Norwich Knitting Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 31, 1949

85 N.L.R.B. 1057 (N.L.R.B. 1949)

In the Matter of NORWICH KNIrrING COMPANY and TEXTILE WORKERS
UNION OF AMERICA, C. I. O.
Case No. 3-CA-26.-Decided August 31, 1949
DECISION
AND
ORDER
On June 6, 1949, Trial Examiner W. Gerard Ryan issued his Inter-
mediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the
Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor
practices, and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and
take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the Inter-
mediate Report attached hereto. The Trial Examiner also found that
the Respondent had not engaged in certain other alleged unfair labor
practices and recommended that the complaint be dismissed with
respect to such allegations. Thereafter, the Respondent filed ex-
ceptions to the Intermediate Report and a supporting brief.
The Board 1 has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner
at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The
rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Inter-
mediate Report, the exceptions and brief, and the entire record in
the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommenda-
tions of the Trial Examiner, with the following modifications.
1. We agree with the Trial Examiner's conclusion that the Respond-
ent discharged Gertrude Sharpe and Charles Magistro because of their
union activities and thereby violated Section 8 (a) (3) and (a) (1)
of the Act. In finding that the Respondent had knowledge of these
employees' organizational activities on behalf of International Ladies'
Garment Workers' Union before October 31, 1947, the date of their
discharge, we do not rely upon any evidence relating to periods earlier
than the year 1946. While we are persuaded, on the entire record of
this case, that neither Sharpe's slight negligence in operating the
Kaumograph machine nor Magistro's use of impolite language were
' Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act , as amended , the National Labor
Relations Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three -member
panel [Chairman Herzog and Members Reynolds and Gray].
85 N. L. R. B., No. 182.
1057
1058 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
motivating causes of the discharges we make no finding respecting
the sufficiency of such facts as causes for discharge absent the pre-
ponderance of evidence of illegal motivation found in this case.
ORDER
Upon the entire record in the case, and pursuant to Section 10 (c)
of the National Labor Relations Act, the National. Labor Relations
Board hereby ordeis that the Respondent, Norwich Knitting Com-
pany, Norwich, New York, and its officers, agents, successors; and
assigns, shall :
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Discouraging membership in International Ladies' Garment
Workers' Union, A. F. L., or in any other labor organization, by
discharging or refusing to reinstate any of its employees, or by dis-
criminating in any other manner in regard to their hire or tenure
of employment or any term or condition of their employment;
(b) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing
its employees in the exercise of the right to self-organization, to form
labor organizations, to join or assist International Ladies' Garment
Workers' Union, A. F. L., or any other labor organization, to bargain
collectively throrgh representatives of their own choosing, and to
engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining-
or other mutual aid or protection, and to refrain from any or all
of such activities, except to the extent that such right may be affected
by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as
a condition of employment, as authorized in Section 8 (a) (3) of
the Act,
2. Take the following affirmative action, which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Offer to Gertrude Sharpe and Charles Magistro immediate and
full reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent posi-
tions, without prejudice to their seniority or other rights and privi-
leges, and make each of them whole for any loss of pay he may have
suffered by reason of the Respondent's discrimination against them,
by payment to each of them of a sum of money equal to that which
he normally would have earned as wages during the period from the
date of his discharge to the date of the Respondent's offer of reinstate-
ment, less his net earnings during that period;
(b) Post at its plant at Norwich, New York, copies of the notice
attached hereto and marked "Appendix A." 2 Copies of said notice,
2 In the event that this Order is enforced by a decree of a United States Court of Appeals,
there shall be inserted in the notice before the words, "A DECISION AND ORDER," the
words, "A DECREE OF THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS ENFORCING."
NORWICH KNITTING COMPANY 1059
to be furnished by the Regional Director for the Third Region, shall,
after being duly signed by the Respondent's representative, be posted
by the Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and maintained
by it for sixty (60) consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places,
including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted.
Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to insure that said
notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other nmaterial;
(c) Notify the Regional Director for the Third Region, in writing,
within ten (10) days from the date of this Order, what steps the
Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
IT IS FURTI-IER ORDERED that in all other respects the complaint
be, and it hereby is, dismissed.
APPENDIX A
NOTICE To ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to a Decision and Order of the National Labor Relations
Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, we hereby notify our employees that :
WE WILL NOT discourage ]membership in INTERNATIONAL LADIES'
GARMENT WORKERS' LN10N, A. F. L., or any other labor organiza-
tion of our employees, by discharging or refusing to reinstate
any of our employees or by discrminating in any other manner
in regard to their hire and tenure of employment, or any term or
condition of employment;
WE WILL NOT in any manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce
our employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization,
to form labor organizations, to join or assist INTERNATIONAL
LADIES' GARMENT WORKERS' UNION, A. F. L., or any other labor
organization, to bargain collectively through representatives
of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted activities
for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid
or protection, and to refrain from any or all of such activities,
except to the extent that such right may be affected by an agree-
ment requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition
of employment, as authorized in Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
WE WILL OFFER to Gertrude Sharpe and Charles Magistro full
and immediate reinstatement to their former or substantially
equivalent positions.witlhout prejudice to any seniority or other
rights and privileges previously enjoyed, and will make them
whole for any loss of pay suffered as a result of the discrimination.
All our employees are free to become or remain members of the
above-named union or any other labor organization. We will not dis-
857829-50-vol. 85-68
1060 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
criminate in regard to hire or tenure of employment or any term or
condition of employment against any employee because of member-
ship in, or activity on behalf of, any such labor organization.
NORWICH KNITTING COMPANY
Employer.
Dated-- -------------------- By------------------------------
(Representative ) ( Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof,
and must not be altered , defaced, or covered by any other material.
INTERMEDIATE REPORT AND RECOMMENDED ORDER
John C. McRee, Esq., for the General Counsel.
David F. Lee, Esq., of Norwich, N. Y., for the Respondent.
Messrs. Walter F. Padgett and Jack Rubenstein, of 99 University Place, New
York, N. Y., for the Textile Workers Union of America, C. I. O.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon a third amended charge filed on December 6, 1948, by Textile Workers
Union of America, C . I. 0., the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations
Board ,' by the Regional Director for the Third Region ( Buffalo, New York), on
January 11 , 1949, issued a complaint against Norwich Kn:tting Company , herein
called the respondent , alleging that the respondent had engaged in and was
engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of
Section 8 ( a) (1) and ( 3) and Section 2 (6) and ( 7) of the Labor Management
Relations Act, 1947, herein referred to as the Act . Copies of the complaint, the
third amended charge upon which it was based , together with notice of hearing
thereon, were duly served upon the respondent and the union above named.
With respect to unfair labor practices , the complaint alleged in substance :
(1) that, in violation of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act, the respondent discrimina-
torily discharged Gertrude Sharpe and Charles Magistro on or about October 31,
1947, and has since refused and failed to reinstate them, because of their member-
ship in , or assistance to International Ladies Garment Workers Union , A. F. L.,
hereinafter referred to as the union , and for engaging in other concerted activities
with other employees for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual
aid or protection ; and (2) that the respondent , in violation of Section 8 (a) (1)
of the Act , by certain named officers , agents, and employees on or about October 1,
1947, and at all times thereafter , by certain stated acts has interfered with,
restrained , and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed
in Section 7 of the Act.
In its answer filed January 19 , 1949, the respondent admitted certain allegations
of the complaint but denied the commission of any unfair labor practices. The
answer further contained affirmative defenses as hereinafter referred to.
Pursuant to notice , a hearing was held in Norwich, New York, from February
15 to 19, 1949 , inclusive , before W. Gerard Ryan, the undersigned Trial Examiner,
duly designated by the Chief Trial Examiner . The General Counsel and the
respondent were represented by counsel and participated in the hearing. The
' The General Counsel and his representative are herein referred to as the General Counsel ;
and the National Labor Relations Board, as the Board.
NORWICH KNITTING COMPANY 1061
Textile Workers Union of America, C. I. 0., was represented and participated in
the hearing. All parties were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to examine
and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence pertinent to the issues.
At the conclusion of the General Counsel's case-in-chief, the respondent moved
to dismiss the complaint. The motion to dismiss the entire complaint was denied,
but the allegations contained in paragraph 7 thereof which alleged 8 (a) (1)
violations of the Act by Fred O'Hara, president; John A. Myers, superintendent;
Marvin Langley, personnel manager and' Foreman Massena were dismissed
without objection.
At the conclusion of the testimony a motion by the General Counsel to conform
the pleadings to the proof, with respect to minor variances, was granted without
objection. The respondent then renewed the motion to dismiss the complaint.
Decision thereon was reserved and the motion is now herewith denied. The
General Counsel and the respondent participated in oral argument. The General
Counsel has submitted a brief and the respondent has submitted a brief together
with proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law ; all of which have been duly
considered by the Trial Examiner.
Upon the entire record in the case, and from my observation of the witnesses, I
make the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT'
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
The respondent, since 1907, has been and still is a corporation organized under
and existing by virtue of the laws of the State of New York, with its principal office
and place of business at Norwich, New York, where it is engaged in the manufac-
ture, sale, and distribution of underwear, shirts, and other knitted goods, made
from cotton and wool yarns.
The respondent concedes and I find that it is engaged in commerce within the
meaning of the Act.
II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
Textile Workers Union of America, C. I. 0., and international Ladies Garment
Workers Union, A. F. L., are labor organizations admitting to membership
employees of the respondent.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Introduction
The respondent employs in its knitting mill from 400 to 500 employees. At-
tempts to organize its employees began in late 1945 and the organizational efforts
conducted by the union culminated with a Board election, by consent, on June
21, 1946. During the 1946 campaign, both Gertrude Sharpe and Charles
Magistro were most active in the organizational affairs. Both served on the
union organizing committee and were observers for the union with Mrs. Beatrice
Buckley, the union organizer, at the election. Magistro attended the checking
of the respondent's pay roll the week before the election and Sharpe was also
to have been present when it was checked but was unable to be there and one
Mary Bennett was substituted for her. The union lost the election.
% In making the findings herein, I have considered and weighed the entire evidence. It
would needlessly burden this report to set up all the evidence on disputed points. Such
testimony or other evidence as is in conflict with the findings herein is not credited.
1062 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
After the election in 1946 , the union 's activities were dormant until Buckley
returned to Norwich for 1 week in October 1947, and contacted Magistro and
Sharpe. Buckley stayed at a local hotel and shortly after arrival conferred
with Magistro, twice at his home , regarding resumption of efforts to,organize
and gave him union application cards to use in securing applications for union
membership . Sharpe telephoned to Buckley who mailed to her similar applica-
tion cards for distribution by Sharpe . Sharpe and Magistro were both dis
-charged on the same day, October 31, 1947.
Thereafter, the Textile Workers Union of America, C. I. 0., sought to organize
the respondent 's employees . Sharpe and Magistro after their discharge took
an active part in that campaign which extended from the latter part of 1947 to-
the date of another Board election on March 23, 1948. Textile Workers Union
of America, C. I. 0., lost that election.
B. The rlisehargees
Gertrude Sharpe
The complaint alleged that Sharpe was discriminatorily discharged on October
31, 1947. The respondent in its answer denied that it discriminatorily dis-
charged her and averred in substance that she was discharged because she was
a careless, negligent, and unsatisfactory employee ; that, because of customers'
complaints about the appearance of gummed labels on shirts, the Kaumograph
machine 3 operated by Sharpe to affix such labels was not operated after October
31, 1947 ; that , by reason of the job being discontinued and her careless and
negligent work, she was discharged.
Gertrude Sharpe started to work for the respondent in 1934, when she was 16
years of age; and she continued steadily in its employ, with the exception of
four leaves of absence, until her discharge on October 31, 1947." She was em-
ployed in the press department whose foreman was Thomas Biviano. In the
press department, a mangle-press was operated. One employee fed garments
through the mangle-press and two other employees on the side opposite folded
the garments as they came from the mangle . The employees at times would
"change-off, feeding or folding." Most of the time during the later years of her
employment (except for part-time work on the Kaumograph machine in the year
1947) Sharpe spent folding shirts that came from the mangle, although on
occasions did other jobs there and there were no jobs in the press department
that she had not performed at one time or another.'
In 1939 or 1.940, Sharpe joined the United Textile Workers Union of America,
A. F. L. In May 1946, she signed an application card for membership in the
union herein and became secretary of the organizing committee. She partici-
pated actively in the union organizational campaign, attended meetings, passed
out leaflets and handbills, and was an observer for the union at'the consent
3 The Kaumograph machine affixed gummed labels (also called stickers or hangers) to
the garment. In putting on the label or hanger, the employee. controlled the garment and
it had to be placed in the right place to have the label or hanger come on the right spot.
14 Sharpe denied Biviano ' s testimony that she was out for 3 years in the period 1941-
1945. The personnel records failed to corroborate the respondent's claim that she was
absent for that period . I credit Sharpe's testimony and find that her employment was
continuous , except for four leaves of absence , three of which were maternity leaves and
one was for an appendectomy.
5 Sharpe had ironed zippers on polo shirts ; boxed garments after they had been pressed
and folded ; carried work between points ; folded and wrapped army shirts in packages ;
ironed and put transfers on sweat shirts ; and a few times , had done work as an inspector.
NORWICH KNITTING COMPANY 1063
election held by the Board on June 21, 1946. The respondent was fully aware
of her union activities. Its president, superintendent, and assistant treasurer
were present when the company pay roll was checked during the week prior to
the election. The union organizer, Mrs. Buckley, Charles Magistro, and Mary
Bennett also attended the checking of the pay roll. Sharpe was to have been
1)resent but was unable to be there, so Mary Bennett was substituted for Sharpe.
The respondent, however, did question Bennett's right to be substituted for
Sharpe at the checking of the pay roll. After the election, Buckley remained
in Norwich until October 1946. When Buckley returned to Norwich a year
later, in October 1947, Sharpe telephoned to her but did not see her. On October
25, 1947, 2 clays after Buckley's arrival, Sharpe received by mail from her a
number of application cards for membership in the union. Sharpe passed out
about 50 application cards among the employees on the clay before she was
'discharged, 20 of which were signed and returned to her. Before coming into
the mill, on the day she was discharged, Sharpe gave some cards to another
employee to distribute upstairs in the mill; and then, on her own time, before
work for the day commenced, at 6: 55 a. in., Sharpe distributed about 10 more
cards in the room where she worked in the mill. Several employees saw her
distribute the cards before the day's work began, including Joe Palarmo, who
then asked-Sharpe wily she did not forget about the union and join the Loyal
Workers Association.' Sharpe then began work at 6: 55 a. in., folding athletic
shirts. At 7:45 a. in., Thomas Biviano, her foreman, told her when she had
the shirts folded to work on the Kaumograph machine. At approximately 9: 45
a. in., while she was at work at the machine, the foreman inquired if she had
started size 38 and when Sharpe replied in the affirmative, he told her to finish
up the dozen she was doing, picked up the unfinished dozens that still were to
be done and informed her that the job was discontinued and discharged her.7
Sharpe informed the foreman there were other jobs she could do, but he said
nothing and walked away. She was thereupon paid off at approximately
.9: 55 a. in.
Sharpe testified that no complaints' had ever been made concerning her
work but on the contrary had been praised many times during her years of
employment (as late as 3 or 4 weeks before her discharge) by her foreman
and told by him that she would always be sure of a job with the respondent.
After her discharge, a large number of other employees, many with less seniority
than Sharpe and who earned less than she, continued to fold garments. After
her discharge, new employees were hired for that and similar work, during which
time the respondent advertised for general female help.' During the time she
worked on the Kaumograph machine, her pay was increased from 831/z cents per
hour (the rate she was receiving on folding work) to $1.20 per hour.10 On Janu-
Palarmo denied that lie ever discussed the union with Sharpe. His, denial is not
credited . The Loyal Workers Association referred to is an association of some of the
respondent ' s employees . Palarmo has been an officer and committeeman in that associa-
tion . In the absence - of the foreman , lie acted as messenger transmitting the orders of the
,superintendent and distributing work but had no power to hire , or fire, or discipline. At the
time of the conversation with Sharpe , Palarmo was not a supervisor.
Sharpe by then had done 69 dozen garments on the machine.
Except on a few occasions when garments were returned to her because the labels had
fallen o ff because of insufficient glue . Sharpe had nothing to do with the amount of glue
on the labels. I do not credit Bivia no ' s testimony that lie called Sharpe's attention, every
day to the misplaced labels.
0 The respondent advertised "female help wanted " in local newspapers , on October 23,
24, 27 . 29 ; November 18, 20 , 24 ; December 5, 10, 12 , 15, 19, 26 ; January ( 1948 ) 5, 7, 9.
10 New employees in 1947 started at 55 cents per hour.
1064 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ary 16, 1948, she telephoned the respondent and asked for employment. The
personnel managef, after consulting her personnel record, telephoned her a
little later in the day and said the company had no intentions of rehiring her"
The General Counsel introduced the testimony of Lillian Flocker who had been
employed by the respondent from May 1912 to September 1948. Since 1923, she
had been employed in the same department where the folding is done. Flocker
testified that she had never heard any criticism of Sharpe's work ; that she was
on friendly terms with Thomas Biviano, the foreman, and the week following
Sharpe's discharge, during a conversation with him she told Biviano that she
thought Sharpe's discharge was "on account of the union" and that he replied
"that is right." "
An attempt was made on cross-examination to show that Flocker was biased
because she had been disciplined by the respondent laying her off for 4 weeks
without pay because she took a week off in May 1948, prior to the start of the
regular vacation period which began June 1. However, after considering her
testimony, I find it credible and further find that she was not biased. She was
subpoenaed and traveled to the hearing from her home in La Crosse, Wisconsin.
She testified in a matter of fact manner, answering all questions asked her
without any attempt to show prejudice for either party. I accept her testi-
mony as reliable and truthful.
The respondent's defense as to Gertrude Sharpe
In the main, the respondent contends that because of Sharpe's carelessness
and negligence in operating the Kaumograph machine, so many labels were
misplaced and so many complaints about them were received, that the respondent
decided not to operate the Kaumograph machine after October 31, 1947, and
thereafter to sew the labels on the garments and Sharpe was accordingly dis-
charged. The respondent introduced the testimony of Thomas Biviano, the
foreman, who testified that on the morning of October 31, 1947, he first saw
Sharpe at the machine. This conflicts with Sharpe's testimony that she was
folding until t' e time when Biviano told her to go to work on the Kaumograph
machine. Sha. pe's testimony is corroborated by the evidence of Sharpe's work
card introduced into evidence which shows that she had folded 18 dozen shirts
on the day of her discharge and had stamped or labelled 69 dozen garments
on the Kaumograph machine. Both Biviano and Sharpe agree that she was dis-
charged while working at the Kaumograph machine. I therefore credit Sharpe's
testimony and discredit Biviano's testimony and find that Sharpe was taken
from the folding work and put on the Kaumograph machine before she was
discharged.
This case does not present the simple situation where an employee was let
go because the machine which she was operating was permanently discontinued
and there was no further need for her services. There was no necessity to dis-
continue Sharpe's services when the machine was discontinued. Sharpe had
trained two other employees to operate it and, for a while, 3 machines were then
in operation. One of the other operators resigned and her machine was dis-
continued. The other operator was given folding work, when her machine
11 Marvin Langley, personnel director, denied that he informed Sharpe on the telephone
that the company had no intentions of over rehiring. However, he added that if it had
been necessary, he would so have informed her, in view of the entry on her personnel card
that she would not be rehired. Sharpe's testimony is credited.
12 Biviano denied having any conversation with Flocker concerning Sharpe or the Union.
I credit Flocker's testimony and find that Biviano did make that statement.
NORWICH KNITTING COMPANY 106&
was discontinued. Sharpe was fired, when her machine was discontinued. The
testimony of respondent's own witnesses corroborated Sharpe that she was the
highest paid operator on it and labelled more garments than anyone else.
Sharpe's work average was 50 dozen garments per hour. The foreman, Biviano,
testified that for the period July-October 1947, on some days, Sharpe did between
500 to 600 dozen garments. 13 He further testified there were misplaced labels
"most every day, anywhere from one to three times." That record of 3 mis-
placed labels a day even for the maximum dozen of 450 which was the highest
ever done by Sharpe in a day, during that period, bespeaks to the Trial Examiner
a high degree of efficiency. Perhaps Biviano realized it too, for on cross-examina-
tion he increased her errors to average 10 per day. Even 10 misplaced labels
on 2,400 to 5,400 garments does not prove carelessness nor negligence to me.
Such testimony establishes that the defense of careless work is without merit 14
The respondent failed to produce any substantial proof that complaints had
been received from customers about the misplaced labels. Evidence in the form
of a letter from the respondent's sales agent to it, suggesting that the sales
possibilities would be much greater if the labels were woven was introduced
by the General Counsel. That is the nearest approach to proof of complaints
from customers in the record, other than the hearsay statements from respondent's
witnesses.
During the hearing it was brought out that Sharpe's personnel card bears the
notation "NO" under the column "WOULD YOU REHIRE?" The reason given
for her discharge on the personnel card is "DISCONTINUATION OF JOB.
HANGERS TO BE SEWED ON INSTEAD OF STUCK ON." The respondent's
personnel manager, Marvin Langley, testified that as a matter of company policy,
no one is ever rehired whose card bears the notation "NO" in respect to the
question of rehiring. Such a person is forever debarred from further employment
with the respondent. The personnel manager further stated that the reason for
the termination on the card should bear out the reason for the refusal to rehire.
Since the reason on Sharpe's card for her termination did not bear any relation
to the notation that she would not be rehired it must be that the real reason
underlying such a serious matter for discharge and future blacklisting is that
the respondent decided the time had come to dispense with her services forever
because of her union activities. In the state of this record, no other conclusion
is tenable. She had been a faithful employee for years, no complaint about her
had ever been entered on her personnel record ; she was an operator of high degree
of efficiency on the Kaumograph machine; and when the machine was discontinued
she could have been returned to the work of folding garments for which several
new employees were hired beginning with the week following Sharpe's discharge.
Upon all the evidence, I conclude that because of Sharpe's activities in aiding
and assisting the union, including such activities during October 1947, all of which
were known to the respondent, the reasons assigned by the respondent were a
pretext for discharging her on October 31, 1947, and therefore find that in
violation of Section 8 (a) (1) and (3) of the Act, the respondent by discharging
Sharpe and refusing her reinstatement to a folder's job or other work for which
she was qualified on October 31, 1947, discriminated with respect to her hire and
13 Examination of Sharpe ' s work cards for that period show that 450 dozen were the
highest number for any one day, in that period.
14 The proof is insufficient to establish that the respondent ' s exhibits 49-61, inclusive, had
the labels stamped thereon by Sharpe. Even if these all were samples of her work, they
prove nothing beyond what is already in the record , which is that she averaged 10 misplaced
labels per day.
1066 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
tenure of employment, thereby discouraging membership in the union and inter-
fering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise of the rights
guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
Charles Magistro
The complaint alleges that Magistro was discriminatorily discharged on
October 31, 1947. Magistro went to work for the respondent in 1927, at the age of
17 years. He has worked continuously for the company until his discharge on
October 31, 1947, with the exception of approximately 22 months between June
1930 and 1937, when he had been laid off at times for lack of work. During his
entire employment he has worked under the supervision of the dye house foreman,
who was Sam Seddon until June 1947. Shortly after June 1947, George Yacano
succeeded Seddon as foreman.
Magistro's first job was running a process machine on rayon in the seaming
department. For the 10 years prior to his discharge, he has been a regular
finisher, operating a large steam calendering machine, known as a process
machine. He has also worked on dryers, helped to pull cloth, took rolls off the
dryers, worked on the Hurricane Dryer and also in the napping room. There
have been no jobs in the dye room that he has not done. For the 2 months prior
to his discharge, Magistro, with another employee, was operating three plain
cloth processing machines, which had stationary spreaders. (The new machines
had adjustable spreaders.)
A few weeks prior to his discharge, the installation of a new dryer and process-
ing machine was begun. This new dryer gives continuous operation from the
time the cloth leaves the dye house until the end of the process when it is ready
to go to the cutting room; i. e. the cloth is taken from the extractors, passed
through rollers to press out the water, then dried in a big dryer from where it
passes to the floor above where it is folded onto trucks, taken to the process
machine for steaming and stretching for size and then taken off and sent to the
cutting-room.
Magistro first joined a labor organization known as the Chenango Employees
Organization in 1941. His association therein was known to the respondent and
was discussed with Magistro by Sam Seddon and George Yacano. During 1941,
a Board hearing was held and Magistro was subpoenaed as a witness but did not
testify. After he had been subpoenaed, Yacano told him he could go to the hearing
but added : "If you kept your nose clean or not got mixed up into union affairs,
you wouldn't be going up there now and getting into trouble." "
In 1941, Sam Seddon had Yacano summon Magistro to Seddon's office and
discussed the matter of a union. Again, on another occasion, in 1942, Yacano
told Magistro that Seddon wanted to see him in the office. Yacano was present
w.hen..Seddon said to Magistro : "Well, if you don't like things the way they are
in here why don't you quit?" Magistro replied that he was not ready to quit.1e
In May of 1946, Magistro signed an application card for membership in the
union herein. He took an active part in the organizational campaign and became
a member of the organizing committee, acting as steward of the respondent's dye
house. He passed out leaflets during the campaign to the employees as they went
into work in full view of the superintendent, the foreman, and other supervisors.
1$ Yacano denied this but I credit Magistro and find that Yacano did make the statement.
le Yacano's denial,is not, credited. Seddon did.not testify. These.1941 and 1942 incidents
are set forth to show that the respondent at that early time knew of Magistro's activities
in union affairs.
NORWICH KNITTING COMPANY 1067
Magistro was also one of the committee who checked the respondent's pay roll
the week before the election, in June 1946. Present at the pay-roll checking were
the respondent's president, superintendent, and other officers and supervisors.
Magistro also served as an observer for the union at the Board election held
June 21, 1946. The union lost that election. The next union activity on Magis-
tro's part occurred on or about the week prior to his discharge when he conferred
with the union organizer, Mrs. Buckley, on 2 occasions, at his home.17 Buckley
left about 10 application cards with Magistro to be given to those who would ask
for them. A couple of days later, Magistro testified, following a rumor at the mill
that the union organizer was again in town and that the union was to start up
again, he gave cards to those employees who asked him for them. During the
smoking period, outdoors at the mill, 3 days before he was discharged, Magistro
distributed about 6 cards.18
On Monday preceding his Friday discharge, while Magistro was near the desk
in the dryer room and checking rolls of cloth with Cony Yacau_), brother of the
foreman, Magistro asked Cony to join the union. Cony Yacano declined, saying
that Norwich Knitting Mill had treated him pretty good so he did not think
he wanted to join the union.n
Two days before his discharge in a conversation with his foreman, George
Yacano and Dominick Spinella, about Spinella's ringing the bell (detailed
discussion of this bell ringing episode is contained infra), Yacano said to
Magistro : "You go upstairs and take the boxes off and get your machine
started. You are always causing trouble over that elevator and, anyway, you
will be on your way Out.,, 20 The day following on Thursday which was the
day before he was discharged, Magistro further testified that he asked Yacano
what he had meant by telling him that he could be on his way out. Yacano
replied: "You are on your way out because you are always causing trouble-
because you can't get along with anybody-and you have things to do with
unions and we don't like union people in here." 21 The next day, October 31,
1947, Magistro was discharged at 3: 50 p. nl.
Following his discharge, Textile Workers Union of America, C. I. 0., began
a campaign to organize the respondent's c mployees. Magistro took an active
part accompanying the organizers from house to house of the employees at-
tending meetings, talking to employees and distributing application cards. His
activities continued until the Board election on March 23, 1948. Textile
Workers Union of America, C. I. 0., lost that election.
17 The evidence is conflicting whether Superintendent John Myers saw Magistro and
Buckley when Buckley visited Magistro's home on two occasions. It is unnecessary to
decide whether Myers saw them since the resolving of that issue is not necessary for the
determination of the case.
18 Magistro testified he could not say if anyone observed him doing it, other than the
employees to whom he gave the cards.
19 This conversation was admitted into the record as further evidence of Magistro 's union
activities ; but not as the equivalent of a conversation with the foreman. The basis of
the Trial Examiner's ruling was that a conversation with the foreman's brother would not,
in and of itself,, with nothing more, be binding on the respondent unless additional proof
was offered beyond the mere fact of blood relationship. No further proof to show that
Magistro's conversation was actually communicated to the respondent was offered.
20 Spinella's and Yacano's denials that such statement was made are discredited.
Magistro's testimony is credited.
21 Yacano's denial of this is not credited. I credit Magistro 's testimony and find that
Yacano made such statements.
1068 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The respondent 's defense as to Charles Magistro
The answer of the respondent denies that Magistro was discriminatorily
discharged and pleads affirmatively that new labor saving machinery was in-
stalled and rented from Tubular Textile Machinery Corporation and that com-
pany selected those employees of the respondent who were to operate the
new machinery ; that Magistro was not selected and solely for that reason was
discharged. The answer further pleads that Magistro was not given considera-
tion for reemployment by the respondent because he was, for divers reasons
alleged, an unmanageable, uncooperative, and unsatisfactory employee.
By the time that cross-examination of the superintendent and Yacano, the
foreman, was concluded, there was little substance, if any, left to the
respondent's defense. John Myers, superintendent, and George Yacano, fore-
man, testifying for the respondent, contradicted each other so completely
that it is obvious to the Trial Examiner that the defenses contained in the
answer were nonexistent as a matter of fact. From Yacano's testimony, it was
obvious that his animosity towards Magistro was long standing. H .s testimony
was so exaggerated and so ridiculous in parts that I reject it and discredit it.
Eugene Cohn, called by the respondent, testified that he is employed as chief
in charge of installation for the Tubglar Textile Machinery Corporation. Three
months were necessary to install, on a rental basis, a range of machinery for
the respondent which consisted of an extracting and process machine, a dryer
and two finishing machines, which provide a continuous running operation. The
old machine had handled the fabric on a piece-by-piece method-each individual
roll of cloth was handled individually through the various operations. The
new equipment joined the fabrics together into an endless length and processed
the fabric continuously. The new machinery was a labor saving device designed
to eliminate from four to six men and was also designed to increase production
in that it would accomplish the same amount of work production in less hours
than the old equipment, or could produce more production in equivalent hours.
Cohn further testified that the Tubular company selected the employees who were
to run the new machines. The facts herein, however, prove that there was not
even a bona fide attempt to select on a fair basis the employees of the respondent
who would be finally chosen by Tubular to operate the new machines. Cohn
testified that he had conversations with Foreman Yacano concerning most of
the men "tried out" on the new machine. But cross-examination of Cohn de-
veloped that Cohn did not "try out" more than six men selected. Cohn denied
that he was consulted in any way about Magistro's discharge and further testified
that he did not recall what he observed about Magistro's work. In any event,
he admitted that Magistro, who had been a finisher for the respondent for the 10
years preceding his discharge, was not even considered for a job operating the
new machines.
George Yacano, foreman, testified that he became assistant foreman for the
respondent in May 1946, and became foreman in the summer of 1947. He testi-
fied that when the old machinery was in operation, three men worked on the
upright dryers, and two men (including Magistro) worked on the finishing ma-
chine. If the striping machine and three finishing machines were being run, five
men were needed and this continued until the new machinery was installed.
Yacano admitted that Magistro, for the past 10 years, was the regular operator
on the finishers; that occasionally he helped on the dryer. He further admitted
that Magistro could work and did work on all jobs on the floor. Yacano testi-
fied that he made the decision to fire Magistro on the night the old dryers were
NORWICH KNITTING COMPANY 1069
discontinued, because he had no place to put Magistro and three others, who were
discharged at the same time.' He admitted, however, that Magistro's machine
was operated for at least 2 or 3 days in the week following his discharge.
Yacano also knew that even though Magistro had not been selected for the first
machine that was installed and ready for operation in the week ending October
.31, 1947, the second new machinery which had already been delivered was to
be set up. Actually, it was set up and in operation in the third week in Novem-
ber. By discharging Magistro on October 31, Yacano insured against the possi-
bility, if there were one, that he might be chosen or considered as an operator
for the second new machine. Thereafter, a third new machine was installed in
the early part of 1943.
That the selection of the operators for the new machinery was to be done solely
by the Tubular company, with the respondent keeping a strictly "hands off"
policy, was more fiction than fact is demonstrated by an examination of all the
operators finally "selected." John Paino was selected to run the first finishing
machine. Yacano testified that Paino's regular job had been folding and napping
and, once in a while, would help Magistro ; but he had never worked on the old
finisher as a steady man. Ray Call, who was assigned to running the second
finisher in the third week in November, had previously worked in the cutting
room but had never worked in Yacano's department until he began work on the
second new machine. Ray Call did not stay on the new finisher more than 2
weeks. Ken Steward was then transferred from the press room to replace Call,
after Yacano asked Superintendent Myers to send a replacement. Later, John
Myers, Jr., the superintendent's son, was sent by Myers to Yacano for the third
finisher. Yacano testified that after the original five men were selected, he
assigned all the men for the new machinery without consulting the Tubular com-
pany. That fact negatives the force of the contention that the respondent had
nothing to say about the selection of the men and the failure to "select" Magis-
tro, who was an experienced employee of 20 years' all-around experience. The
final picture is that there are three full time finishers on the new labor saving
machinery compared to one full time finisher (Magistro) and a helper at times
on the old machinery. On the old machinery there was a crew of nine men ; on
the new machinery, there is a crew of eight men. The job eliminated was that
done by Angelo Zoola whose job was pulling cloth on the old equipment.
Yacano testified categorically that the decision to fire Magistro was made only
on October 31, 1947, and then only for the reason that Tubular did not select him.
He further testified that he did not talk to Superintendent Myers before Magis-
tro was fired ; that "Myers came over and said `These 4 men will have to be off."'
On that point, Myers testified just as emphatically that he had no conversation
with Yacano regarding Magistro's discharge on October 31; that Yacano told
Myers the reason he was letting Magistro go was "he was very unmanageable and
he couldn't do anything with him and that is the reason why he decided to leave
him go." Myers further testified that he then sent for Magistro's personnel
record, examined it at 2: 30 p. in. in the presence of Yacano, and discussed it
with Yacano. Myers again stated that Yacano made the decision to fire Magistro
and Myers checked the personnel file and approved the decision. Myers con-
ceded that if the matters had not been in the personnel file, he might have
overruled the foreman's decision.
11 The other three were Joseph Yacano, the father of the foreman, who was 73 years old ;
Charles Galucia, who was over 75 years old ; and Angelo Zoola (also referred to in the
record as Angelo Ocello), who was over 65 years old.
1070 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Perhaps the nadir of the respondent's defense was reached when, on cross-
examination, Myers testified that the decision to fire Magistro was for one
reason but Magistro was told it was for another reason ; and that neither Myers
nor Yacano told Magistro that the reason he was being fired was because of his
bad record and because he was not manageable.
The respondent called several witnesses to prove the defense set forth in the
answer that Magistro was an unsatisfactory employee. It produced his per-
sonnel card which contained 10 entries 2' beginning with June 24, 1946' and
ending with October 18, 1946. All of these entries were complaints by the fore-
man, Yacano. These entries in my opinion are trivial and reference to them
offers no defense to the charge of discriminatory discharge. Since no discipli-
nary action was ever taken at the times referred to and the fact is that he was
not discharged at any of those times, and continued to work for over a year
from the last time an entry was made, they can not be accepted now either as
an excuse for discharging him or for refusing him reinstatement. With respect
to the first entry that he ran a roll off the conveyor on June 21, 1946, Magistro's
uncontradicted evidence satisfactorily explained that it was an accident. With
respect to the second entry on June 28, 1946, that the cloth ran out of the box
and was twisted up when the machine stopped, Magistro admitted that it
occurred and said it happened during the time he went to the window to get a
breath of fresh air. The reason it occurred was because there had been a split
in the roll of cloth which had been tied together by someone else, unknown to,
Magistro, before it reached his machine. Yacano testified that all that was
said on that occasion was his statement to Magistro: "Charley, why don't you
watch your machines a little closer." With respect to the July 2, 1946, entry,.
Magistro did not recall dropping a roll on the floor. He admitted rolls had'
dropped several times by himself and others, but denied that he had ever clone
it purposely. His testimony was uncontradicted. Yacano testified that the,
employees often dropped rolls. With respect to the July 15, 1916, entry, Magistro
admitted that Yacano told-him not to take the load of cloth to the cutting room.
He also testified, without contradiction, and I find, that thereafter he carried
lots of cloth to the cutting room upon the instructions of Yacano. With respect to
the entry of July 22, 1946, Magistro could not remember the foreman telling him
to alternate his lunch time with another man. Yacano could only testify that
he told him to alternate but was unable to say whether Magistro had complied..
Yacano testified that Magistro said nothing to him at the time ; notwithstanding
the entry on the card which relates that Magistro remarked: "Who do yon
think you are trying to kid"; and that Yacano on the card had noted: "I told
him if he does not like the job to get out." With respect to the two entries of
July 26, 1946, the first one shows that was nothing more than a dispute between
employees as to whether certain windows should be open. Yacano testified that
he did not know much about it; that as far as he was concerned if the men did
not want to open their windows they could suffer. With respect to the July 26,
1946, second entry, stating that Caravaglio waited 3 hours for a roll of cloth,.
Caravaglio testified lie had no recollection of the incident." Magistro's uncon-
23 His record of absences showed : 1943, 1 day ; 1944, 1 day ; 1945, 17 days ; 1946, 3 days
1947, 3 days. No evidence was offered to show the reasons for the absences.
24 Note this was 3 daysafter the Board election on June 21, 1946.
25 Caravaglio's further exaggerated testimony that for an average of twice per week for,
the 3 years prior to Magistro's discharge, Magistro kept him waiting from one-half hour to.
3 hours for bolts of cloth ; that this resulted every time in making 10 or 15 people in the
cutting room idle. On redirect examination, he added that during the time such men were
NORWICH KNITTING COMPANY 1071
tradicted testimony satisfactorily explained that the delay was not attributable
to Magistro. With respect to the entry of July 31, 1946, about a cut roll of cloth,
there is no evidence in the record beyond the entry itself. With respect to the
entry of August 31, 1946, that Magistro refused to work cleaning boilers, Magis-
tro's uncontradicted testimony is and I so find that it was not part of his duties
to clean the boiler ; that it was an opportunity to earn extra money and that he
declined it; and I further find that such refusal was not insubordination. Sev-
eral other employees had declined to do it, before Magistro was asked. Yacano
testified that he never "asked" Magistro after that to clean the boiler. With
respect to the entry of October 18, 1946, that Magistro struck Kenneth Gardner,
I find that this amounted to mutual horseplay between Magistro and Gardner.
Magistro testified that Gardner struck him first. Gardner was unable to recall
whether lie had struck Magistro first. In any event, Gardner admitted that there
always was a lot of horseplay and that lie, Gardner, took part in most of it.
While it is established from the testimony that Gardner (lid then refuse to work
with \lagistro and did not speak to him for several months thereafter, Gardner
has since then worked several times with Magistro.
The fact remains that at no time did the respondent ever consider any of the
above incidents or all of them as sufficiently serious to discharge or otherwise
discipline \lagistro, The further fact is also significant that no further entries
were made against \lagistro after October 18, 1946, and he was continued in
respondent's employ until October 31, 1947.
Dominick Spinella, called by the respondent, testified that he has been
employed in the dye hpuse since 1943; that in September 1947' Magistro be-
came annoyed at Spinella ringing the bell for the elevator and a dispute arose as
to how long -and how many times Spinella should ring the bell before Magistro
answered it. Spinella further testified that Yacano came upon the scene and
after questioning :Magistro and Spinella told Magistro to return to work.
Spinella continued to testify that Magistro was 30 to 35 feet away from Spinella
and Yacano when he uttered an obscene epithet directed to Yacano. Yacano
was not sure that he heard it and returned later to ask Spinella if it was said.
Spinella informed Yacano that \lagistro had used the term twice. The incident,.
while not denied by Magistro,28 apparently was considered unimportant by
Yacano at the time for he did not enter it on Magistro's personnel card ^ and
did not mention it thereafter to Magistro. Spinella continued to testify further
about other bell ringing episodes and as an example of his exaggeration, he
stated and restated in his testimony that over a course of 6 years, every time
that Spinella rang the bell for the elevator, which was two or three times a week,
Magistro would complain about the number of times he rang the bell and how
long lie kept it ringing. Spinella also volunteered while testifying that every
time he could hear Magistro talk, he used dirty talk-with anybody, no matter
who it is. I reject that part of Spinella's testimony about Magistro's alleged
idle they would work on something else ; but that afterthought is not sufficient for me to
credit his testimony. I discredit it.
26 The date is disputed. Yacano testified lie could not remember the month. Spinella
named September in response to it leading question. Magistro testified and I find that the
date was October 29, 1947, 2 days before his discharge.
27 Yacano states the distance to be 8 feet away.
28 I find that Magistro did use the obscene epithet addressed to Yacano in view of his
failure specifically to deny it.
29 Yacano testified : " I don 't think I made any notes that day. I just said to myself
`Just forget it.' "
1072 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
delay in answering the bell for 6 years and the alleged dirty talk, because its
exaggeration renders it without value. Even if Magistro used such language,
it would not necessarily be grounds for discharge.90
Typical of the minutia and of the quality of the evidence adduced by respond-
ent to prove that Magistro was not dependable and generally unsatisfactory,
Yacano testified that two or three times a year from 1939 Magistro was not de-
pendable. As an example of the way Magistro was unsatisfactory, Yacano
testified :
Q. In just what way was he unsatisfactory, Mr. Witness?
A. Well, you could go up and tell him you wanted something and you had
to wait. You would go upstairs and tell him "Charlie, Sam [Seddon] wants.
you to do this." Well, he would nod his head and that was all there was to it.
Whether it was done or not nobody knows. [Italics supplied.]
Q. Nobody knows?
A. No, because I wouldn't follow it up and Sam wouldn't either.
Upon all the evidence, I conclude that because of Magistro's activities in
aiding and assisting the union, known to the respondent, the reasons assigned
by the respondent were a pretext for discharging him on October 31, 1947, and
therefore find that In violation of Section 8 (a) (1) and (3) of the A.ct, the
respondent by discharging lagistro and refusing him reinstatement to a finisher's
job or other work for which he was qualified on October 31, 1.947, discriminated
with respect to his hire and tenure and employment, thereby discouraging
membership in the union and interfering with, restraining, and coercing its
employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
C. Interference, restraint, and coercion
Threats and warnings
The Trial Examiner has already found supra 31 that on October 30, 1947, the
day before Magistro was discharged, George Yacano, foreman, informed him :
"You are on your way out because you are always causing trouble-because you
can't get along with anybody-and you have things to do with unions and
we don't like union people in here."
I find that by the above-named supervisor making such a statement containing
threats and implied threats, the respondent interfered with, restrained, and
coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of
the Act.
I further find, upon all the evidence, that Joseph Palarmo was not a super-
visory employee within the meaning of the Act and will recommend that the
allegations contained in paragraph 7 of the complaint with respect to him be
dismissed.
1V. 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
30 See Sunset Line and Twine Company, 79 N. L. R. B. 1487; also, Nelson Iron Works, Inc.,
80 N. L. R. B. 788. holding that the language used, though impolite according to genteel
standards, was mild according to the not-uncommon standards of conversation in industrial
plants.
31 See footnote 21.
NORWICH KNITTING COMPANY 1073
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 violated Section 8 (a) (1) and (3) of
the Act, I shall recommend that it cease and desist therefrom, and that it take
affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
Having found that the respondent discriminated against Gertrude Sharpe
in regard to her hire and tenure of employment, thereby discouraging member-
ship in the union, by discharging her and refusing her reinstatement on or about
October 31, 1947, I shall recommend that the respondent offer to Gertrude Sharpe
immediate and full reinstatement to her former job or a substantially equivalent
position,' without prejudice to her seniority or other rights and privileges ; and
that the respondent also make the said Gertrude Sharpe whole for any loss of
earnings suffered by her by reason of the respondent's discrimination against
her, by payment to her of a sum of money equal to that which she normally
would have earned as wages in the press department from the date of the
discrimination against her, October 31, 1947, to the date of the offer of reinstate-
ment, less her net earnings during that period.33
Having found that the respondent discriminated against Charles Magistro in
regard to his hire and tenure of employment, thereby discouraging membership -
in the union, by discharging him and refusing him reinstatement to his former
job as finisher or substantially equivalent position on or about October 31,
1947, I accordingly will recommend that the respondent offer to Charles Magistro,
immediate and full reinstatement to his former job as finisher or a substantially
equivalent position,` without prejudice to his seniority or other rights and
privileges; and that the respondent also make the said Charles Magistro whole,
for any loss of earnings suffered by him by reason of the respondent's discrimi-
nation against him, by payment to him of a sum of money equal to that which
he normally would have earned as wages in its employ from the date of the
discrimination against him, October 31, 1947, to the date of the offer of rein-.
statement, less his net earnings during that period.36
Upon the foregoing findings of fact,R6 and upon the entire record in the case,
I make the following :
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 3t
1, Textile Workers Union of America, C. I. O. and International Ladies Gar
meat Workers Union, A. F. L., are labor organizations within the meaning of
Section 2 (5) of the Act.
2. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its 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.
(a) (1) of the Act.
32 See Matter of The Chase National Bank of the City of New York, San Juan, Puerto,
Rico, Branch, 65 N. L. R. B. 827. Also, Matter of Macon Textiles, Inc., 80 N. L. R. B. 1525.
83 Matter of Crossett Lumber Co., 8 N. L. R. B. 440, 497-498.
34 See footnote 32.
35 See footnote 33.
36 The respondent ' s proposed findings of fact are granted , except that the following nunm
bered requests are denied : 8, 11, 20, 28, 29, 33, 36, 40, 41, 43, 44, 48, 65, 66, 69, 70, 73,
76-S1, incl. ; 92-95, incl. ; 97-100, incl. ; 107, 115, 116, 119, 122, 123, 125, 132, 136-140, incl.
37 The respondent ' s proposed conclusions of law are denied , except that paragraphs 7,
8, 9, and 11 are granted.
1074 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
3. By discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of
Gertrude Sharpe and Charles Magistro, and thereby discouraging membership
in International Ladies Garment Workers Union, A. F. L., the respondent has
engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of
Section 8 (a) (3) of the Ace.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting
commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, I
recommend that the respondent, Norwich Knitting Company, of Norwich, New
York, and its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall :
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Discouraging membership in International Ladies Garment Workers
Union, A. F. L., or in any other labor organization of its employees, by dis-
criminatorily discharging employees or by discriminating in any other manner
in regard to their hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of em-
ployment ;
(b) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its em-
ployees in the exercise of the right to self-organization, to form labor organi-
zations, to join or assist International Ladies Garment Workers Union, A. F. L.,
or any other organization, to bargain collectively through representatives of
their own choosing, and to engage in concerted 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 Trial Examiner finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Offer to Gertrude Sharpe immediate and full reinstatement to her former
position or to a substantially equivalent position, without prejudice to her
seniority or other rights and privileges, and make her whole for any loss of pay
she may have suffered by reason of the discrimination of the respondent against.
her by payment to her of a sum of money equal to that which she normally
would have earned as wages from the date of the respondent's discrimination
against her to the date of the offer of reinstatement, less her net earnings during
the period ;
(b) Offer to Charles Magistro immediate and full reinstatement to his former
position as a finisher or to a substantially equivalent position, without prejudice
to his seniority or other rights and privileges, and make him whole for any loss
of pay he may have suffered by reason of the discrimination of the respondent
against him by payment to him of a sum of money equal to that which he nor-
mally would have earned as wages as a finisher from the date of the respondent's
discrimination against him to the date of the offer of reinstatement, less his
net earnings during the period ;
(c) Post at its plant in Norwich, New York, copies of the notice attached
hereto and marked "Appendix A." Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the
Regional Director of the Third Region, shall , after being duly signed by the
respondent, be posted by it immediately upon receipt thereof, and maintained by
it for sixty (60) consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including
all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps
shall be taken by the respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, de-
faced, or covered by any other material; and
NORWICH KNITTING COMPANY 1075
(d) Notify the Regional Director for the Third Region in writing within twenty
.(20) days from the date of the receipt of this Intermediate Report, what steps
the respondent has taken to comply with the foregoing recommendations.
It is further recommended that, unless the respondent shall within twenty
(20) days from the receipt of this Intermediate Report and Recommended Order
notify said Regional Director in writing that it will comply with the foregoing
recommendations, the National Labor Relations Board issue an order requiring
the respondent to take the action aforesaid.
It is further recommended that the complaint, so far as the allegations in para-
graph 7 with respect to Joseph Palarmo are concerned, be dismissed.
As provided in Section 203.46 of the Rules and Regulations of the National
Labor Relations Board-Series 5, as amended August 18, 1948, any party may,
within twenty (20) days from the date of service of the order transferring the
case to the Board, pursuant to Section 203.45 of said Rules and Regulations, file
with the Board, Washington 25, D. C., an original and six copies of a statement
in writing setting forth such exceptions to the Intermediate Report and Recom-
mended Order or to any other part of the record or proceeding (including rulings
upon all motions or objections) as he relies upon, together with the original and
six copies of a brief in support thereof ; and any party may, within the same period,
file an original and six copies of a brief in support of the Intermediate Report and
Recommended Order. Immediately upon the filing of such statement of exceptions
and/or briefs, the party filing the same shall serve a copy thereof upon each of the
other parties. Statements of exceptions and briefs shall designate by. precise
citation the portion of the record relied upon and shall be legibly printed or
mimeographed, and if mimeographed shall be double spaced. Proof of
service on the other parties of all papers filed with the Board shall be promptly
made as required by Section 203.85. As further provided in said Section 203.46
should any party desire permission to argue orally before the Board, request
therefor must be made in writing to the Board within ten (10) days from the date
of the service of the order transferring the case to the Board.
In the event no Statement of Exceptions is filed as provided by the aforesaid
Rules and Regulations, the findings, conclusions, recommendations, and recom-
mended order herein contained shall, as provided in Section 203.48 of said Rules
and Regulations, be adopted by the Board and become its findings, conclusions,
and order, and all objections thereto shall be deemed waived for all purposes.
Dated at Washington, D. C., this 6th day of June 1949.
W. GERARD RYAN,
Trial Examiner.
APPENDIX A
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the recommendations of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor
Relations Board, and.in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, we hereby notify our employees that : ,
WE WILL NOT discourage membership in INTERNATIONAL LADIES GARMENT
WORKERS UNION, A. F. L., or any other labor organization of our em-
ployees, by discharging or refusing to reinstate any of our employees or
by discriminating in any other manner in regard to their hire and tenure
of employment, or any term or condition of employment ;
857829-50-vol. 85-69
1076 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
WE WILL NOT in any manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our em-
ployees in the exercise of the right to self-organization, to form labor organ-
izations , to join or assist INTERNATIONAL LADIES GARMENT WORKERS UNION,
A. F. L., or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively through
representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted activities
for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection.
WE WILL immediately offer to GERTRUDE SHARPE AND CHARLES MAGISTRO
full reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent positions
without prejudice to any seniority or other rights and privileges previously
enjoyed and make them whole for any loss of pay suffered as a result of
the discrimination.
All our employees are free to become or remain members of the above-named
union or any other labor organization. We will not discriminate in regard to
hire or tenure of employment against any employee because of membership in or
activity on behalf of any such labor organization.
NORWICH KNITTING COMPANY
Employer.
Dated -------------------- By --------------------------------------------
(Representative) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof, and must not
be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.