Manuela Manufacturing Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 28, 1963

143 N.L.R.B. 379 (N.L.R.B. 1963)

MANUELA MANUFACTURING CO., INC. 379
make them whole for any loss of pay each may have suffered as a result of
the discrimination against them.
WE WILL, upon request, bargain collectively with United Rubber, Cork,
Linoleum and Plastic Workers of America, AFL-CIO, as the representative
of the employees in the following appropriate unit with respect to rates of pay,
wages, hours of work , and other conditions of employment , and, if an under-
standing is reached , embody such understanding in a signed agreement. The
bargaining unit is:
All production and maintenance employees at our Charlotte, North
Carolina, plant, including plant clerical employees , but excluding office
clerical employees , the time-study man, scheduler , chemist, general fore-
man, floor foremen , working supervisors , and all guards and supervisors
as defined in the Act.
WE WILL NOT interfere with , restrain , or coerce our employees in the exercise
of these rights.
All our employees have the right to form , join, or assist any labor union, or not
to do so.
RADIATOR SPECIALTY COMPANY,
Employer.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------(Representative ) (Title)
NOTE.-We will notify all employees named in Appendix A to the Trial Ex-
aminer's Intermediate Report , if presently serving in the Armed Forces of the United
States of their right to full reinstatement upon application in accordance with the
Selective Service Act and the Universal Military Training and Service Act of 1948,
as amended , after discharge from the Armed Forces.
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting,
and must not be altered , defaced , or covered by any other material.
Employees may communicate directly with the Board 's Regional Office, 1831
Nissen Building , 310 West Fourth Street , Winston-Salem , North Carolina, 27101,
Telephone No. 724-8356 , if they have any question concerning this notice or com-
pliance with its provisions.
Manuela Manufacturing Co., Inc. and International Ladies
Garment Workers Union , Local 601, AFL-CIO and The
Manuela Co ., Employees Grievance Committee . Case No. 24-
CA-1671. June 28, 1963
DECISION AND ORDER
On April 3, 1963, Trial Examiner James T. Barker issued his
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that
the Respondent had not engaged in the unfair labor practices alleged
in the complaint and recommending that the complaint be dismissed
in its entirety, as set forth in the attached Intermediate Report.
Thereafter, the General Counsel filed exceptions to the Intermediate
Report and a supporting brief. The Respondent filed a reply brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board
has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member
panel [Chairman McCulloch and Members Rodgers and Fanning.]
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made at
the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The
rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Inter-
143 NLRB No. 49.
380 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
mediate Report , and the entire record in this case , including the ex-
ceptions and the brief, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions,
and recommendations of the Trial Examiner.
[The Board dismissed the complaint.]
INTERMEDIATE REPORT
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon a charge filed on October 25 , 1962 , and an amended charge filed on
November 21, 1962 , by the International Ladies Garment Workers Union, Local
601, AFL-CIO, herein called the Union , the Acting Regional Director of the
National Labor Relations Board for the Twenty-fourth Region, on December 4,
1962, issued a complaint against Manuela Manufacturing Co., Inc., herein referred
to as Respondent , alleging violations of Section 8(a)(1) and (2) of the National
Labor Relations Act, herein called the Act. In its duly filed answer , Respondent
admitted certain allegations of the complaint but denied the commission of any
unfair labor practices.
Pursuant to notice a hearing was held before Trial Examiner James T. Barker
at Santurce , Puerto Rico, on January 23 and 24, 1962. All parties were represented
at the hearing and were afforded full opportunity to be heard , to introduce relevant
evidence , to present oral argument and to file briefs with me. The Respondent
presented oral argument and thereafter , on March 6 , filed a brief with me.
Upon consideration of the entire record and the briefs of the parties, and upon
my observation of the witnesses , I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
Respondent is, and has been at all times material herein , a Puerto Rico corpora-
tion with its principal office and place of business in Naranjito, Puerto Rico, where it
is engaged in the manufacture of ladies' lingerie. During the 12-month period
immediately preceding the issuance of the complaint herein , Respondent in the
course and conduct of its business operations manufactured and shipped goods to
points located outside the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico valued in excess of $50,000.
Upon these admitted facts, I find that Respondent is engaged in commerce within
the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS
International Ladies Garment Workers Union, Local 601, AFL-CIO, was admitted
by the Respondent at the hearing to be a labor organization within the meaning of
Section 2 ( 5) of the Act, and I so find. The status as a labor organization of The
Manuela Co., Employees Grievance Committee is in issue and is hereinafter resolved.
In. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
The General Counsel contends and the Respondent denies that in order to defeat
the Union 's organizational efforts the Respondent on October 22, 1962, at a meeting
of its employees by and through General Manager Stanley Goldberg, threatened its
employees with the closing of its plant in the event the Union were successful in its
organizational efforts and requested each of the employees to indicate by a show
of hands whether or not he desired the Union to represent him for collective-
bargaining purposes . The General Counsel further contends that by and through
Blanca Morales, a supervisor , Respondent unlawfully interrogated an employee con-
cerning her union desires and activities . In addition , the General Counsel contends
that at the October 22 meeting , General Manager Goldberg suggested or requested
the employees to reorganize or reactivate the Employees Grievance Committee to
represent them for collective -bargaining purposes ; and after the meeting gave active
assistance and support to the reorganized and reactivated Employees Grievance Com-
mittee subsequently selected by the employees as their representatives for the purpose
of discussing and adjusting employee grievances and negotiating with management
concerning their wages, hours, and working conditions.
MANUELA MANUFACTURING CO., INC. 381
A. The union organizational efforts
On or about October 17, 1962, Respondent received a telegram from the Union
in which the latter claimed to represent a majority of the Respondent's employees
and requested a collective-bargaining meeting. The telegram came to the attention
of Stanley Goldberg, Respondent's secretary-treasurer and general manager. At
the time of the receipt of the telegram the Union was known by Goldberg to be
actively engaged in a campaign to organize Respondent's employees.'
1. The employee meeting
During the week preceding October 22, 1962, at noontime, a large group of
employees met with Fermin Morales, an office clerical employee and requested
him to arrange for them to meet with General Manager Goldberg? As a result,
Morales conveyed the request to Goldberg who agreed to meet with the employees
on the following Monday afternoon.3
On October 22, at about 2:30 p.m., approximately 150 employees gathered for the
meeting which was held in a new annex building on Respondent's premises. Pur-
suant to the previous request of the employees no supervisors were present. Save
for two or three office clerical employees, the employee contingent consisted entirely
of production employees.
Goldberg stood on a table in order to see and be seen by the employees and
commenced the meeting. He stated that he understood that the employees wanted
"to speak with [him]," and invited employees who desired to be heard to "raise
their hands and speak." The employees, predominantly women, discussed the harsh
and abusive treatment that they felt they had been receiving from two male super-
visors. They asserted, in substance, that they wanted to bring this to the attention
of Goldberg personally through the device of the meeting because they felt this
approach more conducive to open discussion. They sought Goldberg's solution to
the problem of the abusive supervisory treatment. As one speaker would finish the
next would proceed to relate his or her complaint or experience. As the meeting
progressed Goldberg inquired why the employees had not come to him with the
problem of the supervisory abuse. He further invited the employees to come to
him with "personal problems whatever their nature" informing them, "I never re-
fused entrance to my office because unless I know what [the problems are] I cannot
help out." 4
During the meeting, there was a discussion of forming an employees committee.
Fermin Morales who was standing near Goldberg suggested that the employees
indicate their desire by a show of hands. It was agreed that an employees committee
be formed. An employees committee had previously existed but because there had
been supervisory representation on it, it had fallen into disfavor with the employees .5
With respect to the selection of the committee, Goldberg credibly testified:
Well, during the meeting I suggested that if they were going to have people talk
to me that they decide which persons they wanted to talk with me-I did not
know how they were going to do it.
As the meeting progressed some of the employees present in conversations among
themselves (but not addressed to Goldberg) discussed the Union.6 During the meet-
ing employee Francisco Santiago endeavored to speak against the Union saying that
he thought "the employees were very intelligent [and] able to get along without
outside help." Goldberg stopped him and advised the employees that he did not
want to discuss the Union at the meeting.?
Also at the meeting an employee inquired, in substance, whether having signed
a union authorization card an employee was required to vote for the Union. Gold-
berg answered:
That if they had signed a card that this was their right; however, if a vote were
ever held, that the vote was what determined whether they wanted the Union
or not.
1 The foregoing is predicated upon the credited testimony of Stanley Goldberg.
2 The credited testimony of Fermin Morales, Ramon Luis River', and Ana Maria Nieves
S The credited testimony of Stanley Goldberg
' The foregoing is predicated on the credited testimony of Stanley Goldberg.
s The credited testimony of Santiago.
6 The credited testimony of Mariana Alicea.
7 The credited testimony of Goldberg , Santiago, and Nieves.
382 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Concerning the meeting and any discussion of the Union, Goldberg further credi-
bly testified as follows:
Well, it started very spontaneously in this particular matter [the mention of
the Union]-towards the end of the meeting one of the employees got up and
said words to the effect that "Let us give Mr. Goldberg a vote of confidence" and
then every one raised their hands and started yelling, Yes, Yes, Yes, and then
all shouted, "No Union, No Union." Which was towards the end of the meeting.
Iris Rosaura Rivera testified that at the meeting Goldberg spoke of a telegram
he had received from the Union claiming to represent a majority of the employees
and stated that if it were the employees' desire they could select a union but if
they did the plant would close down and be moved, and that the Company "would
continue to do so whenever it happened." According to Rivera, Goldberg further
told the employees to think of the future of their children.
Rivera's testimony concerning Goldberg's mention of the receipt of a telegram
from the Union is supported only by the testimony of Fermin Morales,8 and is denied
by Goldberg whom I have found to be a credible witness. Other witnesses had no
recollection of any mention of the telegram at the meeting. The balance of Rivera's
testimony has no other record corroboration. Rivera, a former employee of Re-
spondent, impressed me as I observed her demeanor and heard her testify, as an in-
dividual possessing strong prounion propensities and harboring deep resentment
against her former employer . I am convinced that she permitted her testimony to
be affected by these strongly held convictions. I do not credit her testimony con-
cerning the alleged comments above delineated.
On the basis of the evidence adduced by the General Counsel, I conclude and
find that the allegations of the complaint alleging conduct by Respondent at the
October 22 meeting independently violative of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act must be
dismissed. There is no credible evidence that Goldberg or any agent of Respondent
threatened employees with the closing of the plant in the event the Union succeeded
in its efforts to organize the employees. Likewise the evidence is insufficient to
establish that Respondent was in any way responsible for the "show of hands" action
of Fermin Morales, or the "vote of confidence " plea elicited , although these incidents
had the effect of requiring employees in the presence of Goldberg to declare their
union sympathies . Absent a proof which raises more than a suspicion that Fermin
Morales or other employees were purposely serving as a mere cloak for Goldberg,
I am of the opinion , and so find that the allegations of the complaint relating to
the requiring of employees to indicate their union preference must be dismissed for
lack of proof.
2. The Blanca Morales' inquiry
Iris Rosaura Rivera also testified that she distributed authorization cards for the
Union. One day before the October 22 employee meeting above described, Rivera
testified that as she was passing through the plant , Blanca Morales, a supervisor,
asked Rivera if she had signed a union card. According to Rivera she answered
that she had and stated further, jokingly, that she had one for Eliseo Casiano, gen-
eral manager and Goldberg 's immediate assistant . Morales, according to Rivera,
answered , "at least keep your mouth closed ." Blanca Morales denied ever having
asked Rivera if she had signed a union card . I do not credit Rivera for the reason
set forth above, and for the additional reason , further reflecting the general unrelia-
bility of her testimony , that during direct and cross-examination she gave three
differing versions of Blanca Morales ' alleged inquiry. I shall recommend that this
allegation , added through amendment at the hearing, be dismissed.
3. The Employees Committee
After the decision was made to have an Employees Committee, Goldberg indicated
his approval , and as a result of the action , balloting subsequently took place for
the selection of an Employees Committee. One representative was selected from each
of the four departments by means of mimeographed paper write-in ballots.
The balloting occurred on company time during the late afternoon hours of Octo-
ber 24 . Ballots were distributed by Fermin Morales and by Blanca Morales, a su-
pervisor , to the employees at their work stations and were afterward collected by
the same two individuals . Goldberg was not present during the balloting and did
not instruct or otherwise attempt to influence employees in the choice of their com-
8 I give no weight to Morales' testimony on this matter for it was extracted from him
by the General Counsel for whom he appeared as a witness , in a manner resembling im-
peachment more than refreshment of recollection. Moreover , his testimony in this regard
was so ambivalent as to be totally unreliable I do not credit it.
MANUELA MANUFACTURING CO., INC. 383
mittee representatives. The ballots were counted by Fermin Morales and Supervisor
Blanca Morales.9
Two or three days after the balloting and during working hours, Goldberg met
in his office with the four duly selected representatives, Mariana Alicea, Francisco
Santiago, Lydia Kuilan, and Flora Garcia.1° They discussed the procedures under
which the Committee would function." Goldberg advanced his ideas concerning
the manner in which the Committee should operate. He stressed to the committee
members the nature of their representative capacity and advised them to bring "any
complaint" that the representatives or operators might have to him.12 It was de-
cided, all participants agreeing, that when a complaint would arise the departmental
representative would investigate the matter, determine its merits, and for resolution
bring the matter to the attention of either Eliseo Casiano, Goldberg's assistant and
plant manager, or, if the matter were of a more important nature to Goldberg
himself. In either instance the Committee was expected to make known to the
management representative their decision on the matter in issue. If the issue were
one which one member of the Committee could handle without consultation with
other members, the understanding was that he should do so.
It was the further understanding of the Committee that it had authority to concern
itself with "all kinds of . work complaints." is
Also at this meeting with Goldberg, the departmental representatives brought to
the attention of Goldberg the complaint of some operators that they were not being
supervised efficiently and they suggested that two additional supervisors be provided.14
4. The functioning of the Committee
After its formation on or about October 25 and until the time of the hearing, the
Committee had not met as a body. There appears never to have been any provision
for regular, periodic meetings of the committee members themselves, or of the Com-
mittee with Goldberg. Two complaints have arisen since the inception of the Com-
mittee which have been brought to the attention of Goldberg. Both complaints
involved employees in the embroidery department represented by Alicea who was
also employed in the department as a quality checker. The initial complaint in-
volved Iris Rosaura Rivera who had been suspended by Goldberg for producing poor
quality work. The complaint came to the attention of Alicea as a committee mem-
ber.15 Alicea met with Goldberg and his assistant, Casiano, and, based on her own
investigation of the complaint supported Goldberg's suspension decision.is
Subsequently, in the same manner and capacity, Alicea met with Goldberg and
considered a work complaint against another employee, Ferrer, who, like Alicea,
was employed in the embroidery department. As a result of the meeting a decision
was made to retain Ferrer. In neither of the foregoing instances did Alicea con-
sult or meet with other committee members.17
5. Conclusions as to the Committee
The complaint alleges and the answer denies that the Employees Committee was
and is a labor organization, initiated, sponsored, assisted, and supported by
Respondent.
9 The foregoing is predicated on the credited testimony of Mariana Alicea and Francisco
Santiago.
10 The credited testimony of Alicea, Santiago, and Goldberg.
11 The credited testimony of Alicea
12 The credited testimony of Santiago and Alicea. I place no reliance upon the portion
of Alicea's testimony elicited by the General Counsel by use of her sworn affidavit for the
purpose of allegedly refreshing her recollection. I am convinced that her testimony on
direct examination elicited prior to the General Counsel's resort to the refreshment tech-
nique, as well as her testimony on cross-examination, accurately reflects the "procedures"
albeit informal, agreed to by Goldberg and the committee members. To the extent Cold-
berg's testimony implies that no instructions were given nor agreement reached concern-
ing the role of the departmental representatives in investigating and resolving complaints,
I reject it.
13 The credited testimony of Santiago
14 The credited testimony of Santiago
is Alicea testified without contradiction that when the Rivera complaint arose she was
still an employee operator and had not yet become a quality checker.
1e The credited testimony of Alicea.
17 The foregoing is predicated upon the credited testimony of Alicea, as corroborated in
essential respects by the testimony of Goldberg
384 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
A labor organization as defined in Section 2(5) of the Act is-
... Any organization of any kind, or any agency or employee representation
committee or plan, in which employees participate and which exists for the pur-
pose, in whole or in part, of dealing with employers concerning grievances, labor
disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, or conditions of work.
An analysis of the facts found above reveals that the function of the departmental
representatives, as visualized by General Manager Goldberg and as further under-
stood by the representatives themselves, was that of an alter ego for employees, to
investigate their complaints and to serve as their voice to top management. While
it cannot be doubted that final authority rested with Goldberg, the chosen representa-
tives were clearly expected to be more than mere conduits of complaints devoid of
discretion, for they were vested with investigatory responsibilities to be exercised as
a prelude to consultation with management. Moreover, as the plan envisaged a
resolution of disputes where possible at the supervisory level, it must be assumed
that some ultimate representative authority rested with the employee representatives
in their contacts with supervision. Further, it was clearly contemplated that the
range of problems with which the representatives were to concern themselves was a
broad one relating to the working conditions in the plant. It is noted that employee
complaints of mistreatment by supervision gave rise to the reformulation of the Com-
mittee and one of the Committee's first acts was to discuss with Goldberg the problem
of adequate supervision of employees. Moreover, Alicea's consultation with Gold-
berg and other representatives of management related to work quality of employees.
In view of the foregoing, it cannot be doubted, and I conclude and find that it was,
the purpose of the representatives to deal with management concerning grievances
and conditions of employment.18
While in purpose and functions the departmental representatives fall within the
ambit of the statutory definition of a labor organization, it remains to be determined
whether or not individually, or collectively, they can be said to be an organization,
agency, committee or plan, within the meaning of that definition. The legislative
history of Section 2(5) of the Act shows the term "labor organization" was to be
construed very broadly.19 During the 3-month period between their selection at
the hearing herein, the four departmental representatives have met together as a
group or committee only once and there are no provisions for periodic meetings.
The two employee grievances that have involved the participation of a departmental
representative have involved Alicea alone, and not the representatives as a group who
neither convened nor were consulted on the matter. But under the procedures or
modus operandi established, joint consultation of departmental representatives is con-
templated, and indeed, notwithstanding the contrary assumption of Alicea, appears
inevitable in view of the range of employee problems over which the representatives
have jurisdiction and which have common application to all employees without
regard to their departmental placement. Moreover, it is noted that the Committee
on the occasion of its first meeting with Goldberg, consulted together with him
on the problem of adequate supervision for employees. This instance of joint
activity by the representatives together with the inevitability of future similar joint
actions, as provided for by the adoption procedures, convinces me that the four
departmental representatives constitute a "committee" or "plan" within the meaning
of Section 2(5) of the Act. In view thereof, and considering the purposes, as found,
for which the Committee exists, I conclude and find that it is a labor organization
within the meaning of the Act 2°
The question remains whether, as alleged in the complaint, Respondent initiated,
sponsored, assisted, or supported the Employees Committee in violation of Section 8
(a) (1) and (2) of the Act. The issue raised is whether the Respondent has en-
gaged in allowable cooperation with a freely chosen representative of the em-
ployees, or whether the conduct was "an inducement of these employees to choose
18 See N.L R B. v. Thompson Ramo Wooldridge, Inc. (Dage TV Div ), 305 F. 2d 807
(C A. 7), enfg. 132 NLRB 993; N.L R.B. v. Cabot Carbon Company and Cabot Shops, Inc,
360 11 S. 203
19 Rept. 573, on S 1958, 74th Cong., 1st sess., page 7
20 See Alberto Culver Company, 136 NLRB 1432; N.L.R B v Thompson Ramo Wooldridge,
Inc. (Dage TV Div.), supra; N.L R.B. v. Cabot Carbon Company and Cabot Shops, Inc.,
supra ; of N L.R.B. v. Associated Machines, 219 F. 2d 433 (C A. 6) ; Bonnaz Hand Em-
broiderers, eto, Local 66, International Ladies Garment Workers Union , AFL v. N.L R.B.,
230 F 2d 47 (C A D.A.), setting aside 111 NLRB 822; Joseph J. Schultz v. N.L.R B., 284
F. 2d 254 (C.A.D.C.).
MANUELA MANUFACTURING CO., INC. 385
an organization, which without this support, would very likely not have been
chosen." 21
Initially, it is to be observed that there is a paucity of evidence suggesting em-
ployer impetus in the revivification of the Employees Committee. The October 22
meeting resulted so far as the evidence reveals from a unified desire of a large
group of employees concerned with a matter of supervision, to them most vital.
Suggested reactivation of the Employees Committee emanated from an employee,
Fermin Morales, and although there are indications in the record of his ready access
to Goldberg by virtue of his position as an office employee and his selection as
spokesman for the employee group in obtaining the October 22 meeting with Gold-
berg, there is no evidence of a direct or indirect nature of enough sufficiency in my
opinion to support an inference that he was acting at Respondent's behest in advocat-
ing the committee form of representation at the October 22 meeting.
The decision, then, to reactivate the Employees Committee was, so far as the Gen-
eral Counsel's proof has shown, one freely made by the employees themselves.
Once the decision was made, Goldberg, it is clear, indicated his ready acceptance
of the plan, and gave tacit approval to the employees' use of company supplies and
mimeograph machine in the preparation of ballots for the election which was held
on company time and premises. Moreover, after the representatives had been
selected in balloting free from coercion or influence of management, Goldberg lent
his cooperation in devising procedures to fulfill the Committee's purposes. The
evidence is insufficient to establish or give rise to an inference that the cooperation
extended by Respondent was more than transitory, to be accorded other than in the
organizational phases of the Committee's formation. Certainly there is nothing of
record to suggest, much less establish, similar acts of benevolence or cooperation are
intended to be of a recurring nature. It is to be noted that the Committee has made
no provision for regular meetings of the membership, and there is no warrant for
the assumption that company facilities and time will be extended to the Committee
for the conduct of its internal business. Likewise, there is no evidence to suggest
the likelihood of Respondent's participation in the internal affairs of the Committee.
The use of company time and property does not per se support a finding of support
and assistance.22 Each case must turn on the totality of its own facts. A recent de-
cision of the Board strikingly similar to the instant case was that in Magic Slacks,
supra. However, distinguishing factors in the case render it stronger for the Gen-
eral Counsel's position than is his position in the instant matter. They are the fol-
lowing: the evidence of direct employer influence in the reactivation of the bargain-
ing committee as a counteraction to seeking union or "outside help"; the employer's
use of a poll in which it acquiesced to strengthen the position of the bargaining
committee; the employer's promise of benefits to be effectuated after the disposition
of a pending charge by the outside union ; and the plant manager's clearly mani-
fested influence over the affairs of the bargaining committee as evidenced by his
post-charge instruction to the employee spokesman that after the pending unfair
labor practice charges filed by the outside union "were cleared up" another com-
mittee could be formed.
In contradiction there is no such evidence here of similar overt employer intrusion
or influence. Nor is there evidence of accompanying union animus or illegal
conduct calculated to undermine the Union's organizational attempts. I am of
the opinion, and accordingly find, that in the circumstances of this case the coopera-
tion extended by the Respondent to the Employees Committee fell short of that con-
stituting sponsorship, assistance, or support. Accordingly I shall recommend that
the complaint be dismissed.23
N L R B. v. Summers Fertilizer Company, Inc., et al., 251 F 2d 514, 518 (C A. 1).
See Coppus Engineering Corporation v N L R B , 240 F 2d 564, 573 (C A 1) :
Chicago Rawhide Mfg Co. v. N.L R.B , 221 F 2d 165, 170 (C.A 7), setting aside 105
NLRB 727; N L R B. v Magic Slacks, Inc., 814 F. 2d 844 (C.A 7), denying enforcement
of 136 NLRB 607
ss See Coppus Engineering Corp. v. N L R.B , supra; N.L.R B. v Magic Slacks, Inc,
supra; Chicago Rawhide Mfg Co. v N L R B , supra; Detroit Plastic Products company,
114 NLRB 1014, 1025; of N L R.B. v. Summers Fertilizer Co., Inc, at al ., supra; Alberto
Culver Company, supra, wherein the Board found that the employer had violated Section
8(a) (1) of the Act by suggesting the establishment of a committee and thereafter dealing
with it (no Section 8(a) (2) violation had been alleged) ; of also Jamestown Machine and
Manufacturing Company, 127 NLRB 172; Mt Clemens Metal Products Company, 126
NLRB 1297, 1310 enfd. 287 F 2d 790 (C.A. 6) ; Holland Manufacturing Company, 129
NLRB 776, enfd 292 F. 2d 840 (C A 3) ; Globe Products Corporation, 102 NLRB 278,
292-293; Nu tone, Incorporated, 112 NLRB 1153, 1170-1171.
386 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Upon the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record in the case, I
make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Respondent is, and at all times material herein has been, engaged in com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. International Ladies Garment Workers Union, Local 601, AFL-CIO, and The
Manuela Co., Employees Grievance Committee , are labor organizations within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. The Respondent did not in violation of Section 8 (a)( I) of the Act threaten
its employees with the closing of its plant in the event the Union successfully or-
ganized its employees ; request each of its employees to indicate by a show of hands
whether or not he desired the Union to represent him for collective-bargaining pur-
poses; nor unlawfully interrogate its employees concerning their union desires and
activities.
4. The Respondent did not, in violation of Section 8(a)(1) or (2) of the Act,
initiate , sponsor, assist , or support The Manuela Co., Employees Grievance Com-
mittee, as alleged in the complaint.
RECOMMENDATION
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, I recom-
mend that the complaint herein be dismissed.
Henry I. Siegel Co., Inc. and Amalgamated Clothing Workers
of America, AFL-CIO. Cases Nos. ?6-CA-1256, 26-CA-1304,
and 26-CA-1371. June 28, 1963
DECISION AND ORDER
On April 15, 1963, Trial Examiner W. Gerard Ryan 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 attached Inter-
mediate Report. He also found that the Respondent had not engaged
in certain other alleged unfair labor practices and recommended dis-
missal of those allegations of the complaint. Thereafter, the Respond-
ent and the Charging Party filed exceptions to the Intermediate Re-
port and supporting briefs.
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 [Chairman McCulloch and Members Rodgers and Fanning]..
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made at
the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The
rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Inter-
mediate Report and the entire record in this case, including the excep-
tions and briefs, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and
recommendations of the Trial Examiner, with the additions and
modifications noted below.'
i The Trial Examiner found in effect, and we agree, that in the circumstances described
by him at Respondent 's Bruceton plant, Respondent made "demands " for pretrial employee-
143 NLRB No. 38.