Quidnick Dye Works, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 11, 1937

2 N.L.R.B. 963 (N.L.R.B. 1937)

In the Matter Of QUIDNICK DYE WORKS , INC. and FEDERATION OF
DYERS, FINISHERS , PRINTERS AND BLEACHERS OF AMERICA
Case No. C-149.-Decided June 11, 1937
Textile Dyennq, Printing and Finishing Industry-Interference, Restraint or
Coercion: surveillance of, questioning employees regarding organizational activi-
ties and meetings ; discrediting union ; threat to close plant ; engendering fear
of loss of employment for union membership and activity-Discrimination: dis-
charge--Reinstatement Ordered-Back pay: awarded.
Mr. Edmund J. Blake for the Board.
Mr. Herman J. Aisenberg and Mr. Patrick H. Quinn, of Providence,
R. I., for respondent.
Mr. Julius Schlezinger, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF CASE
In April, 1936, the Federation of Dyers, Finishers, Printers and
Bleachers of America, hereinafter called the Union, filed a charge with
the Acting Regional Director for the First Region (Boston, Massa-
chusetts) against the Quidnick Dye Works, Inc., Coventry, Rhode
Island,, charging that Company with violation of Section 8, subdi-
visions (1) and (3) of the National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449,
hereinafter referred to as the Act. On May 5, 1936, the National
Labor Relations Board, hereinafter called the Board, by the Acting
Regional Director for the First Region, issued its complaint against
the Quidnick Dye Works, Inc., hereinafter referred to as the re-
spondent, alleging that the respondent had engaged in unfair labor
practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8, sub-
divisions (1) and (3), and Section 2, subdivisions (6) and (7) of
the Act, in that the respondent had discharged and refused to reinstate
Peter Greenleaf and Theodore Greenleaf, workmen employed by the
respondent in its plant at Coventry, Rhode Island, for the reason that
they had assisted the Union and had engaged in concerted activities
with other employees of the respondent for the purpose of collective
bargaining and other mutual aid and protection. The complaint and
accompanying notice of hearing were duly served upon the parties.
1 The charge refers to the company as "The Quidnick Dye Works, of West Warwick,
Rhode Island".
5727-37-vol. ii--62
963
964 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Pursuant to the notice of hearing , a hearing was conducted by Rob-
ert M . Gates, the Trial Examiner duly designated by the Board, on
May 14, 1936 , and testimony was taken . Full opportunity to be heard,
to examine and to cross -examine -witnesses , and to introduce evidence
bearing upon the issues was afforded to the parties . At the hearing
respondent appeared and objected to the proceedings upon the grounds
that it is not engaged in interstate commerce and that the Act is
unconstitutional in that it violates Article 1 of Section 1 of the Consti-
tution of the United. States and the Fourth , Fifth and Tenth Amend-
ments to the Constitution . The Trial Examiner overruled the objec-
tion without prejudice to the respondent to renew it after the
introduction of evidence with respect to the jurisdiction of the Board.
At the conclusion of the hearing the respondent moved to dismiss the
complaint . This motion was denied by the Trial Examiner. The
respondent took exception to this ruling and to various other rulings
made by the Trial Examiner during the course of the hearing. All
rulings of the Trial Examiner are hereby affirmed.
On May 19, 1936, the respondent , pursuant to an extension of time
granted to it by the Trial Examiner, filed an answer to the complaint.
The answer admitted the discharge of Peter Greenleaf and Theodore
Greenleaf but denied that they were discharged because of their
Union activities . The answer also denied that the respondent is
engaged in interstate commerce and it alleged the unconstitutionality
of the Act.
Thereafter , the Trial Examiner duly filed his Intermediate Report.
He found that the respondent had discharged Peter Greenleaf for the
reason that he had joined and assisted the Union , and had discharged
Theodore Greenleaf for the reason that his brother , Peter, had joined
and assisted the Union . He found further that by virtue of such
discharges the respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair
labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8,
subdivisions (1) and ( 3), and Section 2, subdivisions (6) and (7)
of the Act. The Trial Examiner recommended that the respondent
cease and desist from its unfair labor practices and, in addition, offer
reinstatement to the discharged employees with back pay. The
respondent has not complied with these recommendations.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE RESPONDENT
The Quidnick Dye Works, Inc., is a Rhode Island corporation
which owns and operates at Coventry, Rhode Island, a plant for the
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 965
dyeing and finishing of silk and rayon textiles.2 The respondent does
not nlanufact tire any of the textiles colored at its plant, and title to
the cloth is always in the respondent's customers. Practically all of
the goods handled by the respondent are shipped to it from States
other than Rhode Island and, after they have been dyed and finished,
returned to customers located outside P.llode Island. The shop fore-
man of the respondent stated at the hearing that the respondent's
customers in Rhode Island "wouldn't amount to hardly anything at
all". About 50 per cent in bulk, though not in value, of the soap,
chemicals, dyes, and other materials used in the coloring of the tex-
tiles are purchased from outside Rhode Island.
About 200 persons are employed by the respondent at its Coventry
plant. When the plant operates on a double shift basis, approxi-
mately 60,000 yards of silk and 200,000 yards of rayon are handled
each week. It normally requires three days to dye and finish textiles
and prepare them for delivery.
IT. TIIE UNION
The Federation of Dyers, Finishers, Printers and Bleachers of
America is a labor organization including as members persons em-
ployed in the dyeing and finishing trade. It is a department of the
United Textile Workers of America.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Attempt to organize respondent's plant
Early in March, 1936, Jack Rubenstein, an organizer for the Union,
started an attempt to organize the workers at the respondent's plant."
The organization work culminated in a meeting on Sunday, March 22,
in the adjoining town of West Warwick. This meeting was attended
by about 15 of the respondent's employees. Edward J. Capuano,
the shop foreman of the respondent, sat in his car across the street
from the meeting hall observing the persons entering the hall.
'For a description of the dyeing and finishing industry and its relation to interstate
commerce, see the decision of the National Labor Relations Board in the Matter of
Martin Dyeing and Finishing Company and Federation of Dyers, Finishers, Printers
and Bleaches of Anirrlcn, Case No. r-123, decided Deemher 7, 1936 ( supra, V. 403).
In that case the Board said:
"The dyeing and finishing industry forms a bottle -neck for the textile industry as
a whole. Any eventuality, such as a shortage of dyestuffs experienced during the
Great war, a flood such as occurred in the Spring of 1936, or a strike, that would
clog up this bottle-neck would create a chaotic condition in the textile industry as
a whole; goods would back up on the grey mills, the users of finished textiles
would be without materials essential to production, the flow of raw materials to
the mills would be interrupted , and the flow of interstate commerce in a very wide
circle would be affected."
A previous attempt to organize the respondent's employees had been made some
months before . A meeting had been called in a hall opposite the plant but, when the
shop foreman and other officials of the Company sat down on the doorstep , no one entered.
966 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The following day Capuano held a meeting in his office of those
employees whom he had seen go into the meeting hall and questioned
them concerning the Union meeting. He told them that "the union
was a lot of graft and not to bother with it" and that if they were
dissatisfied with conditions at the plant, they were to come to him
with their grievances. Another official of the respondent, called
the head dyer, was present and informed the men that the plant had
been moved to Rhode Island from New Jersey because of the Union.
He warned them that the plant would be closed if a union was ever
organized at the Quidnick Dye Works.'
The second and third meetings of the Union were held on the suc-
ceeding two Sundays. As a result of the meeting in Capuano's office,
attendance dropped and no more than 10 or 11 were present at either
meeting. Immediately following the third Union meeting, Peter and
Theodore Greenleaf were discharged. Obviously intimidated by
these discharges, none of the respondent's employees attended the
next Union meeting.
B. Peter Greenleaf
At the time of the hearing Peter Greenleaf was 20 years of age and
had been employed by the respondent for about two years. During
that period he had worked at five different occupations, the last being
that of a folder of silk. He had been engaged at this particular
occupation for about three or four months at the time of his dis-
charge. The folder's duties consisted of operating the machine which
folded the finished materials and of measuring the goods and in-
specting them for defects. Peter Greenleaf was the only folder of
silk in the plant at the time, although he had a helper named Ernest
Doucette. He was paid on a piecework basis and his earnings aver-
aged approximately $28 for a week of from 75 to 80 hours.
Peter Greenleaf had attended the first Union meeting and was
among the group who were called into Capuano's office. He contin-
ued his interest in the Union, however, and attempted to influence
other employees at the plant to join. He himself joined the Union
and paid his initiation fee at its third meeting. The following day,
April 6, 1936, he was discharged. Peter Greenleaf was the only
employee of the respondent who actually paid an initiation fee to
the Union.
Peter Greenleaf testified that he was discharged because of his
Union activities. When questioned concerning the reason which
Capuano gave him for his dismissal, he replied, "Well, that is what
he told me, that if I wasn't satisfied with my job, to see him instead
of seeing the Union. Now he told me to tell the union to get me a
4 The record does not contain any other information in regard to the removal of the
respondent ' s plant from New Jersey.
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 967
job." Capuano denied making this statement but his denial is not
persuasive when considered in the light of his admittedly intense in-
terest in the Union.
The respondent contended that Peter Greenleaf was discharged
because of inefficiency and not because of his Union membership
and activities. This contention was based upon defects which he
had overlooked and errors in measuring for which he was respon-
sible. Exhibits 5 showing such errors were introduced and both
Capuano and Peter Greenleaf's foreman testified that numerous com-
plaints of defects and shortages had been received during the months
of March and April, 1936. The mistakes referred to in the respond-
ent's exhibits, however, totaled up to only some 35 yards, a figure so
small when considered together with the fact that Peter Greenleaf
handled tens of thousands of yards of silk each week and worked
from 75 to 80 hours in doing so, that it leaves the impression the er-
rors were normal mistakes expected to occur in the regular course of
business. Furthermore, approximately one-third of the invoices, of
which the respondent's exhibits very largely consisted, bore along-
side the initials of Peter Greenleaf the initials of Ernest Doucette,
Peter Greenleaf's helper and the man who succeeded to his job.
C. Theodore Greenleaf
Theodore Greenleaf, Peter Greenleaf Is brother, was 23 years of age
at the time of the hearing and had worked for the respondent for
about one year. His duties consisted of opening up the bundles of
dyed textiles which had been extracted from the dyeing vessels and
of spreading them out in box trucks. His earnings were approxi-
mately $20 for a work week of some 60 hours.
Unlike his brother Peter, Theodore -Greenleaf had attended only
the first Union meeting. He was not present at the meeting in
Capuano's office but testified that he was warned by Capuano later
in the same day "to keep away from there (i. e., the Union meetings)
if I knew what was good for me". Frightened by this warning, he
did stay away from the next two meetings. His precaution was of
no avail, however, for on April 7, 1936, the day following his brother's
dismissal, Theodore Greenleaf was called into Capuano's office and
discharged. No reason was given to him for this action.
The respondent contended that Theodore Greenleaf was discharged
for inefficiency. On the other hand, Theodore Greenleaf testified
that his work had never been criticized. There is no need to weigh
this -conflicting testimony, however, for respondent admitted that
the immediate reason for Theodore Greenleaf's dismissal was the
dismissal of his brother the day before. Capuano stated that he
n Respondent 's Exhibits 2 to 11B inclusive.
968 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
fired Theodore Greenleaf because he thought it was an opportune
time to do so , and when questioned as to why he considered it an
opportune time, he replied , "Because his brother was going out
then."
D. Conclusions with respect to the unfair labor practices
The discharge of Peter Greenleaf on the day following his affilia-
tion with the Union , when considered together with the respondent's
anti-Union activities , clearly indicates that such discharge was made
because he had joined and assisted the Union . The dismissal of
Theodore Greenleaf was a direct result of Peter Greenleaf's dis-
charge. The respondent 's conduct in so discharging Peter Green-
leaf and Theodore Greenleaf was calculated to and did have the
necessary effect of discouraging membership in the Union. We find
that the respondent has discriminated against its employees in re-
gard to hire and tenure of employment , and has interfered with, re-
strained , and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights
guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
The work of Peter and Theodore Greenleaf having ceased as a
result of an unfair labor practice , they at all times thereafter retained
their status as employees of the respondent within the meaning of
Section 2, subdivision (3) of the Act . Neither Peter Greenleaf nor
Theodore Greenleaf has obtained any other regular or substantially
equivalent employment so as to terminate their status as employees of
the respondent . At the time of the hearing Peter Greenleaf had been
working as a waiter in a nearby town for about three weeks. For
this work he was receiving $15.00 a month , board and room, and
tips which averaged around one dollar per day. At the same time,
Theodore Greenleaf had been employed for two weeks at common
labor with a pick and shovel . For this work he was receiving
$14.00 per week . Otherwise , neither Peter nor Theodore Greenleaf
have had any work since their discharge.
IV. EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES ON COMMERCE
The activities of respondent set forth in Section III above, oc-
curring in connection with the operations of respondent described
in Section I above, have a close, intimate , and substantial relation
to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States, and tend
to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and
the free flow of commerce.
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 969
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact the Board makes
the following conclusions of law :
1. The Federation of Dyers, Finishers , Printers and Bleachers of
America is a labor organization , within the meaning of Section 2,
subdivision (5) of the Act.
2. Peter Greenleaf and Theodore Greenleaf were at the .time of
their discharge , and at all times thereafter , employees of the re-
spondent , within the meaning of Section 2, subdivision (3) of the
Act.
3. The respondent , by discriminating in regard to the hire and
tenure of employment of Peter Greenleaf and Theodore Greenleaf,
has engaged in and , is engaging in unfair labor practices , within
the meaning of Section 8, subdivision (3) of the Act.
4. The respondent , by interfering with, restraining , and coercing
its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7
of the Act, has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices,
within the meaning of Section 8 , subdivision ( 1) of the Act.
5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices
affecting commerce, within the meaning of Section 2, subdivisions
( 6) and (7) of the Act.
ORDER
On the basis of the findings and conclusions of law , and pursuant
to Section 10, subdivision ( c) of the National Labor Relations Act,
the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the respond-
ent, Quidnick Dye Works , Inc., and its officers, agents , successors, and
assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from discouraging membership in the Federa-
tion of Dyers, Finishers , Printers and Bleachers of America, or any
other labor organization of its employees , by discharging , threaten-
ing to discharge, or refusing to reinstate any of its employees for
joining or assisting the Federation of Dyers, Finishers , Printers and
Bleachers of America , or any other labor organization of its em-
ployees;
2. Cease and desist from in any manner discriminating against
any of its employees in regard to hire or tenure of employment for
joining or assisting the Federation of Dyers, Finishers, Printers and
Bleachers of America , or any other labor organization of its em-
ployees; and
3. Cease and desist from in any manner interfering with, restrain-
ing, or coercing its employees in the exercise of their rights to self-
organization , to form, join or assist labor organizations , to bargain
collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to
970 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargain-
ing or other mutual aid or protection, as guaranteed in Section 7 of
the National Labor Relations Act.
4. Take the following affirmative action, which the Board finds
will effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Offer to Peter Greenleaf and Theodore Greenleaf immediate
and full reinstatement, respectively, to their former positions, with-
out prejudice to any rights and privileges previously enjoyed by
them ;
(b) Make whole said Peter Greenleaf and Theodore Greenleaf
for any loss of pay they have suffered by reason of their discharge
by payment, respectively, of a sum of money equal to that which
each would have earned as wages during the period from the date
of his discharge to the date of such offer of reinstatement, less the
amount each has earned during that period;
(c) Post immediately notices to its employees in conspicuous places
throughout its plant, stating (1) that the respondent will cease and
desist in the manner aforesaid, and (2) that such notices will remain
posted for a period of at least thirty (30) consecutive days from the
date of posting ;
(d) Notify the Regional Director for the First Region in writing
within ten (10) days from the date of this order what steps the re-
spondent has taken to comply herewith.