Ralph A. Freundlich, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 19, 1937

2 N.L.R.B. 802 (N.L.R.B. 1937)

In the Matter of RALPH A. Ii REuxDLICII1 INC., a corporation organ-
ized under the laws of the State of New York, and RALPIi A.
FRI:uNDI.ICII, INC., a corporation organized raider the laws of the
State of -Massachusetts, awl MAX Mucus, TONY AI:-,NI,-,O, PETER
GI NNONE, JOri1 G IANNONE, SALVATORE MODICA, ANTHONY LAZ-
ZARO, VITO ARENA, and ALEXANDER RAVITCII
Case No. C-78.-Decided May 19, 1937
Toy Manufacturing Industry-Interfereuce, Restraint or Coercion: expressed
opposition to labor organization, threats of retaliatory action; surveillance of,
questioning employers regarding organizational activity and meetings; inter-
ference with organizational activity, preventing organization meetings; per-
suading employees not to join union ; discrediting and vilifying union and
union organizer; attempts to intimidate employees and union organizer; en-
gendering fear of loss of employment for union membership and activity-
Discrimination: discharge-Rciustatement Ordered-Back Pay: awarded.
Mr. Ralph H. Cahouet and Mr. Malcolm F. Halliday for the
Board.
Mr. Joseph R..Iacolis, of Boston, :Mass., for respondents.
Mr. George E. Ii oeu'er, of Boston, Mass., for the employees.
Mr. Fi-edericl: I'. fett, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
STATEM ENT OF CASE
On October 2, 1935, Alexander Ravitch, organizer for the Ameri-
can Federation of Labor, filed with the Regional Director for the
First Region (Boston, Massachusetts) a charge that Ralph A.
Freundlich, Inc., a New York corporation having its principal place
of business in Clinton, DMassachttsetts, hereinafter referred to as
the respondent, had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor
practices prohibited by the National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat.
449, hereinafter referred to as the Act. On November 15, 1935,
the National Labor Relations Board, hereinafter referred to as the
Board, by the Regional Director for the First Region, issued its
complaint against the respondent. The complaint and notice of
hearing thereon were duly served upon the respondent on Novem-
ber 16, 1935. By further notice duly served upon the respondent,.
the hearing, originally scheduled for December 3, 1935, was advanced
to November 30, 193.1. After hearing on that date, the hearing was
duly continued, by successive notices, to February 17, 1936.
802
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 803,
The complaint alleged that the respondent had committed 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, in that it discharged and refused reinstatement to Max
Marcus, Tony Armao, Peter Giannone, John Giannone, Salvatore
Modica, Anthony Lazzaro, and Vito Arena, for the reason that they,,
and each of them, joined and assisted a labor organization known as
Federal Labor Union No. 20090, and engaged in concerted activities,
with other employees of the respondent, and in that the respondent
by its officers and agents, did urge, persuade, warn, and threaten its
employees to refrain from becoming or remaining members of labor
organizations.
On November 22, 1935, an answer was filed on behalf of the re-
spondent which admitted that the respondent discharged the above
named employees on September 26, 1935, but denied that it had by
such discharges interfered with, restrained, or coerced its employees
in violation of Section 8, subdivision (1) of the Act ; denied that
the respondent had by such discharges discriminated against the
seven named employees in regard to hire or tenure of employment
in violation of Section 8, subdivision (3) of the Act; denied that any
of the respondent's officers or agents urged, persuaded, warned, or
threatened any of its employees to refrain from becoming or re-
maining members of labor organizations; denied that the respondent
was engaged in interstate commerce, and alleged that the acts com-
plained of did not occur in commerce among the several states, and
did not in any way burden or obstruct commerce among the states,
and that the Act and the regulations issued thereunder are uncon-
stitutional and void. The answer also alleged that the respondent
was the debtor in possession by order of the United States District
Court for the District of Massachusetts in proceedings for reorgani-
zation under Section 77B of the Bankruptcy Act,' and that the
Board had no authority to bring its complaint without first obtain-
ing the Court's permission.
On March 8, 1935, the respondent by the petition of its treasurer,
Ralph A. Freundlich, had initiated procedings for its reorganiza-
tion under Section 77B of the Bankruptcy Act, in the United States
District Court for the District of Massachusetts., Upon hearing the
petition that Court ordered the respondent to continue its possession.
The complaint was issued while the respondent was operating as a
debtor in possession. On January 15, 1936, a plan of reorganization
for the respondent was approved by the Court. In accordance with
this plan the assets of the respondent were transferred to a new
corporation, Ralph A. Freundlich, Inc., organized under the laws of
1 U. S. C, Title II, Sec 207.
5727-37-vol 11-52
804 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the State of Massachusetts, and hereinafter called the new corpo-
ration. The new corporation was chartered by the State of Massa-
chusetts on February 7, 1936, and has since that time carried on the
business formerly carried on by the respondent. The approved plan
of reorganization provided in Article V :
"NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD LITIGATION
"The complaint of the National Labor Relations Board
against Ralph A. Freundlich, Inc. and Max Marcus et al, being
case No. I-C-1, now pending before the National Labor Rela-
tions Board, First Region, may proceed to trial, and any obliga-
tion incurred or finding or order made in the proceedings is to
have full force and effect against the New Corporation. And
the New Corporation agrees to assume in writing, by proper
documents, any liability incurred by reason of any finding that
may be made against the Debtor in said case. This provision
is without prejudice to any of the parties to prosecute the case
to a final conclusion; all rights of appeal are reserved to the
parties."
At the hearing on February 17, 1936, Joseph B. Jacobs, counsel
for the respondent as well as for the new corporation, and appearing
for both, stated in the presence of Ralph A. Freundlich, the treasurer
of the respondent as well as of the new corporation, "We are prop-
erly in here, both the old corporation and the new corporation:"
In accordance with the plan of reorganization referred to above,
and in view of the general appearance by counsel for the new cor-
poration, the findings hereinafter made by the Board with respect to
the respondent, and the order based thereon hereinafter made by the
Board, will have full force and effect as well against the new cor-
poration.
A hearing before Daniel M.'Lyons, Trial Examiner duly desig-
nated by the Board, was had at Boston, Massachusetts, on November
30, 1935, and before John D. Moore, Trial Examiner duly designated
by the Board in place of Mr. Lyons, on February 17, 18, and 19,
1936. Full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine
witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing upon the issues was
afforded all parties. The respondent by its counsel participated in
the hearing until February 18, 1936, during the afternoon of which
day counsel withdrew. During the course of the proceedings on
November 30, 1935, counsel for the respondent objected to the allow-
ance of appearance of counsel for the discharged employees. During
the proceedings on February 17, 1936, counsel for the respondent
objected to the entire proceedings on the ground that they were con-
trary to the course of the common law, and further objected to the
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 805
Trial Examiner's sitting in the case on the ground that he was not a
lawyer and therefore not qualified to admit and weigh evidence. All
of these objections were overruled. We find no error in the Trial
Examiners' rulings upon the respondent's objections, including those
specifically mentioned above, and in consequence hereby affirm such
rulings.
On April 8, 1936, Trial Examiner Moore duly filed an Intermediate
Report in accordance with Article II, Section 30 of National Labor
Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 1, then in effect.
The Trial Examiner found that the respondent had engaged in un-
fair labor practices affecting commerce, within the meaning of Sec-
tion 8, subdivisions (1) and (3), and Section 2, subdivisions (6) and
(7) of the Act. The respondent thereafter, on April 17, 1936, filed
with the Board exceptions to the Intermediate Report.
The Board has reviewed the entire record in this case, and the
findings and conclusions reached thereon by the Trial Examiner. As
set forth below we find that the evidence supports the findings and
conclusions of the Trial Examiner in his Intermediate Report, in-
cluding the findings and conclusions that the respondent has engaged
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, and hereby overrule all of the respondent's ex-
ceptions to the Intermediate Report.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following :
FINDINGS of FACT
I. THE RESPONDENT AND ITS BUSINESS
The respondent, a doll manufacturing concern, is a corporation
organized under and existing by virtue of the laws of the State of
New York, having its principal place of business in the City of
Clinton, State of Massachusetts.
The new corporation, a doll manufacturing concern, is and has
been since February 7, 1936, a corporation organized under and ex-
isting by virtue of the laws of the State of Massachusetts, having its
principal place of business in the City of Clinton, State of Massa-
chusetts.
Prior to June, 1934, the respondent was engaged in the manufacture
of dolls in New York. In June, 1934, it removed from New York
to Clinton, Massachusetts, taking with it about 15 of its 400 employees.
The respondent engaged in the manufacture of dolls in Clinton,
Massachusetts, until, in accordance with a plan of reorganization, the
new corporation came into existence on February 7, 1936, and took
over the respondent's assets and operations. • The new corporation has
806 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
continued the operation of the Clinton plant since the time of its in-
ception, and its activities and operations there are in no way dis-
tinguish from those carried on by the respondent during its control
of the Clinton plant.
The respondent during peak times in production, that is during the
months of October, November, and December, employed about 600
people; during the remainder of the year the number of its employees
ranged between 100 and 600; its payroll approximated $300,000 per
annum.
The respondent was engaged in the manufacture of wood-pulp
dolls and in their sale and distribution. Its doll manufacturing oper-
ations included the following : (1) baking of the wood-pulp mash in
molds to obtain the desired conformation; (2) finishing; (3) insert-
ing of eyes and teeth; (4) jointings; (5) dipping; (6) grinding;
(7) polishing; and (8) dressing.
The respondent used in its operations great quantities of raw
materials and finished components shipped to it from points outside
the State of Massachusetts. The following table shows the type and
most important sources of these raw materials and finished com-
ponents :
Type of raw material or Source of raw material or
finished component finished component
Wood pulp--------------------------------------------- Sweden
Paint---------------------- New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania
Doll Dresses 2-------------------------------- New Jersey, Maine
Doll Shoes------------------------------------ New York, Japan
Artificial Eyes---------------------------------------- New York
Resin--------------------------- North Carolina, South Carolina
Corrugated Boxes------------------------------------ New York
The respondent's total annual purchases of raw materials approxi-
mated $350,000, and $250,000 of this amount, or about 71 per cent,
represented the value of goods shipped to it from points outside the
State of Massachusetts.
The respondent's dolls enjoyed a nation-wide distribution, being
sold by the respondent to wholesalers and retailers from coast to
coast. This national market for the respondent's products was de-
veloped by the respondent through advertising in trade journals
having a nation-wide distribution, and through its sales force which
constantly traveled throughout the country. The total annual dollar
volume of the respondent's manufactured goods approximated $730,-
000, and of this amount $650,000, or 89 per cent, was sold and shipped
to points in the United States outside of the State of Massachusetts.
The respondent in distributing its finished products used the
services of various instrumentalities of interstate commerce such,
2 Some of the dresses used by the respondent were made by contractors outside-
Massachusetts , using cloth supplied to them by the respondent.
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 807
as motor truck , steamship , and railroad lines; it had at its Clinton
plant a railroad siding where it loaded cars with dolls for shipment
to all points , one-third of its entire production being shipped by
railroad . Another third of its production was shipped by various
coastal steamship lines to ports throughout the United States; it
was the practice of the respondent to utilize trucking lines to deliver
its goods to the various steamship line warehouses . The remaining
third of the respondent's entire production was distributed to points
within as well as outside the State of Massachusetts through the use
of the parcel post and various trucking lines. Ninety per cent of
its products were shipped to wholesalers and retailers freight collect.
II. RESPONDENT 'S LABOR RELATIONS
During the last few years the respondent 's industrial relations
have been characterized by constant conflicts with its employees
and their union.
Shortly after the National Industrial Recovery Act became
effective in 1933, a general strike lasting six weeks took place in
the doll industry in the State of New York. This strike , which was
caused by the employers ' denial of the workers ' right to organize,
and by their refusal to accept the procedure of collective bargaining,
was participated in by the respondent 's employees. As far as the
respondent was concerned , the strike was settled by an agreement
between the respondent and the Doll and Toy Workers Union, Local
No. 18230, under which the latter acquired contractual rights against
the respondent for a period ending June 1, 1935. In June, 1934, the
respondent removed its plant from New York to Clinton, Massa-
chusetts, and began operating there without regard for its obligations
under the contract with this Union. Thereafter the Union started
proceedings against the respondent in the courts of the State of
New York, which resulted in a permanent injunction against the
respondent , enjoining it from operating its plant unless it employed
only Union men, at Union wages and under Union conditions in
accordance with the terms of the agreement. This decision caused
a temporary shut-down of the respondent 's plant, which was imme-
diately followed by the filing of the petition for reorganization.
In this connection it must be mentioned that Article III of the
approved plan of reorganization under which the respondent 's oper-
ations were taken over by the new corporation provides that the
claim of the Doll and Toy Workers Union, Local No. 18230, and the
claims of 49 workers named therein, were to be settled by the pay-
ment of $8,250 in cash to the attorneys for the Union and the workers.
On January 10, 1935, the respondent found itself before the old
National Labor Relations Board on charges of having violated See-
808 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
tion 7 ( a) of the National Industrial Recovery Act in that it had dis-
couraged its employees from joining a labor organization, in that it
urged its employees to form a "company union", and further in that
it had discharged several of its employees at its Clinton plant for
the reason that they had gone to New York at the request of the
Doll and Toy Workers Union , Local No. 18230, to testify against
the respondent in the injunction proceedings above mentioned.
After a hearing , the old Board found that the charges brought
against the respondent were substantiated by evidence , and issued
its order against the respondent , ordering it to cease and desist from
interfering 'in any manner with its employees in the exercise of their
rights under Section 7 ( a), and further ordering the respondent to
reinstate the discharged employees with back pay.3
The employees involved in this case, except Max Marcus , had been
in the respondent 's employ previous to its removal from New York
to Clinton . At the respondent 's request , Arena and Armao con-
tinued in the respondent 's employ during the removal operations
and thereafter ; however, before Armao left for Clinton , he asked the
respondent 's treasurer about the conditions under which he would
be made to work there, and was told not to worry, for his "pay)
and everything" would be straightened out to his satisfaction.
Shortly after the removal operations had been completed the others
came to Clinton to work for the respondent at its request.
Tony Armao , the key man in the respondent's eye-painting depart-
ment, received $35. per week for his work while employed in New
York. At Clinton he had to work very long hours without any
pay for overtime. On numerous occasions Armao protested against
these long hours and demanded overtime. Although he received
two $5. increases during his employment by the respondent at Clin-
ton, nothing was ever done with respect to his demands for overtime.
Vito Arena, the key man in the respondent 's spraying department,
received a weekly wage of $35. for 42 hours of work while employed
by the respondent in New York. At Clinton he was raised to $40.
per week but was forced to work between 45 and 85 hours per week.
During 1934 he complained to the respondent five times about his
long hours and about the fact that lie was not getting any overtime,
and constantly expressed his desire to be put on a 40 hour basis with
arrangements for overtime . At Christmas time in 1934, he was
given a $40. bonus to appease his dissatisfaction but nothing was
ever done with respect to shortening of hours or overtime.
Salvatore Modica, the key man in the respondent's dipping de-
partment, asked the respondent 's treasurer about working condi-
8 See In the Matter of Ralph A. Freundlich, Inc., and Doll and Toy Workers' Union,
decisions of the National Labor Relations Board (Old), Volume II, page 147.
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 809
tions at Clinton before going there, and was told that he would be
treated "good and special". Whereas he received $35. per week for
a 40 hour week at New York, he was forced to work as much as 90
hours per week for the same amount at Clinton. He frequently
complained about these long hours but to no avail.
Johan Giannone, employed in the respondent's sandpapering de-
partment, began working for the respondent at Clinton at a weekly
wage of $25.; in January, 1935, he was cut to $20, but was later
raised to $30., and then to $35. per week. He constantly complained
to the respondent about having to work as much as 75 hours a week
but the respondent was deaf to his complaints.
Anthony Lazzaro, the key man in the respondent's polishing de-
partment, received $19.80 per week at New York for a 40 hour
week ; at Clinton he was raised in steps to $30. per week, but in
consequence was forced to work as much as 75 hours a week including
Sundays.
Peter Giannone, a doll painter, began working for the respondent
at Clinton at a weekly wage of $15. for a 40 hour week; before many
weeks had gone by he was forced to work as many as 55 hours a
week. He continuously complained bitterly to the respondent about
his low wages and his long working hours, but found his constant
efforts rewarded only by a $3. per week raise.
Max Marcus, an eye setter, and a highly skilled doll worker, began
working for the respondent at Clinton, on May 30, 1935, at a wage of
$30. per week. About three and a half months later, and just two
weeks before his discharge, lie was given a $5. per week raise and was
told that his work was satisfactory.
During the period of their employment at Clinton, John Giannone,
Armao, Modica, Arena, and Lazzaro engaged in collective efforts to
improve their working conditions, but these collective efforts proved
to be as fruitless as their individual attempts had been. When ap-
proached by the employees the respondent's officers displayed an
evasive attitude, and directed their eflorts toward putting forward
the day on which the employees migh, expect improvement in their
working conditions. In March, 1935, the five employees met with
various officers- of the respondent. They stated that they were.dis-
satisfied with the long working hours and demanded an increase in
wages, The respondent's treasurer, Ralph A. Freundlich, avoided
the necessity of immediate decision on the question of shorter hours
with higher wages by promising to take care of these employees
when he got back to Clinton in June. Although Freundlich was in
Clinton during part of each of the first three weeks of June, 1935,
the employees did not succeed in meeting with him. However, in
July, the five employees met with Freundlich and other officers of
810 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the respondent and insisted on payment, for overtime. During this
conference, Ulmer, the respondent's personnel manager, addressed
himself to Freundlich, saying, "Listen, Ralph, I think this is one
clique you have got here, and this is the clique we have got to split
up." Thereupon the five employees stated that if that was the way
respondent felt about them, they were ready to go home at any time.
The conference continued, and finally Freundlich sent them back to
their work, but called them back shortly and promised them Christ-
mas presents if they would go along as they were. They refused the
respondent's offer to wait, but went back to their jobs; later during
the same clay, they were all called back to the respondent's office and
each given a raise of $5. per week. The respondent, through its
officers, however, continuously failed to meet their overtime demands.
The respondent's women workers, employed in the spraying, eye-
painting, dressing, and grinding departments, were also constantly
engaged in a conflict with the respondent over working conditions,
especially' over their low pay., This conflict culminated in a series of
stoppages during the summer of 1935, during which these workers
laid down their tools and went in a body to the respondent' s officers
only to^he met by the same evasive and promissory attitude which the
officers had adopted towards the other employees.
The respondent's labor relations prior to its removal from New
York to Clinton clearly show its unfair and prejudiced attitude
toward its employees and their union. By its removal and the con-
sequent violation of its contract with Doll and Toy Workers Union,
No. 18230, the respondent sought to increase the inequality of bargain-
ing power between its empioyees and itself so that it could more
easily depress their wage rates and extend their hours of work. The
respondent's conduct with respect to its employees in the early days
of its operation at Clinton, which led to the proceedings against it
before the old National Labor Relations Board, further shows its
determined attitude of unfairness toward its employees and their
union, and clearly exemplifies its growing desire to quash and inde-
pendent labor organization of its employees, and to create and en-
courage a "company union" amongst them in contravention of the
law. The respondent 's unfair treatment of its employees with re-
spect to wages and working conditions, and especially the unfair
treatment accorded the seven employees named in the complaint, who
were key men in the respondent's plant, are proof of its unconcern
for the welfare of its workers. The respondent's evasive and promis-
sory tactics towards those of its employees who sought to bargain
with it, either individually or collectively, was more than those em-
ployees were willing to tolerate. It was that fact that gave impetus
to the organization of Federal Labor Union No. 20090.
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 811
III. THE ORGANIZATION OF A UNION AT RESPONDENT'S CLINTON PLANT
John and Peter Giannone, Modica, and Lazzaro, who lived in the
same boarding house, and Arena and Armao, who lived together
in another boarding house in Clinton, knew one another quite well.
While at home, in New York, during a temporary shut-down of the
respondent's plant in Clinton in the early part of 1935, these men
actively discussed working conditions at the Clinton plant. It was
during this period that they conceived the idea of organizing the
respondent's plant; they realized that only by such means could
their working conditions be improved and the tenure of their jobs
secured. However, they did not engage in any active organization
work until after Alexander Ravitch, whom they all knew, came to
Clinton from New York in August, 1935.
Ravitch had made numerous trips to Clinton from New York
during 1934 and 1935, in order to lay the groundwork for the organi-
zation of a union there. Having laid this groundwork Ravitch came
to Clinton again in August, 1935, for the express purpose of organ-
izing the employees. He began by conferring with small groups
of workers throughout Clinton. Later on, however, when he
gathered together larger groups he arranged meetings which were
held in various towns near Clinton. All of these meetings and con-
ferences were frequently attended by all of the employees whom the
respondent later discharged.
At these meetings, Ravitch and other organizers distributed ap-
plication blanks for membership in the American Federation of
Labor. Each of the employees named in the complaint, except
Modica, obtained a number of these blanks, and Marcus, Arena,
and Lazzaro distributed them amongst the employees in the respond-
ent's plant. Armao, John and Peter Giannone handed their entire
supply of application blanks to other workers in the plant who
needed them more than they did. The activity of these employees,
however, with regard to these blanks did not in any way interfere
with the quality or quantity of their work.
Having completed this preliminary organization work, Ravitch
applied to the American Federation of Labor for a charter. A
charter was granted to Ravitch for the Clinton group on September
24. 1935, creating Federal Labor Union No. 20090, Clinton, Massa-
chusetts, a labor organization, hereinafter called the Union. The
seven employees named in the complaint immediately joined the
Union.
812 NATIONAL LABOR'RELATIONS BOARD
IV. TIIE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The discharges of September 26, ,1935
On the afternoon of September 26, 1935, two days after the Union
was chartered, and after the seven employees named in the com-
plaint had joined the Union, Arena was called to the respondent's
office. There he found Freundlich and two other of the respondent's
officials. Freundlich showed Arena an application blank for mem-
bership in the American Federation of Labor, the blank being iden-
tical to those distributed at the Union meetings and to workers in
the respondent's plant. Freundlich then asked Arena what he knew
about the distribution of such blanks in the plant. When Arena
gave no information, Freundlich told Arena that he was going to
lay him off that' night because he and the "rest of the bunch" were
trying to organize a union. Later during the same day, Freundlich
sent for Armao, Lazzaro, and Modica in turn, and pressed each one
of them individually for information about what was happening in
the plant with respect to the Union membership application blanks
and organization activities in general. None of these men, however,
told anything.
During the same afternoon the respondent's assistant superin-
tendent, Bieler, approached Modica while the latter was working
at his bench and stated, "You know, Modica, this is your last day."
When Modica asked the cause, Bieler answered, "Because somebody
tell Mr. Freundlich you and the rest of the boys giving the paper
inside for making a union." At about 5 P. M., Freundlich called
a shop meeting of the employees, but the seven employees named in
the complaint were excluded. When this meeting was over the seven
employees named in the complaint were ordered to the office where
they ' were given their checks and discharged. These employees
were at all times after their discharge refused reinstatement by the
respondent.
Immediately after his discharge, Marcus, who had received a $5.
raise just two weeks before, asked Freundlich what it all meant;
Freundlich replied that he had been "fooling with him long enough".
Shortly thereafter, and before Marcus had left the respondent's
plant, Bieler remarked to Marcus that he, Marcus, had been the leader
of the labor trouble in the place, and expressed his amazement by
saying that he did not think that Marcus "would do a thing like
that".
B. Other interferences by the respondent with the rights of its
employees
During the latter part of 1934, Ravitch made several trips to
Clinton from New York. While in Clinton on one of these trips in
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 813
September of that year, Ravitch tried to hold meetings with the
respondent 's employees for the purpose of explaining to them the
purposes of a union . He experienced , at that time , great difficulty
in getting a hall in which to conduct these meetings. Ravitch testi-
fied : "When I was trying to get a hall, word was passed . In some
way or other I couldn't get who passed the word. Word was passed
they shouldn 't rent the hall." Shortly thereafter he made an ap-
pointment to meet a group of workers in a public park. In order to
avoid attracting attention , the workers divided and sat in groups of
four or five . Nathan Trepner, the respondent 's superintendent,
happened by, looked over the groups, and then went away. In about
five minutes he returned with two policemen to whom he pointed out
'Ravitch, stating : "This is an agitator from New York. Arrest him.
He's a trouble maker. " The policeman , accompanied by Trepner,
took Ravitch and several other organizers to the police station where
they were detained . No formal charges were filed against Ravitch,
but he was compelled with two of his companions to board a
Leominster -bound bus which was escorted to the city limits by two
motorcycle police. This incident took place before the effective date
of the Act, but it serves to set the tone for what happened there-
after.
In August , 1935, shortly after Ravitch came to Clinton to organize
what on September 24, 1935, became Federal Labor Union No. 20090,
Trepner, the respondent 's superintendent , asked Arena to. spread
word among his fellow workers that Ravitch was a racketeer, and
that the union which he was seeking to organize required a payment
of $25.
One day, about the middle of September , 1935, the respondent no-
tified its employees of a meeting to be held in its plant at 1: 00 -
o'clock on that day. At this meeting Freundlich made a speech.
The testimony of the seven discharged men with regard to what was
said in that speech by Freundlich , although differing in language,
was practically identical . In substance , Freundlich told his em-
ployees that the organizers who were at work in Clinton, including
Ravitch, were racketeers and communists , who had come to town
with an illegal scheme to create a union racket , and to make trouble;
that it would be much better to organize a union within the respond-
ent's plant and contribute to it rather than to form another outside
union which would take the workers ' money and not give them any-
thing in return; that even though the organizers who had come to
Clinton were American Federation of Labor representatives seeking
to establish an affiliate , nevertheless the contemplated union was a
racket, run by a-bunch of crooks and communists which would charge
an' exorbitant initiation fee of $25., and would require the payment
of $5. every month for dues , in return for all of which the workers
814 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
would get nothing; that it would be more beneficial to the workers to
form a "company union " than to join an American Federation of
Labor union which was just a racket run by a lot of crooks.
The respondent , by the speech of its treasurer , Ralph A. Freund-
lich , to its employees , made its attitude of abhorrence for other than
"company unions " quite clear . The natural as well as the desired
effect of that speech was to coerce the respondent 's employees to
refrain from joining or assisting any outside labor organization.
After this speech, some of the respondent 's employees hesitated to
carry on openly organization activities toward the establishment of
an outside labor union . Marcus, one of the discharged employees,
stated that he handed out the application blanks for membership in
the American Federation of Labor secretly , because he felt that he
would be discharged if the respondent ever found out that he was
handing out the blanks . Lazzaro, another discharged employee,
when confronted by Freundlich on the day of his discharge, denied
having had anything to do with the distribution of these same blanks
for the reason , as he said , that he dreaded discharge.
While in Clinton during August and September , 1935, Ravitch was
constantly shadowed by men in a car . This car at times contained
some of the respondent 's employees , and at one time contained
Bieler, the respondent 's assistant superintendent . On one occasion,,
Ravitch was stopped in the street by a man named Delewyzc who.
said that he represented the management , that the management did
not like his (Ravitch's) being around Clinton, and that if he
(Ravitch) did not leave Clinton by a certain day, something would
happen to him.
One day, early in September , 1935, Bieler spoke to John Giannone
about Ravitch's presence in Clinton and suggested that Giannone
join the boys that night in giving Ravitch a ride. Giannone tact-
fully declined this invitation stating that he had another engage-
ment. In mid-September , Bieler asked Lazzaro and Modica to join
a strong arm squad which was being organized to deal with
Ravitch. Bieler further spread word among other of the respond-
ent's employees that some day Ravitch would find himself in the
river because they were forming a vigilante committee to get him.
As far back as 1934, when Ravitch first came to Clinton , Ralph A.
Freundlich stated in the presence of Arena : "I could spend $500 or
$1,000 to throw him in the river . I think I better get a couple of
guys from Boston or New York; I would let them beat him up."
On the day following their discharge , September 27, 1935, the 'seven
employees named in the complaint, accompanied by Ravitch, went
to Boston to lodge a charge against the respondent with the Regional
Director of the Board there . Having done that , they all returned to
Clinton where , on the same night, they met again at the American
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 815
Federation of Labor headquarters. After holding a short meeting
there, Ravitch left the headquarters with Arena and Armao. While
the three were walking down the street and before they had gone
more than a hundred feet, two unknown men rushed up out of the
darkness and assaulted Ravitch, causing him serious bodily injury.
This assault caused a great deal of disturbance, and as people began
to gather to see what was going on, the two assailants fled from the
scene in a car owned by Bieler. During the same night, afraid of
suffering the same brutal treatment, Arena, Modica, Armao, John
and Peter Giannone left Clinton in a car and drove to Hartford,
Connecticut.
C. Conclusions with respect to the unfair labor practices
(1) The abrupt discharge of the seven employees without notice
or warning, was plainly unrelated to the character of their service for
the respondent, and must have been motivated by some other reason
or cause. The respondent had never found fault with the quality or
quantity of the work of any of these employees; in fact it was always
quite satisfied with their work. Evidence of such satisfaction can
be found in the raises given to them at various times, the last of
which were given to them shortly before their discharge. Further-
more, all of these seven employees, except Peter Giannone, were
experienced doll workers, key men in their respective departments.
In view of the respondent's open hostility toward the Union, and
in view of the circumstances immediately surrounding the discharges,
we find that these employees were discharged on September 26, 1935,
and have since been refused reinstatement by the respondent, for
the reason that they joined and assisted a labor organization, known
as Federal Labor Union No. 20090, Clinton, Massachusetts, and
engaged in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargain-
ing and other mutual aid and protection. We also find that the
respondent's conduct in so discharging and refusing to reinstate
these seven employees, was calculated to and did have the necessary.
effect of discouraging membership in the aforementioned labor
organization. By its conduct in discharging and refusing to rein-
state these employees, the respondent has discriminated against its
employees in regard to hire and tenure of employment, and has inter-
fered with, restrained and coerced its employees in the exercise of
the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
That Max Marcus, Tony Armao, Peter Giannone, John Giannone,
Salvatore Modica, Anthony Lazzaro, and Vito Arena, the seven
men named in the complaint, were employees of the respondent at
the time of their discharge is clear. Their work having ceased in
consequence of the aforementioned unfair labor practices, they at all
816 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
times thereafter retained their status as employees of the respondent
within the meaning of Section 2, subdivision (3) of the Act, and as
such were entitled to reinstatement by the respondent.
All of the seven men obtained employment at the Ideal Novelty
Company, Long Island City, New York, shortly after their discharge.
This employment was not, however, regular or substantially equiva-
lent to their employment by the respondent so as to terminate their
status as employees of the respondent within the meaning of Section
2, subdivision (3) of the Act. Their work there was only temporary
and was engaged in by them as a result of economic necessity. By
January 9, 1936, all had been laid off. The record clearly shows that
Max Marcus, John Giannone, Peter Giannone, and Anthony Lazzaro
were unemployed at the time of the hearing and that they had not
secured any employment since their lay-off by the Ideal Novelty Com-
pany. That all of the seven employees had not secured regular and
substantially equivalent employment elsewhere at the time of the
hearing, and that they were anxious to return to work for the re-
spondent is clearly indicated by their voluntary presence and giving
of testimony at the hearing, many miles away from their homes.
(2) In view of the conduct of the respondent's officers toward
Ravitch, and in view of the circumstances immediately surrounding
the assault upon him on September 27, 1935, we are unable to believe
that this attack, as well as the events leading up to that attack, were
not directly sponsored by the respondent, with the purpose of intimi-
dating those who dared to organize its employees and of coercing its
employees to refrain from joining any labor organization with which
Ravitch was connected. The responsibility for the events leading up
to and culminating in the assault, as well as the responsibility for the
assault itself with the resultant effects of employee coercion and in-
timidation, rests clearly upon the respondent. We find that the re-
spondent, by the aforementioned acts, by the speech of its treasurer;
Ralph A. Freundlich, made to all of its employees, including the
seven employees mentioned in the complaint, and by its grilling of
several of these seven employees with respect to their labor activities,
has interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exer=
cise of the rights guaranteed to them in Section 7 of the Act.
V. EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES OF COMMERCE
Board Exhibit No. 5, prepared by the Bureau of Labor Statistics
of the Department of Labor in Washington, shows that during 1934,
several strikes took place in the Toy Manufacturing Industry, which
involved 2227 workers and resulted in 42,345 man-days of idleness.
Exhibit No. 5 further reveals that during the period from January to
July, 1935, several more strikes involving 810 men and resulting in
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 817
11,790 man-days of idleness took place in the same industry. This
exhibit discloses that the major issues of the strikes during these two
periods were wages and hours, and organization and recognition of
unions. The respondent is one of the largest doll manufacturing
concerns in the United States and is responsible for seven per cent of
the entire doll production of the country; that a, strike in its plant,
caused by disputes over issues identical with the issues in this case,
would result in a substantial burden on interstate commerce is made
apparent by the above mentioned exhibit.
The activities of the respondent set forth in Section IV above,
occurring in connection with the operations of the respondent de-
scribed in Section I above, have a close, intimate , and substantial re-
lation 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.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact the Board makes
the following conclusions of-law:
1. Federal Labor Union No. 20090, Clinton, Massachusetts, is a
labor organization, within the meaning of Section 2, subdivision (5)
of the Act.
2. Max Marcus, Tony Armao, Peter Giannone , John Giannone,
Salvatore Modica, Anthony Lazzaro, and Vito Arema were at the
time of their discharge , and at all times thereafter , employees of the
respondent , 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 Max Marcus, Tony Armao, Peter Giannone,
John -Giannone, Salvatore Modica, Anthony Lazzaro, and Vito
Arena, and each of them, 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 of fact and conclusions of law and
pursuant to Section 10, subdivision ( c) of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, the National Laboi Relations Board hereby orders that the
818 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
respondent, Ralph A. Freundlich, Inc., a New York corporation, and
Ralph A. Freundlich, Inc., a Massachusetts corporation, and their
officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall :
1. Cease and desist :
(a) From discouraging membership in Federal Labor Union No.
20090, Clinton, Massachusetts, or any other labor organization of
their employees, by discharging, threatening to discharge, or refus-
ing to reinstate any of their employees for joining or assisting Fed-
eral 'Labor Union No. 20090, Clinton, Massachusetts, or any other
labor organization of their employees;
(b) From in any manner discriminating against any of their em-
ployees in regard to hire or tenure of employment for joining Federal
Labor Union No. 20090, Clinton, Massachusetts, or any other labor
organization of their employees; and
(c) From in any other manner interfering with, restraining, or
coercing their 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
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.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Offer to Max Marcus, Tony Armao, Peter Giannone, John
Giannone, Salvatore Modica, Anthony Lazzaro, and Vito Arena
immediate and full reinstatement, respectively, to their former posi-
tions, without prejudice to any rights and privileges previously
enjoyed by them;
(b) Make whole said Max Marcus, Tony Armao, Peter Giannone,
John Giannone, Salvatore Modica, Anthony Lazzaro, and Vito Arena
for any loss of pay they have suffered by reason of their discharge,
by paying to each, respectively, 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 earned during such period;
(c) Post immediately notices to their employees in conspicuous
places on each floor of their factory, stating (1) that the respondent
and Ralph A. Freundlich, Inc., a Massachusetts corporation, 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 have
been taken to comply herewith.