Model Blouse Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 7, 1939

15 N.L.R.B. 133 (N.L.R.B. 1939)

In the Matter Of MODEL BLOUSE CO., ELIAS SAVADA, INDIVIDUALLY AND
DOING BUSINESS UNDER THE FIRM NAME AND STYLE OF MODEL BLOUSE
CO. AND ALSO DOING BUSINESS UNDER THE FIRM NAME AND STYLE OF
SAVADA BROTHERS and FEDERAL LABOR UNION No. 21560
Cases Nos . R-814 and C-1141.-Decided September 7, 1939
Clothing Manufacturing Industry-Interference , Restraint , and Coercion:
anti-union statements ; disparaging Union and describing organizers as rack-
eteers; assistance to rival , unaffiliated labor organization ; employer ordered
to cease such practices-Discrimination: discharges for union activity, some
employees reemployed at inferior positions , charges sustained ; discharge be-
cause of testimony given at a bearing, charges not sustained as to some em-
ployees-Reinstatement Ordered: of employees discharged , including those
reemployed at inferior positions-Back Pay: to date of offer of reinstatement
to former position-Investigation of Representatives : controversy concerning
representation of employees : employer did not answer letter from petitioning
union; rival labor organization , subsequently organized , also claims majority-
Unit Appropriate for Collective Bargaining: production employees including
inspectors and packers, but excluding foremen, foreladies , and other supervisory
employees , janitors , truck drivers, mechanics , office help, and employees in ship-
ping department ; employer -wide unit rejected because of lack of history of
collective bargaining ; unit limited to one plant of the respondent-Election
Ordered: to insure satisfactory bargaining relations by elimination of doubt ;
determination of time for and eligibility date postponed because of unfair labor
practices-Procedure: record in representation case reopened after decision,
consolidated with hearing on charges subsequently filed ; findings of fact and
conclusions of law in previous decision set aside in so far as superseded or
modified by present decision.
Mr. Jerome I. Macht, for the Board.
Mr. Max J. Liebowitz, of New York City, for the respondent.
Mr. Benjamin R. Simons and Mr. M. Herbert Syme, by Mr. Benja-
min R. Simons and Mr. Maurice Abrams, of Philadelphia, Pa., for
the Union.
Miss Mary Weston and Mr. Isadore Katz, both of 'Philadelphia,
Pa., for the Amalgamated.
Mr. Nathaniel Rogovoy, of Millville, N. J., for Edward V. Barry
and Model Workers Association.
Mr. David Rein, of counsel to the Board.
15 N. L. R. B., No. 19.
133
199549-39-vol. 15-10
:1134 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
DECISION
ORDER
AND
SECOND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
On April 21, 1938, Federal Labor Union No. 21560, herein called
-the Union, affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, herein
called the A. F. of L., filed with the Regional Director for the
Fourth Region (Philadelphia, Pennsylvania) a petition alleging that
a question affecting commerce had arisen concerning the representa-
tion of employees of Model Blouse Co., Elias Savada, individually
and doing business under the firm name and style of Model Blouse
Co., and also doing business under the firm name and style of Savada
Brothers, herein called the respondent,? at his plant at Millville,
New Jersey, and requesting an investigation and certification of rep-
resentatives pursuant to Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein called the Act. The National Labor
Relations Board, herein called the Board, thereupon ordered an in-
vestigation of the question concerning representation and, pursuant
to notice, a hearing was held on the petition on May 19, 20, 21, and
:23, 1938, before a Trial Examiner duly designated by the Board.
On July 30, 1938, the Board issued its Decision and Direction. of
Election, in which it found that all the production employees of the
respondent at his Millville, New Jersey, plant, excluding foremen,
foreladies, and other supervisory employees, janitors, packers, truck
drivers, mechanics, and office help, and including inspectors constitute
a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining, and in
which it directed the Regional Director for the Fourth Region to
conduct an election by secret ballot among these employees, to de-
termine whether or not they desired to be represented by the Union
for the purposes of collective bargaining.2 Thereafter, on August
9, 1938, the Union filed a "motion to reopen hearing for further con-
•sideration," and the Board on August 13, 1938, issued an amendment
to its Direction of Election postponing the date of the election to
such time as the Board might in the future direct.3
Meanwhile, on July 6, 1938,. the Union had filed charges alleging
that. the respondent had engaged in unfair labor practices, and on
October 10, 1938,. the Board, acting pursuant to Article III, Section
1 The petition as originally filed designated the respondent as Model Blouse Company.
However, it was amended on May 12, 1938 , to show the correct designation of the
respondent.
2 8 N. L. R. B. 725.
8 8 N. L. R. B. 729. .. •
MODEL BLOUSE CO. 135
10 (c) (2), and Article II, Section 37 (b), of National'Labor Rela-
tions Board Rules and Regulations-Series 1, as amended, issued an
order consolidating, for purposes of hearing and for all other pur-
poses, the representation case and the case initiated by the filing
of the charges, and ordering that one record of the hearing be
made.4
Upon these charges and upon amended charges, duly filed by the
Union with the Regional Director for the Fourth Region, the Board,
by the Regional Director, issued its complaint dated October 26, 1938,
against the respondent, alleging that the respondent had engaged in
and was engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within
the meaning of Section 8 (1), (3), and (4) and Section 2 (6) and (7)
of they Act. A copy of the complaint accompanied by a notice of
hearing on the consolidated cases was duly served upon the
respondent and the Union.
With respect to the unfair labor practices, the complaint alleged
in substance that the respondent (1) by threats, speeches, misstate-
ments, and misrepresentations, attempted to discourage and dis-
couraged his employees from membership in and affiliation with the
Union and by other acts interfered with, restrained, and coerced his
employees in the free choice of their representatives, (2) ter-
minated the employment of and denied their regular employment
to Doris Scroggy, Mamie Pancoast, Thelma Kirby, and Florence
Connelly, and refused to reinstate these employees to their former
positions of employment for the reason that each of them had joined
and assisted the Union and engaged in concerted activities with other
employees for their mutual aid and protection, and (3) terminated
the employment of and denied their regular employment to Thelma
Kirby and Florence Connelly and refused to reinstate Doris Scroggy,
Mamie Pancoast, Thelma Kirby, and Florence Connelly for the
further reason that each of them had given testimony at the above-
mentioned hearing on the representation case in May 1938.
On October 31, 1938, notice was served upon the respondent and
the Union that a motion would be made at the hearing to amend
the complaint to add allegations that the respondent had discouraged
his employees from membership in and affiliation with the Union
by (1) initiating the organization of Model Workers Association,
herein called the Association, (2) ' permitting the officers, agents, and
members of said Association to solicit membership and collect dues
on the plant premises during working hours, while denying the same
privileges to the Union, and (3) permitting the posting of notices
of meetings of said Association on the plant premises, and the circu-
' The order of consolidation designated the respondent in Case No. C-1141 as Model
Blouse Company. On October 25, 1938, an amended order of consolidation to show the
proper designation of the respondent was issued.
136 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARDY
lation of such notices during working hours, while denying the same
privileges to the Union.
On November 1, 1938, Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America,
herein called the Amalgamated, filed with the Regional Director a
petition for leave to intervene in the consolidated proceedings with
respect to the issues concerning representation, and on November
2, 1938, the Regional Director granted the Amalgamated leave to
intervene in the representation case.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing on the. consolidated proceedings was
held at Millville, New Jersey, from November 3 through November
22, 1938, before Charles A. Wood, the Trial Examiner duly desig-
nated by the Board. The Board, the respondent, the Union, the
Association, and the Amalgamated were represented by counsel and
participated in the hearing. All parties were afforded full oppor-
tunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to
introduce evidence bearing upon the issues.
At the opening of the hearing on November 3, a motion by counsel
for the Board to amend the complaint in the respects covered by the
previous notice of intention to amend, was granted by the Trial
Examiner without objection. On the same day, the respondent filed
his answer to the complaint as amended, denying the unfair labor
practices alleged therein. The respondent objected to the designa-
tion of the Trial Examiner, arguing that since the hearing was a
continuation of the hearing held in May, the same Trial Examiner
who had sat on the hearing in May should have been designated
as Trial Examiner for the hearing in November. This objection
was overruled by the Trial Examiner and his ruling is hereby
affirmed.
On November 4, during the course of the hearing, the complaint
was further amended without objection to allege that the respondent
had engaged in unfair labor practices by spying upon and keeping
under surveillance the meetings of the Union. On November 9, after
the filing of additional charges by the Union, the complaint was
again amended, without objection to allege that the respondent (1)
had transferred, demoted, and caused Mary Kolodchak to leave her
employment and refused to reinstate her to her former position be-
cause- she had joined and assisted the Union and engaged in concerted
activities with other employees for their mutual aid and protection,
and had refused to reinstate her to her former position for the
further reason that she had given testimony in the above-mentioned
hearing on the representation case in May 1938, and (2) had termi-
nated the employment of and denied her regular employment to Lydia
Fox and refused to reinstate her to her former position of employment
because she had joined and assisted the Union, had engaged in con-
MODEL BLOUSE CO. 137
,certed :activities with other employees for their mutual aid and pro-
tection, .and had given testimony in the hearing commencing Novem-
ber 3. No formal answer was filed to the amendments made on
November 4 and 9, 1938. All of said allegations will be deemed
denied by the respondent, having been put in issue by the examina-
tion of witnesses, the introduction of evidence, and argument upon
the merits in .a brief filed by the respondent with the Board.
At the close of the Board's case the Trial Examiner granted with-
out objection .a motion by counsel for the Board to amend the com-
1plaint to .conform to the proof. The motion was limited to the cor-
rection of "minor errors." A motion by the respondent to dismiss
the complaint,at the close of the Board's case, and repeated motions
by the Union to dismiss the petition for intervention filed by the
Amalgamated were denied by the Trial Examiner. During the
course of the hearing, the Trial Examiner made several other rulings
on motions and on objections to the admission of evidence. The
-Board has reviewed all the rulings of the Trial Examiner and finds
that no prejudicial,errors were committed. These rulings are hereby
:affirmed.
',On or about January 24, 1939, the Trial Examiner filed his Inter-
mediate Report, copies of which were duly served upon all parties,
in Which he found that the respondent had engaged in and was
engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section
.8 ;(1); (3), and (4) of the Act, and accordingly, recommended that
the respondent cease and desist from his unfair labor practices, rein-
state with back pay to their former positions of employment Doris
Scroggy, Mamie Pancoast, Thelma Kirby, Florence Connelly, Mary
Kolodchak, and Lydia Fox; and take certain other appropriate ac-
tion to remedy the situation brought about by the respondent's un-
-air labor practices. The Trial Examiner further recommended that
the :amended :complaint be dismissed for insufficient proof with re-
spect to the allegations that the respondent (1) terminated the em-
ployment of Thelma Kirby and Florence Connelly and refused to
reinstate Doris 'Scroggy, Mamie Pancoast, Thelma Kirby, Florence
Connelly and Mary Kolodchak for the reason that each of them had
given testimony at. the hearing on the representation case in May
1938; (2) permitted the officers, agents, and members of the Associa-
tion to solicit membership and collect dues on the plant premises
during working hours, while denying the same privileges to the
Union, and '(3) permitted the posting of notices of meetings of the
Association on the plant premises, and the circulation of such notices
during working hours, while denying the same privileges to the
Union.
On February 21, 1939, the respondent filed exceptions to the Inter-
mediate Report, and on March 16, 1939, filed a brief in support of
138 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
said exceptions. The parties, although advised of their opportunity
for oral argument before the Board, made no request therefor. The
Board has reviewed the exceptions to the Intermediate Report and
has considered the brief filed in support thereof, and in so far as
the exceptions are inconsistent with the findings, conclusions, and
order hereinafter set forth, finds them to be without merit.
In our previous Decision on July 30, 1938,' the Board made certain
findings of fact and conclusions of law. We have reexamined these
findings of fact and conclusions of law, and we hereby order that
these findings of fact and conclusions of law be set aside in so far
as they are inconsistent with or superseded by the findings, conclu-
sions, and order hereinafter set forth.
Upon the entire record in the case, including the transcript of-
testimony of and the exhibits introduced at the hearing conducted
on May 19, 20, 21, and 23, 193$, as well as the transcript of testimony
of and the exhibits introduced at the hearing conducted from Novem-
ber 3 through November 22, 1938, the Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
The respondent, Elias Savada, maintains his principal office in
New York City under the name of Savada Brothers. He operates
plants under different names and styles in Troy, New York, New
York, City, and Millville, Landisville, and Wheat Road, New Jer-
sey.6 These proceedings involve only the plant at Millville, New
Jersey, which is operated under the name and style of Model
Blouse Co.
The respondent manufactures blouses, shirts, pajamas, and under-
wear at the Millville plant. The raw materials for the manufacture
of these goods are shipped to Millville, New Jersey, by the respond-
ent from his New York City plant. The finished products are
shipped back to the New York City Ace to be sold and distributed
there by the respondent. The value of the finished products shipped
back to New York varies from $20,000 to $50,000 for a weekly period.
Approximately 460 persons are employed at the Millville plant.
II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
Federal Labor Union No. 21560 is a labor organization affiliated
with the American Federation of Labor, admitting to membership
employees of the respondent, at his Millville, New Jersey, plant, but
excluding supervisory employees.
8 N. L. R. B. 725.
The respondent also ships. garments to be sewed under a contract. arrangement to a
plant at Ephrata, Pennsylvania. See infra, Section VIII.
MODEL BLOUSE CO. 139v
Model Workers Association was an unaffiliated labor organization.
admitting to membership employees of the respondent at his Mill-
Ville, New Jersey, plant, including supervisory employees.? As-
described below, during the course of the hearing this organization-.
was disbanded.
Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America is a labor organiza-
tion admitting to membership employees of the respondent at all his-
plants, but excluding supervisory employees.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Interference, restraint, and coercion
1. The anti=union statements
On March 7, 1938, the girls employed in the pajama department of
the respondent's Millville plant went on strike in protest against a_
wage cut and were joined by the remainder of the girls in the plant.
As a result of this action, the wage cut was rescinded, and the plant
resumed normal operations the next day. The leaders of this strike-
decided to organize the employees of the plant into a labor organiza-
tion. For this purpose, they secured the assistance of Raymond--
Maines, the president of a local union affiliated with the A. F. of L.,.
and one McGurrin who was sent to Millville from the Philadelphia:
office of the A. F. of L. After a week of organizing activity, the
Union was formed at a meeting of employees on March 14. At this-
meeting the Union elected officers, all of whom, with the exception of
the president, Maines, were employees of the respondent." The other-
officers elected were Viola Felmey, vice president, Doris Scroggy,,
treasurer, Florence Connelly, recording secretary, and Mary Kolod-
chak, financial secretary. On March 28, the Union received a char-
ter as a Federal local of the A. F. of L. On the same date, an.
advisory board was chosen consisting of Nellie Clark; Charlotte Hess,_
Lillian Pancoast, Mamie Pancoast, Etta Hand, and Evelyn Walker,-
all employees of the respondent.'
On or about March 22, Edward McTague, general manager of the-
Millville plant, called the employees of the plant to a meeting in the-
pressing room during working hours, and addressed them on the sub-
ject of unions. According to the testimony of a number of employees,
called as witnesses by the Board,10 McTague spoke against unions in,
' Supervisory employees, however, were not permitted under the bylaws to hold an office-
in the Association.
8 Viola Felmey succeeded Maines as president sometime in April or early May.
Lydia Fox became a member of the advisory board in about the middle of April.
10 These witnesses are Olga' Brown, Doris Scroggy, Florence Connelly, Mamie Pancoast,
and Rose Hufsey. It was stipulated at the hearing that if Etta Hand, Herberta Walters„
Alma Davis,, and Lynn M. Newcomb were called to the stand, they would substantiate the
testimony of these witnesses as to McTague 's speech.
140 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
general and the A. F. of L. in particular. Their testimony is in sum-
mary as follows : MeTague introduced his talk with the statement that
he had received complaints from several girls that other girls were
"pestering them" and that he wished to "get things cleared up." He
then stated that the union organizers had come to the Millville plant
for the purpose of taking the employees' money; would "sell" the
employees "out to the highest bidder"; and that unions always caused
"trouble and hard feelings." He described the A. F. of L. organizers
as "racketeers" and said that these organizers would sell the em-
ployees "down the river." He told the assembled employees that they
should not join the A. F. of L. since it was concerned with the "steel
industry instead of clothing workers." McTague also said, "Look at
your officers and study them. If you ask me they are all half-
cocked." He informed the assembled employees that if they wanted
a union they "could start one ... here instead of giving ... money to
the outsiders." He instructed them to get together to determine
whether or not they desired a, union, adding "If you want a union, I
will get you a good union."
McTague's testimony with regard to this speech was the only evi-
dence introduced by the respondent to rebut the testimony recounted
above. MeTague testified that in his speech he merely cautioned the,
employees against "racketeering" unions and advised them to "inves-
tigate :.. first," saying, "it would be well to look into the matter
thoroughly before you give anybody your money." McTague denied
that these remarks were aimed against the Union or the A. F. of L.,
or that he mentioned the name of any union in the course of his
speech. Even if his testimony be credited in this regard, it is obvious
that the employees must have understood his remarks to apply to the
Union since it was the only labor organization that was active among
them. That McTague in fact intended to leave this impression
among the employees is substantiated by his admission that he was
aware that the Union was organizing among the employees at the
time.h1 McTague explained his failure to correct this impression at a
later date on the ground that he "was rather skeptical on talking to
them [the employees] about unions."
The need to caution the employees against racketeering unions,
McTague explained at the hearing, arose from a telephone call he
had received from a Mr. McGurk,12 a few days before the date of
McTague's speech. He testified that in the course of this conversa-
tion, McGurk asked him to sign up with some unnamed union, but
that he, McTague, became suspicious because McGurk "didn't seem
11 Moreover, he spoke to Viola Felmey in the same vein in April 1938 with the knowledge
that Felmey was active for the Union. These remarks are set out below at p. 141.
12 McTague, on the witness stand , was not certain as to the name of this individual and
thought it might be McGurk, Gurkin, Gurk, or Quirk.
MODEL BLOUSE CO. 141
to know anything about" the "garment industry." MeTague testi-
fied further that he then learned from some unnamed machine shop,
in Philadelphia that McGurk "had no connection with any bona fide
union," and therefore felt it incumbent upon him to caution the
employees against union organizers.
Aside from McTague's own testimony there is no other evidence
to support this story or to establish the presence of this alleged
organizer upon the scene. If McTague intended by his testimony to
refer to McGurrin, the organizer sent to Millville by the A. F. of L.,
he would hardly have sought to check the latter's credentials through
a machine shop rather than through the headquarters of the
A. F. of L.
In view of the contradictions, inconsistencies, and improbabilities
in McTague's account of his speech and his reasons for giving it, and
the vagueness of his testimony on vital points, we cannot give cre-
dence to his testimony as to the purport of the speech and the reason
he made the speech.13 We find that the testimony of the employees
concerning his speech, as set forth above, is substantially correct.
That the reason for McTague's speech was his desire to defeat the
efforts of the Union at organization rather than to caution the em-
ployees against racketeers is further supported by the testimony of
several witnesses with respect to a similar occurrence in 1935.14 This
testimony, undenied by McTague, establishes that McTague success-
fully employed a similar technique to.defeat an effort by the Amal-
gamated to organize the employees in July 1935. On this previous
occasion, he also called the employees of the plant together and in-
formed them that they did not need a union; that if they wanted one,
they could start one "right in the plant"; that there was no need for
the employees to give money to "outsiders." At that time he also
described union organizers as "racketeers and reds" and added that
the Amalgamated was "nothing but a bunch of Bolsheviks."
McTague's speech acted as a check on organizing activity by the
union members and at least one employee left the Union as a result
of the speech.
We find that McTague's speech on March 22, 1938, was designed
to and did discourage membership in the Union.
We have referred above to certain statements made to Viola Fel-
mey by McTague in April.16 Felmey testified that on that occasion
McTague told her that he was going to discharge her and that she
18 With respect to the general testimony of McTague, the Trial Examiner in his Inter-
mediate Report found as follows :
The undersigned was unimpressed by the demeanor of Edward McTague . . .
Furthermore [his] testimony ... , subjectas it is to self-contradiction, and contra-
diction by other witnesses, leaves grave doubt as to credibility.
11 These witnesses are Viola Felmey, Olga Brown, Bertha Manning, and Margaret Rowan.
15 See av.pra, footnote 11.
142 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
could inform her friends of this intention. McTague also said,
according to Felmey's testimony, "You think you are a big shot. You
got in with a bunch of racketeers. You think you are a big shot, you
:are that small. I am going to stand and watch you. The next girl
you talk to will be fired." We find that Felmey's version of this
incident is correct. McTague did not deny making these statements
to Felmey, but testified that he found it necessary to speak to her
-about her activities in behalf of the Union, because she "was all out
,of reason" and "was trying to upset the whole place." He did not,
however, offer any specific instances of misconduct by Felmey, nor
venture to explain in what respect her actions warranted a reprimand
'couched in the words attributed to him.
We find that the respondent, in March and April 1938, by the mak-
ing of the anti-union statements set forth above, by threat of dis-
,charge for activity on behalf of the Union, by warning his employees
not to join, assist, or remain members of the Union, and by per-
suading them not to assist or remain members of the Union, and by
proposing the formation, with his assistance, of a labor organization,
interfered with, restrained, and coerced his employees in the exercise
,of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
2. Model Workers Association
A few days before the opening of the hearing on the representa-
tion case on May 19, 1938, several employees of the respondent includ-
ing Andrew Hoppes, Anna Davis, Mary Fisher, and Nellie McAvoy
circulated throughout the plant a petition stating that the signatories
thereto did not wish to be represented by the Union or any other
labor organization. Lydia Fox saw James McTague, a foreman. in
-the plant and the brother of Edward McTague, hand a copy of the
petition to Nellie McAvoy who then circulated it throughout the
pressing room. The petition was circulated during working hours in
-the presence of foremen and foreladies. Its admitted, purpose was
for introduction at the hearing on the representation case in order to
defeat the attempt of the Union to be certified by the Board as the
representative of the employees. After circulation the petition was
turned over to the respondent, who introduced it into evidence at
that hearing.16
la In our Decision on July 30, 1938 , 8 N. L. R . B., 725, on the basis of the record in the
representation case , we said of this petition :
The employees who identified the petition for the Company [ respondent ] testified
that they had circulated the petition in the plant of their own initiative and that
company officials had played no part in its circulation . Their testimony on this
point, however , was vague and indefinite . They are unable to relate with any
degree of particularity the circumstances of its origin and circulation . One of the
witnesses could say little more than that he had received the petition from some
unknown person , had circulated it throughout his department and had then
returned it to another unknown person.
MODEL BLOUSE CO. 143
We find that the respondent, by' sponsoring and assisting in the
circulation of- this anti-union petition, interfered with, restrained,
and coerced his employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in
Section 7 of the Act.
Oi July 30, 1938, the Board issued its Decision directing an elec-
tion within 15 days from the date of the Decision among the respond-
ent's employees to determine whether or not they wished to be repre-
-sented by the Union. About 2 days later, Andrew Hoppes, Anna
Davis, Nellie McAvoy, and other employees who had been active in
the circulation of the petition met at Nellie McAvoy's house and
-decided to form a club for the purpose of "combatting outside
unions." On or about August 3, a number of these employees left
the plant before quitting time. They stationed themselves outside
the plant, to be in a position, as the remainder of the employees left
the plant at the regular quitting time, to distribute among them
Iea.flets announcing the organization meeting of this club. The same
practice was followed for the distribution on August 8 of an
:announcement of a second meeting of this club.
The meeting on August 4 was opened by Marie Lehman, who
-introduced Hoppes. The latter spoke on the purposes of the organ-
ization in language which closely resembled that which McTague
had used in his speech of March 22. He described unions as "a
,racket," He stated that the Union only wanted the employees'
;money. and urged them to keep their money in Millville. This 'was
followed by a similar speech by Elizabeth Munyon, another of re-
_spondent's employees, who described her previous experience with
unions and concluded that "they were all rackets." On August 6
a statement appeared in the Millville Daily Republican asserting that
the "real purpose of the meeting Was to organize ourselves into a
unit to combat outside influences." The statement was signed by
the Organization Committee, including among others, Hoppes, Leh-
,man, and McAvoy.l'
Evidence of this kind suggests that the signatures to. this petition may have
been obtained with the Company's assistance , but in the absence of more positive
evidence to that effect , doubt is cast upon the majority status of the Union by the
signatures on the petition introduced by the Company.
17 This statement reads in part as follows :
The real purpose of the meeting was to organize ourselves into a unit to
combat outside influences which are trying to force . upon its something we do not
want . . . Outsiders are trying to stuff a union down our throats by claiming
they have a majority of workers in our plant. At a hearing before the National
Labor Relations Board held in Millville recently it was proven that instead of a
majority they had a small minority. Under the circumstances the Labor Board
ordered a vote taken in the plant within the next two weeks.
Those of us who felt we did not wish to be stampeded into a labor organization
not of our own choosing decided to drag the thing into the open as we felt we
could not tolerate this outside interference any longer . We are fully capable of
looking - after ourselves without having to have utter strangers come into our lives
with perhaps grievous consequences with which we are all very familiar.
144 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
At the meeting on August 8 officers were chosen. Andrew Hoppes
was elected president; Marie Lehman vice president; Hazel Maley
financial secretary; Edward Barry recording secretary ; and Anna
Davis treasurer.'8 On August 22 the organization chose the name
of Model Workers Club and in September changed this to Model
Workers Association. Bylaws for the Association were adopted at
a meeting in September.
Membership in the Association was solicited by employees in the
plant during working hours in the presence of foremen and foreladies.
Dues collectors for the Association collected dues in the plant on the
weekly pay days. Collections were made during working hours a
short interval after pay had been distributed. In some cases the
collectors followed literally on the heels of the foremen and fore-
ladies as they distributed the pay envelopes. No steps were taken
by the respondent to put an end to these practices, although the record
clearly establishes that they were too prevalent to have failed to come
to his attention. The Union did not request similar advantages from
the respondent, but it is obvious that in view of the respondent's
stated hostility toward the Union, such a request would have been
futile. Moreover, a degree of freedom from discipline was permitted
employees active for the Association. These employees were per-
mitted to leave their machines and congregate for conversation and to
leave the plant to bring in refreshments. These privileges were
denied to members of the Union.
Regular meetings of the Association were held through August,.
September, and October. Although the bylaws of the Association
provided for a committee to "cooperate with the Management of the
Company in adjusting and deciding questions relating to hours,
wages, [and] working conditions," no efforts were made to engage
in collective bargaining with the respondent. The Association func-
tioned chiefly as a social club and as a forum for anti-union state-
ments . During the course of the hearing, which began on No
9, the members of the Association joined the Amalgamated and the.
Association was disbanded.19
The facts set forth above establish that the respondent supplied`
active assistance and encouragement in the formation, organization,,
and functioning of the Association. The keynote of the Association's,
aims was sounded by McTague in his speech in March. The em-
ployees who organized the Association were the same employees who.
had cooperated with the respondent in the circulation of the anti-
union petitions in May. Since these employees were effectuating the.
18 The minutes of this meeting are dated August 4, but it is clearly established by-
other evidence that the meeting was held on the 8th.
J9
The circumstances under which the members of the Association transferred to the.
Amalgamated are described below.
MODEL BLOUSE CO. 145
stated desires of the respondent that they defeat the Union and start
a union themselves, they must have felt assured of the respondent's
favor and support in this project. This favor and support was given
them. They had complete license to organize and collect dues during
working hours. They could leave the plant before the close of work
to distribute leaflets. They were permitted a degree of freedom
from discipline denied to members of the Union. The full effect of
the granting of these special privileges must be evaluated against the
background of McTague's tirade against the A. F. of L. and the
Union in March. The respondent made clear to his employees that
he wished them to leave the Union and form a union themselves.
When, thereafter, such an organization came into being, he endowed
it with a special status and stamped it with the mark of his approval.
In this fashion the Association was enabled to gain and retain its
members, and establish and continue its existence.
We find that the respondent, by his anti-union statements, by
proposing that an unaffiliated labor organization be formed, and by
granting special privileges to members of the Association, thereby
encouraging and assisting the formation, organization, and opera-
tion of the Association, interfered with, restrained, and coerced his
employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of
the Act.
The evidence to support the allegation that the respondent spied
upon union meetings consists of testimony that Edward McTague and
his brothers, James and William, foremen in the respondent's plant,
were in the vicinity of the Union's meeting place on meeting nights.
McTague admitted this in his testimony, stating that it was his
practice to "hang out" in the evenings with friends near a drug
store situated across the street from the union meeting place. He
testified, however, that he did not spy or have any intention of spying
upon the union meetings. Since McTague's explanation of his pres-
ence near the union meetings is a reasonable one, we find the evidence
insufficient to sustain the allegation in the complaint that the re-
spondent spied upon and kept under surveillance the membership
meetings of the Union.
We find, also, that the allegation in the complaint that the respond-
ent permitted the association to post notices of meetings upon the
plant premises is not supported by the evidence.
B. The discriminations in regard to hire and tenure of employment
The complaint charges the respondent with discrimination in re-
gard to the hire and tenure of employment of Doris Scroggy, Florence
Connelly, Thelma Kirby, Mamie Pancoast, Lydia Fox, and Mary
Kolodchak. These six include three of the four officers of the Union,
146 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
two members of the advisory board, and an especially active member
of the Union. All of these cases must be considered against the
background of the unfair labor practices of the respondent described
above.
Doris Scroggy has been employed by the respondent for about 6
years.. She was employed at various tasks until about March 1937,
when she became match-up girl at the cutting table at a weekly wage
of $11. There is only one match-up girl in the plant and she is
charged with the task of matching materials and the performance
of odd jobs. Because of the nature of her work, the match-up girl
is assured of steady employment throughout the year. Every other
job in the plant, with few exceptions, is seasonal and subject to lay-
offs during slack periods.
Scroggy was very active in gaining members for the Union, and
at its first meeting on March 14, 1938, was elected treasurer. About
a week after this meeting Scroggy was transferred without any ex-
planation from her job as match-up girl to work on an eyelet ma-
chine. The wage for this latter work was the same as that for the
job of match-up girl. Nevertheless, about 3 days after her transfer
to the eyelet machine, Scroggy asked her fore]ady, Bessie Chadwick,
to transfer her back to the job of match-up girl. Her forelady in-
formed Scroggy that she had been transferred to eyelet work because
there was a need for a good girl at that job. Chadwick added that
she "would see what she could 'do about" transferring Scroggy back
to match-up work. However, Scroggy was not given another oppor-
tunity at match-up work. Work on the eyelet machine ceased soon
after the transfer and on March 31 Scroggy was laid off. In the
meantime, Virginia Sharp, a trimmer in the pajama department,
who had been in the employ of the respondent for about 2 years,
replaced Scroggy as match-up girl. At the time of the hearing
Sharp was still employed at that job.
After her lay-off, and prior to the hearing on the representation
case in May, Scroggy asked for work on several occasions. Each
time she was told she would be sent for when needed. In the early
part of July a representative of the Regional Office of the Board
called on Edward McTague and discussed the cases of Scroggy and
other girls. A few days thereafter, at the suggestion of the Regional
Office, Scroggy, together with several other girls, visited McTague
and asked for employment. McTague told them that there was no
work, but they would be sent for when needed. He added, "Tell the
National Labor Relations Board for me that they embarrass me."
About a week after this interview, Scroggy was sent for and given
work on a single-needle machine, at which she was employed at the
time of the hearing. Her average earnings at this work are $7 a
week.
1\IODEL BLOUSE CO. 147
The respondent argues in his brief that Scroggy, having been trans-
ferred to eyelet work, was subject to lay-offs in the same fashion
as any other eyelet girl. He offers no adequate explanation, how-
ever, for the transfer of Scroggy from her match-up job to eyelet
work. In his brief, the respondent states that Scroggy was trans-
ferred to eyelet work, when work as a match-up girl was slack.
This contention is contrary to the record. The evidence that the,
match-up job is not subject to lay-offs was uncontradicted. Further,.
as stated above, Scroggy when transferred was replaced by Virginia,
Sharp, who, at the date of the hearing, was still employed at match-up„
work.
It was generally known throughout the plant that the A F. of L.,
was organizing among the employees, and knowledge of this activity-
soon came to McTague's attention.20 Tom Pugliese, Lydia Fox's<
foreman, spoke to her about the March 14 meeting on the morning,
of March 15. Several girls had spoken to McTague about the union,
activity, prior to his speech on March 22. Through these sources,-
McTague learned of Viola Felmey's union activities. In view of
the respondent's stated hostility toward the Union and his active-.
efforts to defeat its organizing activity, it is only reasonable to assume-
that the respondent would welcome information as to the Union's;
members and officers. This knowledge, since it was general through--.
out the plant, was readily . available; and must have come to Mc--.-
Tague's attention through the medium of the foremen and fore--
ladies, or of the girls who spoke to him about union activity. Ac-'
cordingly, we find that the respondent knew of Doris Scroggy's
office in and activity on behalf of the Union.
Upon the basis of the foregoing, we believe that, on or about:
March 1938, Doris Scroggy was transferred from her position as;
match-up girl, and thereafter laid off and refused reinstatement to
this position, because of her union activities. The explanation for.-
the transfer offered by the .respondent in his brief is contrary to the-
record and an obvious fabrication. The respondent knew of
Scroggy's union activities, and transferred her from the highly de-_
sirable position of match-up girl with assured employment to a job,
where work terminated within a week and a. half. Scroggy was.
subsequently employed at a position which pays less than that Of'
match-up girl, and unlike that job is subject to seasonal lay-offs. She.
was refused reinstatement to the position of match-up girl which,
-'0 McTague testified as follows : It was general talk, and it was common talk in the
factory about the organizer's name, and who he was, and you could hear everybody in
the place talking about it all the time. You can hear them all the time now. They
talk about it. It isn't a secret around the place . It is very open ... Stories and things..
of that kind circulate around a factory very rapidly, and very outstanding. If I hear it-
talked about in the plant , I learn about it."
148 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
at the time of Scroggy's transfer from the job, was given to another
girl who had not formerly done that work.
We find that the respondent, by his transfer and subsequent lay-
off of Doris Scroggy and his refusal to reinstate her to her former
position of employment, discriminated in regard to her hire and
tenure of employment and the terms and conditions of her employ-
ment, thereby discouraging membership in the Union, and thereby
interfering with, restraining, and coercing his employees in the exer-
cise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
Mamie Panwoast has been in the employ of the respondent as a
fly-facing girl on pajamas over a period of 10 years, but during that
period was away from the plant for long intervals because of illness.
In May 1937 she was reemployed to replace Mary Trout, who was ill
at the time. Her forelady promised Pancoast that she "would work
me.' [Pancoast] in steady when . . . Mary Trout came back." In
July, Mary Trout returned and Pancoast was transferred to another
machine where she continued to work at fly facing. In the early
autumn one of the other girls employed at fly facing left the re-
spondent's employment. Pancoast was thereafter considered one of
the regular girls on this line of work. Fly facing is piece work and
Pancoast's average earnings were about $3 a day.
Pancoast was the representative for the fly-facing girls on a com-
mittee that saw Edward McTague during the 1-day stoppage on
March 7. She was active in the solicitation of members for the
Union and was chosen a member of the advisory board on March 28.
Whenever work was slow, it was the practice of the respondent,
with respect to fly facing as well as other operations, to divide the
available work equally among the employees engaged in the same
task. The employees would be laid off at the same time and reem-
ployed at the same time. If there was insufficient work for a full
day's employment on a particular job, the employees on that job
would be given an equal number of hours of work per day.
On April 5, 1938, Pancoast was laid off, together with the other
girls on fly facing. The other girls were called back for a single
day on April 6, but Pancoast was not. Pancoast remonstrated With
her forelady and was given employment on April 18 and 19, to-
gether with the other girls. Thereafter, although" Pancoast fre-
quently requested work '21 she received no further employment until
the date of the hearing. The other fly-facing girls, however, worked
fairly steadily from April 25 through the beginning of November.
Pancoast was reemployed at fly facing on November- 16, during the
course of the hearing. Her forelady, however, was doubtful that
this employment would be steady.
21 Mamie Pancoast was one of the girls who at the suggestion of the Regional Office
of the Board, called on McTague in July to'request employment. See supra.
MODEL BLOUSE CO. 149
The respondent contends , in his brief , that Pancoast was not a
regular girl on fly facing, but was working only on a temporary
basis substituting for Mary Trout. The record is clear, however,
that Pancoast worked for about 9 months after Trout returned. At
the time of her lay-off , Pancoast was clearly one of the steady fly-.
facing girls.
We believe that Pancoast was refused employment on April 6, and
from April 25 to November 16, because of her union activities. The,
respondent 's explanation for the failure to give her work is contrary
to the evidence . Pancoast was a member of a committee that saw
McTague during the stoppage on March 7. -In addition , for the same
reasons set forth in our discussion of the Scroggy case , we find that
the respondent was aware of Pancoast's activity in behalf of the Union.
We find that the respondent , by his refusal to give employment to
Mamie Pancoast on April 6 , and from April 25 to November 16, dis-
criminated in regard to her hire and tenure of employment , thereby
discouraging membership in the Union, and thereby interfering with,
restraining, and coercing his employees in the exercise of the rights
guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
Pancoast earned nothing between April 19 and November 16, when
she was reemployed at fly facing.
Florence Connelly was elected recording secretary of the Union at
its first meeting on March 14 . At about that time several of the re-
spondent's foreladies observed Connelly in the company of McGurrin,
the A. F. of L. organizer. At the hearing on the representation case
in May, Connelly in the course of her testimony described her position
in the Union and her activities in soliciting members.
Florence Connelly and Anne Breedon.had been hired at about the
same time, and for approximately 4 years the two girls worked to-
gether as operators on polo collars . The respondent observed, with
respect to polo collars , the practice of equalizing employment when
work was slack , that we have described above. Pursuant to this prac-
tice, Connelly and Breedon had during the 4 years of their employ-
ment, been laid off at the same time and called back to work at the
same time.
On May 13 work on polo collars ceased and both Connelly and
Breedon were laid off . Breedon was called back to work on June/9,
but Connelly was not. Thereafter, Anna Zoarsky, who had previously
done occasional work on polo collars, was given steady employment
at this task . In addition,' other girls worked on polo collars when
there was too much for Breedon and Zoarsky. Nevertheless, despite
Connelly's requests for employment , she was given no work on polo
collars after May 13. -
199549-39-vol. 15-11
150 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
.
On July 12, at the suggestion of the Regional Office of the Board,
Connelly, together with Scroggy and several other girls, called on
McTague and asked for employment.22 Shortly thereafter, on July 23,
Connelly was given work doing fronts on polo shirts. However, since
she was new at the job and consequently worked slowly, she was laid
off again after 2 days. Connelly has not worked since that date.
We believe that Florence Connelly was refused employment at polo
collars on June 9 and thereafter because of her union activities. The
respondent argues in his brief that Connelly was refused employment
because there was no work. However, the record clearly establishes
the contrary. The evidence that the respondent knew of her union
activities is clear. She testified to these activities at the hearing in May
1938, and, as set forth above, the respondent had general knowledge
of union activities at the plant.28
We find that the respondent, by his refusal to employ Florence Con-
nelly on polo collars on June 9 and thereafter, discriminated in regard
to her hire and tenure of employment and the terms and conditions of
her employment, thereby discouraging membership in the Union, and
thereby interfering with, restraining, and coercing his employees in
the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
Florence Connelly earned about $19 to $20 a week on winter polo'
collars and $15 to $16 a week on summer polo collars. Aside from her
2 days' work on fronts on polo shirts, Connelly has not worked since
May 13.
Mary Kolodchak was active in the solicitation of members for the
Union and was elected financial secretary at its first meeting on March
14. She testified at the hearing on the representation case in May,
and, in the course of her testimony, described her position in the Union
and her activity on behalf of the Union.
Kolodchak was employed by the respondent for about 12 years and
worked as an operator on shirt labels for that entire period. She was
paid on a piece-rate basis and her average earnings were between $15•
and $16 a week. On about March 7 work on shirt labels ceased and
Kolodchak was transferred to zipper fronts, where her earnings fell
to $8 a week.24 The shirt-label department was then permanently dis-
continued except for an occasional special order, and Kolodchak con-
tinued to work on zipper fronts until the end of May when work on
this operation also ceased.
Kolodchak had received no work by the end of June. At this time
she learned that there was a need for extra girls in the pajama depart-
22 For a description of this incident, see.savpra.
23 See supra.
21 For it short period, Kolodchak received an extra $1 over and above her piece-work
earnings, in order to recompense her for her drop in wages. After about 2 weeks,
however, this allowance was stopped.
MODEL BLOUSE CO. 151
meat. In the past, Kolodchak, had frequently obtained work on pa-
jama labels on occasions when work on shirt labels was slack. She
therefore approached Elizabeth Saul, the forelady in the pajama de-
partment, and asked for employment. Saul replied that she had no
work. Kolodchak said that she had heard that the department was
rushed, and Saul answered, "I know, but I don't have any [work]
for you."
Late in July Kolodchak was given work sewing plackets. After
2 days at this job, Kolodchak did not return to work because she had
earned only 90 cents a day. Thereafter, she twice requested employ-
ment, at the beginning of August and again at the beginning of Sep-
tember. She was told by Bessie Chadwick, the forelady in the shirt
department, that she would be sent for when there was work on
plackets. However, Kolodchak was not called back to work after July.
The record establishes. that in the meantime there was considerable
work on pajama labels. The daughter of Nellie McAvoy, who had
been active in the circulation of the anti-union petition and was later
one of the organizers of the Association'25 was hired as a steady girl
on pajama labels in July. Miss McAvoy had not worked for the re-
spondent before that date. In addition, another employee was called
upon to assist on pajama labels when the press.of work was heavy.
We believe that Mary Kolodchak was refused employment on pa-
jama labels in June and thereafter 28 because of her union activities.
The respondent learned of these activities from her testimony at the
hearing. In the past, Kolodchak had frequently worked on pajama
labels when work on shirt labels was slack. The' record establishes
that such employment was available in June and thereafter. More-
over, the respondent offers no explanation for his refusal to offer her
such employment. The statement made to Kolodchak by Elizabeth
Saul at the time of Kolodchak's request for employment, corroborates
our conclusion that Kolodchak was discriminated against because of
her union activities.
We find that the respondent, by his refusal to employ Mary
Kolodchak on pajama labels in June 1938 and thereafter, discrimi-
nated in regard to her hire and tenure of employment and the terms
and conditions of her employment, thereby discouraging membership
in the Union, and thereby interfering with, restraining, and coercing
his employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7
of the Act.
At the time of the hearing, Kolodchak was employed caring for an
invalid woman and was earning $6 a week and board. Between the
25 See supra.
20 The respondent, in his brief, recites an offer of employment made subsequent to the
hearing. However. we cannot take cognizance of facts not testified to in the record.
152 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
last date Kolodchak worked for the respondent and the date of her
testimony at the hearing, she earned approximately $40.
Th.elvza Kirby has been in the employ of the respondent for over 5
years. For the past 3 years she has worked as an operator on a felling
machine.27
Kirby joined the Union at its first meeting on March 14. She was
very active in behalf of the Union and gained about 10 members for it,
and testified at the hearing on the representation case in May that she
was a member of the Union.. She was discharged by Edward McTague
on July 27, allegedly because she had done defective work on that 'day.
The testimony of the witnesses called by the respondent to ' support
his contention as to Kirby's discharge is both confused and contra-
dictory.
Michael Mitchell, a machinist employed by the respondent. testified
that Kirby told him that her machine was not operating correctly;
that upon examination of her machine and her work, he discovered
that the machine was in perfectly good condition, and that Kirby was
doing her work badly; that he then called this to the attention of
Kirby's forelady, Ida Murphy. 'At a later point in his testimony,
Mitchell stated that it was Mabel Estell, the girl who inspected Kirby's
work, who spoke to him about the machine. Both Kirby and Estell
denied that they complained to Mitchell about the rilachine. Ida Mur-
phy testified that her knowledge of Kirby's bad work came not from
the machinist, but from the pressing room. We can give no credence
to Mitchell's testimony.
Ida Murphy testified that Kirby's bad work was returned from the
pressing room as impossible to press because it had been done so
poorly; that she then went to Kirby's machine and discovered that
Kirby was doing her work badly ; that McTague then came over, and
since Kirby's work was so bad "we just let her go." Examples of
Kirby's allegedly bad work were introduced into evidence at the hear-
ing. Murphy further testified that oile of the garments in evidence
was so defective that Estell, Kirby's inspector, could not possibly
.properly have permitted the garment to pass. Kirby denied that on'
the day of her discharge she had worked on striped cloth, of which
the garment in question was made .28 Moreover, Estell testified, that
she had not on that day noted.any defect in- Kirby's work serious
enough to require reporting to the forelady; that at the time, Murphy
showed her a ruined shirt purporting to be Kirby's work, and Estell
declared that she, the inspector, could not have seen that example else
she would have sent it back. No explanation was offered by the re-
21 Felling consists of sewing seams on the sides of a garment.
29 The denial was by stipulation, I. e., counsel stipulated that if Kirby were called to
the stand she would deny that she had worked on striped cloth on the day of her
discharge.
MODEL BLOUSE CO. 153
sponclent as to how the garment could have come to the pressing room
without having been passed by the inspector, or as to why Estell was
not even reprimanded for her alleged failure to report the defective
work. The forelady asserted that she had not put these specimens
aside for the purpose of evidence in a hearing before the Board. How-
ever, she had no credible explanation for having kept them .211
McTague testified that he learned from someone in the pressing
room that the pressing room had received.a number of garments which
could not be pressed because the side seams had been sewed badly;
that he then consulted with Murphy and discovered that Kirby was
responsible for this bad work; and that since Kirby had done poor and
careless work for the past 5 years, he then discharged her. The record
clearly establishes that Kirby was an exceptionally good worker.
Kirby had been frequently commended for good work by her fore]ady.
During the 5 years she was employed by the respondent, she twice
left her job because of childbirth. On both occasions she was requested
by her forelady to return because of the, superiority of her work. Mc-
Tague, himself, on cross-examination, admitted that he considered
Kirby to be an "asset to the place."
The Trial Examiner found that the testimony of Ida Murphy and
Edward McTague with respect to the incident was not entitled to
credence. We also so find.
Kirby testified that her work on the day of her discharge had not
been poor. She testified further that the material that both Murphy
and MeTague had found fault with had not been her work; that when
she asked then to look at some bundles of work she had just completed,
Murphy examined them, and after admitting that they were properly
done, added, "We cam-lot afford to have anybody here if we have to
watch everyone'"; that McTague was so angry that he did not even
look at the bundles. We find that Thelma Kirby's testimony is sub-
stantially correct.
We believe that Kirby was discharged on July 27 because of her
union activities. The record establishes that Kirby's work was not
defective on that date. ° Moreover, Murphy's angry disregard of the
good work that Kirby showed to Murphy, and McTague'§ refusal, to
examine this work establish that McTague and Murphy were either
aware that Kirby's work was not defective, or not concerned in ascer-
taining whether or not her work had been done properly. Further,
even if Kirby had done defective, work on that date, it is clear that
zo Ida Murphy gave the following explanation for having the spoiled garments available
for introduction into evidence : "Well , the striped one is really a good one compared to
the ones I sent downstairs again , because there was nothing I could do about it. I kept
that so if I needed it to show to anyone else , just a sort of an example of what could
happen when it is not done just right. This one I didn't know bow to fix, so I laid that
aside and forgot about it."
454 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
that could riot have been the motive for her discharge. Kirby was the
only girl Murphy could recall ever having been discharged for im-
perfect work, although other girls had been guilty of such work. The
respondent knew of Kirby's union activities because of her testimony at
the hearing in May 1938, and for. the reasons set forth in our discus-
sion of the Scroggy case.
Kirby requested her job back from McTague early in September,
and late in September was called back to work. However, on her re-
turn she was placed at a machine, different in type from the one at
which she had been working at the time' of her discharge. At this
latter machine, Kirby earned an average of $3.50 a day, whereas at
her former machine, her earnings had averaged $4 a day. In addition,
her employment at this machine was not as steady.
We find that the respondent, by his discharge of Thelma Kirby on
July 27, and his subsequent refusal to reinstate her to her former
machine, discriminated in regard to her hire and tenure of employ-
ment and the terms and conditions of her employment, thereby dis-
couraging ' membership in the Union, and thereby interfering with,
restraining, and coercing his employees in the exercise of the rights
guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
For the 2 months that.Kirby was not employed by the respondent,
she worked in a coat factory where she earned approximately $40.
Lydia Fox was employed as a presser by the respondent for
approximately 7 years. She joined the ' Union, on about March 28,
and became a member of the advisory. board sometime in April.
She testified to her union membership in the hearing on the repre-
sentation case in May. On November 5 and 0, she testified at the
hearing on the complaint case herein,' describing the. incident in
which James McTague gave Nellie McAvoy an 'anti-union petition
to be circulated in the pressing room. Fox also testified to other
activities by Nellie McAvoy on behalf of the Association.3°
On the morning of November 8, Fox became involved in a quarrel
with Etheline Mingin, another employee in the pressing room. Soon
after the quarrel had subsided Fox's forelady told her that Edward
McTague wished to see her. In the presence of Mingin, McTague
asked Fox why she had "abused" Mingin. Fox denied cursing Min-
gin, but Mingin stated that Fox had done so. Thereupon, without
inquiring further as to the truth of the matter, and without con-
sulting either the foreman or the forelady, McTague told Fox that
she was discharged and instructed her to "go up and get my [her]
paY"
Fox testified that while waiting for her pay, she turned to Mc-
Tague and accused him of. discharging her for union activities; that
30 See supra.
MODEL BLOUSE CO. 155
McTague replied that he "wanted to get even" because of Fox's
testimony about Nellie McAvoy, and then added, "Go to the Board
with big-mouth Casey-you and the Board and big-mouth Casey."
Casey was an organizer for the A. F. of L.
McTague testified that -he discharged Fox because she had been a
constant source of trouble. , He stated, '517e used to discount a lot of
things, or allow for things that she did, but, since she got mixed up
with the A. F. of L., she has taken it upon herself to almost rule
the whole place there, and tell foremen and foreladies what they can
do and what they can't do and she stays out when she pleases."
However, Fox's foreman testified that he had never reported Fox to
McTague, an l McTague admitted that he discharged Fox without
consulting her foreman or forelady. For these reasons we cannot
credit McTague's explanation for the discharge. McTague denied
that he told Fox he was discharging her because of her testimony
at the hearing.' However, in view of the generally unsatisfactory
nature of McTague's testimony 31 we cannot credit this testimony.32
We credit Fox's testimony concerning McTague's statement while
she was waiting for her pay, and we find, as did the Trial Examiner,
that Fox was discharged on November 8 because of her union activi-
ties and her testimony on November 5 and 6.
We find that the respondent, by his discharge of Lydia Fox on
November 8, discriminated in regard to her hire and tenure of em-
ployment and the terms and conditions of her employment, thereby
discouraging membership in the Union, and thereby interfering with,
restraining, and coercing his employees in the exercise of the rights
,guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
We further find that the respondent discharged Lydia Fox on
November 8 because she gave testimony under the Act, thereby inter-
fering with, restraining, and coercing his employees in the exercise
of the rights guaranteed in Section7 of the Act.
The complaint alleges that Doris Scroggy, Florence Connelly,
Thelma Kirby, Mamie Pancoast., and Mary Kolodchak were dis-
criminated against because of their testimony in the hearing on the
representation case in May. Although, as found above, the record
establishes that all of these employees were discriminated against in
regard to their hire and tenure of employment because of their
union activities, the record does not establish a casual connection be-
tween such discrimination and their testimony at the hearing in
May. Accordingly, we find that the respondent did not discriminate
31 See discussion , supra , and footnote 13, supra.
ffi Mavis Riley, who worked 'in the respondent's of5ice. overheard part of this conversation.
She testified that she did not hear 1VIcTague tell Fox he was discharging her because of
Fox's testimony . However , on cross-examination , Riley admitted that she (lid not hear
all of the conversation between Fox and McTague.
156 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
against Doris Scroggy, Florence Connelly, Thelma Kirby, Mamie
Pancoast, and Mary Kolodchak, because they gave testimony under
the Act.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the respondent set forth in Section III above,
occurring in connection with the operations of the respondent
described in Section I above, have a close, intimate , and substantial
relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States, and
tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce
and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that the respondent has engaged in unfair labor
practices , we will order him to cease and desist therefrom, and to
take certain affirmative action which we find necessary to effectuate
the policies of the Act.
We have found that the respondent has discriminated in regard
to the hire and tenure of employment and the terms and conditions
of employment of Doris Scroggy, Florence Connelly, Thelma Kirby,
.Mamie Pancoast, Lydia Fox, and Mary Kolodchak. Although Doris
Scroggy, Thelma Kirby, and Mamie Pancoast are at present in the
employ of the respondent , none of them is working at her former
position . Doris Scroggy has not been returned to her former posi-
tion as match-up girl, Thelma Kirby has been, placed at a different
type of felling machine and neither she nor Mamie Pancoast has
been restored to a regular status at their respective jobs. We shall,
therefore , order the respondent to offer to all six of these employees
.immediate and full reinstatement to their former positions, or if
these are not available , to substantially equivalent positions. By
former positions , we refer to the positions held by. these employees
at the time of the discrimination . Thus, we will order Doris
Scroggy to be restored to her position as match-up girl, Florence
Connelly and Mamie Pancoast to a regular status as a steady girl
on polo collars and fly facing respectively , Thelma Kirby to the fell-
ing machine at which she was working on July 27, and Lydia Fox
to her job in the pressing room. Since we have found that the shirt
label department has been permanently discontinued , and that the
respondent discriminated with regard to Mary Kolodchak by his
refusal to offer her employment on pajama labels , we will order the
respondent to offer Mary Kolodchak employment on pajama labels.
Where necessary , we shall require the respondent to displace em-
ployees who have succeeded to the former position of any of the
MODEL BLOUSE CO. 157
above-named employees, or who have succeeded to positions which
either because of seniority or the practice of the, plant should have
been offered to any one of the above-named employees. We shall
also order the respondent to make' each of the above-named
employees whole for any loss of pay she may have suffered
b f reason of such discrimination, by payment to each of
them of a shun of money equal to the amount which she normally
would have earned as wages from the date of the discrimination to
the date of the offer of reinstatement, less her net earnings 33 during
said period.
We shall also order the respondent to take certain other action
more particularly set forth in the order.
Where we have found that the respondent has not engaged, in
unfair labor practices in accordance with the allegations in the
complaint, we will order the complaint dismissed in so far as it
alleges such unfair labor practices.
VI. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
In our previous Decision issued.on July 30, 1938,39 we found that
the respondent had failed to reply to a letter from the Union request-
ing a meeting and had questioned the Union's majority, and that,
therefore, a question had arisen concerning the representation of the
employees of the respondent. The Union still claims to represent a
majority of the respondent's employees at' the Millville plant.-
As we have stated above, the, Amalgamated thereafter filed a peti-
tion for intervention on November. 2, 1938. At the date of the filing
of the petition, the Amalgamated had no members among the re-
spondent's employees , at Millville. However, during the course of
the hearing in November, the Amalgamated, with the active assist-
ance of the officers of the Association, conducted an organizing cam-
paign among the respondent's employees. At a series of meetings
held under the auspices, of the Association,. the Amalgamated en-
rolled as members. most of the members of the Association as well as
a number of employees who were not members of the Association.
Upon the basis of the members gained in this campaign the Amal-
By "net earnings " is meant earnings less expenses , such as for transportation, room,
and board , incurred by an employee in connection with obtaining work and working else-,
where than for the respondent, which would not have been incurred but for the discrimi-
nation by the respondent ' and the consequent necessity of seeking employment elsewhere.
See Matter of Crossett Lumber Company and United Brotherhood of Carpenters and
Joiners of America, Lumber and Sawmill Workers Union, Local 2590 , 8'N. L. R . B. 440.
Monies received for work performed upon Federal. State, county, municipal, or other
work-relief projects are not considered as earnings , but, as provided below in the Order,
shall be deducted from the sum due the employee , and the amount thereof shall be paid
over to the appropriate fiscal agency of the Federal, State, county, municipal, or other
government or governments which supplied the funds for said work-relief projects.
84 8 N. L. R. B. 725.
158 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
gamated also claims to represent a majority of the employees of the
respondent at the Millville plant.-s
We find that a question has arisen concerning the representation
of employees of the respondent.
VII. THE EFFECT OF THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION UPON
COMMERCE
We find that the question concerning representation which has
arisen, occurring in connection with the operations of the respondent
described in Section I above, has a close, intimate, and substantial
relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States and
tends to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce
and the free flow of commerce.
VIII. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT
In our previous Decision ie we found that the production employees
of the respondent at the Millville plant constituted an appropriate
unit. The Union so contended in the hearing on the representation
case in May and pressed the same contention at the hearing in No-
vember. The Amalgamated contends that the production employees
of the respondent at the Millville, Troy, and New York City plants
constitute a single appropriate unit. The Amalgamated suggests as
an alternative that the production employees at all five of the re-
spondent's plants, consisting of these three and two other plants at
Wheat Road and Landisville, New Jersey, may be found to con-
stitute an appropriate unit. In the event that neither of the fore-.
going alternatives is found to be an appropriate unit, the An-lal-
gamated asks to be certified as the representative of the employees
of the Millville plant alone.
The New York City plant is engaged only in the cutting and
pressing of garments. The garments, after being cut at the New
York City plant, are shipped to be sewed to one of the four other
plants, or to a plant at Ephrata, Pennsylvania, which is not owned
by the respondent. Most of the garments cut at the New York-City
plant are shipped to the Landisville and Wheat Road plants. These
latter plants have no cutting and pressing departments of their own,
and after sewing the garments ship them to one of the other plants
to be pressed, but chiefly to New York. In addition, there is a
certain amount of interchange of machinery among the plants. The
Troy and Millville plants are engaged in the complete operations
w The Amalgamated also claims that other employees of the respondent together with
the employees of the Millville plant constitute a single appropriate unit. See Section
VIII , infra.
80 8 N. L . R. B. '125.
MODEL BLOUSE CO. 159
of cutting, sewing, pressing, and finishing garments, but manufac-
ture different styles and kinds of garments.
The central office for all five plants is situated in New York City._
Practically all the raw materials for the different plants are pur-
chased at the New York City office, and all sales of merchandise are
made there. Wage levels and working conditions for all five plants
are also set at the New York City office. Edward McTague, in addi-
tion to his duties as general manager of the Millville plant, also has
supervision over the other plants,of the respondent. He purchases
machinery for all the plants and makes up the patterns and styles.
He visits the Landisville and Wheat Road plants every day, the
New York City plant weekly, and the Troy plant about once a
month.
For the past 4 years, the Amalgamated and the respondent have
entered into written closed-shop contracts covering the employees at
the Troy plant. In addition, there is an oral closed-shop agreement
between the Amalgamated ' and the respondent covering the. em-
ployees at the New York City plant. There is lio union organiza-
tion at all at the Wheat Road and Landisville plants, and, as stated
above, the present membership of the Amalgamated at Millville
dates from the beginning of the hearing in November.37
Although, in previous cases, we have held the employees of a num-
ber of plants of one employer to constitute an appropriate unit,38
there is lacking, in the instant case, the history of collective bargain-
ing upon which such decisions have rested.39 Even though the Amal-
gamated has had a closed-shop agreement for both the Troy and New
York City plants of the respondent, it has never attempted to bar-
gain for the employees of these plants as one unit, but has at all
times treated, the employees of each of these plants as a separate
bargaining unit. And as stated above, prior to the date of.the hear-
ing in November, the Amalgamated had no membership in any of the
other three plants 'and had never bargained or attempted to bargain
for the employees of these plants.
Moreover, the. Amalgamated snakes no showing that bargaining
would be facilitated by the inclusion of the employees of the sepa-
rate plants in one unit. Where the Amalgamated has had the op-
portunity of bargaining for the employees of more than one plant
of the respondent as a unit, it has not found it desirable or necessary
84 The Amalgamated had enlisted a number of members among the Millville employees,
in July 1935. but lost them all soon thereafter.
98 Matter of Pittsburgh . Plate Glass Company and Federation of Flat Glass Workers of
America, affiliated with` C. I. 0., 10 N. L. It. B. 1111; and Matter of Libbey-Owen.s-Ford
Glass Company and Federation of Flat Glass Workers of America , 1.0 N. L . It. B. 1470.
99 See Matter of Chase Brass Copper Company , Inc. and Waterbury Brass Workers
Union . 4 N. L. R . B. 47. See list of cases assembled in footnote 10 of Pittsburgh Plate
Glass Company , supra, footnote 38.
760 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD °
,to do so. Andrew Hoppes, the, employee at Millville most active in
the organization of the Amalgamated, could see no need for a single
unit that' would comprise employees other than those of the Mill-
ville plant. Similarly, a representative of the Amalgamated local
at Troy testified that the employees' of the Troy plant had not ex-
perienced any need for the inclusion of employees of other plants
of the respondent in a unit together with themselves. A representa-
tive of the' New York local testified to the same effect.
For these reasons, we are of . the opinion that the production
,employees' of the Millville plant constitute the appropriate unit.
In our previous Decision,40 we found that all the production em-
ployees of the respondent at the Millville plant, excluding foremen,
foreladies, and other supervisory employees, janitors, packers, truck
drivers, mechanics, and office help, and including inspectors consti-
tuted the appropriate unit. TheAmalganiated now asks that packers
be included in the unit, while the Union requests that the Board
reaffirm its previous finding. That finding, however, was based
upon a record' which showed packers to be employed in the ship-
ping department of the plant. In the record now before us, it was
agreed' that the function of packers is to sort out and bundle gar-
ments which are then, carried from the sewing room to the pressing
room. They are therefore engaged in the' performance of an inter-
mediate step in the manufacture of garments. 'Accordingly, we find
that the appropriate unit includes packers. 'We find, however; that
employees in the shipping department are not included within the
appropriate unit. '
We find that all production employees of the respondent at his
plant in Millville, New Jersey, excluding foremen, foreladies, and
other supervisory employees, janitors, truck drivers, mechanics, office
help, and employees in the shipping department, and including in-
spectors and packers, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes
of collective bargaining and that such unit will insure to these em-,
ployees of the respondent the full benefit of their right to self-
organization and to collective bargaining and otherwise effectuate
the policies of the Act.
IX. THE DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
In our previous Decision '41 we found that although the Union had
been designated as their bargaining agency by a majority of the
employees in the appropriate unit, the introduction into evidence of
a petition stating hostility to the Union and signed by many of
the employees who had, designated the Union, cast doubt upon the
E0 8 N. L. R. B. 725.
41 See footnote 40.
MODEL BLOUSE CO. 161
majority status of. the Union. We found, therefore, that the ques-
tion concerning representation could. best be resolved by the. holding
of an election by secret ballot.
The present record establishes the complicity of the respondent
in the circulation of the petition.42 On. the other 'hand, the Amal-
gamated claims that it has also been. designated as bargaining repre-
sentative by. a majority of the employees in the appropriate unit and
asks for .certification.,' Under these circumstances, and in accord-
ance with the recent policy ' we have' enunciated that "bargaining
relations will be • more satisfactory.. . . if the doubt and dis-
agreement of the parties regarding the wishes of the employees is
as far as possible eliminated," we find that the question which has
arisen concerning representation can best be resolved by the holding
of an election .by secret ballot upon which the names of the Union
and the Amalgamated will appear.44
Since the respondent has by engaging in various unfair labor
practices interfered with the exercise by' his employees of the rights
guaranteed them by the Act; we shall not now set the date for the
election but shall order that it be conducted at such time as we shall
hereafter direct. Concurrently, with our determination of the date
for the election, we shall specify the date on the basis of which
eligibility to vote in the election shall be determined.45
Upon the basis of.the above, findings of fact and upon the entire
record in the case, the Board makes the following :
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Federal Labor Union 'No. 21560 and Amalgamated Clothing
Workers of America are labor.-organizations, and Model Workers
Association was a labor organization within the meaning of Section
2 (5) of the Act.
2. By the making of antiunion statements; by threat of discharge
for activity on behalf of' Federal Labor Union No. 21560, by warn-
ing his employees not to join, assist, or remain members of Federal
Labor Union No. '21560, and persuading them not to assist or remain
members of Federal Labor Union No. 21560, the respondent has en-
42 See supra.
43 While the circumstances of the inception and conduct of the Amalgamated organiza-
tional drive suggest that the Amalgamated may have been assisted by the respondent's
unfair labor practices, we have not .deemed it necessary in the present proceedings to
make any findings with respect to such evidence.
44 Matter of The Cudahy Packing Compuiin,) and United Packinghouse Workers of Ainer-
tea, Local No. 21, of the' Packinghouse Workers Organizing Committee . affiliated with the
Congress of Industrial Organizations , 13 N. L. R . B. 526. Matter of Armour & Com-
pany and United Packinghouse Workers, Local Industrial Union No . Is of Packinghouse
Workers Organizing Committee, Affiliated with C. 1. 0., 13 N. L. R. B. 567.
45 Matter of Panther-Panto Rubber Co ., Inc. and United Rubber Workers of America,
Local No. 156,'11 N. L. R. B. 1261. '
162 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
gaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within- the mean-
ing of Section 8 (1) of the Act.
3. By sponsoring and assisting in the circulation of an anti-union
petition, the respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair
labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (1) of the Act.
4. By his anti-union statements, by proposing that an unaffiliated
labor organization be formed, and by granting special privileges to
.members of Model Workers Association, thereby encouraging and
assisting the formation, organization, and operation of Model Work-
ers Association, the respondent has engaged in and is engaging in un-
fair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (1) of the Act.
5. By discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of employ-
ment and the terms and conditions of employment of Doris Scroggy,
Florence Connelly, Thelma Kirby, Mamie Pancoast, Lydia Fox, and
Mary Kolodchak, thereby discouraging membership in Federal Labor
Union No. 21560, the respondent has engaged in and is engaging
in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (3) of
the Act.
6. By discharging and discriminating against Lydia Fox because
she gave testimony under the Act, the respondent has engaged in
and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of
Section 8 (4) of the Act.
7. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing his employees
in the exercise of the-rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the
respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices
within the meaning of Section 8 (1) of the Act.
8. The unfair labor practices enumerated above are unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
9. The respondent has not, by spying upon and keeping under
surveillance membership meetings of Federal Labor Union No. 21560,
engaged in, unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section
8 (1) of the Act.
10. The respondent has not, by permitting the Association to post
notices of meetings on plant premises, engaged in unfair labor prac-
tices within the meaning of Section 8 (1) of the Act.
11. The respondent has not engaged in unfair labor practices
within the meaning of Section 8 (4) of the'Act with respect to
Doris Scroggy, Florence Connelly, Thelma Kirby, Mamie Pancoast,
and Mary Kolodchak.
12. A question affecting commerce has arisen concerning the rep-
resentation of employees of the respondent at his Millville, New
Jersey, plant within the meaning of Section 9 (c) and Section 2
(6) and (7) of the Act.
13. All production employees of the ' respondent at his plant in
Millville, New Jersey, excluding foremen, foreladies, and other super-
MODEL BLOUSE CO. 163
visory employees, janitors, truck drivers, mechanics, office help, and
employees in the shipping department, and including inspectors and
packers, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective
bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
ORDER
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and conclusions of
law, and pursuant to Section 10 (c) of the National Labor Relations
Act, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the
respondent, Model Blouse Co., Elias Savada, individually and doing
business under the firm name and style of Model Blouse Co., also
doing business under the firm name and style of Savada Brothers,
and his officers, agents, successors, and assigns shall:
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Making anti-union statements, threatening, warning, or per-
suading his employees not to join or assist Federal Labor Union No.
21560, or any other labor organization, or sponsoring or assisting
in the circulation of a petition directed against Federal Labor Union
No. 21560,o r any other labor organization;
(b) Proposing tliat an unaffiliated labor organization be formed,
granting special privileges to members of Model Workers Associa-
tion, or any other labor organization, or in any other manner, en-
couraging and assisting; the formation, organization, or operation of
Model Workers Association, or any other labor organization;
(c) Discouraging membership in Federal Labor Union No. 21560
or any other labor organization of his employees, by transferring,
demoting, discharging, or refusing to reinstate or offer employment
to any of his employees, or in any other manner discriminating in
regard to their hire and tenure of employment or any term or con-
dition of their employment, or by threats of such discrimination;
(d) Discharging or otherwise discriminating against any em-
ployee because he or she has given testimony under the Act;
(e) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing
his employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to
form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively
through representatives of their own choosing, and to. engage in con-
certed activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other
mutual aid or protection as guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Offer to Doris Scroggy, Florence Connelly, Thelma Kirby,
Mamie Pancoast, Lydia Fox, and Mary Kolodchak immediate and
full reinstatement to their former positions in accordance with the
section "Remedy" above, or, if these are not available, to substan-
164 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL 'LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
tially equivalent positions without prejudice to their seniority or
other. rights .and privileges, and where necessary, displace any em-
ployee who may have succeeded to 'the former position of any of
these above-named employees, or to any other position, which be-
cause of seniority or the practice of the plant should have been
offered to any of the above-named employees;
(b) Make whole Doris Scroggy, Florence Connelly, Thelma Kirby,
Mamie Pancoast, Lydia Fox, and Mary Kolodchak, for any loss of
pay they may, have suffered by reason of the respondent's dis-
crimination in regard to the hire and tenure of their employment
and the terms and conditions of their employment by payment to
each of them of a sum of money equal to that which she normally
would have earned as wages during the period from the date of
such discrimination to the date of the offer of reinstatement, less her
net earnings during such period, deducting however, from the amount
otherwise due to each of the said employees, monies received by said
employees during said period for work performed upon Federal,
State, county, municipal, or other work-relief projects, and pay over
the amount, so deducted, to the appropriate fiscal agency of the
Federal, State, county, municipal, or other government' or govern-
ments which supplied the funds for said work-relief projects;
(c) Immediately post and keep posted for a period of at least
sixty (60) consecutive days from the date of posting, in conspicuous
places throughout his Millville, New Jersey, plant, notices to his
employees stating :
(1) that the respondent will cease and desist in the manner set
forth in 1 (a), (b), (c), (d), and (e) of this Order, and
(2) that the respondent will take the affirmative action set forth
in 2 (a ) and (b) of this Order, and will not discriminate against
any employees if they join or assist Federal Labor Union No. 21560
or any other labor organization of their own choosing;
(d) Notify the Regional Director for the Fourth . Region in
writing within ten (10) days from the date of. this Order what steps
the respondent has taken, to comply therewith.
AND IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint be, and it hereby is,
dismissed in- so far as it alleges that the respondent, (1) by spying
upon and keeping under surveillance membership meetings of Fed-
eral Labor Union No., 21560, and by permitting the Association. to
post notices of meetings on plant premises, has engaged in unfair
labor practices within the meaning of. Section 8 (1) of the Act;
and (2) has engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning
of Section 8 (4) of,the Act with respect to Doris Scroggy, Florence
Connelly, Thelma Kirby, Mamie Pancoast , and Mary Kolodchak.
MODEL BLOUSE CO.
SECOND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
165
By virtue of, and pursuant to the power vested in the National
Labor Relations Board by Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, and pursuant to Article III, Section 8, of National
Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations=Series 2, it is hereby
DIRECTED that, as part of the investigation authorized by the Board
to ascertain representatives for the purposes of collective bargaining
with Model Blouse Co., Elias Savada, individually and doing business
under the firm name and style of Model Blouse Co., also doing business
under the firm name and style of Savada Brothers, an election by
secret ballot shall be conducted at such time 'is the Board shall here-
after direct, under the direction and supervision of the Regional Di-
rector for the Fourth Region, acting'in this matter ,-s agent for the
Board and subject to Article III, Section 9, of said Rules and Regula-
tions, among all production employees employed by the respondent' at
his Millville, New Jersey, plant,' during "i period or at a time which we
shall-in the future specify, excluding foremen and foreladies, and other
supervisory employees, janitors, truck drivers, mechanics, office help,
and employees in the shipping department, and including inspectors
and packers, to determine whether they desire to be represented
by Federal Labor Union No. 21560, or by Amalgamated Clothing
Workers of America for the purposes of collective bargaining, or by
neither.
MR. WILLIAM M. LEIsERBON took no part in the consideration of
the. above Decision, Order, and Second Direction of Election.
199549-39-vol. 15-12