National Dress Manufacturers' Association Inc., et al.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 9, 1940

28 N.L.R.B. 386 (N.L.R.B. 1940)

In the Matter of NATIONAL DRESS MANUFACTURERS' ASSOCIATION INC.,
ET AL. and DRESS PATTERNMAKERS UNION, LOCAL 31 OF THE INTER-
NATIONAL LADIES GARMENT WORKERS' UNION
In the Matter of AFFILIATED DRESS MANUFACTURERS INC.. ET AL. and
,DRESS PATTERNMAKERS UNION, LOCAL 31 OF THE INTERNATIONAL
LADIES GARMENT WORKERS' UNION
Cases Nos. R-0073 and R-20741- Decided December 9, 1940
Jurisdiction : dress manufacturing industry
Investigation and Certification of Representatives : existence of question :
refusal to accord recognition to union ; election necessary.
Since it was impossible to determine from the record the employees who
will be eligible to vote in the elections the Board directed that an agent
of the Board visit each employee member of the associations involved and
compile a list of persons within the appropriate units who should be eligible
to vote 'in the elections.
Units Appropriate for Collective Bargaining : all the pattern makers employed
by the members of two employer associations, respectively,, who devote a
majority of their time to pattern making and who are not employers, super-
visors, or vested with the power to hire or discharge.
Mr. Richard J. Hickey and Mr. Shad Polier, for the Board.
Mr. Mortimer Lanzit and Mr. Jacob E. Hurwitz, of New York
City, for the National Association and members thereof.
Mr. Morris Kolchin and Mr. Jacob E. Hurwitz, of New York
City, for the Affiliated and members thereof.
Schlesinger ce; Schlesinger, by Mr. Abraham Schlesinger and Mr.
Nathaniel Drabkin, of New York City, for the Union.
Mr. Louis Cokin, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
On April 15, 1940, Dress Patternmakers Union, Local 31 of the
International Ladies Garment Workers' Union, herein called the
Union, filed with the Regional Director for the Second Region (New
York City) separate petitions alleging that questions affecting com-
merce had arisen concerning the representation of employees of Na-
28 N. L. R. B., No. 65.
386
NATIONAL DRESS MANUFACTURERS' ASSOCIATION, INC. 387
tional Dress Manufacturers' Association Inc., New York City, herein
called the National Association, and certain of its employer' inernbers,'
and Affiliated Dress Manufacturers Inc., New York City, herein
called the Affiliated, and certain of its employer-members,' and re-
questing an investigation and certification of representatives of each
pursuant to Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, 49
Stat. 449, herein called the Act. On April 18, 1940, the National
Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board, acting pursuant
to Section 9 (c) of the Act, and Article III, Section 3, of National
Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 2, as amended,
ordered an investigation in each case and authorized the Regional
Director to'cohduct it and to provide for an appropriate hearing upon
due notice and, acting pursuant to Article III, Section 10 (c) (2), of
its Rules and Regulations, ordered that the two cases be consolidated
for all purposes.
On April 22, 1940, the Regional Director issued a notice of hearing,
copies of which were duly served upon the National Association,
certain employer members of the National Association," the Affili-
ated, certain employer members of the Affiliated,4 and the Union.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held on May 2, 3, 6, 7, and
8 and September 9, 10, 11, 26, 27, 28, and 30, 1940, in New York
City, before James C. Batten, the Trial Examiner duly designated
by the Board. The Board, the National Association, the Affiliated,
employer members of the National Association and the Affiliated
herein involved, and the Union, were represented by counsel and
participated in the hearing. Full opportunity to be heard, to-ex-
amine and ci;oss-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence bear-
ing on the issues was afforded all parties.' During the course of
These employers are listed in Appendix A
These employers are listed in Appendix B
These employers are listed in Appendix A
These employers are listed in Appendix ii
The National Association , the Affiliated , and the eniplo } er-members of each represented
herein contend that they were not afforded a full and fair hearing since they were not per-
mitted to present their affirmative cases at the hearing It is true that the Trial Examiner
closed the hearing on September 30, 1940 , before they called any witnesses or presented
any evidence . However, it is clear from the enti re record, and ee find , that the Trial
Examiner ' s action in this respect was not arbitrary of unreasonable and did not result in
prejudicial en or
At the time the Trial Examiner closed the hearing, Jacob E Hurwitz counsel for the
National Association, the Affiliated, and the employer-members theieof represented herein,
made no objection to such action and no request to continue the hearing The Union had
,closed its case prior to the hearing on September 30. 1940 , and several times on that day
the Trial Examiner urged Hurwitz to indicate whether of not lie was going to proceed,
and Hurwitz finally stated that he was going to proceed An examination of the record
Indicates that Hurwitz did not do so because lie considered ceitan, rulings made by the
Tiial Examiner thereafter to have been erroneous - Since Hurwitz would have. presented
his case had . the Trial Examiner made contrary rulings on these matters, it is necessary
to determine whether the rulings, which led Hurwitz to conclude that " it might be mole
piejudicial for the Respondents [ sic] to continue than to withdiaw ," were in fact
incorrect
On September 27, 1940, the hearing adjourned to September 28, 1940 Hurwitz asked
for a continuance on September 27 until September 30, which was denied by the Trial
413597-42-vol 28--26
388 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the hearing the Board granted a motion of the Union to amend its
petition to include certain additional employer-members of the Na-
tional Association I and the Affiliated,? not named in the original
petitions.
During the course of the hearing counsel for the National Asso-
ciation and the Affiliated moved to dismiss the petitions as to them
because they are not engaged in interstate commerce, and on the
ground that they do not have any employees eligible to membership
in the Union. The motions were denied. At this same time counsel
for the National Association and the Affiliated moved to join as
parties to this proceeding-the Popular Dress Manufacturers' Asso-
ciation and Local 10 of the International Ladies Garment Workers'
Union.8 The motions were denied. During the course of the hear-
ing the Union moved to dismiss the petitions as to certain employer-
members named therein,'i because they had gone out of business.
The motions were granted. During the course of the hearing, coun-
sel for the National Association and the Affiliated moved to dis-.
miss the petitions on the ground that the Act does not confer juris-
Examiner . Hurwitz did not appear at the healing on September 28 and did not ilotif} tile
Trial Examiner on that day of his inability to appear . However , the hearing continued
on September 28 and the Union concluded its case on that day . On September 30, 1940,
when the bearing reconvened, Hurwitz was asked by the Trial Examiner whether or not
lie was ready to continue with the hearing Hurwitz stated that lie was but requested the
right to continue his cross -examination of Daniel Nisnavitz, it union witness , who was
being cross-examined by Hurwitz on September 27, 1940 , the right to cross-examine Joseph
Shapiro , a union witness , who testified on September 28, 1940 , and the right to cross-
examine Nisnavitz on his redirect testimony of September 28 This request was denied by
the-Trial Examiner because Hurwitz , if present at the September 28 session of the hearing,
could have proceeded at that time We find that the action of the Tiial Examiner in
denying Huiwitz 's request did not constitute an abuse of discretion . Hurwitz then re-
quested a subpena for certain records of the Board . The Trial Examiner replied that Hur-
witz would have to present his request in writing as prescribed by the Rules and Regula-
tions of the Board, that if Hurwitz had been present at the hearing on September 28 he
could have presented such a request and could, on September 30, have had the Trial
Examiner 's ruling on it , but that he would not adjourn the hearing for that purpose.
Hurwitz then became reluctant to continue with the proceedings , indicating that he felt
that the Tral Examiner was denying him rights which he would have had had he been
present at the hearing on September 28. When Hurwitz continued to press this point
rather than to proceed with the presentation of his evidence , the Trial Examiner , without
objection by Hui witz , 'closed the hearing We find that the Trial Examiner was not in
error in refusing to adjourn the proceedings for the purpose of allowing Hurwitz to file a
written request for a subpena, inasmuch as the dilatory tactics of Hurwitz and his clients
had delayed the hearing unnecessarily up to that point. We find that the National Asso-
ciation, the Affiliated , and the employer -members of each represented herein, were afforded
a full and fair hearing by the Trial Examiner.
° These employer-rnenibers are named in Appendix C.
7 These emplo3 er-members ai e named in Appendix D.
8 The Popular Dress Manutacturers ' Association is another association of employers in
the dress industry in New York City. Local 10 of the International Ladies Garment
Workers' Union has contracts with the National Association and the Affiliated covering
employees not involved in this proceeding
O These companies are Golden Rule Dress, Inc, Feigelson & Krovchick , Inc., Fifth
Avenues Modes , Inc., Jesse Hoffman Co , Inc, Aldridge & Malvin , Inc, Norman Frocks,
Inc, Gracefit Dress Company , Leo Bayer , doing business under the firm name and style
of First Love Formals, Rob -Josephson, Inc, Tafel Gowns , Inc., DuBairy Frocks Corp.,
Beverly Modes, Inc., Norma Matthews, and Diesden Dress Company
NATIONAL DRESS MANUFACTURERS' ASSOCIATION, INC. 389
diction' in the Board over trade associations, that the unit urged
by the Union was inappropriate and contrary to law, and that the
petitioners are not seeking collective bargaining but a specific method
for bargaining. The motions were denied. After the Board
granted a motion by the Union to amend its petitions to include
additional employer-members, counsel for the newly added em-
ployer-members moved that the proceeding continue with the orig-
inal parties or that the proceeding be dismissed and a de novo
proceeding be held. The motion was denied. Counsel for the em-
ployer-members, at this time, moved to dismiss the petitions as to the
employer-members who do not employ pattern makers. The mo-
tion was denied. Counsel for the individual employers moved" to dis-
miss the petitions as to them on the ground that no request had
been made of them to bargain with the Union. The motion was
denied. Counsel for the employer-members moved for a ruling as
to whether or not the evidence adduced at the hearing in this pro-
ceeding prior to the Board's granting of the Union's motion to
amend its petitions to include additional' employer-members, would
be binding upon the newly added parties. The Trial Examiner re-
served ruling thereon. The Board hereby rules that all of the
parties involved herein are bound by the evidence introduced at all
stages of the proceedings. During the course of the hearing the
Trial Examiner made several rulings on other 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. The rulings are hereby affirmed.
During the course of and after the close of the hearing, all of the
parties filed briefs which the Board has considered.
Pursuant to notice duly served upon all the parties, a hearing
was held for the purpose of oral argument before the Board on
October 10, 1940, in Washington, D. C. The National Association,
the Affiliated, employer-members of the National Association and
the Affiliated, and the Union were represented by counsel and par-
ticipated in the argument.
On October 15, 1940, counsel for the National Association, the
Affiliated, and the- employer-members of the National Association
and the Affiliated involved herein, moved that the petitions be dis-
missed as to those employer-members of the National Association
and the Affiliated who do not employ pattern makers. The motion is
hereby denied.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following:
390 DECISIONS OF. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER-MEMBERS OF THE NATIONAL ASSOCIA-
TION AND THE AFFILIATED
During the course of the hearing counsel for the Board and counsel
for the National Association, the Affiliated, and the employer-mem-
bers of the National Association and the Affiliated agreed, by stipu-
lations, that each of the employer-members of the National Associa-
tion and the Affiliated herein involved were engaged in interstate
commerce within the meaning of the Act.
During the year 1939, each employer-member of the National
Association appearing in Appendices A and C purchased raw ma-
terials valued in excess of $10,000, approximately 40 per cent of which
were shipped to it from points in States other than the State wherein
its plant is located. During this same period these employer-mem-
bers each sold finished products valued in excess of $25,000, approxi-
mately 80 per cent of which were shipped by each employer-member
to points outside the State wherein its plant is located.
During 1939 each of the employer-members of the Affiliated listed
in Appendices B and D purchased raw materials valued in excess
of $10,000, approximately 40 per cent of which were shipped to it
from points outside the State wherein its plant is located. During
this same period each employer-member sold finished products val-
ued in excess of $25,000, approximately 80 per cent of which were
shipped by it to points outside the State wherein its plant is located.
All of the employer-members of the National Association and the
Affiliated are engaged in the manufacture of women's dresses and
related products.
II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Dress Patternmakers Union, Local 31 of the International Ladies
Garment Workers' Union, is a labor organization affiliated with the
American Federation of Labor, admitting to membership all pattern
makers in the dress industry in New York City who devote at least
50 per cent of their time to pattern making and who are not super-
visory employees.
III. HISTORY OF EMPLOYER ORGANIZATION AND OF COLLECTIVE BARGAINING
IN THE DRESS INDUSTRY IN NEW YORK CITY
The National Association and the Affiliated, respectively, were
incorporated in the State of New York in 1,933-and 1929. As stated
in the certificate of incorporation of the Affiliated, it was organized
for the purposes, among others, of (1) promoting, encouraging, and
NATIONAL DRESS, MANUFACTURERS' ASSOCIATION, INC. 391
fostering conciliation between the employers and the employees in
the women's ready-to-wear. industry; (2) handling industrial disputes
between members and, other employees; and (3) making, on behalf
of its members, any and all necessary agreements. with other organiza-
tions, including trade agreements with labor organizations' to carry.
out any one or more of the purposes of the organization. The Na-
tional Association stated in its, certificate of incorporation that it
was formed for the purposes, inter alia, of (1) correcting and elimi-
nating abuses and unfair practices, obtaining relief from unjust or
unlawful exactions; and establishing and enforcing fair dealings and
practices within the industry, and with those dealing with it, and
(2) promoting social intercourse among its members, amicably ad-
justing differences among its members and between members and
others, and procuring or arranging for its members, through proper
and lawful collection, credit, and other agencies, credit and collection
services.
At all times since 1900 there have been labor organizations among
the workers in the dress industry in New York City and these labor
organizations have negotiated' and entered into contracts with the
National Association covering all of its employer-members, and the'
Affiliated covering all of its employer-members.
The Joint Board of the International Ladies Garment Workers'
Union has, since the inception of the National Association and the
Affiliated, had contractual relations with them. The Joint Board,
which is composed of all the crafts in the dress industry in New
York City other than the pattern makers, does not bargain indi-
vidually with members of employer associations in the industry.
There are five employer associations in the dress- industry in New
York City, and in 1936 the Joint Board negotiated five separate
agreements with these associations, covering all of the employees
employed in the various crafts, other than pattern making, in the
dress industry in New York City. At that time the Joint Board
requested that the pattern makers be included in these association-
wide contracts, but the National Association and the Affiliated, as
well as the other three employer associations', refused to accede to
this demand and the contracts were consummated without including
the pattern makers. Shortly thereafter the Union called an industry-
wide strike of pattern makers which lasted for approximately 5
weeks. The Union was unsuccessful in attempting to secure associ-
ation-wide units for the pattern makers and signed individual con-
tracts with approximately 275 employers. A representative of the
Union testified. that these contracts proved unsatisfactory and that
whenever he attempted to discuss matters under these contracts with
the employers, they consistently referred him to the employer asso-
392 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ciations of which they were members. At the termination of these
individual contracts, the Union made no attempt to renew them. In
1939 when the Joint Board entered into negotiations with the Na-
iional Association and the Affiliated for renewal of its association-
wide . contracts, it again requested that the pattern makers be
included in the unit. The National Association and the Affiliated
refused to recede from their former position and new contracts be-
tween the Joint Board and the National Association and the Affiliated
were consummated without the inclusion of the pattern , makers.
However, the contract consummated at that time with United Asso-
ciation of Dress Manufacturers, Inc., an employer association in the
garment industry in New York City, covered pattern makers. - The
Union has, since that time, repeatedly requested the National Asso-
ciation and the Affiliated to enter into association-wide contracts
with it, but the requests have been consistently denied. At the
present time all of the craft employees in the dress industry in New
York City, with the exception of the pattern makers, are covered
by association-wide contracts.
The evidence shows that with the exception of -several employers
who employ two pattern makers, the great majority of employers
employ but one. -
IV. THE APPROPRIATE UNITS
The Union urges that all pattern makers employed by employer-
members of the National Association, who perform the. duties of
pattern making a majority of the time and are not employers,
supervisors, or vested with the authority to hire or discharge, con-
stitute an appropriate unit. It also urges a like unit composed of
pattern makers employed by employer-members of the Affiliated.
The Union clarified its position by stating that if a pattern maker
fixed prices to be paid to other craft employees, he was to be con-
sidered an employer. The National Association and the Affiliated
contend that the pattern makers employed by each individual em-
ployer should constitute separate units, or that the pattern makers
employed by all employers in the dress industry in New York City
should constitute an appropriate unit.
The facts set forth above in Section III show that for many
years the dress manufacturers in New York City have been organ-
ized in associations for the purposes of collective. bargaining with
representatives of their employees. The history of the employer
organizations shows that collective bargaining on the basis of the
association-wide unit in the dress industry in New York City has
been carried on effectively for years and that the, industry is oper-
ating -at the present time on the terms of contracts with labor
NATIONAL DRESS MANUFACTURERS' ASSOCIATION, INC. 393
organizations negotiated on in association-wide basis. Since most
of the employer-members of the National Association and the Affili-
ated employ but one pattern maker, the adoption of the contention
of, the National Association and the Affiliated that the pattern mak-
ers employed by each employer-member constitute an appropriate
unit would render collective bargaining for the greater bulk of the
pattern makers an impossibility. It is apparent that there is no
merit in this contention of the National Association and the
Affiliated.
There is no history of collective bargaining in the dress industry
of New York City on an industry-wide basis. The history of col-
lective bargaining and the history of employee and employer organ-
izations in the dress industry in New York City are persuasive of
the fact that a unit including all the pattern makers of employer-
members of the National Association and a unit including all the
pattern makers of the employer-members of the Affiliated are the
ones which will insure to those employees the full benefit of their
right to self-organization and collective bargaining and to otherwise
effectuate the policies of the Act.10 The contention of the National
Association and the Affiliated that an industry-wide unit is appro-
priate is without merit.
It -is contended that apart from the question as to which unit is
the more appropriate, the Board has no jurisdiction to establish
a bargaining unit broader than the individual employer. The Board
is, however, expressly given the authority to decide, that the "em-
ployer" unit is the most appropriate for the purpose of collective
bargaining. The Act defines employer as including "any person
acting in the interests of an employer, directly or indirectly," within
the term "employer." "Person" is defined- as "one or' more .. .
associations . . ." It is apparent. from our previous discussion that
both the National Association and the Affiliated have acted in the
interests of their employer-members in the dress industry in New
York City employing pattern makers and have engaged in collective
bargaining for all their employer-members. We find that the Na-
tional Association and the Affiliated, as well as each of their
employer-members, are employers of the pattern makers 'herein-
involved.
We find that all the pattern makers employed by the members of
the National Association, who devote a majority of their time to
pattern making and who are not employers, supervisors, or vested
.with the power to hire or discharge, constitute a unit appropriate
10 See Matter of Shipowners' Association of the Pacific Coast et al, and International
Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's Union, Di'striet No 1, 7 N L It. B 1002 ; Matter of
Mobile Steamship Association et al, and International Longshoremen's and Warehouse-
men's Union, 8 N. L. It. B 1297 ; and Matter of Admiar Rubber Company and American
Federation of Labor on behalf of Employees of the Company, 9 N. L. It. B. 407.
394 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
for the purposes- of collective bargaining and that said unit will
assure to employees the full benefit of their right to self-organization
and collective bargaining and otherwise effectuate the policies of
the Act.
We find that all the pattern makers employed by the members of
the Affiliated, who devote a majority of their time to pattern
making and who are not employers, supervisors, or vested. with the
power to hire or discharge, constitute a unit appropriate for the
purposes of collective bargaining and that said unit will assure to
employees the full benefit of their right to self-organization and
collective bargaining and otherwise effectuate the policies of the
Act.
V. THE QUESTIONS CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
The Union has, on numerous occasions, requested the National
Association and the Affiliated to bargain with it as the exclusive
representative of the pattern makers employed by their employer-
members. The National Association and the Affiliated have denied
these requests. Reports of the Regional Director introduced at the
hearing show that the Union represents a substantial number of
pattern' makers employed by the members of the National Associa-
tion and the Affiliated."
We find that questions have arisen concerning the representation
of employees of the National Association and the Affiliated.
VI. THE EFFECT OF THE QUESTIONS CONCERNING REPRESENTATION UPON
COMMERCE
We find that the questions concerning representation which have
arisen, occurring in connection with the operations of the National
Association, the Affiliated, and the employer-members of the Na-
tional Association and the Affiliated, described in Sections I and III
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.
11 A statement of the Regional Director dated September 9, 1940, shows that .71 pattern
makers who appear on the pay rolls of the employer -members of the Affiliated, which con-
tained the names of 108_ pattern makers , have signed applications in the Union. This
same report shows that of `the 133 pattern makers employed by the employer -members of
the National Association on April 13 , 1940, 66 have signed applications in the Union.
A subsequent statement of the Regional Director dated ' September 28, 1940, based on
exhibits introduced at the hearing by the Union , shows that 96 employer-members of the
National Association employ 104 pattern makers However, the Regional Director had
access to the pay rolls of only 66 of the 96 employees They employed 72 pattern makers
The Regional Director ' s report shows that the Union had applications for membership
signed by 46 of the 72 pattern makers This same report shows that 81 employer-mem-
bers of the Affiliated employ a total of 86 pattern makers Of these 81 firms; the Regional
Director had access to the pay rolls of 72, employing a total of 77 pattern makers The
Union has application cards signed by 58 of the 77 pattern makers.
NATIONAL DRESS MANUFACTURERS' ASSOCIATION, INC. 395
VII. THE DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
We find that the questions concerning representation which have
arisen can best be resolved by means of elections by secret ballot.
The Union requested that eligibility to vote in such elections be
determined on the basis of the pay rolls of, the employer-members of
the National Association and of the Affiliated for the last 2 weeks
in February 1940. We are of the opinion that such pay-roll period
is too remote to be used for such purpose. However, inasmuch as
no pay rolls were introduced in evidence, it is impossible to deter-
mine, on the record before us, the employees who will be eligible
to vote in the elections. We shall, therefore, direct that an agent
of the Board visit each employer-member of the National Associa-
tion and of the Affiliated and compile a list of persons within the
appropriate units who should be eligible to vote in the elections.
Representatives of the Union, the National Association,, and the
Affiliated may accompany the Board agent making the investigation
and may indicate their position with respect to the inclusion or ex-
clusion of any person from the list of eligible voters. After such
list, and any statements of the parties, are submitted to the Board
it will determine the names of those eligible to vote in the election
directed herein.
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. Questions affecting commerce have arisen concerning the rep-
resentation of employees employed by employer-members of the
National Association and the Affiliated, within the meaning of Sec-
tion 9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the, National Labor, Relations
Act.
2. All pattern makers employed by the .employer-members of the
National Association, who devote the majority of their time to
pattern making and who are not .employers, supervisors, or vested
.with the power to hire or discharge,. constitute a unit appropriate
for the purposes of collective bargaining, within,the meaning of
Section 9 (b) of the National Labor Relations Act.
3. , All pattern makers employed,by ,the members of -the Affiliated,
who devote the majority, of their,time,to pattern making and who
are not employers, supervisors, or vested with the power to hire
or discharge, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of col-
lective bargaining, within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the
National Labor Relations Act.
396 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS
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, as amended,
it is hereby
DIRECTED that, as part of the investigation authorized by the
Board to ascertain representatives for the purposes of collective
bargaining with National Dress Manufacturers' Association, Inc.,
New York City, an election by secret ballot shall be conducted at
such time as the Board may in the future direct, under the direction
and supervision of the Regional Director for the Second Region,
acting in this matter as agent for the National Labor Relations
Board, and subject to Article III, Section 9, of said Rules and Regu-
lations, among all pattern makers employed by the members of the
National Association, who devote the majority of their time to pat-
tern making and who are not employers, supervisors, or vested with
the power to hire or discharge, whose names appear on a `list to
be compiled by 'the Board at a future date, to determine whether
or not such employees desire to be represented by Dress Pattern-
makers Union, Local 31 of International Ladies Garment Workers'
Union, affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, for the
purposes of collective bargaining ; and it is
FURTHER DIRECTED that, as part of the investigation authorized
by the Board to ascertain representatives for the purposes of col-
lective bargaining with Affiliated Dress Manufacturers, Inc., New
York City, an election by secret ballot shall be conducted at such
time as the Board may in the future direct, under the direction and
supervision of the Regional Director for the Second Region, acting
in this matter as agent for the National Labor Relations Board and
subject to Article III, Section 9, of said Rules and Regulations,
among all pattern makers employed by the members of the Affiliated,
who devote the majority of their time to pattern making and who
are not employers, supervisors , or vested with the power to hire or
discharge, whose names appear on a list to be compiled by the Board
at a -future date, to determine whether ' or not such employees desire
to be represented by Dress Patternmakers Union, Local 31 of Inter-
national Ladies Garment Workers' Union, affiliated with the Amer-
ican Federation of Labor, for the purposes of collective bargaining.
CHAIRMAN HARRY A . MILLIS took no part in the consideration of
the above Decision and Direction of Elections.
NATIONAL DRESS MANUFACTURERS' ASSOCIATION, INC. 397
APPENDIX A
Aldrich & Malvin, Inc.
Andora Frocks, Inc.
Anne Baxter Frock, Inc.
Bar Time Frocks, Inc.
William Bass Dress Corp.
L. & D. Beilinson, Inc.
Berell Frocks Co. Inc.
Beverly Modes, Inc.
Biltcraft Dresses, Inc.
Bloom Dress Co. Inc.
Blue Belle Frocks, Inc.
Bouquet Formals, Inc.
Bryn Mawr Dresses, Inc.
Camel Dress Mfg. Co. Inc.
Samuel Chapman, Inc.
Charter Frocks, Inc.
Cleo Costume Co. Inc.
Columbia Dance Frocks, Inc.
Corey Frocks, Inc.
Coronet Costume & Folly Frocks
Co. Inc.
Cotler Frocks, Inc.
David Crystal, Inc.
Damon Dress Co. Inc.
Denton Frocks, Inc.
Diana Dress Co. Inc.
D. R. A. Dress Co. Inc.
Herbert Edelman Corp.
Sam Edelman Inc.
Mary Ellen Frocks, Inc.
Encore Dress Co. Inc.
Fashion Leaders, Inc.
Fingar &• Weiss, Inc.
Flora Lane Frocks, Inc.
Friedman Dress Co. Inc.
Ginsburg & Abelson, Inc.
Joseph Goldman & Bro. Inc.
Gorgeous Frocks, Inc.
Gorshire Frocks, Inc.
Gray Sun Frocks, Inc.
Harris & Stone, Inc.
Hollywood Formals Inc.
Robert Horowitz, Inc.
Irma Dress Corp. Inc.
Janowitz-Conrad Inc.
Janro Dress Co. Inc.
Josette Frocks Inc.
Junior Vogue Inc.
Katz & Stark, Inc.
Anna Kay Frocks, Inc.
Lancaster Frocks, Inc.
Jerry Lane Frocks, Inc.
Lipman Bros. Inc.
Lou Louise Inc.
Marlene Junior Inc.
Leo Mayer, Inc.
Michelle Modes, Inc.
Morstyle Frocks, Inc.
New Deb Dance Frocks, Inc.
Nite Club Frocks, Inc.
Norman Frocks, Inc.
Pandora Frocks, Inc.
Parnes-Levinson Inc.
Jerry Parnis Inc.
Samuel R. Parnes, Inc.
Fred Perlberg, Inc.
Pickwick Dress Co. Inc.
Miss Plaza Dress Inc.
Plutzer & Bloomberg, Inc.
Prom Dance Frocks, Inc.
Star Maid Dresses, Inc.
Wellesley Modes Inc.
Gracefit Dress Co.
Mohawk Dress, Inc.
Tafel Gowns, Inc.
DuBarry Frock Corp.
La Chic Frocks, Inc.
Altone Dress Co.
Barney Smith
Al Bloom and Paul Calick doing
business under the firm name
and style of Calbert Dress Co.
Henry Cohen, Irving Cohen, and
Abe Goshin, doing business
under the ,firm name and style
of H. & I. Cohen and Goshin.
398 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
I
Leo Diamond
Jack Alpern, Benjamin Weinberg
and Morris Weinberg doing
business under the firm name
and style of Dresden Dress Co.
Louis Platt, doing business under
the firm name and style of
Edlen,Dress Company
Leo Bayer, doing business as First
Love Formals
Graceful Lady Dresses, Inc.
Gracette Dress Co. -
Larry White, doing business
under the firm-name and style
of House of Gray
Harry Keiser
Norma Matthews
Peerless Tailored Dresses
Moe E. Pruss, doing business
under the firm name and style
of Pickmor Dress Co.
Max Pruss and Philip Pruss, do-
ing business under the firm name
and style of Pruss Bros.
Public Dress Co. Inc.
Rab-Josephson Inc.
Ramo Frocks, Inc.
David Rosenthal and Anna
Rosenthal and Henry Kalman
and Rae 'Kalman, doing busi-
ness as a partnership under the
name of Rosenthal & Kalman
Salzman & Sacks, Inc.
Rosette Gowns, Inc.
Ruxton Dress Corp.
Stern & Goldberg, Inc.
Frank Starr-Friedlander, Inc.
Sidmont Frocks, Inc.
Slimbilt Dress Co. Inc.
Simon & Sohmer, Inc.
J. & J. Spar, Inc.
Star Dress & Costume Co. Inc.
Samuel Schwartz and Benjamin
Schwartz, doing business under
the firm name and style of S.
Schwartz & Bro. -
Schultze-Zuch, Inc.
Nat Shapiro
S. Shapiro & Co. Inc.
Smart Craft, Inc.
Sterling Dress,-Inc.
Style Trades, Inc.
A. Stein Frocks, Inc.
Topas Frocks, Inc.
John Tuman & Sons
Welby Dresses, Inc.
Benjamin Weinberg and 'Max
Weinberg and Milton Alpern
and Morris Weinberg- and Jack
Alpern doing business under
the firm • name and style of
Weinberg, Weinberg & Alpern
Max Weisen & Sons
Zuckerman, & -Pearlman, Inc.
APPENDIX B
Aywon Dress Co. ,Inc.
Aronoff & Richling
Abrams & Norman Inc.
Atlas Half Size Dress Co. Inc.
Annette Dresses, Inc.
Allure Modes, Inc.
'Avenue Formals, Inc.
Arkay Junior Frocks, Inc.
Berkley Junior, Inc.
Babs Junior, Inc.
Al Blumenstein, Inc.
David Jacovitz, doing business
under the firm name and style
of B. J. Costume Co.
Bon Ray Dance Frocks, Inc.
Burgandy Frocks, Inc.
Blotta & Conti, Inc.
Bender & Hamburger, Inc.
Jos. & Ben Barnett, Inc.
Maurice Buchbinder, Inc.
NATIONAL DRESS MANUFACTURERS ' ASSOCIATION, INC. 399
Day Fashions, Inc.
Sam Davidson Inc.
Davidow Sportwear, Inc.
Dave Ducoff
Anna Duke Inc.
Debi-Rose, Inc.
Franken-Keil Inc.
Elfreda, Inc.
Feigelson & Kravchick, Inc.
Friedell, Inc.
Golden Rule Dress, Inc.
Glad Modes, Inc.
David M. Goodstein, Inc.
Henry Gans, Inc.
David E. Gottlieb, Inc.
A. Goodman & Co. Inc.
Gayety Dress Inc.
Hershey Dress Co. Inc.
Myron Herbert-Charles Cooper
Inc.
Jack Herzog & Bros. Inc.
Murray Hanburger, Inc.
Hildegard Ltd.
Hansen Bang Inc.
Jennie-Moskowitz, Inc.
Jeanette Modes, Inc.
Junior Formals, Inc.
Kaplan & Wassner, Inc.
Harry Koldin, Inc.
Kaplan & Grabois, Inc.
Chas., Kondazian & Papas, Inc.
Kivette-Nabatoff, Inc.
Lyttle Bros. Inc.
Letty Lynn Dress Co. Inc.
Lutriark Dresses, Inc.
S. & M. Litt, Inc.
Mike Levine, Inc.
La Rue Dresses, Inc.
Lee Claire Costumes, Inc.
Joseph Levay, Inc.
Chas. Lang-Chas. Cooper, Inc.
Anna May Love
Lou-Al Dress, Inc.
Morris & Strong, Inc.
Milmont Gowns, Inc.
Morgot Dresses, Inc.
Albano Mutschler Co. Inc.
H. Milgrim & Bros. Inc.
Norman Jacobson, Inc.
Osias Nathanson, doing business
under the firm name and style
of Nathanson Dress Company
Pattullo Modes, Inc.
Morris A. Peshkin
Penelope Frocks, Inc.
Phyliss-Martin Inc.
Rosenfield Dress Corp.
James Rothenberg Inc.
Rudolph Gowns, Inc.
Reich-Goldfarb & Co. Inc.
Roberts Sportwear Corp.
Maurice Rentner, Inc.
Mutual Rosenbloom Corp.
Sheila-Lynn, Inc.
M. Swaybill, Inc.
F. H. Safian Co. Inc.
Sport Craft Inc.
Milton Saunders Inc.
Will Steinman, Inc.
Gowns by Somay Corp.
Sealove-Selig Inc.
Sandra Dress, Inc.
Tretex Dress Co.
Tru-Form Dress House, Inc.
A. Traina Gowns, Inc.
Moss Tailleur, Inc.
David S. Westheim Corp.
Weissberg & Newman, Inc.
Kane Weill, Inc.
Jos., Whitehead, Inc.
Young Modes, Inc.
Phil Zahn & Co. Inc.
Baron-Zenkel, Inc.
Fifth Ave. Modes
Debutante Frocks, Inc.
Jesse Hoffman & Co. Inc.
400 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
APPENDIX C
Abbate-Swift Inc.
Action Dress Co. Inc.
Adler & Adler Inc.
Ajax Frocks Inc.
Almore Dress Co.
B. & E. Alper
Milton Altmark Inc.
American Deb Inc.
Angel & Berman
Apex Dress Co.
Ark Lane Fashions Inc.
Armour-Smallberg Inc.
Abner Arnold Inc. \
Art Craft Dress Corp.
Ashley Frocks Inc.
Avalon Dresses Inc.
Barbara Dance Frocks Inc.
Barbizon Dance Frocks Inc.
Beaudette,Frocks Inc.
Bedford Sportwear Inc.
Beldone Dress Co. Inc.
Berlow, Shane & Co.
Beven Dress Co.
Black Wear Dress Corp.
Brottor & Sussman Inc.
Lou Burrell Inc.
Cameo Evening Fashions Inc.
Jack Caplan Inc.
Capri Frocks Inc.
Carnation Dress Co.
Caryl Lane Frocks Inc.
Casanova Frocks Inc.
Certified Frocks
Harris Dress Co.
Geo. W. Cohen Corp.
Celin Frocks Inc.
College Formals Inc.
Colette Dresses Inc.
Colony Frocks Inc.
Harry A. Condor Inc.
Coquette Formals
Cordo Frocks Inc.
Dainty Maid Inc.
Dandeline Dresses
Dansant Frocks Inc.
Darby Juniors Inc.
Daymour Inc.
Deb Frocks
Debi-Dance Frocks Inc.
Delta Frocks Inc.
Eagle Dress Corp.
Eden Dress Co.
Eldorado Dress Inc.
Elgin Dress Co. Inc.
Elite Formals Inc.
Estelle Blouse & Sportwear Inc.
Ester Lee Frocks Inc.
Al. & S. Extract.
Fashion Craft Dresses Inc.
Fashion Formals Inc.
Fashion Promenade Inc.
Fashion Wear Dress Co. Inc.
Feigenbaum & Adelson Inc.
Femnore Frocks Inc.
Finchley Frocks Inc.
Fitwell Garment Co.
Flouray Frocks
Form Fit Dresses Inc.
Ben Fox Dress Co.
Price-Schlesinger Inc.
Galaxy Dress Corp.
Garland Dress Inc.
Golde, Levin & Kaye Inc.
M. Golomp & Son
Goodstyle Dress Inc.
Graceform Dresses Inc.
Harry H. Greenberg Inc.
Alexander S. Gross & Co. Inc.
Gross-Sydney Inc.
Hagi Frocks Inc.
Sol Harris Inc.
Harston Frocks Inc.
Hartman & Harris Inc.
Headline Frocks Inc.
D. Herman & Sons
Geo. Hest Co. Inc.
-NATIONAL DRESS MANUFACTURERS' ASSOCIATION, INC. 401
Hilina Dress Co. Inc.
It's An Elf Inc.
Leo Jacobson, Inc.
Mark Jacobson Inc.
Joan Frocks
Pontiac Dress Inc.
Josanna Jr. Dress Co. Inc.
Joyland Frocks' Inc.
Joe Time Frocks Inc.
Jubilee Formals
Judy Formals Inc.
June Modes Inc.
Junior League Frocks
Just Dress Co.
Kolwin Dress Co. Inc.
Ladycraft Dresses Inc.
La Jule Dance Frocks Inc.
Lassie Frocks Inc.
Miss Prep Junior
Leicht & Soltzer Inc.
Lenal Frocks
Leonora Dress Co.
Lev Bro. Dress Co. Inc.
Mary Elizabeth Frocks
Lovejoy Formals, Inc.
Lucky Style Dress Co. Inc.
Limo Dress Corp.
Magical Frocks Inc.
Mairell Junior Dress
Marianna Gowns Inc.
Massar Co.
Master Craft Frocks Inc.
Maytime Frocks Inc.
Max Melnick Inc.
Mil Jay Inc.
William Miller Co.
Miriam Modes Inc.
Miss America Dance Frocks Inc.
Miss Glory Inc.
Miss Michael Junior
Mussman-Pincus Inc.
Navarre Frocks Iris.
Nelson-Caine Inc.
Jack Neufeld Co. Inc.
Novel Dress Mfg. Co. Inc.
Nu-Belle Frocks
Packard Dresses Inc.
Patina Frocks Inc.
Paramount Apparel Inc.
Paul Parnes Inc.
Pear] Dress Co. Inc.
Sunny Dress Co.
Pierrot Dress Co.
Premier Dress Co. Inc.
Progress Frocks Inc.
Randa Frocks, Corp.
Reasonable Dress Corp.
Record Dress Co. Inc.
Rembrandt Frocks Inc.
Ira Rentner & Miller
Revelance Dance Frocks
Revue Frocks Inc.
Rex Dress Co. Inc.
Rhythm Frocks Inc.
Rivoli Frocks Inc.
Rose Bar Dress Co.
Rovevale Frocks Inc.
^Roseweb Frocks Inc.
Dan Rottenberg
Rudelle Frocks
David Salzman & Bro.
Sandler & Lane '
Top Notch Frocks
Seniority Formals
Shill Bros. Inc. '
Siegel-Lyttle Inc.
Silver Dresses Inc.
L. Silverman Frocks Inc.
Skytop Frocks Inc.
Slender Maid Dresses Inc.
Slimline Dress Co.
Charles Solomon Dresses Inc.
Stately Dress Co. Inc.
Strand Frocks
Style Dress Co. Inc.
Stylefit Dress Co. Inc.
Style Master Frocks Inc.
Symphony Frocks
Tailor Craft Dress Co.
402 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR- RELATIONS BOARD
Tailored Clothes
Tempo Frocks Inc.
Frank Tisch-Weimman Inc.
Toni Frocks-Inc.
Topper Formals Inc.
Town Classics Inc.
Town Tailored Inc.
Hannah Troy Dresses Inc.
Trufit Dresses Inc.
Variety Frocks Inc.
Weingarten Dress Co. Inc.
Young American Dress Frocks
Young Deb Inc.
Yvette Frocks
Dorsey Frocks Inc.
Esso Frocks Inc.
MiTkin 1/2 Size Dresses
Pennie Frocks Inc.
Young Sophisticates Inc.
Golomb Dresses Inc.
APPENDIX D
Ace Dance Modes Inc.
Ainsley, Frocks Inc.
Miriam Alexander Corp.
Ann Ruth Frocks
Antman & Bart Inc.
Appollo Dress, Inc.
B. & L. Dress Co.
Bachman & Klein Inc.
Backer & Schachter Inc.
Baer Brothers
Bagro Gowns Inc.
Rose Barrack Inc.
Bartley Frocks Inc.
Kermit Bass-Monroe Gross Inc.
Harry Basso
Beacon Frocks Inc.
Herman Beispel Inc.
Benjie Frocks Inc.
Bentley Dresses Inc.
Harvey Berin Inc.
H. Berman
Berth Robert Gross Inc.
Beth-Paige Frocks
Better Form Dress Inc.
Betty Lee Frocks
Betty Louise Dress Co. Inc.
Bienard-Greene Inc.
Brenda Frocks Inc.
Bridal Creations Inc.
Camack & Wiener Inc.
David Camen & Co.
Carol Fae Frocks
Casino Dresses Inc.
Chick Junior Inc.
Cliff Frocks Inc.
Clohisie Gowns
Colli Inc.
Marie Craif Inc.
George Jacobson, Samuel A. Del-
man, Lucy De Vito Inc.
Diamond Dress Inc.
Diva Frocks
Dolores Modes Inc.
Donnaline Dress Co.
I. Edison & Sons
Elodia Dress Corp.
Emmy-Ruth Inc.
Empress Frocks Inc.
F. E. D. Dress, Co. Inc.
Fad Dance Frocks
B. Falchick
Arthur Falkenstein
The Fashion Dress Co.
Feiber-Tierstein, Inc.
M. Fisher Inc.
Fox-Brownie Inc.
Frank Craft Inc.
Friedman-Bucholz, Inc.
Gaytime Frocks, Inc.
Ed Gerrick Co. Inc.
Glover & Spiwak
Arthur Goldberg Dresses Inc.
Goldman Frocks Inc.
Sol Goldstein Inc.
NATIONAL DRESS MANUFACTURERS ' ASSOCIATION, INC. 403"
Gracemore Frocks Inc.
Fred Greenberg Inc.
Moonlight Dance Frocks Inc.
Joseph Halpert Inc.
Harlene Frocks
Harris Ebro & Co.
Hazel & Molly
Hi-Way Garment Co.
Sol Horowitz Dress Corp.
Horowitz & Duberman
Herbert-Morton Co.
Philip Ilison Inc.
Ina Frocks Inc.
International Dress Co. Inc.
Irwin Junior Inc.
J. & H. Costume Co. Inc.
J. & S. Dress Co.
Janet-Taylor Inc.
S. Joseph Son Dresses Inc.
Kalman & Morris Inc.
Samuel Kass Gowns Inc.
H. Kravchick, Schulman & Wolf
Inc.
Landmark Dress Co.
Laura Frocks
Laurette Modes Inc.
Leanore Frocks Inc.
Lenkowski Modes Inc.
Lerner Bros. Dress Corp.
Joe Levine Dress Co. Inc.
Like Dresses Inc. ,
Lilly Fair Dress,Co.
Mary Liotta Inc..,,
J. Liotta , .
London Guild Vrocks Inc.
Lyla Modes Inc.
M. G. & K. Dress, Co. Inc.
Major Modes Inc.
Malbec Frocks Inc.
Marguery Dresses Inc.
Martine Frocks Inc.
Mendicino Bridal,Cre'ations
Charles Miller Inc.
Minuet Dance Frd'cks Co. Inc.
Miss Junior Modes
Nanty Frocks Inc. -
New York D-ess & Costume Inc.
Norman Modes Inc.
Nu-Lyne Dresses Inc.
Orchid Gowns, Inc.
Paulette Frocks Inc.
Pavillion Dance Frocks Inc.
Phoenix Sportwear Inc.
Harry Press Inc.
Radiant Dress Co. Inc.
Ben Reig Inc.
Rentner-Leonard Inc.
Renwick Frocks Inc.
Rexley Frocks
Richter & Decker Inc.
Richtone Dress
Rivieria Dress Inc.
Roberta Gowns Inc.
Ronne Junior Frock Inc.
Zoltan Rosenberg
H. E. Ruffolo Co. Inc.
Ruth Lane Frocks Inc.
Jane Ryan Inc.
Jack Saffir, Sakin & Lindner Inc.
Samax Dress Co. Inc.
Max Schneck & Bros. Inc.
Schrager & Muster
William Schwade Inc.
Sherle Inc.
Martin Simon Inc.
Smart Deb Frocks
Smink Inc.
Herbert Sondheim Inc.
Spectator Sports Inc.
Starlet Frocks Inc.
Struas-Miller Inc.
Studio Dance Frocks Inc.
Styne & Lachman Inc.
Sutton Sadowsky Inc.
Taylor Importing Co. Inc.
Topic Dresses Inc.
V. & S. Dress Co.
Victoria Cotton Formals
413597-42-vol 28-27
4O4_ DECISIONS ,OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS, BOARD
Virginia Lee Frocks Inc. Young Vogue Dresses Inc.
Vivette Dress - Kaplan Lewis Formals Inc.
Wald '& Waltzer Inc. Superb' Dress Inc.
Max Wiedman Inc. Leonard Arkin Inc.
Winston Frocks Inc. Gramatan Dress Co. Inc.
H. W. Wohlman & Co. Inc. Warres & Oxman,
[SAME TITLE
AMENDMENT TO DECISION AND DIRECTION OF
ELECTIONS
January 14, 1941
On December 9, 1940, the Board issued a Decision and Direction
of Elections in the above-entitled proceedings.' In its Decision the
Board stated, inter alia, the following :
VII. THE DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
We find-that the questions concerning representation which
have arisen can best be resolved by means of elections by secret
ballot: The Union requested that eligibility to vote in such elec-
tions be determined on the basis of the pay rolls of the employer-
members of the National Association and of the Affiliated for
the last-2 weeks in February 1940. We are of the opinion that
such pay-roll period is too remote to be used for such purpose.
However, inasmuch as no pay rolls were introduced in evidence,
it is impossible to determine, on the record- before us, the em-
ployees who will be eligible to vote in the elections. We shall,
therefore, direct that an agent of the Board visit each employer-
member- of the National Association and of the Affiliated and
compile a list of persons within the appropriate units who
should be eligible to vote in the elections. Representatives of
the Union, the National Association, and _the, Affiliated may
accompany the Board agent making the investigation and may
indicate their position with respect to the inclusion or exclusion
of any person 'from the list of eligible voters. After such list,
and any statements of the parties, are submitted to the Board it
will determine the names of those eligible to vote in the election
directed herein.
The Board 'hereby amends its Decision by striking therefrom the
foregoing and substituting the following :
VII. THE DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
We find that the questions concerning representation which
have arisen can best be resolved by means of elections by secret
ballot. The Union requested that eligibility to vote in such elec-
NATIONAL DRESS MANUFACTURERS' ASSOCIATION, INC. 405
tions be determined on the basis of the pay rolls of the employer-
members of the National Association and of the Affiliated for
the last 2 weeks in February 1940. We are of the opinion that
such pay-roll period is too remote to be used for such purpose.
However, inasmuch as no pay rolls were introduced in evidence
it is impossible to determine, on the record before us, the partic-
ular employees who will be eligible to vote in the elections. We
shall direct that all pattern makers who devote the majority
of their time to pattern making, during the pattern making
season, who are not employers, supervisors, or vested with power
to hire or discharge, and who are or have been employed by the
employer-members of each of the Associations at any time dur-
ing the period from January 1, 1940, to January 15, 1941, shall
be eligible to vote in the elections to be directed.
The Board hereby amends its Direction of Elections by striking
from the second paragraph' thereof the words "at such time as the
Board may in the future direct," and substituting therefor the words
"as soon as possible but not later than seventy-five (75) ' days of the
date-of the Direction herein"; by striking from the second- paragraph
thereof, the words "whose names appear on the list to -be compiled
by the Board at-a future date," and substituting therefor the words
"and who are or have been so employed at any time during the period
from January 1, 1940, to January 15, 1941"; by striking from the
third paragraph thereof the words "at such time as the Board may
in the future direct," and substituting therefor the words `,`as soon as
possible but not later than seventy-five (75) days of the date of the
direction herein"; and by striking from the third paragraph thereof
the words "whose names appear on a list to be compiled by the Board
at a future date," and substituting therefor the words "and who are
or have been so employed at any time during the period from
January 1, 1940, to January 15, 1941."
28 N. L. R. B., No. 65a.