Pennsylvania Handbag Frames Manufacturing Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 30, 1942

41 N.L.R.B. 1454 (N.L.R.B. 1942)

In the Matter of ABRAHAM B. KARRON, DOING BUSINESS UNDER THE
TRADE NAME OF PENNSYLVANIA HANDBAG FRAMES MANUFACTURING
COMPANY and LOCAL 1224, UNITED ELECTRICAL, RADIO, AND MACHINE
WORKERS OF AMERICA, C. I. 0., AND INTERNATIONAL LADIES' HANDBAG,
POCKETBOOK AND NOVELTY WORKERS UNION, A. F. OF L., PARTY TO
THE CONTRACT
Case No. C-2042.Decided June 30, 1942
Jurisdiction : purse frames manufacturing industry.
Unfair Labor Practices:
Interference, Restraint and Coercion: initiating campaign of assistance to afili-
-ated union to thwart bargaining request of rival union ; coercing and intimi=
dating employees to join favored union and resign from rival union ; entering
,; ,into.closed-shop contract with tavored union.
Discrimination: discharge of union leader, allegedly _ pursuant to closed-shop
contract not entered into until later.
Collective Bargaining: charges dismissed, on ground of lack of majority.
Remedial Orders : withhold recognition from assisted affiliated union as repre-
sentative of any employees, until certified; cease giving effect to closed-shop
contract with assisted affiliated union, which did not represent an uncoerced
majority of the employees, without prejudice to rights of employees there-
under ; offer reinstatement to discriminatorily discharged employee, since
prior offer that employee "could return to work" was made during strike and
after execution of invalid closed-shop contract with assisted affiliated union;
award back pay, limited in accordance with stipulation between counsel for
Board and respondent, over objection by charging union ; offer reinstatement
to unfair labor practice strikers on application, with back pay from 5 days
thereafter ; not ordered to reimburse employees for dues checked off pursuant
to invalid closed-shop contract, since unnecessary in order to effectuate Act
under circumstances of case.
Mr. Will Maslow, for the Board. , -
Mr. Murry E. Harston, of New York City, for the respondent.
Mr. Frank Scheiner and Mrs. Ruth Roemer, of New York City, for
the United.
Mr.' Max H. Frankle and Matthew M. Levy, by Mr. David Halper
and Mr. Benjamin Bartel, all of New York City, for the International.
211r. Milton E. Harris, of counsel to the Board.
41 N. L. R. B., No. 252.
1454
- ABRAHAM B. KARRON
DECISION
AND
ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
1455
On charges duly filed by Local 1224, United Electrical, Radio, and
Machine Workers of America, C. I. 0., herein called the United, the,
National Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board, by the Re-
gional Director for the Second Region (New York City), issued its
complaint dated June 12, 1941, and an amendment thereto on July-
25, 1941,1 against Abraham B. Karron,• herein called the respondent,-,
doing business under the trade name of Pennsylvania Handbag
Frames Manufacturing Company, alleging that the respondent had
engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices affecting coni=
merce, within the meaning of Section 8 (1), (3), and (5) and Sec-
tion 2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat.
449, herein called the Act. Copies of_ the complaint,- together with
a notice of hearing thereon, were duly served upon the respondent, the
United, and International Ladies' Handbag, Pocketbook and Novelty
Workers Union, A. F. of L., herein called the International.
With respect to the unfair labor practices, the complaint, as
amended at the hearing, alleged in substance that the respondent
(1) on or about and since March 1, 1941, urged, persuaded, and
warned his employees to become and remain members of the Inter-
national, and not to become or remain members of the United; (2) on
March 26, 1941, discharged Abraham Ramer, and thereafter refused
to reinstate him with back pay, because of his activity on behalf o
the United; (3) on March 28, 1941, in violation of the Act, entered
into a 3-year closed-shop agreement with the International, which
was assisted and supported by the respondent's unfair labor practices
and did not represent an uncoerced majority of his employees; (4) on
March 28, 1941, and at all times thereafter, refused to bargain with
the United, although the United was the exclusive representative of
all the respondent's employees in a specified appropriate collective
bargaining unit; and (5) on March 31, 1941, caused and thereafter
prolonged a strike of his employees by his unfair labor practices.
-;On or about July 3, 1941, the respondent filed his answer, in sub-
stance denying the alleged unfair labor practices and affirmatively
1 On the Board , attorney 's motion, the amendment was,allowed without objection during
the' hearing ,.
2 Also referred to in the record as Abe Karron. The complaint was originally issued
against Abe Karron andDavid Ka_rron, ,,co-partners, ,doing, business under the ,trade name
of The Pei nsgliania Mfg. Co. J
1456 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
alleging that the United, by "unlawful, violent, fraudulent and
criminal acts ... beginning with the period from April 2nd [1941],"
had forfeited its rights under the Act.3
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held in New York City on
various dates between July 7 and September 30, 1941, before James
C. Batten, the Trial Examiner duly designated by the Acting Chief
Trial Examiner. The Board, the respondent, the United, and the
International were represented by counsel and participated in the
hearing .4 Full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-ex-
amine witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing on the issues was
afforded all parties. During the hearing the Trial Examiner granted
the motion of counsel for the Board, joined in by the United, to
strike the answers insofar as they affirmatively alleged that the United
had forfeited its rights under the Act, but he stated that he would
accept evidence as to violence on the part of striking employees who
might be ordered reinstated. At the close of the hearing motions
by the Board and the respondent to conform the pleadings to_ the
proof were granted. During the hearing and in his Intermediate
Report the Trial Examiner made various rulings on other motions
and on objections to the admission of evidence. The Board has re-
viewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner and finds that no prejudicial
errors were committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. At the
close of the hearing counsel for the Board, the respondent, and the
International presented oral argument on the record before the Trial
Examiner. Thereafter the respondent and the United submitted
briefs to the Trial Examiner.
On December 26, 1941, the Trial Examiner filed his Intermediate
Report, copies of which were duly served on the respondent, the
United, and the International. The Trial Examiner therein found
that the respondent had discharged Ramer because of Ramer's union
activities, coerced his employees into joining the International, entered
into a closed-shop agreement with the International at a time when
that organization did not represent a majority of his employees and
was assisted by the respondent's unfair labor practices, and by such
unfair labor practices caused and prolonged a strike of his employees.
He further found that the respondent had not refused to bargain
with the United. He recommended that the respondent cease and
a The International also filed an answer at about the same time, in part denying that
the respondent had engaged in any unfair labor practices affecting-it.
4 On August 12, 1941, the International moved for an adjournment- of the hearing- on
the ground that its attorney had withdrawn from the case upon being denied a requested
continuance , and that its interests would be prejudiced if the hearing , were to 'continue
before it had obtained new counsel . The Trial Examiner denied the motion. On August
15, 1941, the International moved the Board for leave to appeal this ruling. R. On August
25, 1941 , - the Board denied the motion. Thereafter the International was represented
by new counsel.
ABRAHAM B. KARRON 1457
desist from discouraging membership in the United, encouraging
membership in the International, recognizing the International until
certified by the Board, giving effect to his contract with the Inter-
national, and otherwise interfering with, restraining, and coercing his
employees in their exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of
the Act. He further recommended that the respondent affirmatively
withhold recognition from the International until certified by the
Board; offer reinstatement and back pay to Ramer and, on applica-
tion, offer reinstatement to the employees who participated in the
strike; and reimburse his employees for all amounts deducted from
their wages pursuant to the check-off provision of the agreement with
the International. He further recommended that the complaint be
dismissed insofar as it alleged that the respondent had engaged in
unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (5) of the
Act.
On February 16, 1942, the respondent and the United filed excep-
tions to the Intermediate Report and other parts of the record, and
briefs in support thereof. On February 23, 1942, the International
filed exceptions and a brief.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing for the purpose of oral argument
was held before the Board in Washington, D. C., on February 24,
1942, at which the respondent and the International presented argu-
ment by counsel. On or about March 3, 1942, pursuant to leave,
the United and the International filed supplemental briefs.
The Board has considered the exceptions and briefs and, insofar
as the exceptions are inconsistent with the findings, conclusions, and
order hereinafter set forth, finds them to be without merit.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
The respondent, Abraham B. Karron, is an individual who at the
times here involved was doing business `under the trade name of
Pennsylvania Handbag Frames Manufacturing Company.5 His
principal office and plant are located in Brooklyn, New York, where
he has been and is engaged in the manufacture, sale, and distribution
of metal pocketbook and purse frames and related products. He
annually purchases raw materials, consisting of steel, glass, silk,_and
lacquer, valued at approximately $150,000. During the year eliding
March 28, 1941, 90 percent of such purchases were shipped from
points outside the State of New York. The manufactured products
5 The respondent has also conducted his business under other trade names.
463892-42=vol. 41-92
1458 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
annually sold by the respondent are valued at approximately $350,000.
During the year ending March 28, 1941, 25 percent of. the products
so sold were shipped to points outside the State of New York. The
respondent stipulated at the hearing that he is engaged in commerce,
within the meaning of the Act.
II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
Local 1224, United Electrical, Radio, and Machine Workers of
America: is a labor organization affiliated with the Congress of In-
dustrial Organizations. It admits employees of the respondent to
membership.
International Ladies' Handbag, Pocketbook, and Novelty Workers
Union is a labor organization affiliated with the American Federation
of Labor. It admits employees of the respondent to membership.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Interference, restraint , and coercion
On March 18, 1941, Alfred Casale, an organizer for the United,
sent letters to many of the respondent's employees, stating that the
United was again organizing the plant after a 2-year lapse, and
requesting the signing of new application cards. The letters added
that the United would "soon be ready to ask your employer to bar-
gain with us on your behalf."-
On or about March 22, 1941, the respondent received a letter from
the International, claiming that a majority of the respondent's em-
ployees had designated the International to bargain collectively for
them, and requesting that a meeting be scheduled for that purpose.
When the plant opened Friday, March 28, 1941, the respondent
received a letter from the United, advising him that the United repre-
sented a majority of his employees and requesting a collective bar-
gaining meeting. Shortly after 8 a. in., according to the testimony
of employee Paul Pincus, a witness whom the Trial Examiner cred-
ited, Salvatore Classie s went down to the office to get a work- glove,
and returned "excited" to tell Frank and Sal Classie 7 that the "boss"
.wanted to see all three of *them at once; and, accordingly, they went
down to the office.
The respondent's subsequent activity on that day was testified to
by some 10` employees. Pincus testified that at about 10 a. m. he
observed the 3 Classies go over to the welders, who worked directly
Sometimes referred '' to in the record as "Jimmy " Minor variations appear - in the
spelling of Classic's name , and also the names of many other persons involved -in-this ' case.-
7 Sometimes referred ; to ip'the record as-"Baby c`5-'` `
ABRAHAM B . KARRON ' 1459
opposite him, and tell 3 of them to go downstairs to the office . There-
after, at short intervals , other groups of about 3 employees were
sent down to the office , by the Classies . Although Pincus did not
hear what was said to the employees , he saw the Classies motioning
them to go downstairs and the employees then did so . At the time
of these occurrences Sam Tamaroff, the foreman of the welders, was
standing by on the floor, but did not question the activities of the
Classies or the employees under his supervision . At about 11 o'clock
the Classies reached Pincus, and Sal asked him if he had signed an
International card. When Pincus indicated that he had not, Sal
told him to go downstairs to the showroom . Pincus did so, and was
there told by Salvatore to sign an International card for the reason
that "we are trying to, avoid trouble with the C. I. 0., you know."
Joseph Friedman ," the respondent 's head foreman , was present in the
showroom at this time , and Pincus heard him say to an Italian em-
ployee, whose name Pincus did not know , "It's all fight, sign . I did."
When Pincus in his turn refused to sign, Abraham Karron came into
the-showroom and reproached him for his attitude . However, Pincus
did not yield, and. returned to work. Just before going out to lunch
at about noon, Pincus was again approached by Abraham Karron
and told that he did not "see why I went and betrayed him to the
C. I. 0.; he did me favors . . . a lot of favors for me and he saw
no reason why I should sign up with the C. I. 0." Upon returning
from lunch , Pincus observed the Classies continuing to solicit em-
ployees, but this time on an individual basis rather than in groups.
Such employees were separately sent downstairs to the office, where
they remained for a somewhat longer period of time than had the
groups in the morning . At about 2 p. m. Sal and Salvatore Classie
reached Pincus' machine and again urged Pincus to sign an Inter-
national card, adding, "You wouldn't have to pay dues." However,
Pincus still refused to do so. Pincus farther, testified that on many
other occasions during working hours the Classies tried to induce him to
sign up with the International and resign from the United , and that
they devoted the entire day to campaigning for the International
among the employees , as above set forth.
According to employee Sophie Schneer , whom the Trial Examiner
credited , the Classies went around the shop from machine to ma-
chine all day during working hours, telling the employees to report
to the office . In the morning Salvatore. Classic sent Schneer down-
stairs to the office, where:Plant Manager David Karron told her that
he was not going to fight the International , any longer and now
wanted ,,her to , sign , an International , card. She. refused-to- do -so-
and went-back to work .; , In-the ,afternoon Classie . person ally escorted
8 Sometimes referred to in the record as Joe "Shya."
1460 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR ' RELATIONS BOARD
her to the office and, in the presence of the respondent and David
Karron, said, "This is the girl signing all the other girls into the
C. I. 0. Union." The respondent then told Classie that he ought
to know what to do, and Classie thereupon said to Schneer, "Well,
you are fired." However, after Schneer had gone upstairs to gather
her things to leave, Classie told her that she could go back to work,
but again instructed her to sign a card for the International.
Employee Clara Brownstein, whom the Trial Examiner credited,
testified that David Karron called her to the office shortly after noon,
asked her to "sign up with us," and showed her a handbill of the
International. When Brownstein refused, her testimony continued,
Karron called over employee Jean Sirota and instructed her to tell
Brownstein about a C. I. 0. strike at another plant, which had caused
her (Sirota) to go on the "breadline." When Brownstein again
refused to sign up, Karron called over Salvatore Classie to try to
persuade her. But Brownstein still refused. Whereupon Karron
told her to call down her friend and fellow employee Estelle Givner.
When Givner came into the office Karron told Givner, "You're one
person that should sign this [International] card . . . after all that
I did for you . . . We made a collection when you were sick. You
needed money; I loaned you money . . . I never expected this from
you." After further talk Brownstein and Givner finally signed In-
ternational cards and were allowed to leave the office and return to
work.
According to employee Norman Eisner, whom the Trial Examiner
credited, he heard Manager David Karron tell Foreman Michael
Pugliesi at about 10 a. in. to send the employees in the plating depart-
ment, about 25 in number, downstairs. Pugliesi did so one by one,
reaching Eisner at about 10: 30 or 11. When Eisner arrived at the
showroom, Jean Sirota handed him an International card and told
him to sign it. He refused, and returned to work. At about noon
Pugliesi himself told Eisner to sign the card, adding, "I do not want
to lose you." Again Eisner refused. Once more, at about 1: 30
p. m., Pugliesi sent Eisner downstairs. In the showroom Eisner saw
Frank and Sal Classie, but a secretary at once told him to go into
the inner office. There'David Karron showed him a stack of about
60 signed cards in the International, and told him that he too should
sign one, claiming that business would increase 100 percent if the
respondent were to get a contract with the International. When
Eisner still refused, Karron argued with him for about a half hour
in an attempt to change his mind.9 When this argument proved of
9 During the course of this talk Karron showed Eisner the preliminary organizational
letter, hereinabove mentioned, which the "United had sent to Sal or Salvatore Classie,
some 10 days earlier.
ABRAHAM B. KARRON 1461
no avail, Karron called in Foreman Friedman and Foreman Pugliesi
to apply further pressure. Finally Eisner said that he would like
to think it over for a few days. Karron replied that Eisner should
sign a card immediately, but that he (Karron) would return the card
if Eisner wanted it back after thinking things over. When Eisner
still demurred, Karron told him that employee Ramer had been dis-
charged 2 days before because of his activity on behalf of the United
and that he did not want Eisner working for the United.
Employee Rose Elardo, whom the Trial Examiner credited, testified
that David Karron asked her twice to sign an International card.
At first she refused, but finally, following the second request, she
signed. Later the same day, however, she signed a United card.
In addition to the foregoing testimony, five more employees gave
testimony of similar import: Solomon Pearlberg, Anna Lore, Helen
Kaplan, Lillian Weiss, and Mildred Landman. We deem it unneces-
sary, as did the Trial Examiner, to set forth this testimony, inasmuch
as it is to the same effect as the foregoing testimony concerning the
respondent's activities of March 28 on behalf of the International.10
The credible testimony above set forth establishes that the respond-
ent, Manager David Karron, and various foremen in the respondent's
plant engaged in activities on behalf of the International and in op-
position to the United. In refutation of such testimony, the respond-
ent offered in evidence only the testimony of Sal Classic and himself.
Sal Classie testified that on March 28 he did not mention the Inter-
national to anyone except his fellow members on an International
committee; yet later in the hearing, as found below, he admitted hold-
ing an International meeting in the shop before quitting time on the
afternoon of March 28, at which he addressed the employees generally
and told them that the respondent would sign a contract with the
International. As for the respondent, after examining the United
cards which had been introduced in evidence, he denied that he had
asked any of the signers to join the International or not to join
the United, but he did not deny otherwise acquiescing and partici-
pating in the campaign of the Classics in behalf of the International,
as testified to by the Board's witnesses. He then denied that he had
spoken to Sophie Schneer or Paul Pincus on Friday, March 28, at
about 4 p. in., and at once added that he did not "think" he had
spoken to either employee in all the time that he or she had been
employed at the plant.". Next he admitted that he. may have talked
to his employees on that day, but insisted that it was only "about the
'business or their work." Manager David Karron did not testify,
nor did any of the foremen. Moreover, it was conceded that the
"Lore , Kaplan , and Weiss testified that they signed application cards in the United
after having been forced to sign cards in the International
11 Schneer was hired in June 1940 and Pincus about a year earlier.
1462 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
foremen, although not previously eligible to membership' in any of
the labor organizations at the plant, including the International's
predecessors, all signed up with the International on March 28. The
Trial Examiner did not credit the limited' and disingenuous denials
of Sal Classie and the respondent, and found that the testimony of
the Board's witnesses was in substance undenied. The. respondent
argues that his previous history of contractual relationships with
various labor organizations, including the United during the first part
of 1938, vindicates that the testimony of'the Board's witnesses as to
his campaign in behalf of the International on March 28, 1941,'should
not be credited. However; the Trial Examiner, who had an oppor-
tunity to observe the witnesses,. found the Board's witnesses worthy
of credit. Upon the entire record in the case, including the Trial
Examiner's findings on credibility, we find this argument without
merit. We find that the events occurred substantially as set forth
above.
About a half hour before quitting time on March 28, the Classies
held a meeting in the shop, with the full knowledge and acquiescence
of the supervisors, and, as Sal Classie admitted, announced to the
employees that the solicitation campaign had reached a successful
conclusion and that the respondent would sign a contract with the
International.
The record indicates that no deductions were made in the wages of
any of the employees for the time they were kept away from their
work on March 28. Likewise, no deduction was made for the time
spent by the Classies in soliciting International applications or in
holding the meeting, although they performed no other work for the
respondent on that day.
With full knowledge of the United's representation claim and
the coercive manner in which the International cards had been ob-
tained, the respondent. went to the International's headquarters in
the late afternoon or evening of that day, March 28, was shown a
large number of signed but undated application cards, checked the
signatures with his pay-roll receipts for some previous week which
he did not "think" was as long as a year ago, determined that the
International was the representative of his employees by means of
this check alone, and thereupon signed a 3-year contract with the
International covering all his employees. The contract provided in
part that the respondent (1) should employ only members declared
by the International to be in good standing, (2) should give the
International the opportunity to fill all vacancies, and (3) should
grant a general wage increase to "all workers . . . who are members
of the Union [the International]." The contract further provided
ABRAHAM B. KARRON 1463
.in part that the employees (1) should be-represented for the pur-
-poses of collective bargaining by the International, or a shop chair-
man or price committee under the International's control, (2) should
refrain from striking during the term of the contract, on penalty
of discharge, and (3) should have the "dues and taxes" of the Inter-
national deducted or checked off from their wages and, paid by the
respondent directly to the International. In addition to the fore-
going, the contract contained many other provisions concerning wages,
hours, and other terms and conditions of employment, and a further
provision that if it should be determined that "any provision of this
agreement is illegal, it shall not invalidate other portions."
It is clear that upon receipt of the United's letter on the morning
of March 28, the respondent was faced with the conflicting representa-
tion claims of the International and the United. The respondent,
however, did not choose to treat the United and the International im-
partially. Instead, upon receipt of the United's letter the respondent
embarked on an immediate and vigorous campaign of interference
with the union activities of his employees by threatening them with
discharge or other reprisals if they remained members of the United
and by coercing them into joining the International. This cam-
paign was initiated on March 28 and was conducted in the plant
during working hours throughout practically the entire day, with the
connivance of the respondent and his supervisory employees, who did
not hesitate to add their active assistance and participation whenever
necessary. Upon completing his campaign, the respondent attempted
to freeze the result of his unlawful conduct by immediately signing
a closed-shop contract with the International, thereby rejecting the
United's representation claim.
It is therefore clear that the International, membership in which
was required by the contract as a condition of employment, was as-
sisted by the 'respondent's extensive coercion of his employees, as
found above. In addition, although 118 of the employees in the unit
had signed International cards prior to the execution of the contract,12
the cards are undated, and we find, as did the Trial Examiner, that
there was no credible evidence that the employees in the unit signed
such cards of their own volition, free from the coercion which we
have found above was engaged in by the respondent. Clearly, the
respondent cannot require his employees, as a condition of their em-
ployment, to become and remain members of a labor organization and
to be represented for the purposes of collective bargaining by that or-
ganization, in complete disregard of their uncoerced desires in that
v Sixteen additional cards in evidence bore signatures of supervisory employees or
were invalid for other reasons.
1464 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
respect.13 Accordingly, we find that the contract of March 28, 1941,
was entered into by the respondent in violation of the rights guar-
anteed to his employees in the Act. We further find that the re-
spondent thereby unlawfully encouraged membership in the Inter-
national.
By the next morning, March 29, the United learned that- the re-
spondent had rejected its claim and had chosen to recognize the
International. The United then sent the respondent a telegram
stating that it would advise its members to strike if the respondent
signed a contract with the International. On Monday, March 31,
the next working day after the signing of the contract, the United
called a strike, and a majority of the respondent's employees re-
frained from work. The United also established a picket line at the
plant. In addition, 93 of the employees signed certain petitions at
the United's strike headquarters near the plant, stating in part that
they desired to be represented by the United and not by the Inter-
national. The strike was still in progress at the time of the hearing.
Despite the major proportions of the strike on the first day, the
plant continued to operate, but with a greatly reduced total force of
about 30 employees, instead of the normal complement of 175 em-
ployees. About 3 hours before quitting time, this small force of
employees, including the foremen, left the plant in a body, marched
to a nearby hall bearing a banner labelled "100 percent A. F. of L.,"
and during the rest of the afternoon held an International meeting at
which the contract was explained and approved.14 The record does
not show that the respondent deducted any pay for the working time
spent by his employees at this meeting, or that he disciplined any of
his foremen or other employees for their participation therein.
We find, as did the Trial Examiner, that by the foregoing activities
the respondent engaged in a campaign to frustrate and divert his
employees' organizational activity, to restrain them from becoming
or remaining members of the United, and to coerce them into joining
the International; and that the respondent thereby, and by recog-
nizing the International as the employees' representative and by en-
tering into the contract with the International, interfered with,
restrained, and coerced his employees in the exercise of the rights
guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. We further find that the strike
was caused and prolonged by the respondent's unfair labor practices.
"The proviso of Section 8(3) of the Act would peimit the respondent to make the
above contractual provision only if the labor organization , in addition to being "the
representative of the employees . . . in the appropriate collective bargaining unit cov-
ered" by the contract , is "not established , maintained , or assisted by any action defined
in this Act as an unfair labor practice ." see National Labor Relations Board v . Electric
Vacuum Cleaner Co, Inc , et at., 10 L R R . 204 (U S S Ct ., Match 30 , 1942 ), reversing
120 F (2d) 611 (C C A 6), and enforcing Matter of Electric Vacuum Cleaner Co., Inc.
and United Electrical & Radio Workers of America , Local 720, etc , 18 N. L R . B. 591.
"We do not credit the testimony of Sal Classie, whom the Trial Examiner found an
unreliable witness, that there were about 75 or 90 employees at this meeting.
ABRAHAM B.- KARRON 1465
B. The discharge of Ramer
Abraham Ramer was employed by the respondent in August 1939
as a, spot welder. In February 1941 he assumed the leadership of it
campaign to organize his fellow employees, and solicited them to
join the United. Although aided by other employees, he was the
United's most active member up to the time of his discharge,
related below.
'According to the uncontradicted testimony of Ramer, on the morn-
ing of Wednesday, March 26, 1941, he was at his work on the seconi
floor 'of the plant when Sal or Salvatore Classie _approached and
engaged-him in an argument.15 When Ramer refused to stop his
work to talk to Classie, the later called over Frank Classie, and one
of the Classies said : "Get your' hat and coat and go downstairs and
get your pay, and get out of here. We had quiet here for a few
years and so you come 'around and you are going to make trouble."
Ramer then went downstairs, as instructed. On reaching the show-
room immediately adjacent to the office, Ramer met David Karron,
the plant manager, and said to him : "Those boys [the Classies] told
me to go home." Without disputing the discharge, Karron asked
what the cause of it was. Ramer replied that he did not know. At
that moment Irving Lansing, the foreman of Ramer's department,
entered the showroom, and Karron asked him why Ramer had been
discharged. Lansing replied, "I thought he was an honest fellow.
I always used to like him. No* I see he has come around to make
trouble." 11, Thereupon Karron said to Ramer, "I have a contract
signed with those birds [the Classies] and they have a right to fire
and hire anybody they like to 17 I just can't help it." Karron then
ordered the bookkeeper to give Ramer his pay, and the interview
terminated. Neither David Karron nor Lansing testified, and
Ramer's testimony as above set forth thus stands uncontradicted. We
credit it, as did the Trial Examiner. According to the uncontra-
dicted testimony of employee Norman Eisner, Whom the Trial
Examiner credited, David Karron told him 2 days later, under cir-.
cumstances related above, that Ramer had been "fired because he
wanted to get a union in the plant."
"flamer testified at one point that the individual was named Salvatore , but at another
point he indicated that lie may have meant Sal . We find that in this instance the
ambiguity is immaterial
"The record provides no explanation of Lansing's statement except as a reference to
Ramer 's activity on behalf of the United
17 Marron was referring to the closed-shop contiact with the International The re-
spondent claimed to have signed the contract 2 days later on March 28, 1941, and the
contract is so dated . The record is clear that no closed -shop contract was in effect on
Maich 26.
1466 , DECISIONS, .OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The respondent in effect admits that the present record warrants
the conclusion that the discharge was discriminatory. He claims,
however, that the reason he did not introduce any countervailing
testimony was that he had made an allegedly sufficient offer of rein=
statement to Ramer, and at the oral argument requested that the
hearing be reopened "if the Board so deems it necessary." We con-
sider the request in the "Remedy" section, infra.
Under the circumstances disclosed by the record, including the
respondent's general animus against the United, we find, as did the
Trial Examiner, that the respondent discharged Ramer on March 26,
1941, because of his activity on behalf of the United, and that the
respondent thereby discouraged membership in the United and inter-
fered with, restrained, and coerced his employees in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
C. The alleged refusal to bargain with the United
The, complaint alleged that all the respondent's production and
maintenance employees at the Brooklyn plant, exclusive of clerical,
sales, and supervisory employees, constituted a" unit appropriate for
the purposes of collective bargaining. The United argued that Billy
Ziskin, Sam Tamaroff, and Michael Pugliesi were supervisory em-
ployees and Jean Sirota a clerical or supervisory employee, and should
be excluded from the 'unit. The United further argued that the
shipping department employees performed work which brought them
within the production and maintenance unit, and requested their
specific inclusion. . For present purposes we shall assume, without
finding, that the unit desired by the United is appropriate.
On the respondent's pay roll for the Week ending March 28, 1941,
appear the names of 163 employees within the above unit 18 To
establish its majority as of the latter date, the United must therefore
have been designated by at least 82 of the 163 employees. There were
introduced in evidence United cards signed by 88 such employees
on or shortly before March 28, 1941.19 However, 47 of the cards
were signed by employees who also signed International cards during
the same period of time. The record fails to satisfy us that at least
41 of these 47 employees desired exclusive representation by the
18 There are a total of 175 names on this pay roll Excluded from the unit are 3
clerical employees (Gertrude Schlusselberg, Ray Levine, and Lenore Knee), 3 sales em-
ployees (Joe Polan, Max Chess, and Irving Plug), 5 supervisory employees (Irving Lansing,
Joseph Friedman, Billy Ziskin, Sam Tamaroff, and Michael Pugliesi), and Jean Sirota.
"There was testimony that an additional employee had signed a United card by this
date, but that his card could not be located. With few exceptions, the cards were not
dated when signed The record clearly indicates that the dates on the cards cannot be
relied on for any purpose
ABRAHAM B. KARRON 1467
United rather than by the International.20 It follows that the United
lacked a majority on March 28, 1941, as the Trial Examiner found.
The United's exception to this finding is without merit. The United
further excepts to the Trial Examiner's refusal to consider the afore-
said United petition signed by 93 of the 163 employees on March 31,
1941, allegedly establishing a majority on and after that date. On the
basis of the entire record, however, we are not convinced by the peti-
tions that the United in fact represented a majority of the employees.
Since we do not find that the United represented a majority of the
employees in the-alleged appropriate unit, within the meaning of
Section 9 (a) of the Act, we shall dismiss the complaint insofar as it
alleges that the respondent refused to bargain collectively with the
United.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
We find that 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
relationship to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States,
and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing com-
merce and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that the respondent engaged in certain unfair labor
practices, we shall order him to cease and desist therefrom, and to
take certain affirmative action which we find will effectuate the poli-
cies of the Act.
We have found above that the respondent discriminatorily dis-
charged Ramer on March 26, 1941. At a conference in the Board's
Regional Office in New York City on April 2, 1941, a week after the
discharge, the respondent told Ramer that he did not know whether
or not Ramer had been discharged but that Ramer could return to
work. The testimony shows that, the offer did not include a prom-
ise to restore Ramer's seniority and other rights and privileges. In
addition, the offer of reinstatement was made during the pendency
of the strike, and was in effect conditioned upon Ramer's joining
the International, since the respondent had entered into a closed-
- shop agreement with the International. Although the respondent,
at the oral argument, requested that the record .be reopened to take
m While the record fails to establish affirmatively that any of the International designs,
tions were signed prior to the respondent 's extensive coercion and assistance on March
28, 1941 , it does not follow that 41 or more of the duplicate designations lose their
ambiguity , since it was necessary that the United 's alleged majority be established
affirmatively.
1468 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
further evidence as to Ramer's discharge, alleging that he had been
`.`led to -believe" that the foregoing offer "disposed of . . . Ramer's
case," we are convinced and find that full opportunity to adduce evi-
dence as to the discharge and the alleged settlement thereof was
afforded at the hearing. Moreover, the respondent has made no
offer of proof specifying the facts with respect to these matters. ,Ac-
cordingly, the request is hereby denied. We find that the respond-
ent's offer was not an unconditional offer of reinstatement, and we
shall therefore order the respondent to offer Ramer immediate and
full reinstatement to his former or a substantially equivalent position,
without prejudice to his seniority and other rights and privileges.
At the hearing, it was stipulated between counsel for the Board and
counsel for the respondent that if Ramer were found to have been
"illegally discharged," the "amount of back pay due him" was "no
more than $7.50." Although the United argues that the Board should
not give effect to this stipulation since the United did not join in it,
we are of the opinion that the purposes of the Act will best be effectu-
ated by adhering to the stipulation. Accordingly, we shall give effect
to the stipulation and shall order the respondent to make Ramer whole
for any loss of wages he has suffered by reason of the discrimination
against him, by paying him an amount equal to that which he
normally would have earned as wages between the date of his dis-
charge and the offer of reinstatement pursuant to our order, less his net
earnings during such period ;221 provided, however, that such payment
shall in no event exceed $7.50.
We have found that on March 28, 1941, the respondent unlawfully
assisted and entered into a closed-shop contract with the International.
In order to insure to the employees the full and free exercise- of the
rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act without interference, re-
straint, or coercion by the respondent, we shall order that the re-
spondent withdraw and' withhold recognition from the International
as the representative of any of his employees for the purposes of
collective bargaining until such time as the International may be
certified as their representative by the Board.22 We shall further or-
21 By "net earnings" is meant, earnings less expenses , such as for transportation, room
and board , incurred by an employee in connection with obtaining work and working else-
where than for the respondent, which would not have been nicuired but for his unlawful
discharge and the consequent necessity of his seeking employment elsewhere See
Matter of Crossett Lumber Company and United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners
of America, Lumber and Sawmill Workers ' Union, Local 2590, 8 N L R. B 440. Monies
received for work performed upon Federal, State , county, municipal , or othei work -relief
projects shall be considered as earnings See Republic Steel Corporation v. N. L. R. B.,
311 U S , 7. .
"See N L . R B. v Condenser Corporation of America , 10 L R. R 217 (C. C. A. 3),
mod'g and enf'g Matter of Condenser Corporation of America and Cornell -Dubilier Elec-
tric Corporation and United Electrical and Radio Workers of America, etc ., 22 N. L. R. B.
347; Eagle-Picker Mining & Smelting Co. v. N. L. R B, 119 F (2d) 903. (C. C A. 8),
enf'g as mod. Matter of Eagle-Picker Mining it Smelting Company, a corporation, and
Eagle-Picher Lead Company , a corporation and International Union of Mine, Mill it Smelter
Workers, Locals 15, 17, 107, 108, -and 111 , 16 N. L R B . 727; Matter of McKesson
ABRAHAM B. KARRON 1469
der the respondent to cease giving effect to the above-described con-
tract and to any other contract made with the International prior
to certification, without prejudice, however, to the assertion by
the employees of any legal rights acquired thereunder.23 In his
Intermediate Report, the Trial Examiner recommended that the re-
spondent reimburse his employees for all amounts deducted from
their wages pursuant to the check-off provision of the contract. The
United argues that such reimbursement is essential to free the em-
ployees from the effects of the respondent's extensive unfair labor
practices, particularly where, as here, the beneficiary of, these prac-
tices is not ordered disestablished but is allowed to continue to exist.
Under the circumstances here presented and in view of our order
hereinafter made, however, we are of the opinion that the policies,
of the, Act will be effectuated without ordering reimbursement.
We have found that the respondent's unfair labor practices caused
and prolonged the strike which began on March 31, 1941. In order
to restore the status quo as it existed prior to the time the respondent
engaged in the unfair labor practices, we shall order the respondent
(1) to offer reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent
positions, without prejudice to their seniority and other rights and
privileges, to those employees who went on strike on March 31, 1941,
or thereafter, and who have applied for and have not been offered
reinstatement, and (2) upon application to offer reinstatement to their
former. or substantially equivalent positions, without prejudice to
their seniority and other rights and privileges, to those employees
who went on strike on said date, or thereafter, and who have not pre-
viously applied for reinstatement; 24 dismissing if necessary any per-
sons hired by the respondent on or after March 31, 1941, the date of the
commencement of the strike, and not in the employ of the respondent
on said date. If there is then not sufficient employment available
for all the employees, all available positions shall be distributed
among them without discrimination against any employee because
f Robbins, Inc, McKesson -Stewart -Holmes Diug Division and International Longshore-
men d Warehousemen 's Union, Local No 9, District 1, affiliated with the C I 0, etc,
19 N. L . R. B 778 , enf'd in this respect , Warehousemen 's Union v. N. L. R. B., 121 F.
(2d) 84 (App D C.), cert den 62 S Ct 138
23 See National Licorice Co v N L R. B, 309 U S 350
2y As set forth above, the respondent asserted in its answer that the United had en-
gaged in violent and unlawful acts The Trial Examiner stated that he would receive
evidence of violence on the part of striking employees as bearing on the question of
reinstatement . The respondent offered to prove that Pincus, a striking employee, was on
three occasions arrested for assault and "after a hearing before the Magistrate, was
held " No evidence was offered or adduced that Pincus had committed the acts for
which he was arrested , nor was evidence offered that any other striking employees had
engaged in violence We find that the proffered evidence does not warrant' denying
reinstatement to Pincus or any other striker . , See Republic Steel Corp . v N. L. R. B.,
107 F (2d) 472 (C C A. 3), cert den as to reinstatement , 309 U . S. 684 , 310 U. S 655,
enf'g with respect to reinstatement Matter of Republic Steel Corporation and Steel Workers
Organizing Committee, 9 N. L. R B. 219
,1470 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
of his union affiliation- or activities, following the system of seniority
or other non-discriminatory practice heretofore applied in the con-
duct of the respondent's business. Those employees, if any, remaining
after such distribution, for whom no employment is, immediately
available, shall be placed upon a preferential list and thereafter offered
employment in their former or substantially equivalent positions as
such employment becomes available and before other persons are
hired for such work, in, the order determined among them by said
system of seniority or other non-discriminatory practice. We shall
further order the respondent to make whole those employees who
went on strike on March 31, 1941, or thereafter, and who have applied
for and have not been offered reinstatement, for any loss of pay they
may have suffered by reason of the respondent's refusal, if any, to
reinstate them as provided above, by payment to each of them of a
sum of money equal to that which he would normally have earned as
wages during the period from five (5) days after the date on which
he applied for reinstatement to the date of the respondent's offer of
reinstatement or placement on a preferential list, less his net earn-
ings, if any, during such period.25 We shall also order the respondent
to make whole those employees who went on strike on March 31, 1911,
or thereafter, and who have not previously applied for reinstatement,
for any loss of pay they may suffer by reason of the respondent's
refusal, if any, to reinstate them as provided above, by payment'to
each of them of a sum of money equal to that which he would nor-
mally have earned as wages during the period from five (5) days,
after the date on which he applies for reinstatement to the date of
the respondent's offer of reinstatement or placement on a preferential
list, less his net earnings, if any,' during such period.26
We have found that the respondent did not refuse to bargain col-
lectively with the United as the representative of his employees,
within the meaning of Section 8 (5) of the Act. Accordingly, we
shall dismiss the complaint insofar as such allegations are concerned.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the en-
tire record in the case, the Board makes the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Local 1224, United Electrical, Radio, and Machine Workers of
America, affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations,
and International Ladies' Handbag, Pocketbook and Novelty Work-
ers Union, affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, are
labor organizations, within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act,
2. By discrimination in regard to the hire and tenure of employ-
25 See footnote 21.
11 See footnote 21.
ABRAHAM B. KARRON 1471
ment of Abraham Ramer, thereby discouraging membership in Local
1224, United Electrical, Radio, and Machine Workers of America,
C. I. 0., and by recognizing and entering into contractual relations
with International Ladies' Handbag, Pocketbook and Novelty Work-
ers Union, A. F. of L., as the representative of his employees, thereby
encouraging membership in that organization, the respondent has en-
gaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices, within the mean-
ing of Section 8 (3) of the Act.
3. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing his employees
in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the
respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices,
within the meaning of Section 8 (1) of the Act.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices
affecting commerce, within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7)
of the Act.
5. The respondent has not refused to bargain collectively with
Local 1224; United Electrical, Radio, and Machine Workers of Amer-
ica, C. I. 0., within the meaning of Section 8 (5) of the Act.
ORDER
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions
of law, and pursuant to Section 10 (c) of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that
the respondent, Abraham B. Karron, doing business as Pennsylvania
Handbag Frames Manufacturing Company, Brooklyn, New York,
and his agents, successors, and assigns shall :
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Discouraging membership in Local 1224, United Electrical,
Radio, and Machine Workers of America, C. I. 0., or any other labor
organization of his employees, or encouraging membership in Inter-
national Ladies' Handbag, Pocketbook and Novelty Workers Union,
A. F. of L., or any other labor organization of his employees, by
discrimination in regard to hire or tenure of employment or any term
or condition of employment;
(b) Recognizing International Ladies' Handbag, Pocketbook and
Novelty Workers Union, A. F. of L., as the representative of any
of his employees for the purpose of collective bargaining with respect
to grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employ-
ment, or other conditions of employment, unless and until that organ-
ization shall have been certified by the Board as the representative
of the' employees ;
. (c) Giving effect to the contract of March 28, 1941, with Inter-
national Ladies' Handbag, Pocketbook and Novelty Workers Union,
A. F. of L., or to any extension, renewal, modification, or supplement
N
1472 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
thereof, or to any other contract made with International Ladies'
Handbag, Pocketbook and- Novelty Workers Union, A. F. of L., un-
less and until that organization shall have been certified by the Board
as the representative of the employees;
(d) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing
his employees in the exercise of the right to self-organization, to form,
join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through
representatives of their own choosing, or to engage in concerted activi-
ties for the purposes of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or
protection, as guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action, which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Offer to Abraham Ramer immediate and full reinstatement to
his former or a substantially equivalent position, without prejudice
to his seniority and other rights and privileges;
(b) Make whole Abraham Ramer for any loss of wages he may
have suffered by reason of the respondent's discrimination against
him, by payment to him of a sum of money equal to that which he
would normally have earned as wages from the date of such discrim-
ination to the date of the respondent's offer of reinstatement pursuant
to this Order, less his net earnings during said period, as provided
in the Remedy section above ;
(c) Withdraw and withhold all recognition from International
Ladies' Handbag, Pocketbook and Novelty Workers Union, A. F.
of L., as the representative of any of his employees for the purpose
of collective bargaining with respect to grievances, labor disputes,
wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, or other conditions of
employment, until that organization shall have been certified by the
Board as the representative of the employees;'
(d) Offer to those employees who went on strike on March 31,
1941, or thereafter, and who have applied for and have not been
offered reinstatement, immediate and full reinstatement to their for-
mer or substantially equivalent positions, without prejudice to their
seniority and other rights and privileges, in the manner provided in
the Remedy section above ; and place those employees for whom
employment is not immediately available upon a preferential list in
the manner set forth in said section, and thereafter, in said manner,
offer them employment as it becomes available;
(e) Upori application offer to those employees who went on strike
on March 31,.1941, or thereafter, and who have not previously ap-
plied for reinstatement, immediate and full reinstatement to their
former or substantially equivalent positions, without prejudice to
their seniority and other rights and privileges, in the manner pro-
vided in the Remedy section above; and place those employees for
ABRAHAM B. KARRON 1473
whom employment is not immediately available upon a preferential
list in the manner set forth in said section, and thereafter, in said
manner, offer them employment as it becomes available;
(f) Make whole the employees specified in paragraphs 2 (d) above,
for any loss of pay they may have suffered by reason of the respond-
ent's refusal, if any, to reinstate them, by payment to each of them
of a sum of money equal to that which he would normally have earned
as wages during the period from five (5) days after the date on
which he applied for reinstatement to the date of the respondent's
offer of reinstatement or placement upon a preferential list, less his
net earnings, if any, during said period;
(g) Make whole the employees specified in paragraph 2 (e) above,
for any loss of pay they may suffer by reason of the respondent's
refusal, if any, to reinstate them, by payment to each of them of a
sum of money equal to that which he would normally have earned
as wages during the period from five (5) days after the date on which
he applies for reinstatement to the date of the respondent's offer of
reinstatement or placement upon a preferential list, less his net earn-
ings, if any, during said period ;
(h) Post immediately in conspicuous places throughout his plant
in Brooklyn, New York, and maintain for a period of at least sixty
(60).'consecutive days from the date of posting, notices to his em-
ployees stating (1) that the respondent will not engage in the conduct
from which he is ordered to cease and desist in paragraph 1 (a), (b),
(c), and (d) hereof; (2) that the respondent will take the affirmative
action set forth in paragraph 2 (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (f), and (g)
hereof; and (3) that the respondent's employees are free to become or
remain members of Local 1224, United Electrical, Radio, and Ma-
chine Workers of America, C. I. 0., and that the respondent will
not discriminate against any employee because of membership or
activity in.that organization;
(i) Notify the Regional Director for the Second Region (New
York City) in writing within ten (10) days from the date of this
Order what steps the respondent has taken to comply herewith.
AND IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint be, and it hereby is,
dismissed insofar as it alleges that the respondent engaged in unfair
labor practices within the meaning,of Section 8 (5) of the Act.
463892-42--vol . 41-9::