Mary Chess, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 22, 1964

145 N.L.R.B. 1200 (N.L.R.B. 1964)

1200 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
(d) Notify the Regional Director for the Second Region, in writing, within 20
days from the date of the receipt of this Intermediate Report and Recommended
Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply therewith .9
It is further recommended that the complaint be dismissed as to Selwyn
Hutchinson.
IIn the event that this Recommended Order 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 "
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor
Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, as amended, we hereby notify you that.
WE WILL NOT unlawfully discourage our employees from being members of
District 65, Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union, AFL-CIO, or any
other union.
WE WILL NOT discriminate against any employee because he or she files
charges with, or testifies at any proceedings of, the National Labor Relations
Board.
WE WILL NOT violate any of the rights you have under the National Labor
Relations Act to join a union of your choice or not to engage in any union
activities.
WE WILL offer each of the employees named below reinstatement to his or her
former job and will give them backpay for loss of earnings:
Norma Pinero Pedro Santiago Antonio Coello
Marcos Ortiz Richard Ortiz Arthur Cooper
Guillermo Cuellar George Gordon
All our employees are free to become or remain members of the Union named
above, and they are also free to refrain from joining any union.
1. POSNER, INC ; POSNER DISTRIBUTING
CORP.; POSNER BEAUTY AND BARBER
SUPPLY CORP.; and HAMILTON POSNER,
Employer.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------(Representative) (Title)
NOTE.-We will notify the above-named employees if presently serving in the
Armed Forces of the United States of their right to full reinstatement upon applica-
tion 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, Fifth
Floor, Squibb Building, 745 Fifth Avenue, New York, New York, Telephone No.
751-5500, if they have any questions concerning this notice or compliance with its
provisions.
Mary Chess, Inc., Marie Earle Corporation , Parfums Lucien
Lelong Corporation and Parfums Schiaparelli , Inc. and Local
8-149 , Oil, Chemical and Atomic Workers International Union,
AFL-CIO and The Plant Committee , Party in Interest. Case
No. 2-CA-9174. January 22, 1964
DECISION AND ORDER
On October 1, 1963, Trial Examiner David London issued his Deci-
sion in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondents
145 NLRB No. 115.
MARY CHESS, INC., ETC. 1201
had engaged in and were engaging in certain unfair labor practices
within the meaning of the Act, and recommending that they cease and
desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the
attached Trial Examiner's Decision. Thereafter, Respondents filed
exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision and a supporting brief.
The General Counsel filed a brief in support of the Trial Examiner's
Decision.
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 [Chairman McCulloch and Members
Fanning and Jenkins].
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made,at
the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The
rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the entire
record in this case, including the Trial Examiner's Decision, the excep-
tions, and briefs, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and
recommendations of the Trial Examiner.
ORDER
The Board adopts as its Order the Recommended Order of the Trial
Examiner with the following modifications : 1
Delete paragraph 1(d) and substitute therefor, as paragraph 1(d),
the following :
(d) Recognizing The Plant Committee, or any successor there-
to, as the exclusive representative of their employees for the pur-
pose of dealing with Respondents concerning grievances, wages,
rates of pay, hours of employment, or other conditions of employ-
ment, both until it has complied with the provisions of this Order
requiring it to bargain with Local 8-149, Oil, Chemical and
Atomic Workers International Union, AFL-CIO, and thereafter,
unless and until such labor organization shall have been certified
by the Board as the exclusive representative of such employees.
Delete paragraph 2(d) and substitute therefor, as paragraph 2(d),
the following :
(d) Withdraw and withhold all recognition from The Plant
Committee, or any successor thereto, as the exclusive representa-
tive of their employees for the purpose of dealing with them con-
cerning grievances, wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, or
other conditions of employment, both until it has complied with
I The Recommended Order is hereby amended by substituting for the first paragraph
therein the following paragraph:
Upon the entire record in this case, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National
Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders
that Respondents, their officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
734-070-64-vol. 145-77
1202 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the provisions of this Order requiring it to bargain with Local
8-149, Oil, Chemical and Atomic Workers International Union,
AFL-CIO, and thereafter, unless and until such organization
shall have been certified by the Board as the exclusive representa-
tive of such employees, provided that nothing in this recommen-
dation shall require Respondents to vary or abandon any wage,
hour, seniority, or other substantive feature of their relations with
their employees which Respondents have established in the per-
formance of such agreement, or to prejudice the assertion by their
employees of any rights they may have thereunder.
Strike paragraph 4 of the Notice to All Employees attached to the
Trial Examiner's Decision in its entirety, and substitute therefor the
following paragraph :
WE WILL NOT recognize The Plant Committee which met and
negotiated with management in February 1963, or any successor
thereto, as the exclusive representative of our employees for the
purpose of dealing with us concerning grievances, wages, rates of
pay, hours of employment, or other conditions of employment,
both until we have complied with the provisions of the Board's
Order requiring us to bargain with Local 8-149, Oil, Chemical and
Atomic Workers International Union, AFL-CIO, and, thereafter,
unless and until such labor organization shall have been certified
by the Board as the exclusive representative of our employees.
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon a charge and an amended charge filed on March 8, 1963, and April 11, 1963,
respectively, by Local 8-149, Oil, Chemical and Atomic Workers International
Union, AFL-CIO, hereinafter referred to as the Union, the General Counsel of the
National Labor Relations Board, on April 22, 1963, issued a complaint against
Mary Chess, Inc., Marie Earle Corporation, Parfums Lucien Lelong Corporation,
and Parfums Schiaparelli, Inc., herein collectively called Respondents, alleging the
latter had engaged in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the mean-
ing of Section 8(a)(1), (2), (3), and (5) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, 61 Stat. 136, herein called the Act. By
their answer, Respondents denied the commission of any unfair labor practices.
Pursuant to due notice, a hearing was held before Trial Examiner David London
at New York, New York, on June 17, 18, 19, and 20, 1963. Since the close of
the hearing, briefs have been received from the General Counsel and Respondents
and have been duly considered.
Upon the entire record in the case,' and my observation of the witnesses, as they
testified, I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENTS
Respondent Mary Chess, Inc., is, and has been at all times material herein, a
corporation duly organized under, and existing by virtue of, the laws of the State
of Delaware. The parties stipulated, and I find, that Mary Chess, Inc., owns all
the stock of Marie Earle Corporation, Parfums Lucien Lelong Corporation, and
Parfums Schiaparelli, Inc., and that these four concerns interchangeably use their
1 The General Counsel's unopposed motion of July 16, 1963, to correct the transcript of
testimony as specified in said motion is hereby granted.
MARY CHESS, INC., ETC. 1203
employees in the performance of their operations at the plant involved in this
proceeding at Pratt Oval, Glen Cove, New York, and that a common labor policy
is evolved and administered by said four corporations for the employees at that plant.
At all times material herein Respondents have maintained their principal office
and place of business at 597 Fifth Avenue, New York, New York, and various other
places of business including the Glen Cove plant above mentioned, where they
are and have been at all times material herein engaged in the manufacture, sale,
and distribution of cosmetics and related products. During the year preceding the
filing of the complaint herein, Respondents, in the course and conduct of their
business operations, manufactured, sold, and distributed products valued in excess
of $50,000, of which, products valued in excess of $50,000 were shipped from their
Glen Cove plant in interstate commerce directly to States of the United States other
than the State of New York. During the same period, Respondents, in the course
and conduct of their business operations, purchased and caused to be transported
and delivered to their Glen Cove plant, cosmetics, chemical products, and other
goods and materials valued in excess of $50,000, of which, goods and materials
valued in excess of $50,000 were transported and delivered to said plant in inter-
state commerce directly from States of the United States other than the State of
New York, and in foreign commerce directly from foreign countries. Respond-
ents admit, and I find, that they are and have been at all times material herein
employers engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7)
of the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Local 8-149, Oil, Chemical and Atomic Workers International Union, AFL-CIO,
is, and has been at all times material herein, a labor organization within the mean-
ing of Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The discharge of Thomas McGrady and Jeanette Grabowski
The complaint alleges that on or about February 15, 1963, Respondent termi-
nated the services of McGrady and Grabowski because they joined and assisted
the Union, and engaged in other activities for the purpose of collective bargaining
and mutual aid and protection.
McGrady was first employed by Respondents from midsummer of 1958 until
about a year later when he informed Dan Nolan that he was "planning on leaving"
whereupon Nolan informed him that he "had better leave immediately." McGrady
thereupon left Respondent's employment and began working at a watchcase factory
in the same vicinity.
In October 1960, following 'a "major layoff" at that factory, McGrady called
Ebbetts, then the manager of Respondents' Glen Cove plant, and asked him if
there was an opening in that plant. Ebbetts told him to come to his office that
afternoon. When McGrady appeared as requested, Ebbetts called Nolan to the
office and asked him whether he "needed or wanted [McGrady] to come back
to work in the shipping department" and Nolan replied that he did. McGrady
reported for work on the following day and continued in that employment until
he was discharged on February 15, 1963, under circumstances hereafter detailed.
In September 1961, Ebbetts told McGrady that he did not think that "picking"
of Respondents' products was a man's job, that women could do that work at lower
cost to Respondents, and asked McGrady if he could find a woman for that work.
When McGrady told him that his mother, Jeanette Grabowski, who was in fact
his stepmother, was looking for work, Ebbetts told him to bring her out to the plant.2
Grabowski reported on September 22, 1961 , and continued her employment until
she, too, was discharged on February 15, 1963.
After work on Monday, February 11, 1963, McGrady, in company with Julian
Santome and Lino Larin also employed by Respondents, went to the office of the
Union where Agent McManus talked to them "about the benefits of joining [their]
union [and ] demonstrated the large gap in wages between Helena Rubenstein
workers and the Mary Chess employees." They were given a copy of the Union's
contract with Helena Rubenstein , and a supply of cards designating the Union as
collective -bargaining agent . All three men signed the cards at the union office during
that visit.
2 At Ebbetts' request , McGrady also was able to arrange employment at the plant for the
latter's sister and aunt, who thereafter voluntarily left those jobs.
1204 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Within the next 3 days, during which the Helena Rubenstein contract was being
circulated in the plant, 22 other employees of Respondents at Glen Cove signed the
above-described authorization cards, 6 on February 12, 12 on February 13, and
4 on February 14. The record establishes that of this group at least six obtained
the cards from McGrady, two from Grabowski, and three from employee Marion
Johnson who had been given three or four cards on February 12 by McGrady.
After work on February 14, McGrady took all the signed cards to the union office.
On the following day, Friday, February 15, McGrady and Grabowski were called
to the office by James Ness, plant manager, who had succeeded Ebbetts on Feb-
ruary 1, 1963, and were there told by Ness that they were being laid off temporarily
because the companies "were at a low grade level . and losing money." They
were paid only for the 4 days of that workweek, which normally ended on Monday,
and during the following week received 1 week's severance pay.
As previously indicated, the General Counsel alleges that these terminations were
imposed upon McGrady and Grabowski because of their union activities. Re-
spondents, in their brief, contend they "had no knowledge that the Union was en-
gaged in any organizational activity until Monday, February 18, 1963, after the
discharge of McGrady and Grabowski, when the Union handed out leaflets near
the plant's premises." As a reason for their termination, Respondents' answer
pleads that the layoffs "were part of a number of layoffs in February of 1963
resulting from a reduction in sales, volume, and earnings and in scheduled produc-
tion of Respondents, and resulting, further, from physical moves consolidating
operations at Respondents' Pratt Oval plant. At the time of their layoff [the
answer alleges], Thomas McGrady and Jeanette Grabowski were the least senior
of the production, maintenance, and shipping employees in the plant."
On the entire record, and from my observation of the witnesses as they testified,
I am unhesitatingly convinced, and find, that McGrady and Grabowski were dis-
charged by Respondents on February 15, 1963, because of their union activities.
That Respondents had knowledge of the union activities being carried on in the
plant, and of the active role played therein by McGrady and Grabowski, is abundantly
established by the testimony. When 25 out of 35 or 36 employees in the plant sign
union designation cards within a 3-day period, and consideration is given to Ness'
testimony that he "walked around ... [the plant] 10 to 20 times a day," it would
be extremely unrealistic to assume, or find, that management was unaware of such
activity .3 Nor is it unreasonable to infer that Respondents had knowledge of
McGrady's and Grabowski's participation in that activity in view of the fact that
these two employees either secured, or participated in securing, the signatures of 13
out of the other 23 employees who signed union authorization cards
There is also undisputed, direct evidence that Respondent's supervision was aware
of the union activity and McGrady's connection therewith. Jack Nicolais, Respond-
ents' purchasing agent, who also acted as production manager in Ness' absence and
hired Santome, testified that before McGrady was discharged, employee Downs told
him "there was someone going around getting names fora union."
Dan Nolan, who is hereafter found to be a supervisor, testified that McGrady came
to him during the day on which the latter was discharged and told him "the fellows
were thinking of a union ... invited [him] to a meeting ... and that it would be a
good idea to go along and see what's going on." Nolan, however, declined the invita-
tion and told McGrady he "wasn't interested in a union, [he] didn't see what he
could get out of it." Nolan further testified that when McGrady sought to give him
the impression that "talk of the Union" was to be kept secret, he told McGrady
"there was no secret about it ... it was rampant throughout the plant ... like a
grapevine, [it] travels, like wildfire . it was common knowledge around the
plant." 4 In fact, Nolan told McGrady he "surmised . . . that company officials
already had a meeting on the subject of the Union."
Nor does the record sustain Respondents' contention that the decision to discharge
McGrady and Grabowski "was based on a business decline and was made before
the Union began any organizational campaign ... [and that] the new plant manager
considered them expendable as a result of his personal observation of their work
performance."
The testimony does establish that Respondents' business was declining at the time
that Ness took over management of the Glen Cove plant on Friday, February 1,
3 Tru-Line Metal Products Company, 138 NLRB 964, 966; Bituminous Material f Supply
Co., 124 NLRB 945; Cowlitz Veneer Company, 135 NLRB 299
4 Even if it be assumed, as Respondent contends, that Nolan was not a supervisor within
the meaning of the Act, his testimony is, nevertheless, relevant in appraising the extent to
which union activity was a matter of "common knowledge around the plant."
MARY CHESS, INC., ETC. 1205
1963.5 At or about that time, Joseph Danilek, president of Mary Chess, Inc., asked
Ness "to let [him] know what he thought to be the minimum number of people he
could have or he would arrive at in order to be able to carry on." Instead of report-
ing to Danilek, Ness decided, over that weekend, to terminate the services of five
female production workers on the following Monday, February 4. It was apparently
his intention to lay off the five women with least seniority of the 23 production
workers because he admittedly did not consult their supervisor about the relative
merits of any of the production employees. Instead, he took a payroll list of
Margaret Dean, supervisor of that department, and asked her to give him the names
of the five employees with the least seniority.
The record establishes, however, that four of the five employees laid off had greater
seniority than two who were retained. Though Respondents characterize this cir-
cumstance as an unexplained mistake by Dean, she was not called as a witness to
explain her designation to Ness of the employees that were to be laid off.6
Ness testified it was about February 9 or 10 that "he determined" that he could
further reduce the staff by dispensing with the services of three additional employees
engaged as pickers or in the shipping department? Here, however, Ness made no
inquiry about the seniority of either McGrady or Grabowski as he had in the case
of the five employees he wanted terminated on February 4, nor did he inquire of
Nolan as to who in his department should be selected for termination.
There are other circumstances which confirm my conclusion that these two em-
ployees were not terminated for the reasons assigned by Respondents. As previously
indicated, Respondents' workweek extended from Tuesday through the following
Monday. The layoff of the five women aforementioned was made effective at the
close of the workweek on Monday, February 4. McGrady and Grabowski, however,
were precipitately terminated on Friday, February 15, the day after McGrady de-
livered the 25 cards designating the Union as collective-bargaining representative of
Respondents' employees to the union headquarters, and during the same day that
McGrady invited Nolan to attend the union meeting.
Ness testified it was on February 9 or 10, Saturday or Sunday, that he "decided
specifically" that McGrady and Grabowski, who worked on the second floor of the
premises, were going to be terminated, but that he delayed doing so because he was
moving the shelved goods of Lucien Lelong and Marie Earle from the second floor
to the first floor "to make a more efficient operation." I do not credit this testi-
mony pertaining to the subjective state of Ness' mind on February 9 or 10. Instead,
I credit McGrady's undenied testimony that early in the week commencing Febru-
ary 11, Ness told him that after the move was completed "he was going to leave the
two companies mainly to [him] to handle, and that some of the other people was
[sic] going to be switched around." The move involved not only the aforementioned
products, but the shelves on which they were stored, and it was in the midst of
this uncompleted project, on which both McGrady and Grabowski were engaged, that
they were discharged by Ness on February 15.
Though Respondents contend that the seven employees aforementioned were all
laid off for the same reason, a decline in business, the notations entered on Respond-
ents' personnel records of McGrady and Grabowski indicate that they were "ter-
minated," while the record of all five women laid off on February 4 specifically notes
that they were only temporarily "laid off." 8 To conclusively establish the disparate
treatment accorded McGrady and Grabowski by their complete and permanent dis-
charge, the record establishes that they were given ,a week's severance pay while no
such severance payments were made to the five women temporarily laid off on
-February 4 9
6 Ness replaced Ebbetts at that time because the latter had suffered a heart attack and
was confined in a hospital.
e Respondents' 'failure to call Dean as a witness warrants an 'inference that her testi-
mony, if adduced, would"not be favorable to Respondents. Interstate Circuit v United
States , 306 US 208 , 225-226; N L . R.B. v Remington Rand , Inc., 94 F 2d 862, 871
(C.A. 2).
9 Miss Ahlrich, not otherwise involved in this proceeding, was discharged on February 14
because she smoked in the "finished goods room" in violation ' of company rules, was con-
stantly reporting late for work, and reported 2 hours late on February 14
s These latter notations read: "Temp Lay off "
6 Also worthy of consideration in this connection is Respondents ' constant reference and
admission in their brief to the fact that McGrady and Grabowski were "discharged,"
while its previously filed answer alleges that they, and the other employees , were all
placed only in "layoff" status because of a decline in business.
1206 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Nor does the record sustain the only reason assigned by Respondents in their
answer for selecting McGrady and Grabowski for layoff, that they "were the least
senior of the production , maintenance and shipping employees in the plant." In-
stead, the record establishes that McGrady 's most recent seniority dates from Octo-
ber 29 , 1960 , 10 and that retained after his discharge were Arthur Williams and
Michael Brislin originally hired on September 14, 1962, and June 1 , 1962, respec-
tively." Grabowski was hired on September 22, 1961, and had greater seniority
than E. McLeod and H. Staehle, whose seniority dates from October 14, 1962,
and September 11, 1962, respectively , and who were not laid off on February 15.
Though as just indicated , Respondent 's answer pleads that McGrady and Gra-
bowski were selected for layoff because "they were the least senior " in their de-
partments , Ness, when asked how he happened "to pick" McGrady for discharge,
testified that he did so, not for the pleaded reason, but for the following : ( a) "the
output of the group he was in was miserable in relation to the rest of the depart-
ment," ( b) while on the job, he had been reading the "Daily News or the Mirror,"
and (c ) that he received more complaints about the breakage caused by poor
packing of Marie Earle and Lucien Lelong products in which both McGrady and
Lino Larin , another employee , were engaged.
As to ( a), no testimony was offered in support of that conclusionary statement.
With respect to (b), it is undisputed that the Daily News and the Mirror, because
of the New York newspaper strike then pending, were not being published from
before the time Ness took over management of the plant on February 1, 1963,
until after McGrady was discharged on February 15; concerning (c), though Ness
testified that he criticized both McGrady and Larin for poor packing , no discip-
linary action was imposed upon Larin . In any event , not only do Respondents
in their brief now state , "There is no assertion by Ness or by Respondents that
McGrady's discharge was based on breakage or reading a newspaper ," but I also
credit McGrady's testimony that Ness never criticized him with respect to any
phase of his work.
When all the foregoing factors, shifting reasons, and inconsistencies are con-
sidered , together with the timing of the discharges on the very day that Nolan
was invited by McGrady to attend the union meeting, thus climaxing a movement
upon which Respondents looked with great disfavor as will hereafter appear, I can
only conclude that Respondents were determined to scotch that movement before
it bad progressed to fruition by discharging its most active proponent
Grabowski was engaged as a "picker" of Marie Earle and Lucien Lelong products
on the second floor and, on occasions , as a picker of Mary Chess and Schiaparelli
products on the first floor There is sufficient evidence in the record from which
it may be inferred that she was listed on Respondents ' payroll records as an
employee in the production department of which Dean was, admittedly , the super-
visor The discussions concerning her vacation were carried on with Dean and it
was Dean , or Shea, who handed her the weekly paycheck . In-selecting Grabowski
for termination , however, Ness did not consult either Dean or Nolan , in whose
latter "group," Ness testified , she worked.
Instead , Ness testified he definitely made up his mind on February 9 or 10 to
discharge Grabowski but that he delayed doing so because he "needed " her and
McGrady to "move the stock down" to the first floor . The record , however , estab-
lishes conclusively that he precipitately discharged them both on February 15, the
day that Nolan was invited to attend the union meeting , and before the move to
the first floor was completed.
Ness grudgingly admitted that before discharging Grabowski he had heard "some-
thing to the effect" that she was McGrady's mother , but the source of that informa-
tion was not disclosed . He testified he decided to discharge them simultaneously
because " it would hardly be nice to call one in and then the other; it would be nicer
to handle the two together."
Though McGrady undoubtedly was the more -active in behalf of the Union, the
record establishes conclusively that Grabowski solicited and obtained ' the'',signa-
ture of at least two other employees to the union designation cards and talked to
the girls about the Union . This factor, coupled with her relationship to McGrady
when viewed in the light of the contradictory and false reasons assigned by Re-
spondents for both discharges , compels the conclusion that she , too, was discharged
in order to undermine the Union and to discourage further union activities by her
and the remaining employees.
1o As previously noted, he also worked for Respondents for about a year commencing in
the summer of 1958.
11 Accordingly, in their brief Respondents now concede that McGrady' s "seniority did
not determine [his] layoff."
MARY CHESS, INC., ETC. 1207
In arriving at the foregoing conclusions, I have been fully mindful not only that
economic conditions justified a reduction of the work force in February 1963,
but that up to the time of the hearing Respondents' work force had not been
increased. I find, however, because of the disparate treatment accorded McGrady
and Grabowski not only in their selection for severance, but by their permanent
discharge, that the circumstances referred to immediately above were seized upon
and utilized by Respondents merely as a means of obscuring their true motive for
discharging these two employees-their union activities, and to discourage similar
activities by the remaining employees.
B. The refusal to bargain and the violations of Section 8(a)(2) of the Act
The General Counsel charges that on or about, and since, February 18, 1963,
Respondents, though requested to do so, failed and refused to recognize and bargain
with the Union, the duly designated collective-bargaining representative of Respond-
ents' employees in an appropriate unit, with respect to pay, wages, hours, and other
terms and conditions of employment of said employees.
In its brief, "Respondents' position" with reference to these allegations is sum-
marized as being twofold: "(a) that a majority of the employees did not designate
the Union as their representative . because the Union did not tell the employees
that by signing cards they were authorizing the Union to represent them; rather the
employees were told that cards were necessary in order that the Board might con-
duct an election by secret ballot ." and (b), "Respondents replied in writing
to the Union's request to bargain by offering to meet and confer with the Union;
the Union never accepted such offer either orally or in writing."
At the hearing, the parties stipulated, and I find, that all production, mainte-
nance, shipping and receiving, and plant clerical employees of Respondents em-
ployed at their Glen Cove plant, exclusive of office clericals, professionals, guards,
watchmen, and all supervisors as defined in Section 2(11) of the Act, constitute a
unit appropriate for collective bargaining within the meaning of the Act.12
On Friday, February 15, the Union, by letter, informed Respondents that it
represented a majority of the latter's production and maintenance employees en-
gaged at the Glen Cove plant, demanded recognition as such representative, and
asked that a date be set for the negotiation of a collective-bargaining agreement.
Danilek replied on February 19 with an unqualified refusal of recognition of the
Union, and a denial that the Union was "the exclusive bargaining agent of the em-
ployees" of Respondents. He added, however, that he would "be glad to discuss
any matters of importance to this company and its employees with [a Union] repre-
sentative at any reasonable time at [their] mutual convenience."
The Union's Majority
Pursuant to stipulation , there was received in evidence , as General Counsel's Ex-
hibit No. 3, a typewritten list, prepared by Respondents , containing the names of 33
production employees engaged at the Glen Cove plant at the close of business on
February 15, 1963 . Having previously found that McGrady and Grabowski were
discriminatorily discharged on February 15 and therefore entitled to reinstatement,
their names should be added thereto , thereby increasing that number to 35. The
General Counsel also seeks to add Robert Trotta as a member of the unit. I find,
however, that Trotta was only a part-time, temporary employee at the Glen Cove
plant and therefore not entitled to participate in the designation of a collective-
bargaining representative at that plant . However, included in the typewritten list
aforementioned were the names of Dan Nolan and Pedro Larin who , the General
Counsel contends , are supervisors and therefore not be included in the bargaining
unit ,-while Respondents contend they are rank -and-file employees.
' Extensive ' testimony was offered pertaining to the status of Dan Nolan, all of
which has brought me to the conclusion that he is a supervisor within the meaning
of the Act and cannot, therefore , be included in determining the number of employees
in the appropriate unit.
Nolan , who has been employed by Respondents for 20 years, testified that he was
"in charge of the shipping department" and that he had eight or nine employees in
12 Though Respondents, in their brief, make reference to a slight difference in the bar-
gaining unit described in the Union's letter of February 15 and that alleged in the com-
plaint, I find such variance to be "minor and subject to modification," and no defense to
the complaint herein. Hamilton Plastic Molding Company, 135 NLRB 371, 373 ; Galloway
Manufacturing Corporation, 136 NLRB 405, 409; United Butchers Abbatoir, 123 NLRB
946, 957.
1208 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
his "group" stationed on both floors of the Glen Cove plant. According to Nolan's
own testimony, when the plant manager decided that three people should work over-
time and five employees volunteered to do so, he, Nolan, selected the three em-
ployees to perform that work. He further testified that he truthfully informed the
Board representative in a written statement that he was "shipping foreman, can rec-
ommend employees to be fired and directs work." 13 He also testified that before
Ahlrich, in his "group," was fired, he complained to Ebbetts about her, and that he
attends "production meetings two, three, times a year." While rank-and-file em-
ployees are paid an hourly wage, Nolan is paid a weekly wage.
Nolan lives in Brooklyn while the Glen Cove plant is located on Long Island, 40
miles from his home. To enable him to reach that plant, Respondents pay for his
subway and railroad transportation to and from his home. In addition, Respondents
permit him to drive one of Respondents station wagons to and from the plant and the
railroad station on Long Island. The only other person who enjoys similar privileges
and service is Mrs. Dean, who, Respondents admit, is a supervisor in the production
department.
With respect to Pedro Larin, while he conceded making a sworn statement to a
Board representative from which it might be inferred that he exercises some su-
pervisory authority, the General Counsel has not established by a preponderance of
the evidence that he was in fact a supervisor within the meaning of the Act
In sum, therefore, by reason of the disposition made above pertaining to the unit
status of McGrady, Grabowski, Nolan, Pedro Larin, and Trotta, I find that on
February 15 and 18, 1963, when the Union made its demand for recognition and
bargaining, there were 35 employees in the unit with which we are concerned.
As previously found, 25 persons employed by Respondents, including McGrady,
Grabowski, and Trotta, signed cards which, on their face, designated the Union as
their collective-bargaining representative. Eliminating Trotta for the reason above
indicated, the number of eligible voters is reduced to 24. In their brief, Respondents
concede that all but 11 of these cards "can stand up as adequate" to establish the
Union's majority, but that 11 employees who signed "were told by those who gave
them cards that the signing of the cards was necessary for an election [and that] they
were not told that, by signing, they were authorizing the Union to represent them."
Respondents accordingly contend that within the doctrine pronounced by the Board
in Englewood Lumber Company, 130 NLRB 394, and Morris & Associates, Inc., 138
NLRB 1160, these 11 cards are "unreliable" to aid in establishing the Union's majority
status.14
In Englewood, the Board found that "the Union did not tell the employees that by
signing the cards they were authorizing the Union to represent them; rather, the
employees were there told that the cards were necessary in order that the Board might
conduct an election by secret ballot in which every employee would have an oppor-
tunity to express his preference." By reason thereof, two members of the three-
member panel that participated in Englewood, with one member vigorously dis-
senting,15 held "that the union authorization cards, urged by the General Counsel as
establishing such majority status, were unreliable for this purpose . . . [,and that]
considering only what the employees were told, and not what may or may not have
been their subjective reaction to what they were told ... it can [not] reasonably be
said that the employees, by their act of signing 'authorizations, thereby clearly mani-
fested an intention to designate the Union as their bargaining representative."
We turn now to a consideration of the evidence herein pertaining to the 11 chal-
lenged cards, and an appraisal thereof within the concept laid down in Englewood and
Morris & Associates, Inc., supra Three of the challenged cards were the cards of
McGrady, Santome, and Lino Larin, all of whom signed their cards at the union
office on February 11. To destroy the effect claimed for them by the General
Counsel, Respondents' counsel, in cross-examining McGrady, asked if it was true
that in a prior sworn statement to a Board agent he had stated that at the time he
visited the union office on February 11., McManus, the Union's agent, "specifically
stated that it was necessary to get the support of a majority of employees in order for
an election to be held." McGradv answered, "Yes, but that was not all [McManus]
said ... that was [only] part of what he said." He further testified that he told the
"It should also be remembered that it was Nolan who fired McGrady in 1959, and
recommended his reemployment in October 1960
14 See, however, Dan River Mills, Incorporated, 121 NLRB 645, 648, and cases cited
therein.
1E One member of the three-member panel in Morris cE Associates, Inc, other than the
dissenting member in Englewood, also dissented from a similar ruling.
MARY CHESS, INC., ETC. 1209
girls to whom he passed out cards "that we needed a majority of at least 50 percent
before the Union could represent us."
Santome testified that he went to the union office on February 11 for the purpose
of finding out about the [Union , because he was] aware of the fact that they
represented the employees at .. . Helena Rubenstein ." He further testified cred-
ibly that the union representative talked "about the benefits of joining [ their]
union . . . and that if 50 percent of [the employees ] joined the Union, [they]
could have a union ." 16 Notwithstanding Lino Larin 's testimony on cross-examina-
tion that the union business representative told the three employees that "once
they got a majority to sign the cards, then they could get an election ," he further
testified that the "main thing" stressed by the union representative "was to receive
over 50 percent of the cards back signed . . so the Union could represent" them.
Though the subject of an election , and the part that the cards could play in
bringing that about , was undoubtedly discussed by union representatives at their
office conference on February 11, on the entire record I am convinced and find
that none of the three employees left that office on that day under the impression
that the only purpose of the card was to make an election possible. Instead, I find
that all three men also understood that if they and a sufficient number constituting
more than 50 percent of the employees signed the designation cards, the Union
would become their bargaining representative and that in reliance on those repre-
sentations they signed the cards and carried on their organizational campaign among
other employees.
In the attack upon the cards of Marion Johnson , and those of Helen Kenary and
Hedwig Staehle, who got their cards from Johnson , Respondents rely on that portion
of Johnson 's testimony in which she stated that when McGrady gave her three or
four cards he told her that their purpose was to get an election . McGrady, however,
testified and I credit his testimony , that he also told all the girls to whom he passed
out cards that they "needed a majority of at least 50 percent before the Union
could represent" them , and Johnson admitted , on cross-examination , that she
"perhaps" told a Board representative "that the card was to enable Local 8-149 to
organize "
Helen Kenary, though appearing as a witness in behalf of Respondents , was not
called upon to testify as to any conversation with Johnson pertaining to the purpose
of the card, and I find no credible testimony in the record to indicate that she under-
stood its purpose to be other than as indicated on the cord itself. Similarly, no
testimony was elicited from Staehle that she was told, or understood , before she
signed the card , that its purpose was other than as indicated thereon.
Significantly , Respondents , in their brief , make no mention of the testimony of
Edith Platt who signed the card given to her by Johnson . When asked what the
latter told her at that time, Platt testified that she was told "that if we got enough,
the majority, we would have a union ." And, when asked specifically on cross-
examination whether Johnson said "anything about an election , the purpose of the
card being for an election ," her answer was an unequivocal "no."
Though challenging the cards of Theresa Marano who got her card from Joan
Murphy who , in turn , got cards from Johnson , Respondents make no mention of
Marano's testimony that Murphy merely asked her if she "were willing to join."
When asked on cross-examination by Respondents ' counsel whether she was told
"that if enough people signed the card [they] could get an election," she testified:
"No, she just said if I was willing , it would benefit us in different ways," following
which she signed the card.
Summarizing the findings entered above , and assuming that the rationale of
Englewood is applicable and must be adhered to, I conclude that in addition to the
13 unchallenged cards there should be added as valid designations of the Union
as their collective -bargaining representative the cards of the following employees:
McGrady, Grabowski , Santome , Lino Larin , Kenary, and Staehle. Also to be added
as valid designations of the Union as their bargaining representative are the cards
of Arthur Williams, who got his card from Santome and signed it after being asked
by Santome whether he would "like to try to get in the Union ," and that of Jane
Dowling who, on cross-examination by Respondents ' counsel , testified it was her
"intent to join the Union when [she] signed" her card . By adding the cards of these
8 employees to the 13 against which no challenge was interposed , the record accord-
Ie Though Santome testified , on cross-examination , that he was told that they "would
have to have 50 percent to have . . an election," I find it incredible to believe that any
union representative would be guilty of such a misapprehension. See the Board 's State-
ments of Procedure, Series 8, as amended , Part 101, Sec. 101.18.
1210 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ingly establishes that , on the day the Union demanded recognition , at least 21 of
the 34 employees in the appropriate unit heretofore described had designated the
Union as their collective -bargaining representative , and I so find. Peterson Brothers,
Inc., 144 NLRB 679 (Sept. 20 , 1963).
Nor is there any merit to the Respondents ' contention that the refusal -to-bargain
allegations must fall because Danilek, by his letter of February 19 to the Union,
stated he would "be glad to discuss any matters of importance to this Company
and its employees with [ the union ] representatives at any reasonable time at
[their] mutual convenience ," an offer to which no reply was ever received. Were
there nothing else in the record but this portion of that letter pertaining to Re-
spondents ' conduct dealing with the refusal to bargain , there would , indeed, be merit
to Respondents ' contention . But the very sentence quoted above, and upon which
Respondents rely, is prefaced by the unequivocal statement that "Mary Chess,
Incorporated , refuses to recognize your organization ." And, as hereafter found,
Respondents were, on this very day, engaged in a campaign to undercut the Union
by suggesting to their employees other means of representation , herein described
as the Plant Committee , and immediately entered into negotiations with that
committee . By such conduct , Respondents clearly demonstrated their unequivocal
refusal to have anything to do with the Union and that any discussion between
the parties would be nothing more than an exercise in futility.
Nolan testified that early during the morning of either Monday or Tuesday,
February 18 or 19, at a "production meeting," he told Danilek that during the
"previous week [he] had a conversation with Tom McGrady, and another one of
the boys that [he] trusted a lot," during which he, Nolan , was informed that the
employees were "very disgruntled ." He further testified that when he told Danilek
that "something . . . should be done" about such discontent, Danilek replied that
he would "take it up at coffee break."
Danilek testified repeatedly that the planned coffee break meeting just referred to
took place on Monday morning, February 18, while several employees testified
that the meetings occurred on February 19. In any event , the parties stipulated
that the Union 's letter of Friday, February 15, demanding recognition , was re-
ceived by Respondents on Monday , February 18 , and I find that the planned coffee
break meetings occurred either on February 18 or 19, but in either event after
receipt of the Union 's letter.
Damlek conducted separate meetings with the male and female employees dur-
ing the coffee breaks on either of the two dates just mentioned During those meet-
ings he told one group and, with reference to some of his remarks , both groups,
that he was amazed and surprised to learn that the employees in so small a com-
pany needed a union ; he "didn't want to have the Union , because he wanted it
[to be] a family affair"; "if there was a union here, there wouldn't be no [sic]
steady work"; "if the Union came in he would rather close his doors, rather than
have the Union in"; if they had any complaints or grievances they could come to
him directly or through a committee , thereby making it unnecessary for them to pay
union dues . To the women , he suggested either at their coffee break meeting,
or one held shortly thereafter , that they select Shea, a chemist , "in charge of quality
control ," as their representative ; to the men , he suggested that they name Nolan,
and Pedro Larin of the receiving department , as committee members. All three
of the suggested choices were confirmed by the respective groups at subsequent
coffee breaks.
On February 20, Danilek prepared a letter, dated and sent by special delivery
to all employees of the Glen Cove plant on February 21. It advised the recipients
that "over a period of 30 years the Mary Chess organization has operated as a
small family group " and that its "employees never needed a union or outsider to
represent them and bring to management 's attention any of the employees ' grievances,
requests or complaints ." It further informed them that the recent reduction in staff
had left the organization with "a basic permanent group of employees for whom
work will be steady and permanent ," and that the recipients of the letter "need
have no fear of insecurity because [they ] represent the basic and permanent staff."
The letter also expressed Danilek's pleasure to learn that the employees had elected
Nolan, Pete Larin , and Shea as their "Plant Committee to work directly with Man-
agement because meetings between [the ] Plant Committee and Management should
produce immediate results." The letter concluded with a plea that "rather than
have any outsider sit down with [ Respondents '] president and resolve any of the
problems, it would be a lot easier and more economical to [the employees] to have
the Plant Committee work this out with the president directly." The letter closed
MARY CHESS, INC., ETC. 1211
with the typewritten signatures of Nolan, Pete Larin, Shea, and Danilek, in that
order.l7
Danilek met with the Plant Committee for about a half hour on the following
Monday or Tuesday, February 25 or 26, at which meeting he promptly "granted
every request [of the Committee] but the one concerning hospitalization" which
was reserved for further study. Among those granted and put into effect immedi-
ately were improved work conditions, and wage increases of 15 cents an hour for
the men and 10 cents for the women. Up to the time of the hearing, no further
meetings with the Plant Committee have been held.
On February 26, Nolan, on Respondents' stationary entitled "Inter-Office Corre-
spondence, Mary Chess, Incorporated," prepared and helped circulate a document
for signature by the employees of the shipping and production departments certify-
ing that by adding their signature thereto the employees would thereby indicate that
they had decided not to join the Union."
Most of the 28 signatures appended to that document were obtained in the cafeteria
and Respondents, in their brief, admit that Mrs. Dean sent the girls upstairs to
the cafeteria where" it was being circulated. Nolan testified he "brought it around
to those who were not present at that time." According to Danilek's own testimony,
he first saw the document "after the 26th," and after he had already completed his
negotiations with the Plant Committee.
By reason of all the foregoing I find that on February 18, when Respondents re-
ceived the Union's demand for recognition and bargaining, the Union was, and now
is, the duly selected collective-bargaining representative of the employees in the unit
heretofore described. I further find that Respondents on and after February 19
refused to recognize or bargain with the Union as such representative with respect
to wages, hours, and other conditions of employment (N.L.R.B. v. Poultry Enter-
prises, Inc., 207 F. 2d 522 (CA. 5)) thereby violating Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of
the Act. Respondents "cannot, as justification for [their] refusal to bargain with the
Union, set up the defection of union members which [they] had induced by unfair
labor practices, even though [it may be assumed] that the Union no longer had the
support of a majority. [They] cannot thus, by [their] own action, disestablish the
Union as the bargaining representative of the employees, previously designated as
such of their own free will." Medo Photo Supply Corporation v N.L.R B, 321
U.S. 678.
I further find that by suggesting the formation of the Plant Committee, by giv-
ing support and assistance thereto, by negotiating with that committee with respect
to wages and other working conditions, and by granting benefits to the employees
through such negotiations, Respondents violated Section 8(a) (2) and (1) of the Act.
N L R.B. v. Philamon Laboratories, Inc., 298 F. 2d 176 (C.A. 2).
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of Respondents set forth in section III, above, occurring in connec-
tion with their operations as set forth in section 1, 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.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondents have engaged in certain unfair labor practices,
I recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and that it take certain affirmative
action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
Since I have found that Respondents, on February 15, 1963. discriminatorily dis-
charged Thomas McGrady and Jeanette Grabowski, it is recommended that Re-
spondents offer each of them immediate and full reinstatement to their former or
substantially equivalent positions, without prejudice to their seniority or other
rights and privileges, and make each of them whole for any loss of earnings he
or she may have suffered from the time of the discrimination to the date of Re-
spondents' offer of reinstatement. The backpay shall be computed in accordance
with the formula approved in F W. Woolworth Co, 90 NLRB 289, with interest at
the rate of 6 percent per annum, as provided in Isis Plumbing & Heating Co, 138
NLRB 716. It is also recommended that Respondents preserve and make available
17 Nolan testified that he did not "have anything to do with the drafting of the letter,"
had never signed it, and that the first time he saw the letter was when he received it in
the mail at his home . Shea did not testify , and Larin was not questioned about it.
1212 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
to the Board, upon request, payroll and other records to facilitate the computation
of backpay due.
The violations of the Act committed by Respondents are persuasively related to
'other unfair labor practices proscribed by the Act, and the danger of their commission
in the future is to be anticipated from Respondents' conduct in the past. The
preventive purposes of the Act will be thwarted unless the order is coextensive with
the threat. In order, therefore, to make more effective the interdependent guarantees
of Section 7 of the Act, to prevent a recurrence of unfair labor practices and thereby
minimize industrial strife which burdens and obstructs commerce, and thus to effec-
tuate the policies of the Act, I recommend that Respondents be ordered to cease
and desist from infringing in any manner upon the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of
the Act.
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact, and upon the entire record in the
case, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Respondents Mary Chess, Inc., Marie Earle Corporation, Parfums Lucien
Lelong Corporation, and Parfums Schiaparelli, Inc., are engaged in commerce within
the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. Local 8-149, Oil, Chemical and Atomic Workers International Union, AFL-
CIO, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. By discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of Thomas
McGrady and Jeanette Grabowski, thereby discouraging membership in the afore-
said labor organization, Respondents have engaged in and are engaging in unfair
labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
4 All of Respondents' production, maintenance, shipping and receiving, and plant
clerical employees employed at their Glen Cove plant, exclusive of office clerical,
professionals, guards, watchmen, and all supervisors as defined in Section 2(11) of
the Act, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within
the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act.
5. The Union above named was on February 15, 1963, and at all times thereafter
has been, the exclusive representative of all employees in the above-described ap-
propriate unit for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Sec-
tion 9(a) of the Act.
6. At all times after February 18, 1963, by refusing to bargain collectively with
the above-named Union as the exclusive representative of their employees in the
above-described appropriate unit, Respondents have engaged in and are engaging
in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5) of the Act.
7. By interfering in the formation of the Plant Committee, and by contributing as-
sistance and support thereto, Respondents have engaged in and are engaging in unfair
labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a) (2) of the Act.
8. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing employees in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, Respondents have engaged in and are en-
gaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a) (1) of the Act.
9. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting com-
merce wthin 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 is recommended that Mary Chess, Inc., Marie Earle Corpo-
ration, Parfums Lucien Lelong Corporation, and Parfums Schiaparelli, Inc., their
officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Discouraging membership in, or activities on behalf of Local 8-149, Oil,
Chemical and Atomic Workers International Union, AFL-CIO, or any other labor
organization , or encouraging representation by the Plant Committee or any suc-
cessor thereto, by discriminatorily discharging, laying off, or refusing to reinstate
any of their employees, or otherwise discriminating in regard to their hire or tenure
of employment, or any terms or conditions of employment, except to the extent
permitted by Section 8(a)(3) of the Act, as modified by the Labor -Management
Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959.
(b) Refusing or failing to bargain collectively in good faith with Local 8-149,
Oil, Chemical and Atomic Workers International Union, AFL-CIO, as the exclu-
sive representative of all of Respondents' employees in the following appropriate
unit:
MARY CHESS, INC., ETC. 1213
All production, maintenance, shipping and receiving, and plant clerical em-
ployees employed at their Glen Cove plant, exclusive of office clericals, pro-
fessionals, guards, watchmen, and all supervisors as defined in the Act.
(c) Interfering in the formation of, or contributing assistance or support to, the
Plant Committee, or any other labor organization of their employees.
(d) Recognizing the Plant Committee, or any successor thereto, as the exclusive
representative of their employees for the purpose of dealing with Respondents
concerning grievances, wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, or other con-
ditions of employment, unless and until such labor organization shall have been
certified by the Board as the exclusive representative of such employees.
(e) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing their employees
in the exercise of their rights to self-organization, to form labor organizations, to
join or assist Local 8-149, Oil, Chemical and Atomic Workers International Union,
AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively through rep-
resentatives of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted activities for the
purposes of collective bargaining and 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.
2. Take the following affirmative action which I find will effectuate the policies
of the Act:
(a) Offer to Thomas McGrady and Jeanette Grabowski immediate and full
reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent positions, without prejudice
to their seniority or other rights and privileges, and make each of them whole in
the manner set forth above in the section entitled "The Remedy" for any loss of
earnings suffered by reason of the discrimination against them.
(b) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the Board and its agents,
for examination and copying, all payroll records , social security payment records,
timecards, personnel records and reports, and all other records necessary and per-
tinent to compute the amount of backpay and to ascertain the right to reinstatement.
(c) Upon request, bargain collectively with the Union above named as the ex-
clusive representative of all their employees in above-described appropriate unit
and embody any understanding reached in a signed agreement.
(d) Withdraw and withhold all recognition from the Plant Committee, or any
successor thereto, as the exclusive representative of their employees for the purpose
of dealing with them concerning grievances , wages, rates of pay, hours of employ-
ment, or other conditions of employment , unless and until such organization shall
have been certified by the Board as the exclusive representative of such employees,
provided, that nothing in this recommendation shall require Respondents to vary or
abandon any wage, hour, seniority, or other substantive feature of their relations
with their employees which Respondents have established in the performance of
such agreement, or to prejudice the assertion by their employees of any rights
they may have thereunder.is
(e) Post at the Glen Cove plant copies of the attached notice marked "Appen-
dix." 19 Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for the
Second Region , shall, after being signed by Respondents ' representative , be posted
by Respondents and maintained by them for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in
conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are customarily
posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondents to insure that said notices
are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
(f) Notify the Regional Director for the Second Region, in writing, within 20
days from receipt of this Decision, what steps Respondent has taken to comply
herewith.ao
18 Toppa Kerrmill, Inc., 143 NLRB 694.
19 If this Recommended Order be adopted by the Board , the words "A Decision and
Order" shall be substituted for the words "The Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner"
in the notice In the further event that the Board's Order be enforced by a decree of a
United States Court of Appeals, the words "A Decree of the United States Court of
Appeals, Enforcing an Order" shall be substituted for the words "A Decision and Order."
10 in the event that this Recommended Order is 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."
1214 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the Recommended Order of -a Trial Examiner of the National Labor
Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, as amended, we hereby notify our employees that-
WE WILL NOT discourage membership in, or activities on behalf of, Local
8-149, Oil, Chemical and Atomic Workers International Union, AFL-CIO, or
any other labor organization, or encourage representation by the Plant Com-
mittee, or any successor thereto, by discriminatorily discharging, laying off, or
refusing to reinstate any of our employees, or by discriminating in any other
manner in regard to our employees' hire or tenure of employment, or any term
or conditions of employment.
WE WILL NOT promise or grant our employees economic benefits in return
for their abandoning the above-named Union.
WE WILL NOT interfere with the formation of, or contribute assistance or sup-
port to, the Plant Committee, or any other comnuttee or labor organization of
our employees.
WE WILL NOT recognize the Plant Committee which met and negotiated with
management in February 1963, or ,any successor thereto, as the exclusive repre-
sentative of our employees for the purpose of dealing with us concerning griev-
ances, wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, or other conditions of employ-
ment, unless and until such labor organization shall have been certified by the
Board as the exclusive representative of our employees.
WE WILL NOT, however, vary or abandon any wage, hour, seniority, or other
substantive feature of our relations with our employees established in the per-
formance of our agreement with the Plant Committee, or prejudice the assertion
by our employees of any rights they may have thereunder.
WE WILL NOT in any manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees
in the exercise of their rights to self-organization, to form labor organizations,
to join or assist Local 8-149, Oil, Chemical and Atomic Workers International
Union, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively
through representatives of their own choosing, to engage in concerted activities
for the purposes 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.
WE WILL offer Thomas McGrady and Jeanette Grabowski immediate and
full reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent positions, with-
out prejudice to their seniority or other rights and privileges, and make them
whole for any loss of pay they may have suffered as a result of the discrimina-
tion against them.
WE WILL, upon request, bargain collectively with Local 8-149, Oil, Chemical
and Atomic Workers International Union, AFL-CIO, as the exclusive repre-
sentative of all employees in the bargaining unit described below with resnect
to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other conditions of employ-
ment, and if an understanding is reached, embody such understanding in a signed
agreement . The bargaining unit is:
All production, maintenance , shipping nand receiving, and plant clerical
employees employed at our Glen Cove plant, exclusive of office clericals,
professionals , guards, watchmen, and all supervisors as defined in the Act.
All our employees are free to become, remain, or refrain from becoming mem-
bers of Local 8-149, Oil, Chemical and Atomic Workers International Union,
AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization, except to the extent that this right may
be affected by an agreement in conformity with Section 8(a) (3) of the amended Act.
MARY CHESS, INC., MARIE EARLE CORPORATION,
PARFUMS LUCIEN LELONG CORPORATION, AND
PARFUMS SCHIAPARELLI, INC.,
Employer.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------(Representative ) (Title)
NOTE.-We will notify the above-named employees if presently serving in the
Armed Forces of the United States of their right to full reinstatement upon applica-
GENERAL ANILINE & FILM CORPORATION 1215
tion 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, Fifth Floor,
Squibb Building, 745 Fifth Avenue, New York, New York, Telephone No. 751-5500,
if they have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions.
General Aniline & Film Corporation and Local 227, Interna-
tional Chemical Workers Union, AFL-CIO. Case No. 3-CA-
3028. January 24, 1964
DECISION AND ORDER
On August 26, 1963, Trial Examiner George J. Bott 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. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions and a
supporting brief.
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 In-
termediate Report and the entire record in the case, including the
exceptions and brief, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions,
and recommendations of the Trial Examiner.
ORDER
The Board adopts as its Order the Recommended Order of the
Trial Examiner.'
MEMBER JENKINS took no part in the consideration of the above
Decision and Order.
1 The Recommended Order is hereby amended by substituting for the first paragraph
therein the following paragraph:
Upon the entire record in this case , and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National
Labor Relations Act, as amended , the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders
that the Respondent , its officers , agents, successors , and assigns , shall:
The Appendix is hereby amended by substituting for the phrase "during their working
time" the phrase "during their nonworking time."
INTERMEDIATE REPORT AND RECOMMENDED ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon a charge and amended charge of unfair labor practices filed by Local 227,
International Chemical Workers Union , AFL-CIO, on February 28, and April
5, 1963, against the above Company, the General Counsel of the National Labor
Relations Board issued a complaint and notice of hearing dated April 8, 1963,
145 NLRB No. 119.