Rabhor Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 7, 1936

1 N.L.R.B. 470 (N.L.R.B. 1936)

In the Matter of RABHOR COMPANY, INC., A CORPORATION and INTER-
NATIONAL LADIES' GARMENT WORKERS UNION
Case No. C-29.-Decided April 7, 1936
Bathrobe Indus try-Interference Restraint or Coercion: surveillance of union
meetings and activities ; denial of right of employees to be represented by nou-
employees-Strike-Unit Appioprlate for Collective Bargaining : community of
interest ; eligibility for membership in only organization making bona fide effort
at collective bargaining ; production employees-Representatives : proof of
choice : participation in strike called by union ; strike benefit payroll ; state-
ment designating-Collective bargaining employer 's duty as affected by strike ;
refusal to meet with representatives-Reinstatement Ordered, Strikers: dis-
placement of employees hired during strike.
Mr. Laurence A. Knapp for the Board.
Mr. Erwin Feldman, of New York City, for respondent. Keogh c
Gandee, of South Norwalk, Conn., of counsel.
Mr. Elias Lieberman, of New York City, for the Union.
Mr. Louis L. Jaffe, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF CASE
On November 12, 1935, the International Ladies' Garment Workers
Union, hereinafter called the Union, filed with the Regional Direc-
tor for the Second Region, a charge that the Rabhor Company, In-
corporated, Norwalk, Connecticut, had engaged in and was engaging
in unfair labor practices contrary to the National Labor Relations
Act, approved July 5, 1935. On December 11, 1935 the Board issued
a complaint against the Rabhor Company, Incorporated, hereinafter
called the respondent, said complaint being signed by the Regional
Director for the Second Region, and alleging that the respondent
had committed unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the
meaning of Section 8, subdivisions (1) and (5) and Section 2, sub-
diviaions (6) and (7) of the Act.
In respect to the unfair labor practices, the complaint (as
amended at the hearing)' alleged that the employees of the re-
'In the original complaint , it was stated that the employees on September 25th
designated the Union as their representative by accepting membership in the Union.
By amendment the date was changed to September 27th and the reference to accepting
membership in the Union was omitted.
470
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 471
spondent engaged in its Norwalk Plant in shop work, exclusive of
supervisory workers, constituted a unit appropriate for the pur-
poses of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b)
of the Act; that on or before September 27, 1935, a majority of these
employees designated the Union as their representative for purposes
of collective bargaining; that on September 27, September 30, and
October 25, 1935, the Union requested the respondent to enter into
negotiations with it in respect to wages and conditions of employ-
ment and that the respondent at all these times and at all times since
has refused to bargain with the Union on behalf of its employees;
and that such refusal constitutes a violation of Section 8, subdivisions
(1) and (5) of the Act.
The complaint and accompanying notice of hearing were served
on the parties in accordance with Article V of National Labor Rela-
tions Board Rules and Regulations-Series 1. On January 9, 1936,
the Board, pursuant to Section 35, Article II of said Rules and Reg-
ulations, directed that the proceeding be transferred to and con-
tinued before it. Commencing on January 10, 1936, and concluding
on January 15, 1936, a hearing was held at Norwalk, Connecticut,
by Robert M. Gates, the Trial Examiner designated by the Board,
and testimony was taken. Full opportunity to be heard, to examine
and cross-examine witnesses and to introduce evidence bearing on
the issues was offered to all parties. The respondent appeared
specially to move that the complaint be dismissed on the grounds
that the Act is unconstitutional because the subject matter with
which it deals it not commerce within the meaning of Article I, Sec-
tion 8, Clause 3 of the Constitution of the United States, and be-
cause it violates the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution; on the
further ground that, not being engaged in commerce, the Act is
not applicable to it; and, finally, on the ground that the Union is a
"non-resident union", that its purpose is to compel the respondent
to move its plant from Norwalk, Connecticut, to New York City,
and that the Union is under investigation in New York. The Trial
Examiner denied the motion to dismiss. Respondent then partici-
pated in the hearing until it withdrew on January 15th, the last day
thereof. On February 11, 1936, counsel for respondent, pursuant to
his request, orally argued the case and made certain statements for
the record before the Board at Washington.
Upon the entire record in the case, including the stenographic
transcript of the hearing, the documentary and other evidence re-
ceived at the hearing, the briefs submitted, and the oral argument,
the Board makes the following :
2 Respondent complains of the iefusal of the Board to issue certain subpoenas This is
considered below
97571-36-vol t-31
472 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. The Rabhor Company, Incorporated. The respondent is a New
York corporation engaged in the manufacture and distribution of
bathrobes,'beach robes and jackets for men and women. It has its
factory in Norwalk, Connecticut. It is the largest unit in the in-
dustry. It does an annual business of about $2,000,000. (B-19.)
The respondent secures 75% or more of its raw materials-terry
cloth, flannel, cotton piece goods, silks, beacon cloth, braid, thread,
binding, cotton fibre hats-from out of the State of Connecticut.
The respondent ships 75% or more, of its finished product out of
Connecticut.
We find that the operations of the respondent constitute a con-
tinuous flow of trade, traffic and commerce among the several States.
2. Strike of respondent's employees. In the early part of 1935,
the Union, which is a labor organization, attempted to organize the
bathrobe workers in and about New York City. It communicated
with all bathrobe manufacturers, including the respondent, advising
them that the workers wished to enter into collective bargaining.
Some employers responded to this communication; the respondent,
and some others, did not. On August 26, 1935, the Union called a
strike of all bathrobe workers in New York City and succeeded,
within a period of five days, in negotiating contracts with most of the
manufacturers. There was no strike, however, in the respondent's
plant-none of its employees were Union members-nor in the Royal
Robe Company, the two largest operators in Norwalk, Connecticut.
The Union did not succeed in negotiating contracts with either.
Charles Schwartz, a Union organizer, while in Norwalk in the
summer of 1935 to organize a belt shop, was approached by some of
respondent's employees relativie to organization by the Union of
respondent's plant. Certain employees approached the New York
headquarters of the Union for the same purpose. As a result of
these requests the Union sent Miss May Gippa to Norwalk to attempt
to organize respondent's plant, and rented offices there. She cane
to Norwalk on Monday, September 16th. She and Charles Schwartz
spread Union leaflets calling for a meeting on the night of September
17th to be held under the auspices of the Union. Only about 10 per-
sons appeared at the meeting. . During the rest of the week she
visited the homes of 25 or more employees and talked to them of
their working conditions. She found most of these people sympa-
thetic with the announced Union objectives. She found difficulty,
however, in arranging meetings, because, as shle was told, many
feared that the respondent would station spies near the meeting hall
and observe those who entered. In fact, officers of the Iespondent
were seen nearcthe meeting hall on the occasion of various Union
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 473
meetings. Certain of the workers asked that an accredited officer of
the Union appear in Norwalk , so that they might be assured of the
bona fides . of the Union , of its objectives , and of its organizers. Dur-
ing the previous year, they had been misled , as they believed, by
another union . Harry Greenberg , a vice-president of the Union, in
charge of the organization of bathrobe workers, came to Norwalk.
He talked with interested workers and told them of the Union's objec-
tives and achievements.
On September 24, 1935, the pressers , having for some time dis-
cussed their grievances among themselves , decided that they would
walk out in the afternoon . During the period when the National
Industrial Recovery Act was in effect, the plant had operated under
a code limiting the normal working week to five days from 8 to 5
o'clock. Work on Saturdays and time after 5 o'clock was overtime
and paid time and a half. Since the collapse of the code, overtime,
which at certain seasons of the year was considerable , was paid for
at only the regular wage . The men complained of the amount of
overtime and of the wages, both generally and as related to over-
time. On the afternoon of September 24th at 3 o'clock, the
pressers laid down their work and got their coats. Officers of
the respondent came upon the scene and threatened the men with
permanent discharge if they left. The men stated their grievances.
George Safir, the general manager, induced them to return to their
work.' He then approached certain of the pressers individually and
promised them raises of $1 per week. The pressers were not
satisfied . They resolved to go to the Union organizers and consult
them. The Union organizers told them to come to a meeting which
had been previously scheduled for organizational purposes, that
evening in Moose Hall.
The pressers and the Union organizers fearing espionage, met in-
stead at Union headquarters. The pressers said that they intended
to strike . The organizers doubted that enough of the employees
were ready . The pressers and four or five girls present assured them
that a majority were ready . Miss Gippa telephoned Greenberg in
New York City. He said that if the workers insisted on striking to
let them go ahead and the Union would help them. Miss Gippa then
assisted them in the preparation of a leaflet . The leaflet announced
that Rabhor Workers had voted to strike for (1) a union shop; (2)
371/2 hour week; ( 3) time and a half for overtime ; (4) a decent liv-
ing wage; ( 5) security of the job; ( 6) equal division of work. The
leaflet announced a meeting of "Rabhor strikers" at 10 A. M. the
following morning ( September 25th) in Moose Hall (B-16).
On the morning of September 25th, 147 people were out on strike.
Mr. Greenberg in New York was informed by telephone of the fact.
He telephoned to Leo Safir, president of respondent . He had asked
474 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the New York telephone operator to leave the switch to Norwalk
open and he heard the operator in Norwalk tell the New York
operator that Mr. Safir did not wish to talk to Mr. Greenberg. Mr.
Greenberg came to Norwalk and at one o'clock addressed the strikers'
meeting in Moose Hall. He told them that the Union had attempted
to reach the respondent to enter into collective bargaining; that the
Union would try again; that if Safir's continued refusal to meet
should necessitate a, prolonged strike, in the name of the "Interna-
tional", (the Union) he, Greenberg, pledged them strike benefits for
the duration of the strike. He advised them to picket peace-
fully. On September 27th the plant including the shipping room
chosed down and operations ceased. The plant was reopened on
October 4th (B-19).
3. The Union as representative of the emplloyees. The complaint
alleges that the employees of the respondent engaged in shop work
and not engaged in a supervisory capacity constitute a unit appro-
priate for purposes of collective bargaining. All such persons are
eligible to membership in the Union; all have a community of inter-
est. We find that such employees constitute an appropriate unit for
purposes of collective bargaining. At the time of the strike there
were 350 such employees. This figure is derived from two sources :
first, the testimony of workers in the various departments as to the
numbers of their co-workers; second, an allegation by respondent in
a petition filed in a State court for an injunction against the picketing
of its plant (B-19).
On Wednesday, September 25th, 147 employees answered the strike
call and signed their names to a roll at the strikers' meeting in Moose
Hall. Each day new strikers added their names. Each received a
strike card with the date stamped on it. These cards were issued to
enable the Union to determine to whom and in what amounts strike
benefits were payable. The benefit was $1 per day, exclusive of
Saturdays and Sundays. To be entitled to payment for any day,
a striker had to have his card stamped on that day. At the end of
the first week, October 2nd, a payroll was made up from the roll
of strikers. Upon this payroll was entered the name of the striker,
the amount owing to each for the week, and, upon receipt of the
strike benefit, his signature. This procedure was followed thereafter
and was still being practiced at the time of the hearing. A photo-
static copy of the strike benefit payroll as of October 2nd was put in
evidence. There were 219 signatures upon it and May Gippa, who
prepared the roll and witnessed the signatures, testified as to their
genuineness.
On Thursday, September 26th, 184 persons were on strike, on
Friday, 210, on the following Monday, September 30th, 219, on
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 475
Tuesday, 221, on Wednesday, 221. At no time since has the Union
paid strike benefits to fewer than 182.
On Saturday, September 28th, at the Union meeting in Moose
Hall, it was resolved unanimously (the resolution was oral) that the
strikers would not confer with the respondent unless a representative
of the Union were present. This resolution seems to have been taken
because of an incident which happened the day before. The Chief
of Police had asked a committee of 5 strikers to meet together, at the
City Hall, with a committee of 5 non-striking employees relative to
the policing of the plant during the strike. Greenberg author-
ized the sending of a committee, which was chosen by the strikers.
At the Council Chambers in the City Hall, the committee found not
only the Chief of Police and the non-strikers committee, but Leo
and George Safir, the president and general manager, respectively,
of the respondent, their attorneys, and certain detectives. The em-
ployees who had remained in the plant were asked to give their
opinion of conditions in the plant and after that Leo Safir argued
with the strikers as to their demands and grievances. The strikers
felt that they should not enter into such discussions without their
Union representatives. They summoned Mr. Greenberg to the meet-
ing. When he came into the hall, Leo Safir turned to his group
and said, "Come on. I won't be in the same room with Mr. Green-
berg, representative of the Union," and walked out.
In the middle of October 189 strikers signed a paper stating that
"we have chosen and hereby designate" the Union as our "exclusive
representative." The respondent had at this time brought suit
against the Union to enjoin it and the strikers from picketing. This
paper was prepared for possible assistance in that suit. Of the 189
signatories, 182 were persons who had received and signed for the
first weekly strike benefit payment.
We find below that there were on Monday, September 30 and on
October - 25th, refusals by the respondent to bargain. Our question,
therefore, is whether on those dates the Union represented a majority
of the employees. There had not been on September 30th a formal
designation such as was made two weeks later. But on the previous
Friday 210 persons and on Monday 219 persons were not only out on
strike, but they had personally signed a strikers roll at Union head-
quarters and were receiving strike benefits from the union. This
was more than half of the 350 workers in the plant. These figures
are based on the number receiving strike benefits and as such, are
well authenticated and exactly determined. We have in the record
the strike benefit payroll for the week ending October 2, contem-
poraneously compiled, showing the name of each person and, oppo-
site his name, the signature of the person. By accepting and sign-
476 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ing for a strike benefit, the signer asserted his position as a striker
making common cause with other strikers.
The strikers were acting under the auspices and leadership of the
Union. This is not less true, because the initial impulse actually to
strike came from certain of the workers. Those same workers had
asked the Union to send organizers to Norwalk and one week before
the strike this was done. A number of workers had asked that an
important Union official some to Norwalk so that they might be
assured of the competence and integrity of the organization, which
they were to choose to lead them. The first call to meeting 8 days
before the strike was signed by the Union; the leaflet stated, "The
organization campaign is under the personal supervision of Mr. H.
Greenberg, Vice-president of the International Ladies' Garment
Workers' Union." The strike call, itself, was signed by the Union.
The leaflet stated, "8000 Bathrobe Workers have already learned that
in a Union there is strength. * * * Stick together and you will
win." The Union had formulated the demands. On the day of the
strike Greenberg addressing a meeting of the strikers told them that
he was attempting to negotiate with the respondent. Every day
thereafter meetings of the strikers were held under Union auspices.
The strikers' committee which went to the City Hall on Friday took
instructions from the Union. On Saturday, the strikers meeting
iesolved that no conferences with the respondent should be held
without the presence of a Union official. Finally, the financial sup-
port of the strike came entirely from the Union.
A majority of the workers have adhered constantly and consist-
ently to the Union leadership. Of the 189 persons signing the for-
mal designation in the middle of October, 182-a majority-received
strike benefits in the first week of the strike, and even up to the
time of the hearing, January 10, 1936, there had never been fewer
than 182 receiving strike benefits.
The leadership of a strike is necessarily entrusted with the func-
tion of collective bargaining during the strike. It has formulated
the demands and called the strike to win them. It has constantly
before it the problem of finding ways and means to achieve the ob-
jectives, and among the means, one of the most important and most
usual is collective bargaining. We find, therefore, that a majority of
the shop employees of the respondent had on Thursday September
26th and at all times thereafter designated the Union as their rep-
resentative for collective bargaining.
4. The unfair labor practices. As found above, on Wednesday,
the day of the strike, Greenberg had attempted by telephone to
speak to Leo Safir and had heard the Norwalk operator say that
Safir did not wish to speak to him. And on Friday, George and Leo
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 477
Safir said in Greenberg's presence that they would not stay in the
same room with him.
Late Friday afternoon, September 27th, Greenberg told Charles
Schwartz, Mayor of Norwalk, of the incident that had occurred
shortly before in the Council Chamber and intimated that he would
like the Mayor to arrange a meeting between the respondent and the
Union. The Mayor telephoned respondent. He spoke with one whom
he believed to be George Safir. He asked whether a meeting might
be arranged. He was told that Leo Safir, the president, was out of
-town, but that, in any case, it was doubtful that a sleeting could be
arranged. On Monday morning, the Mayor telephoned again. He
spoke with George Safir. George Safir told him that "he would
prefer to close the plant entirely rather than meet with the officials
of the Union."
The Union then requested the Connecticut Board of Mediation
to call a conference of the respondent and the strikers in order to
bring about a settlement under its auspices. This conference was
held on October 25th. The respondent at this conference stated that
it would refuse to give any information in the presence of the strike
committee; that the information was confidential. The Union
representatives withdrew. Each side presented its material without
the presence of the other. Leo Safir told the Mediation Board that
he would not meet with the Union. The Board then issued a
statement that "at the present time the emotional situation is such
as to preclude the possibility of successful mediation."
As we understand it, the respondent does not deny that it has
refused and would refuse to meet with the Union. Counsel for re-
spondent, in argument, said that an employer was under no duty to
meet with a union, such as it conceived the International to be. It
charges the Union with having brought the workers out on strike
by false statements and promises, and with having induced strikers to
engage in acts of violence. The respondent maintains that the Union
told the workers that wages were lower in its plant than in "union
shops" and that it would secure certain union scale wages for them.
The respondent offered to prove 8 that wages paid by it were as good
as or even better than wages in union shops and that the Union in
these shops had accepted less than the avowed minimums. There is
some evidence that the organizers stated to some workers that the
Union insisted on certain minimum wages. In the strike call, which
definitely stated the objectives, the demand was simply for "a decent
living wage." In any case, the argument is not relevant. Where
groups are to be organized and moved into action it is not unusual
8 Respondent's demand for subpoenas in order to make the offered proof will be discussed
below.
478 NATIONAL LABOR RELATION'S BOARD
for the leaders to promise more than can be secured or to indulge
in some exaggeration. Indeed, it is one of the functions of collec-
tive bargaining to eliminate the misunderstandings that are bound
to arise in these struggles and to resolve demands into what can be
achieved. The Act does not give to us the mandate to examine the
speeches and the conduct of those whom the employees choose to fol-
low, and to determine whether, in our opinion, they are worthy to
lead. That is for the workers alone to decide.
The respondent makes a similar point with respect to the alleged
Union encouragement of violence upon the put of pickets and
strikers. It appears that some of them were found guilty of assault
upon workers in the plant; that about a month after the strike was
called the respondent petitioned a State court for an injunction
against picketing by the Union and the strikers upon the ground of
violence; and that the injunction was granted. We do not know
when these assaults took place. There is nothing in the record to
show that the Union was responsible for them. Furthermore, we
doubt that this phase of the strike accounts for the respondent's
refusal to bargain. Leo Safir refused to talk with Greenberg at
9: 00 o'clock A. M. on the first day of the strike. In any case the
fact that during a strike, necessarily a time of heated emotions, the
bounds of permissible conduct may have been overstepped by men
or leaders cannot be used to deny to employees their full right of
representation.
We conclude that the respondent on September 30 and October 25,
1935, refused to bargain collectively with the Union as the representa-
tive of its employees, and by such acts has interfered with and
restrained its employees in the exercise of the right to self-organiza-
tion, to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collec-
tively 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 conclude further that such acts
have led and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening'and obstructing
commerce and the free flow thereof. Q)
OBJECTIONS TO THE REFUSAL TO ISSUE SUBPOENAS
The respondent challenges the fairness of the hearing because of
the refusal to issue on its behalf certain subpoenas. Section 11, sub-
division (1) of the Act gives to any member of the Board the power
to issue subpoenas. Article II, Section 19 of National Labor Relations
Board Rules and Regulations, Series 1, provides that "applications
for the issuance of . . . subpoenas may be .filed with the Regional
Director by any party to the proceedings. Such applications shall be
timely and shall specify the name of the witness and the nature of the"
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 479
facts to be proved by him, and must specify the documents, the pro-
duction of which is desired, with such particularity as will enable
them to be identified for purposes of production."
The respondent asked for subpoenas on the Reverend James Zeigler,
and on Bessie and Samuel Jobrock, doing business as J. & W. Bath-
robe Company, a competitor; also for a subpoena daces tecur on
J. & W. Bathrobe Company to bring in all time records, payroll
records and books, showing hours of work and weekly wages. The
Board refused to issue the subpoena daces tecunn but did authorize
the issuance of the other two subpoenas. Though the requests
for subpoenas had been signed by the respondent only after the
hearing had been in progress some days, the Board did not con-
sider the authorizations in respect to the Reverend Zeigler and the
Jobrocks untimely because those persons were residents of Norwalk
and would be quickly available.
Not being allowed a subpoena daces teem' for the "J. & W."
records, respondent demanded a subpoena on S. L. Hoffman, New
York City, and a subpoena daces tecum on the Union requiring it to
produce all contracts made by its Local 91-composed of robe work-
ers-during 1935 with plants located outside of New York City.
Both subpoenas were refused. Thereupon, the respondent withdrew
from the hearing.
The respondent claims, apparently, that the refusal to issue sub-
poenas was arbitrary. The respondent's requests for subpoenas did
not state "the nature of the facts to be proved" as required by the
rules. The respondent has not excused this omission. The reason-
ableness of the requirement seems to be beyond question. The Board
can not be required to exercise the process of bringing witnesses to a
hearing where either the relevancy of the evidence offered does not
appear or it appears affirmatively that the offer will not be relevant.
The Board was willing to issue subpoenas for the Reverend Zeigler
and the Jobrocks, without a statement of what they would prove, be-
cause they were in the vicinity and the inconveniences to them would
be trifling. But S. L. Hoffman was in New York City. The Board
was unable to see what could be the relevancy of the employment
records of one of the respondent's competitors or of the Union's
agreements with competitors, and the respondent did not, as required
by the rules, make it clear.
In any case, the respondent can show no damage by reason of the
refusal. Counsel for respondent advised the Board, on the argument
before it, that he desired to prove by S. L. Hoffman and by the
records of "J. & W." and the Union that conditions in the respond-
ent's shop were as good as or better than conditions in "union shops;"
that the statements of the Union to the contrary were slanderous and
480 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
were misleading to the respondent 's employees ; and that because of
them the respondent was under no duty to bargain with the Union.
We have already disposed of this argument on the assumption that
the respondent could have made good on the offer of proof, and stated
our opinion that the entire line of proof and the argument have no
bearing on the issues . The respondent claims further that it with-
drew from the hearing because it became aware that the Board would
issue no subpoenas whatever on its behalf and counsel has told us
about all the subpoenas which he would have asked for but never did.
This claim is directly and positively refuted by the record. The
Board did in fact authorize the issuance of two subpoenas at the re-
spondent 's request.
THE REMEDY
We said in the Matter o l Columbian Enameling cC Stamping Com-
pany: "It would be futile simply to order the respondent to bargain
with the union since the plant now has its full quota of men and the
process of collective bargaining could yield little comfort to those
Who are not employed . .. Under these circumstances We must
restore, as far as possible , the situation existing prior to the violation
of the Act, in order that the process of collective bargaining, which
was interrupted , may be continued."
If the respondent had met the representatives of its employees, an
agreement might have been reached ; the employees might have re-
turned to work. Again quoting from the Columbian case : "It does
not lie in - the mouth of the respondent to say that this result would
not necessarily have followed . The law imposed a duty to bargain
ender , these circumstances because that result might have followed.
It is respondent 's conduct which has precluded that possibility."
Therefore, we shall order the respondent to offer employment to its
striking employees insofar as their positions are now filled by persons
-who were not working for the respondent on September 24, 1935.
CONCLUSIONS of LAW
Upon the foregoing findings of fact, the following conclusions of
law are made.
1. The employees of respondent engaged in shop work and not
engaged in a supervisory capacity at its Norwalk Plant constitute a
unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining , within
the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
2. The International Ladies' Garment Workers Union- (the Union)
is a labor organization , within the meaning of Section 2, subdivision
(5) of the Act.
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 481
3. By virtue of Section 9 (a) of the Act, the Uniion, having been
designated as their representative by a majority of the employees
in an appropriate unit, was, on September 26, 1935, and at all times
thereafter, the exclusive representative of the employees in such unit
for the purposes of collective bargaining. .
4. By its refusal to bargain collectively with the Union, the re-
spondent has engaged and is engaging in unfair labor practices,
within the meaning of Section 8, subdivision (5) of the Act.
5. By its refusal to bargain collectively with the Union, the re-
spondent has engaged and is engaging in unfair labor practices,
within the meaning of Section 8, subdivision (1) of the Act.
6. 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
Upon the basis of the findings of fact and conclusions of law and
pursuant to Section 10, subdivision (c) of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that
the respondent, the Rabhor Company, Incorporated, shall take the
following action, which the Board finds will effectuate the policies of
the Act:
1. Offer employment to employees who were employed by the re-
spondent on September 24, 1935, and have not since received sub-
stantially equivalent employment elsewhere, where the positions held
by such employees on September 24, 1935, are now filled by per sons
who were not working for the respondent on September 24, 1935, and
place all other employees who were employed by the respondent on
September 24, 1935, and have not since received substantially equiva-
lent employment elsewhere on a list to be offered employment as and
when their labor is needed.
2. Cease and desist from refusing to bargain collectively with
International Ladies' Garment Workers Union as the exclusive rep-
resentative of the shop employees employed by respondent in respect
to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment and other conditions of
employment.