union held its second meeting of Respondent's
employees. On this day Fonte invited Rolla and employee Anne Bauer, standing
together, to come to the meeting. Fonte testified that he "thought" that he mentioned
McMahon and two other employees as among those who he believed would be there.
Rolla testified that Fonte mentioned no names. Bauer, though called as a witness by
Respondent, was not examined on the point. On the whole, I found both Rolla and
Fonte to be credible witnesses. But between the testimony of Fonte who only
thought that he mentioned McMahon's name, and that of Rolla who testified posi-
tively that he did not, and in view of the fact that the General Counsel did not call
the third party to the conversation as a witness, I accept the testimony of Rolla as
being in accord wih the fact. Assuming, for the sake of argument, that Fonte rather
than Rolla should be credited, it will be noted that Fonte did not state that McMahon
had attended any union meeting, but merely that in his opinion, she and others would
attend that night.
The other conversation took place the same day when Rolla asked Helen Simcik i
and Estelle Strange, while the three were working together, what they thought about
unions in general, saying that her husband had belonged to a union and that she had
received no union benefits on his death She added, and this was the reason she
advanced at the hearing for engaging in the conversation, that she had been asked to
go to the meeting that night. Simcik told Rolla that she had formerly worked where
there was a union and that it was a good one. Strange told Rolla that she knew
nothing about unions. Rolla's testimony is that though her question was primarily
directed to Strange, any other employees present in addition to Simcik could have
heard it. McMahon's testimony is that she was one who was present.
Strange was not called as a witness. McMahon's version of this conversation is
that Rolla's question was directed to her, and that she replied that she thought the
Union was a good thing, and that when Rolla related her failure to receive any union
benefits upon her husband's death, McMahon rejoined that there must have been
"something dirty" about it, adding that she would like to have more money to retire
on. Rolla's testimony was that she could not recall this remark, although she did
recall McMahon's observing either on this occasion or another that she expected to
work another 15 years.
After McMahon had presumably finished her account of this conversation the
General Counsel asked her twice if she could recall anything else which Rolla had
said, and she answered twice that she could not. When asked a third time she testi-
fied: "Oh, Rosemary (Rolla) had told them: You know if you get a union in, you
won't be working as much as you are now." Rolla denied making any such state-
ment and it was not corroborated by Strange who, I have said, did not testify, nor
by anyone else, though McMahon seems to be saying here that Rolla had made this
prophecy to a group, and not to McMahon personally. McMahon's pretrial state-
ment to the Regional Office contained no mention of Rolla's having said that there
would not be as much work if the Union came in, though from McMahon's stand-
point this, if said, was more important than anything else she attributed to Rolla.
Rolla testified, as did Katz, that she had no knowledge of McMahon's interest in
the Union.
I view McMahon's added testimony as an afterthought and it lessens my confidence
in the credibility of her testimony. I conclude that Rolla's account is more in accord
with the fact. I do not find that Rolla, or through Rolla the Respondent,2 knew that
i Simcik was terminated the day before McMahon was terminated . Her name appears
in the original charge but not in the complaint. As will be seen hereinafter, Respondent
laid off a number of employees during March, April, and May 1961.
1
The General Counsel contends that Rolla is a supervisor and Respondent that she is
only a work expediter The record shows that Rolla sees to it that particular work is
assigned to particular employees, and is responsible for its satisfactory progress from
operator to operator. Katz, Respondent's plant manager, testified that in his absence
Rolla, together with an office girl, is in charge of the plant. The employees regarded her
641795-63-vol. 136-40
612 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
McMahon was active in the Union or had any interest in it other than that shared
by other employees , among whom it was a general topic of conversation , or that her
interest came to Respondent's knowledge from any other source.
2. The termination of McMahon's employment
Respondent's business began to decline in March 1961. The number of garments
produced fell from 11,634 in January to 3,712 in May. Prior to McMahon's termi-
nation on April 14, Respondent had already laid off four employees, beginning in
March. During April and May, after McMahon's termination, Respondent laid off
additional employees, totaling about half its normal working force. When business
picked up again a number of these employees were hired back. Katz testified that
he was undecided whether to recall McMahon and decided against it when he
learned that she had another job. There is no system of seniority in Respondent's
plant.
There is much evidence in the record as to the various jobs performed by McMahon
and other employees (which are largely interchangeable) and their relative skills
and experience, as well as testimony concerning the misuse of a machine in which
McMahon was indirectly involved. I find no reason for evaluating this evidence
as it pertains to McMahon's termination, for I have found that Respondent had no
knowledge of her union activities. It is hereinafter recommended that the allega-
tions of the complaint as to McMahon be dismissed.
B. The Employees' Committee; the poll of employees
In 1957 or 1958, at a time when an attempt was being made by an outside union
to organize Respondent's employees, an Employees' Committee came into existence
at the plant. The Committee, of which Fonte was a member, held meetings with
Katz to discuss wages, hours, and working conditions. The last such meeting was
held in 1959 and thereafter the Committee became dormant. In 1961, shortly after
the Union began organizing, Katz asked Fonte, its principal proponent, why the
employees had not come to him with the Committee instead of seeking "outside
help." Fonte replied that many of the employees thought that the Committee was
not doing any good. Following this conversation, Fonte spoke to the members of
the Committee, and told them what Katz had said, and the Committee decided to
meet and formulate suggestions to be submitted to Respondent. The meeting took
place on the floor of the plant in the area in which the employees customarily ate
their lunch. The plant floor is one large room without partitions. Katz, though
not present in the area of the meeting, was within sight at the far end of the floor.
The Committee elected Fonte chairman and prepared a list of demands, including
automatic wage increases for hourly workers, higher pay rates, two paid holidays,
and a first-aid attendant. Katz was then called over and the demands were presented.
Katz immediately granted the one pertaining to a first-aid attendant and promised
to submit the others to Baum, Respondent's president. The meeting lasted about
a half hour beyond the break period, but no deduction was made in the wages of
those present. Before the meeting broke up it was suggested and agreed to by Katz
that regular meetings of the Committee should be held once a month. Katz prepared
a letter to the employees advising them of the proceedings of the initial meeting
of the Committee and posted it on the plant bulletin board.
After 2 weeks had passed and Respondent had made no answer to the Committee's
demands, Fonte asked Katz if anything was going to be done. Katz said that he
had heard rumors to the effect that the employees were dissatisfied with the demands
which the Committee had presented, that the Committee did not have the support
of the employees, that he thought that they lacked confidence in him, and that he
could not approach Baum unless he did have their confidence. Fonte reported this
conversation to the Committee, which arranged to take a poll of the employees during
the afternoon break, and this was done. The question voted on was whether the
employees had confidence in Katz, to be answered by ballots marked "Yes" or "No."
Katz granted permission to Fonte and two other tellers to count the ballots after
the end of the break, on company time, and the result was found to be overwhelm-
as a supervisor. There is no other person with supervisory duties between Katz and
the nonsupervisory employees I find that Rolla is a supervisor within the meaning of
the Act See Meyer Hammerman et al., d/b/a Jolly Kids Togs,, 117 NLRB 393; Mitt
South Manufacturing Company, Inc , 120 NLRB 230.
MAGIC SLACKS, INC. 613
ingly "Yes ." " Fonte communicated this information to Katz and Katz told him
that now he could discuss the Committee 's demands with Baum.
A few days after the poll Katz informed Fonte that Respondent would grant two
paid holidays: Memorial Day, then 2 weeks distant, and the Fourth of July. This
promise was not effectuated . The Union filed its charge herein on May 16 , where-
upon Baum visited the plant, convened a meeting of the employees , and explained
that Respondent could not grant paid holidays until the issues raised by the Union's
charge were disposed of.
The last recorded meeting of the Committee took place on August 14, a week
before the commencement of the hearing. Some of the members expressed dis-
satisfaction with the existing state of affairs, and two of them resigned. When Fonte
reported this to Katz, Katz told him that after matters were cleared up Foote could
form another committee.
Conclusions
I find that Respondent, during a time when the Union was attempting to organize
its employees, inspired, if it did not initially suggest, the reactivation of the Employees'
Committee as a counterweight to the Union. Katz' questioning of Foote as to why
the employees did not come to him through the Committee rather than enlisting
"outside help," an obvious reference to the Union, was followed forthwith by a
meeting of the members of the dormant Committee. The meeting took place on
company time and property without deduction of wages for the time so spent. Re-
spondent took the demands of the Committee under advisement. When it ascer-
tained that its employees were not satisfied with these demands, which was tantamount
to being dissatisfied with the Committee, Respondent acquiesced in, if it did not
directly suggest, the taking of a poll of the employees. The poll was under the
auspices of the Committee and took place on company property and partly on
company time, without deduction of wages for time so spent. Under these circum-
stances, and in this context, the question presented to the employees as to whether
they had confidence in Katz was tantamount to asking them whether they favored
the Union or Respondent. Both the initial meeting of the Committee and the taking
of the poll, though not in the immediate presence of Katz, were under his observation.
Respondent, in effect, used the Committee to take the poll and used the poll to
strengthen the bargaining position of the Committee as against the Union. Both
tended to undermine the Union?
By encouraging, assisting , and supporting the Committee, and by inspiring the
polling of its employees by the Committee in these circumstances, as well as by
promising improved working conditions to induce, as I find, its employees to abandon
the Union, Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) and (2) of the Act.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of Respondent set forth in section III, above , occurring in con-
nection with the operations of Respondent described in section I, above, have a
close, intimate , and substantial relation to trade, traffic , and commerce among the
several States and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing com-
merce and the free flow thereof.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices , it will be
recommended that Respondent cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirma-
tive action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. The clear evidence in the
record that the Employees' Committee is not only dominated and assisted by Re-
spondent, but was in a measure actually formed by it, calls for the traditional rec-
ommendation of disestablishment and withdrawal of recognition from it by Respond-
ent. The conduct of Respondent does not indicate a likelihood that it will engage
in other unfair labor practices and, hence, a broad cease-and-desist order will not be
recommended.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record in the
case, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Respondent is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7)
of the Act.
See Standard Rate and Date Service, Inc, 133 NLRB 337; Stewart Hog Ring Com-pany, Inc., 131 NLRB 310
614 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
2. International Ladies' Garment Workers ' Union , AFL-CIO, and the Employees'
Committee 4 are labor organizations within the meaning of the Act.
3. By dominating , sponsoring, and assisting the formation and administration of
the Employees ' Committee and by contributing support thereto , Respondent has
violated Section 8(a) (2) and (1) of the Act.
4. By conducting a poll of its employees and by promising them economic benefits
in order to induce them to abandon the Union , Respondent has violated Section
8(a)(1) of the Act.
5. The remaining allegations of the complaint setting forth facts and conduct in
violation of Section 8(a)(1) have not been established by a preponderance of the
evidence.
6. By laying off or discharging Joyce McMahon Respondent has not engaged in
unfair labor prattices in violation of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act.
7. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and conclusions of law, and upon the
entire record in the case , it will be recommended that Magic Slacks, Inc., its officers,
agents, successors , and assigns, shall:
4. Cease and desist from:
(a) Dominating or supporting or assisting the formation and administration of
the Employees ' Committee or any other organization of its employees or contributing
financial or other support thereto.
(b) Suggesting the polling of its employees as to their sentiments with respect
to collective bargaining under circumstances constituting interference , restraint, and
coercion within the meaning of Section 8 ( a)(1) of the Act.
(c) Promising its employees economic benefits in order to induce them to abandon
the Union.
2. Take the following affirmative action , which is necessary to effectuate the
policies of the Act:
(a) Withdraw and withhold all recognition from, and completely disestablish,
the Employees ' Committee or any successor thereof as representative of any of its
employees for the purpose of dealing with respect to grievances , labor disputes,
wages, rates of pay, hours of employment or conditions of work.
(b) Post at its place of business in McHenry , Illinois, copies of the notice attached
hereto marked "Appendix ." 5 Copies of such notice , to be furnished by the Regional
Director for the Thirteenth Region, shall , after being duly signed by an authorized
representative , be posted by Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof and be
maintained by it for a period of 60 consecutive days thereafter in conspicuous places,
including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable
steps shall be taken by Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced,
or covered by any other material.
(c) Notify the Regional Director for the Thirteenth Region, in writing, within
20 days from the date of the receipt of this Intermediate Report, what steps Re-
spondent has taken to comply therewith .6
(d) It it recommended that the complaint be dismissed insofar as it alleges acts
and conduct in violation of Section 8(a)( I) not specifically found to be violative of
that section , and insofar as the complaint alleges that Joyce McMahon was dis-
charged in violation of Section 8 (a) (3) and ( 1) of the Act.
4 Section 2(5) of the Act defines a labor organization as "any organization of any kind,
or any agency or employee representation committee or plan , in which employees partici-
pate and which exists for the purpose , in whole or in part , of dealing with employers
concerning grievances , labor disputes , wages , rates of pay , hours of employment , or con-
ditions of work "
5In the event that these recommendations be adopted by the Board , the words "Deci-
sion and Order" shall be substituted for the words "The Recommendations of a Trial
Examiner" in the notice In the further event that the Board's Order be enforced by a
decree of a United States Court of Appeals , the words "Pursuant to a Decree of the
United States 'Court of Appeals , Enforcing an Order" shall be substituted for the words
"Pursuant to a Decision and Order."
6 In the event that these recommendations be adopted by the Board , this provision shall
be modified to read- "Notify said Regional Director, in writing , within 10 days from the
date of this Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith "
CARDINAL EXTRUSIONS COMPANY 615
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the recommendations of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor Re-
lations Board , and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Relations
Act, as amended , we hereby notify you that:
WE WILL NOT dominate or interfere with the administration of the Employees'
Committee or any other labor organization or contribute financial or other
support thereto.
WE WILL NOT recognize the Employees ' Committee or any successor thereto
and we permanently withdraw recognition from and disestablish it as representa-
tive of any of our employees for the purpose, in whole or part , of dealing with
or discussing grievances , labor disputes , wages, rates of pay, hours of employ-
ment, or conditions of work.
WE WILL NOT suggest that polls be taken of our employees as to their senti-
ments respecting collective bargaining under circumstances constituting inter-
ference, restraint , and coercion within the meaning of Section 8 (a)(1) of
the Act.
WE WILL NOT grant or imply that we will grant economic benefits to our em-
ployees in order to discourage membership in or activities on behalf of Inter-
national Ladies ' Garment Workers ' Union , AFL-CIO, or any other labor
organization.
MAGIC SLACKS, INC.,
Employer.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------
(Representative ) ( Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof, and must not be
altered , defaced , or covered by any other material.
Cardinal Extrusions Company and District 50, United Mine
Workers of America . Case No. 9-CA-2336. March 27, 1962
DECISION AND ORDER
On December 21, 1961, Trial Examiner Samuel Ross issued his
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that
the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair
labor practices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom
and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the Intermediate
Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions
to the Intermediate Report and a supporting brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with
this case to a three-member panel [Members Rodgers, Fanning, and
Brown].
The Board has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner at
the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The
rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Interme-
diate Report, the exceptions I and the brief, and the entire record in
1 The Respondent excepted to the Intermediate Report as being based upon an unfair
hearing, and it asserted that the Trial Examiner, in making his findings , manifested bias
against the Respondent and In favor of the Union (Charging Party ). Upon careful
examination of the entire record and the Intermediate Report , we are satisfied that the
136 NLRB No. 58.