N. Kiamie

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 10, 1938

4 N.L.R.B. 808 (N.L.R.B. 1938)

In the Matter of N. KIAMIE and INTERNATIONAL FUR WORKERS UNION
OF THE UNITED STATES AND CANADA
Case No. C480.-Decided January 10, 1938
Hatter's Fur Iiutustry-Unit Appropriate for Collective Bargaining : produc-
tion employees-Representatives : proof of choice : membership in union ; no con-
troversy as to majority representation-Collective Bargaining : refusal to recog-
nize and negotiate with union resulting in-Stripe-Reinstatement Ordered:
respondent not engaged in same type of business at time of hearing ; reinstate-
ment ordered, if and when , respondent reengages therein.
Mr. Charles A. Graham, for the Board.
Mr. Nahomi Kiamie, of Newark, N. J., pro se.
Isserman & Isserman, by Mr. Sol D. Kapelsohn, of Newark, N. J.,
for the Union.
Mr. A. Bruce Hunt, Jr., of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
On July 16, 1937, International Fur Workers Union of the United
States and Canada, herein called the Union, filed a charge with the
Regional Director for the Second Region (New York City) against
N. Kiamie, individually, doing business under his own name, Newark,
New Jersey, herein called the respondent, charging the respondent
with violation of Section 8 (1) and (5) of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein called the Act. On September 22,
1937, the National Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board,
by the Regional Director for the Second Region, issued its complaint
against the respondent, alleging that the respondent had engaged in
unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of
Section 8 (1) and (5) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act, in that
on or about June 23, 1937, and at all times thereafter, the respondent
had refused to bargain collectively with the Union as the duly author-
ized representative of the respondent's production employees, said
employees constituting an appropriate bargaining unit; had urged
and attempted to persuade his employees to withdraw from member-
ship in the Union; and had otherwise interfered with and coerced
808
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 809
his employees in the exercise of their rights as guaranteed in Section
7 of the Act. The complaint and accompanying notice of hearing
were duly served upon the respondent and the Union. No answer
thereto was filed by the respondent.
After two postponements of the hearing, notices thereof having
been duly served upon the parties, and pursuant to a second amended
notice of hearing duly served upon the parties, a hearing was held in
New York City on October 11, 1937, before H. R. Korey, the Trial
Examiner duly designated by the Board. The Board and the Union
were represented by counsel, and the respondent appeared in his own
behalf. Full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine
witnesses, and to produce evidence bearing upon the issues was af-
forded all parties. No motions were made during or at the close
of the hearing, nor were there objections to any of the evidence
offered.
On November 4, 1937, the Trial Examiner duly filed his Inter-
mediate Report. He found that the respondent had engaged in the
unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint and recommended
that the respondent cease and desist therefrom and that he offer
full reinstatement to the discharged employees. No exceptions to the
Intermediate Report were filed.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the follow-
ing :
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
The respondent is an individual engaged, under his own name, in
the hatter's fur business, having his sole plant and office in Newark,
New Jersey. At the time of the strike hereinafter referred to, the
type of work in which the respondent's employees were engaged was
the sorting of scraps of fur according to size and color and the
pasting thereof on cards. A stipulation 1 entered into by the Board
and the respondent reads in part as follows : "The raw materials
used in the manufacture of blow fur are the scraps of rabbit skins
purchased from fur dealers in the State of New York which are
delivered to the respondent's plant . . . by trucks. The finished
product manufactured by N. Kiamie is blow fur which is used in the
manufacture of felt hats. N. Kiamie sells and ships all of his fin-
ished product to dealers or jobbers located in the States of New York
and Connecticut." The raw materials used by the respondent were
at times purchased directly by him and at other times by his com-
petitors for him.
3 Board's Exhibit No. 2.
810 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
All of the respondent's production employees 2 were engaged in the
same type of work, all working in one room of the plant occupied by
the respondent. The number of employees, all of whom were women,
varied. Few of them worked regularly. The respondent testified
that the largest number ever employed by him was 17 or 18, and that
on the day of the strike, and for some months prior thereto, the aver-
age daily employment numbered 10. However, one employee testi-
fied that "15 or 16" employees were working on the day of the strike.
II. THE UNION
International Fur Workers Union of the United States and Canada
is a labor organization, affiliated with the Committee for Industrial
Organization, which admits to membership all production employees
of the respondent.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The refusal to bargain collectively
1. The appropriate unit
The complaint alleges that all of the respondent's production
employees constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collec-
tive bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act. All
such employees are eligible for membership in the Union.
All of these employees were paid at the rate of one cent for each
card of fur pasted. They worked as many as 12 hours per day, five or
more days per week. The average weekly wage of an employee on
this basis was three and a half to five dollars. All of the respond-
ent's production employees were engaged in the same type of work,
i. e., the sorting and pasting of scraps of fur; all were remunerated
on the same wage basis ; all were supervised solely by the respondent
and were responsible only to him; and all worked in the same room in
the shop.
We find that all the production employees of N. Kiamie constitute
a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining in re-
spect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other condi-
tions of employment, and such unit insures to the employees of N.
Kiamie the full benefit of their right to self-organization and to
collective bargaining, and otherwise effectuates the policies of the
Act.
'The evidence indicates that all of the respondent's employees on June 23, 1937, with
the exception of three, were production employees These three were: (1) the respondent's
son, who performed the duties of a bookkeeper; (2) a girl who, on an average of once
each week, aided the respondent's son in performing certain bookkeeping details ; and (3) a'
man whose only duty, so far as shown by the record, was to open the plant each
week-day morning.
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 811
2. Representation by the union of a majority in the appropriate unit
On June 23rd, the respondent's production employees went out on
strike. One of the employees testified the strike was for higher
wages, shorter hours, and a union shop. The respondent testified
that he was not informed as to the cause of the strike. On one occa-
sion, at least two weeks after the strike commenced, several em-
ployees returned to the plant and worked for a few hours. At this
time the respondent offered to reinstate them and the other striking
employees, provided, however, that such reinstatement should not
involve recognition of the Union by the respondent. This offer of
reinstatement was refused. Aside from this instance, none of the
employees have worked for the respondent since June 23rd.
Immediately after the strike began, the strikers communicated with
the Union. Fifteen application cards for membership in the Union
were introduced in evidence. These cards bear the signatures of 15
persons, 14 of whom were definitely identified by the respondent as
his employees, 10 of whom, according to the respondent, were work-
ing on June 23rd. The respondent's testimony fixes the number of
production employees at not more than 18 at any time, but he fur-
ther testified that the average daily employment on June 23, and
for some months prior thereto, was ten. Seven of the cards bear no
date, but it was testified by a union member that they were signed
in her presence on June 23, 1937; the remainder are dated June 23
or later. Each card designates the Union as the collective bargain-
ing agent of the signer in all matters pertaining to rates of pay,
wages, hours of employment, and other conditions of employment.
We find that on June 23, 1937, and at all times thereafter, the
Union was the duly designated representative of a majority of the
employees in the appropriate unit. By virtue of Section 9 (a) of
the Act, the Union was, therefore, the exclusive representative of all
such employees for the purposes of collective bargaining in respect
to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other conditions
of employment.
3. The refusal to bargain
On July 1, 1937, a representative of the Union called upon the
respondent in an effort to obtain recognition of the Union as the
proper bargaining agency for the respondent's production employees
and to bargain in their behalf. On this occasion, and at other times,
the respondent refused to bargain collectively. The efforts of this
representative alone and with members of the Union have been to
no avail. Conferences between the respondent and representatives
of the Union were arranged, but the respondent failed to attend a
part of them and, at those which he did attend, he refused to enter
i
812 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
any discussion designed to effect collective bargaining between him-
self and his production employees. His position at these times was
reiterated in his testimony as a witness at said hearing, namely, that
he was willing to bargain individually, but not collectively, with his
employees and that he would have no relations or dealings with the
Union:
We find that the respondent has refused to bargain collectively
with the representative of his employees, and has interfered with,
restrained, and coerced his employees in the exercise of the rights
guaranteed in Section 7 of 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 de-
scribed in Section I above, have a close, intimate, and substantial
relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States, and
have led and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing
commerce and the free flow of commerce.
THE REMEDY
The testimony of the respondent indicates that he may not be in
a position to reinstate his production employees at the present time.
There are several separate and distinct operations in preparing scrap
fur to be used in the manufacture of hats, in only one of which was
the respondent engaged on June 23, 1937. After the sorting and
pasting of the fur on cards, the fur is cut or scraped from the cards
by machinery. This is termed the cutting process. About eight
months prior to the hearing in the instant case, the respondent,
according to his own testimony, finding the pasting business un-
profitable, obtained machines and entered the field of the cutting
process. This in turn was found to be unprofitable, and the re-
spondent being financially unable to purchase the pasted cards from
someone engaged in the pasting process, returned to the business of
pasting. The machines remained idle in his shop. Several weeks
after the strike commenced, the respondent borrowed money in order
to purchase pasted cards and to place the machines in operation
again. It is in the cutting process that the respondent is now en-
gaged. The person from whom the respondent obtained the loan is
the respondent's partner in the present venture. The respondent,
aided by two men, operates the machines and no other employees are
required. Consequently, the respondent asserts he cannot now offer
work to any of his production employees. The record does not show
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 813
whether these'machines can be operated by a woman. We are, there-
fore, unable to order the respondent to reinstate his production
employees.
However, we shall order that, should the respondent again engage
in the business of sorting and pasting furs, as on and prior to June
23, 1937, he shall cease and desist from engaging in the unfair labor
practices above described, and, the strike having been prolonged by
said unfair labor practices, shall, upon application, offer reinstate-
ment to his production employees, listed in Appendix A, and shall
then bargain collectively, upon request with the representative of his
said employees in respect to rates of pay, wages, hours -of employ-
ment, and other conditions of employment.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the
entire record in the case, the Board makes the following :
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. International Fur Workers Union of the United States and
Canada is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5)
of the Act.
2. All of the production workers employed by the respondent con-
stitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining
within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
3. International Fur Workers Union of the United States and
Canada was on June 23, 1937, and at all times thereafter has been,
the exclusive representative of all the employees in such unit for the
purposes of collective bargaining, within the meaning of Section
9 (a) of the Act.
4. By refusing to bargain collectively with International Fur
Workers Union of the United States and Canada as the exclusive
representative of his employees in the appropriate unit, the respond-
ent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within
the meaning of Section 8 (5) of the Act.
5. The respondent, by his refusal to bargain collectively as above
described, has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices
within the meaning of Section 8 (1) of the Act.
6. The afore-mentioned unfair labor practices are unfair labor prac-
tices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and
(7) of the Act.
ORDER
On the basis of the above findings 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,
814 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
N. Kiamie, Newark, New Jersey, and his agents, successors, and
assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from refusing to bargain collectively with
International Fur Workers Union of the United States and Canada
as the exclusive representative of the production employees in his
employ on and prior to June 23, 1937.
2. Cease and desist from in any manner interfering with, restrain-
ing, or coercing his employees in the exercise of their rights to self-
organization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain
collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to en-
gage in concerted activities for the purposes of collective bargaining
or other mutual aid or protection, as guaranteed in Section 7 of the
National Labor Relations Act.
3. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds
will effectuate the policies of the Act :
a. Should the respondent reengage in the business of sorting and
pasting furs, upon request bargain collectively with International
Fur Workers Union of the United States and Canada as the exclu-
sive representative of the production employees in his employ on and
prior to June 23, 1937, in respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of
employment, and other conditions of employment;
b. Should the respondent reengage in the business of sorting and
pasting furs, to the extent that work is available, offer to his pro-
duction employees listed in Appendix A, upon application, full re-
instatement to their former positions without prejudice to their sen-
iority and 'other rights and privileges, and place such of them for
whom employment is not available on a preferred list to be offered
employment as it arises;
c. Make whole all employees named in Appendix A for any loss
they may suffer by reason of any refusal of their applications for
reinstatement in accordance with paragraph 3b herein, by payment
to each of them, respectively, a sum equal to that which each of them
would normally have earned as wages during the period from the
date of any such refusal of their application to the date of rein-
statement, less the amount, if any, which each, respectively, earned
during said period ;
d. Should the respondent reengage in the business of sorting and
pasting furs, immediately post in conspicuous places throughout his
plant a notice stating (1) that the respondent will cease and desist
in the manner aforesaid and stating (2) that such notices will remain
posted for a period of at least, thirty (30) consecutive days from the
date of posting;
e. Should the respondent at any time reengage in the business of
,sorting and pasting furs, notify the Regional Director for the See-
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 815
and Region in writing within ten (10) days from such time what
steps the respondent has taken to comply herewith.
Appendix A
Elizabeth Chambers
Marie Cicalese
Bertha Johnson
Kate Johnson
Mamie Johnson
Myrtle Konch
Josephine Meiczkowski
Lucy Page
Florean Perry
Mary Romanwicz
Margaret Schuler
Hattie Thomas
.Ruth Thomas
Sarah Walsh
Beatrice Williams