Regal Knitwear Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 7, 1943

49 N.L.R.B. 560 (N.L.R.B. 1943)

In the Matter of REGAL KNITWEAR Co., INC. and WHOLESALE & WARIE:-
HOUSE WORKERS UNION, LOCAL 65, C. I. O.
Case No. 0-2540.Decided May 7 , 19.33
DECISION
AND
ORDER
On March 9, 1943, the Trial Examiner issued his Intermediate
Report in the above -entitled proceeding , finding that the respondent
had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices,
and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and that it take
certain affirmative .action, as set forth . in the copy of the Inter-
mediate Report annexed hereto. Thereafter , the respondent filed ex-
ceptions to the Intermediate Report and a brief in support of its ex-
ceptions . The Board has considered the rulings made•by the Trial
Examiner at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was com-
mitted. The rulings are hereby affirmed.
Pursuant to notice , a hearing was held before the Board at Wash-
ington, D. C., on April 27, 1943, for the purpose of oral argument.
The respondent was represented by counsel and participated in the
hearing; the Union did not appear.
The Board has considered the Intermediate Report, the respondent's
exceptions and brief , and the entire record in the case, , and hereby
adopts the findings , conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial
Examiner, except as noted below.
1. The Trial Exaiiner has found that Arthur Klein was discharged
'by the respondent on June 3, 1942 , because of his union membership
and activity , after having been discriminatorily transferred on May
22, 1942, from work as an order picker to more arduous work in.the
shipping department . We do not agree. The uncontradicted evi-
dence shows that it is customary at the respondent 's plant to assign
stock clerks and order pickers to work in the shipping department
when necessary ; and we are not convinced by the record that Klein
was selected to work in the shipping department for any reason other
than that his services were needed there. After working , a day or
two in the shipping department , Klein protested against having to
49 N L R B., No. 80.
560
REGAL KNITWEAR CO., INC. 561_
work there. He then, within the period of 1 week; gave the re-
spondent two conflicting statements from his doctor concerning the.
kind of work he was physically capable of doing. The respondent
contends, and its secretary testified, that Klein was discharged be-
cause of his production of these convenient and conflicting state--
ments as to his physical capabilities and because the respondent did
not believe that his physical condition warranted his continued em-
ployment even as an order picker. Under the circumstances, we are
of the opinion that the record does not sustain the allegation that
Klein's transfer and discharge were due to his union membership.
and activities. The complaint will therefore be dismissed as to
Klein.
2. The Trial Examiner has found that the respondent, by giving
some employees, including Jean Strackman, a winter vacation with pay "
and with free use of an automobile furnished by the respondent, and
by distributing to its employees complimentary tickets for theatrical
performances'giveii on dates when union meetings were usually held,.
interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of
the rights guaranteed in the Act. There is evidence in the record which-
gives rise to the suspicion that the respondent gave Strackman a winter
vacation with' pay, after she had already had her usual summer vaca-
tion in 1941, in order to induce her to abandon her union activities.
However, there is no similar evidence with respect to the other em--
ployees who were also granted winter vacations, and we do not believe.
that the record as a whole clearly establishes any improper purpose on
the part of the, respondent in giving these winter vacations. The
Trial Examiner's findings of interference, restraint, and coercion based
on the respondent's doing so is hereby reversed. The theatre tickets
distributed by the respondent to its employees are shown by uncon-
tradicted evidence to have been obtained by the respondent without
cost to it. There is no showing that the tickets were for performances.
selected by the respondent because they coincided with the times at
which union meetings were to be held and would therefore discourage
attendance at such meetings. We find that the record does not sup-
port the allegation that the respondent's distribution of theatre tickets
constituted interference with its employees' union activities, and the
Trial Examiner's finding to the contrary is hereby reversed.
ORDER
Upon the above findings of fact and the entire record in the case,--
and pursuant to Section 10 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act,
the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the respondent,.
Regal Knitwear Co., Inc., New York City, and its officers, agents,
successors, and assigns, shall:
-562 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR. RELATIONS, BOARD
1., Cease and desist from:
(a) Discouraging membership in Wholesale & Warehouse Workers
Union, Local 65, affiliated with the Coiigres sof Industrial Organiza-
tions, or in any other labor organization of its employees, by discharg-
ing or refusing to-reiristate any}of its employees, or'in''any manner
discriminating in regard to their hire and tenure of employment or
any term or condition of their employment;
(b) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing
its employees in the exercise of the right to self-organization, to form,
join, or assist labor organizations,'to bargain collectively through rep-
resentatives of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted activi-
ties for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or
protection, as guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action, which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Offer to Jean Strackman immediate, and. full'reinst'atement to
her former or a substantially equivalent position, without prejudice to
her seniority and other rights and privileges ;
(b) Make whole Jean Strackman for any loss of pay she has suffered
because of the respondent's discrimination against her, by payment to
her of a sum of money equal to the amount which she would normally
have earned as wages during the period from the date of her discrimi-
natory discharge to the date of the respondent's offer of reinstatement,
less her net earnings during that period;
(c) Immediately post in conspicuous places in and about its plant
in New York City, and maintain for a period of at least-sixty (60)
consecutive days from the date of -posting, notices to its employees
stating: (1) that the respondent will"not'engage in' the conduct from
which it is ordered to cease and desist. in paragraphs 1 (a) and (b)
of this Order; (2) that the respondent will take the affirmative action
set forth in'paragraphs 2 (a) and (h) of this Order; and (3) that the
respondent's employees are free to ' become and remain members of
Wholesale & Warehouse Workers Union, Local 65, affiliated with the
Congress of Industrial Organizations, and that the respondent will
not discriminate against any employee. because of membership in, or
activity on behalf of, that organization;
(d) Notify the Regional Director for the Second Region in writing
within ten (10) days from the date of this Order what steps the re-
spondent has taken to comply herewith.
AND„IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint be, and it hereby is,
dismissed, insofar as it alleges that the respondent discriminated
against Arthur Klein.
CHAIRMAN MILLIs took no part in the consideration of the above
Decision and Order. '
J
REGAL KNITWEAR CO., INC.
INTERMEDIATE REPORT
563
Mr. Cyril TV. O'Gorman, for the Board.
Conrad & Smith, by Mr. -Williarn, W. Conrad, of New York, N. Y., for the
respondent. -
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon a seventh amended charge duly filed by the Wholesale & Warehouse
Workers Union, Local 65, affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organiza-
tions, herein called the Union, the National Labor Relations- Board, herein
called the Board, by its Regional Director for the Second Region (New, York,
New York), issued its complaint dated January 19, 1943, against Regal Knitwear
Co., Inc, of New York, New York, herein called the respondent, alleging that
the respondent had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices within
the meaning of Section 8 (1) and (3) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National
Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein called the Act. Copies of the com-
plaint, accompanied by notices of hearing, were duly served upon the respondent
and the Union. ,
With respect to the unfair labor practices, the complaint as amended at the
hearing,' alleged in substance: (1) that the respondent on or about March 20,
1942, discharged Jean Strackman, and on or about May 22, 1942, assigned
'Arthur Klein to more arduous or less agreeable work, and discharged him on
or about June 3, 19 ' 42, for the reason that these employees had joined or assisted
the Union, or had engaged in other concerted activities for the purposes of
collective bargaining, or other mutual aid and protection; and' (2) that from
on or about June 24, 1941, to the date of the complaint, the respondent vilified,
disparaged, and expressed disapproval of the Union ; interrogated its employees
concerning their union affiliations ; and urged, persuaded, threatened, and warned
its employees to refrain from assisting, becoming members of, or remaining mem-
bers of the Union.
On January 29, 1943, the respondent filed its answer denying, among other
things, that it had engaged in the unfair labor practices alleged.,
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held at New York, New York, on February
4 and 5, 1943, before Peter F. Ward, the undersigned Trial Examiner, duly
designated by the Chief Trial Examiner. The Board and the respondent were
represented by counsel, and each participated, in the hearing Full opportunity
to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence
bearing on the issues was afforded all parties.
After both parties had rested, the undersigned granted, without objection,
the motion of counsel for the Board to conform the pleadings to the proof
with respect to names, dates, and other minor variances. Oral argument, in
which the Board and the respondent participated, was thereafter had on the
record. While the parties were advised of their right to file briefs with the
undersigned, no briefs were filed
Upon the entire record thus made, and from his observation of the wit-
nesses, the undersigned makes,- in addition to the above; the following :
1 The complaint was amended on motion of counsel for the Board, without objection, by
striking the word "manufacture" from paragraph 2, thereof
531647-43-vol 49-37
564 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
'• FINDINGS 'OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
The respondent is a New York corporation engaged in the sale and distribu-
tion of knit goods. The essential raw materials purchased and used by the
respondent in the operation of its business are yarn and cottons During the
six months period prior 'to February 1, 1943, the respondent shipped approxi-
mately $2,300,000 worth of finished products to points outside the State of New
York ; such shipments represented approximately 84 percent of the respondent's
total sales made during this period. Approximately 75 percent of the materials
received by the respondent at its New York -plant for sale and distribution
are received from points outside the State of New York The respondent admits
that it is engaged in interstate commerce within the meaning of the Act
H. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Wholesale & Warehouse Workers Union, Local 65, affiliated with the Con-
gress, of Industrial Organizations, is a labor organization, admitting to member-
ship certain employees of the respondent.
HI. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The discrimination against Jean Stiacknian and Arthur Kletn; interference,
restraint, and coercion
The record discloses that the Union began an organizational campaign at
the respondent's plant about' 1938, which persisted until July or August 1041,
at which time the campaign became more intensified, and so continued until
the present.
Jean Strackman, an employee for some 15 years, testified that she joined the
Union in the latter part of July 1941,2 on her return from a vacation. Strack-
man further testified that during August 1941, Julius Israel, the respondent's
secretary, called Strackman into his office and asked her if she had -signed, a
union card ; she replied that she had In this connection Strackman testified :
Q' Tell us what was said by both Mr Israel and yourself at that time?
A. I told him I had signed a union card, and he asked me why. So I
said, well, people want raises, increases in their salaries and vacations, two-
week vacations and sick benefit.
He says, well, I could give you all that.
I says, well, you haven't been giving it.
So he says, well, I will. What do you want a union for?
And then he sat down and he says give me the names of the people
that have signed up. And he says, you won't feel sorry, you'll have a
job here as long as you like to work here.
So I told him I didn't do those things.
And he insisted that I give him the names, and I refused . . . -
During this same meeting, according to Strackman, Israel asked her to swear
on the grave of his deceased father that she would not "join up" with the
' Strackman also testified that she signed a union card In 1938. However, she was
again asked to sign a card in 1941, and did so.
REGAL KNITWEAR CO., INC. 565
Union, and that she would try "to stop" some of the girl employees who had,
signed union cards. Strackman's testimony is credited by the undersigned'
Sometime subsequent to the above conversation, Strackman, having been
informed by the Union that one of the respondent's former women employees
had been discharged because of union activities, talked to this woman, and
was advised by her that such was the fact. Strackman then went to Ti,4ael a n d
accused him of discharging the former employee in question because of union
activities. Israel denied the accusation, and stated that lie knew where the
woman was then employed He had Strackman accompany hint into the office,
telephoned the former employee, and asked her if she was in fact working, and
if she was satisfied. The woman replied in the affirmative. Israel held the
telephone receiver to Strackman's ear so that she could hear the responses. Israel
then asked, "Didn't you just hear what she said?" to which Strackman replied,
"What she told me the day before is altogether different." Israel then became
very angry and seized Strackman by the throat, with the result that she
became hysterical and wept. Israel thereupon sought to console Strackman,
and in the process kissed her. Strackman left the office and was approached
by the respondent's treasurer, Bernot, while she was still crying. He asked
her if she wished to go home. She, however, elected to remain at work.'
During December 1941, Israel directed employee Sylvia Abrams to make a
list of names of employees who wished to go to Miami Beach, Florida, for a
winter vacation. , Strackman was approached by Abrams and informed -the
latter that she could not afford such a trip. Israel then conversed with Strack-
man and told her that he was furnishing "a car, two weeks' pay and that
he would send money to" a hotel in Miami Beach. He also stated that the girls
could afford such it vacation because "it wasn't very expensive in December."
Strackman, in company with Abrams, employees Herman Bogad and wife, acid
Leo Pfeffer, made the trip to Florida in an automobile supplied by the re-
spondent. Upon their return, a group of other employees were furnished the
car which took them to a vacation place in the mountains. These vacations
were "paid." At Christmas time in 1941, the respondent gave Strackman a
$25 government bond, whereas in previous years it usually presented her with
six pairs of hose.
After the advent of the Union at the respondent's plant in 1938, Israel made
it a, practice to present employees with complimentary' tickets for 'theatrical
performances, and,, particularly for Saturday afternoon matinees given,when the
Union held certain of its meetings. This practice had never been indulged in
prior to the coming of the Union.'
Strackman attended union meetings and asked a number of employees to sign
cards. Notwithstanding the winter vacation, the gifts of theatre tickets, and
3Israel generally denied this and other portions of Stracknian's testirnoni Stiackaian
was a credible witness. She impressed the undersigned as desirous of relating the truth,
and was forthright in her manner . Israel 's testimony relating to certain niatenal matters
is vague and unconvincing , and where it contradicts Strackman's, the latter ' s is credited
by the undersigned . An example of the unconvincing nature of Israel's testimony is his
statement that Strackman was an undesirable employee because she started " taking airs
on," and dressed inappropriately for iwoik which "might soil the clothes "
S These, findings are based upon Strackman's testnnony Israel, in effect admitted these
facts, but testified that Strackman wept at ' the replies made by the former eniplo5ee, and
denied that be assaulted Strackman His testimony , insofar as it is at variance with
Strackman ' s, is not credited by the undersigned
5 These findings -are based upon the testimony of Strackman as corroborated by Arthur
Klein, and also Emanuel Blaum, who is presently employed by the respondent lsi ael
admitted having given the respondent's employees threatie tickets, and testified that the
practice started "two or more years ago."
I
566 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Israel's efforts -to dissuade her from her union activity, Strackman continued to
attend union meetings, until March 20, 1942, when Israel asked her to meet him
after working hours. Strackman did so, and testified as follows concerning the
events which then transpired :
Q All right, tell us what happened at that time?
A. He said, I don't know what I'm going to do with you.
I says, well, I don't understand. He says, well, I expect I'll be leaving
very soon on a vacation and I can't have you around, I'm afraid to trust
you I said, well, I don't understand what you mean by that.
r He says, well, you know what's been going on all along about a union, he
says I have a list here, he says, of names of people that have signed up,
and I expect to get rid of quite a few of these people.
And he did have a list with the names on them.
So I says to him, I don't, think that is a very wise thing to do
And he says, oh, I don't know about that. He says, I'm giving you two
weeks pay and any time you need any money if you don't get a job in the
near future you can come up and ask me for it'
I told him I didn't accept charity.
* * * * * * *
Q (By Mr. O'Gorman.) Was there anything said in that conversation
about unions?
A. So I-asked him if I was being fired for union activities. And he
says, I'm not firing you, I'm just telling you to go
I says , well, that's being fired ; if you're not firing me I'm coming back
tomorrow.
He says, o k , then you're fired.
-He was very angry.
So he -says to me, I'm really sorry to let you go, I really need you, but
I can't chance it. And-
Q. Did you,ask him what he meant by chancing, it?
A. Yes, he said that he was afraid to have me around because I would-
,he says, people working in a place too long get ideas , and that he realized
0 that I had a'few ideas that didn't fit in with his. So-=
Q. 'Did he mention what those ideas were?
A: Well, he did mention union once: He said he had a list of people
belonging to the union '
Q. Did you see that list?
A. I did see the list.
Q. Can you tell us any of the names that appeared on that list?
A Well, I believe he had the name of Herman Bogad, and he did have Leo
Pfeffer,' and he had the-my name was on it, and Arthur Klein.' That's
about all I did see.
Israel's version of this occurrence is different. His testimony is to the effect
that he told Strackman he did not think "this place was suited for her any more,"
$ The evidence indicates that the woman whose discharge vas discussed by"Strackman
and Israel had been an active union member , was induced to leave her employment with
the respondent , and was placed elsewhere in employment by Israel for about one week,
after which she was discharged.
7 As found above Herman Bogad and Leo Pfeffer were among those given a paid vacation
to Miami Beach, Florida
8 As hereafter found the respondent discriminated against Klein because of his union
membership and activities.
REGAL KNITWEAR CO., INC. ' 567
and he advised her "it would be better for her to, get another position." Israel
contended that in the last two of her fifteen years of employment by the
iespofident' Strackman. "fooled around" and talked too much with the respond-
ent's male employees, and dressed in a manner which "disrupted" their work.
These contentions are uncorroborated by testimony of any of the male employees
in question, or any other person. Strackman received several wage increases
during her employment. ' Moreover, consistent with Strackman's testimony, Israel
admitted that he left for Florida the day after Strackman's discharge. In view
of Israel's antipathy to the Union as above related, his patently weak conten-
tions,10 and the fact that he left for his vacation immediately after he discharged
Strackman, the undersigned is convinced and finds that Strackman's testimony
relating to the conversation which took place on the day of her discharge reflects
the true facts. It is apparent that Strackman was discharged because of her
union membership and activities.
Prior to February 1942, Arthur Klein had been unemployed for a number of
days Early in February 1942, one Miss Brown, formerly employed as a
stenographer by the respondent, gave Klein a letter of introduction to Alex
Roff, the respondent's office and credit manager, in which she asked Roff to
"do something" for Klein. Brown also telephoned Roff in Klein's behalf and told
him that Klein "was out of work . . . and he has a wife, his wife is .. .
going to become a mother."
Roff introduced Klein to Israel and according to Klein's testimony which the
undersigned credits, Israel at the outset of his interview with Klein stated,
"before I hire you, . . . suppose there was some union activity going on, would
you become part of it?" Klein replied that if a majority desired a union, he
`would want a union." Israel then asked Klein ". . . if the majority went off
and jumped off a building, would you follow suit?" Klein responded that "there
was no analogy' there."" During this discussion Klein told Israel that he had
had a hernia at one time, and would not be able to do "hard work." Israel did
not disclose the type of work expected of Klein. He did, however, assure Klein
that it would not be "heavy work."" Israel then hired Klein at a wage of
$20 per week and put him to work as a stock clerk.
About March 1, 1942, Klein joined the Union and became active in its organiza-
tional efforts He worked as a stock clerk for a time, was then "promoted" to
the job of order picker, and on or about April 1 he received an increase in pay of
$2 per week. Subsequently Klein met Israel in the plant and thanked him
for the raise in pay. Israel then took Klein aside and told him in substance,
that he had lost faith in "somebody" with respect to "being in,the union." Klein
responded that if the implication was that he was "in the union," this was the,
fact Israel then called Klein's attention to the fact that the latter was a married
man who had "coining responsibilities," was "going to become a father," and
would need a friend and some financial aid. Israel also stated that he was
"the one" to give financial aid to Klein. He added, "I've always been good to
those who have been true and faithful to me. Those who, have stuck with me
need never worry." Israel also suggested that he might set Klein up in business,
'These years coincide with those during which the Union attempted to organize the
employees of the respondent.
1° with reference to Strackman's mode of attire , it is undisputed that while woi king she
at all tunes wore a "smock' which completely coveied hei dress
11 This portion of Klein ' s testimony is uncontradicted
12 Israel denied that at this time Klein informed him that he had had a hernia. Klein
was straightfoi ward in his demeanor , and consistent in his testimony . As above indicated
the undersigned accord's little weight to Israel 's uncorroborated testimony.
568 DECISIONS Of NATIONAL LABOR RELATI'O''N BOARD
supply him with merchandise , and give him any needed financial assistance.
Israel asked Klein if there was anything he could do or say that would "dis-
courage" Klein from union membership, and Klein replied in the negative 13
On May 22, 1942, Klein had occasion to go to the shipping room where, as the
evidence shows, the work performed was more arduous than the work done by
stock clerks or order pickers. When he arrived there Israel, who was present,
ordered him io remain and help in the shipping room. Klein worked in the
shipping room the balance of that day. On the next day Klein reported to the
order picking department, where he was then working, and was told by the
foreman of that department that pursuant to Israel's orders he was to work in
the shipping room. Klein worked in the shipping room that day. The following
Monday, May 25, Klein went to the sales room where in the presence of Bob
Goldberg '14 an employee, and others, he reminded Israel of the fact that he had
had a hernia, would be unable to work in the shipping department, and that if
Israel persisted in making him work in the shipping department Klein would
deem it a 'discriminatory action on Israel's part and report it to the National
Labor Relations Board Israel replied that Klein could do as he pleased, but as
far as-his work was concerned he was to do what he was "instructed to do."
Since Klein had advised Israel at the time of his employment' that, due to a
hernia operation had in the past, he would be unable to perform "heavy work;" the
undersigned is-convinced, under the circumstances herein set forth, that Klein
was on May 22 transferred to the shipping room and thereafter ordered to remain
there because of his union membership and activities.
Klein then' went to a doctor, complained that he had strained himself in
the shipping room, and procured a certificate from him.36 He later went to the
plant, talked with Office Manager Roff, and gave the doctor's certificate to
him. Roff said that Klein looked "bad" and advised him to go home and rest
for a few days. Klein kept in touch with Roff on the telephone, and on or
about May 28 returned to the plant and talked with Roff, for he had been
unable to' contact Israel since the meeting in the show room above referred
to. Klein told Roff that he' was ready to go to work. Roff stated that the
respondent had received advices from its insurance agents that Klein could
not be employed in the respondent's shipping department. Klein reminded
Roff that he was an order picker, but that he would secure from his physician
a certificate, stating that he was capable of performing "any type of work."
Klein was reexamined on June 1, and received such a certificate from his
doctor.1' On about this date he presented this certificate to Roff and stated.
that he was willing to do any type of work. • Klein asked Roff "to take it up"
13 The 'above findings are all based upon Klein's testimony Israel testified in substance
that he merely told Klein that he was glad that Klein received the raise, and that he
stated "I hope you'll be deserving of it and continue your good work." Israel did not
categorically deny Klein's testimony concerning the, former's attempt on this occasion
to induce Klein to abondon the Union. 1
14 Goldberg, although not shown to be unavailable, was not called as a witness.
MAY 25, 1942.
15 To Whom it May Concern:
Arthur Klein complains of pain in the right groin He has had a hernia of the right
side which was repaired several years ago. I advise that he refrain from work which
entails lifting of weights in order to prevent recurrence of hernia.
(S) Louis BASS, M. D.
JUNe 1, 1942.
16 To Whom it May Concern:
I have reexamined Arthur Klein Ile no longer complains of any pain in the groin. I
find his condition iery satisfactory and he may ieturn to any type of work.
(S) Louis BASS, M. D.
REGAL KNITWEAR CO., INC. 569
with Israel, and Roff agreed to do so and let Klein know what transpired.
On June 3 Klein met Roff and was advised by him that Israel told him to tell
Klein he was "definitely through." 17
Israel contended that Klein's employment was terminated because Klein
produced two inconsistent statements from his physician, and was accordingly
not "the type" to be employed by the respondent. He further stated that
Klein was physically incapable of working, in view of his complaint. Con-
sidering the respondent's strong opposition to the Union, the physician's final
opinion that Klein was able to perform all types of work, and the earlier dis-
crimination against Klein, the undersigned is convinced and finds that the
respondent's contentions are without merit, and were advanced as pretexts
for Klein's discharge; the true reasons therefor being his union membership
and activities.
Ralph Piccolo, an employee of 16 years standing, and a receiving clerk for
the respondent, testified that during July or August 1942, Israel spoke to him
concerning his membership in the Union. In this connection Piccolo's uncon-
tradicted and credited testimony is as follows :
Q. (By Mr. O'Gorman.) Will you repeat that conversation to us, if
you will?
'A. He asked me if I was in the union ; I told him I was. He says, "What
are you going to do about it?" I says, "Nothing, I am going to stay in
the union." That was all.
Piccolo's mother does "contract" work for the respondent. She "takes work
out," and "hands it out to other people." On the occasion of the above con-
versation with Piccolo; Israel threatened to take the matter up with Piccolo's
mother, "but he never went that far."
The undersigned finds-that the respondent, by the acts and statements of
Israel above related, from on or about July 1941, to date, vilified, disparaged,
and expressed disapproval of the Union ; interrogated its employees concerning
their union affiliations ; urged, persuaded, threatened, and warned its employees
to refrain from assisting, becoming members of, or remaining members of the
Union, and thus interfered with, restrained, and coerced, and is interfering with,
restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise of the rights guaran-
teed them in Section 7 of the Act.
From the above and the entire record, the undersigned is convinced and
finds that the respondent discharged Jean Strackman on March 20, 1942, assigned
Arthur Klein to more difficult work on May 22, 1942; and on June 3, 1942, dis-
charged him, for the reason that these employees were members of the Union
and had engaged in union and concerted activities, and the respondent thus
'discriminated in regard to their hire and tenure of employment, thereby dis-
couraging membership in a labor organization ; by such discrimination the
respondent has interfered with, restrained, and coerced and is interfering
with. restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise of the rights
guaranteed them in Section 7 of the Act.
17 These findings are based upon Klein's testimony. Roff's version of these events is
somewhat at odds with Klein's, especially as to chronology. Roff testified that Klein in-
sisted that he would not work in the shipping department; that after receiving the first
certificate he conferred with Israel about the matter who said he'd "see about it" ; that
Israel never advised him definitely as to Klein's status ; and that he did not tell Klein he
was "through". Yet Israel admitted that he told Roff that Klein was discharged and that
Roff received instructions from him to advise Klein to this effect . In the circumstances
Roll's testimony is not credited by the undersigned.
570 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The undersigned finds that the activities of the' respondent set forth in
Section III above, occuring in connection with the operations of the respond-
ent described in Section I above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relation
to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several" States, "and have led and
tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the
free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that the respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor
practices, the undersigned will recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and
take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
The undersigned has found that the respondent discriminated in regard to the
hire and tenure of employment of Jean Strackman and Arthur Klein, thereby
discouraging membership in the Union. In order to effectuate the policies of the
Act, it is recommended below that the respondent offer to Jean Strackman and
Arthur Klein immediate and full reinstatement to their former or substantially
equivalent positions ; without prejudice to their seniority or other rights and
privileges ; and that it make them whole for any loss of pay they may have
suffered by reason of the discrimination against them, by payment to each of
them of a sum of money equivalent to that which each normally would have
earned as wages from the date of discrimination, I. e., March 20, 1942, In the
case of Strackman, and May 22, 1942, in the case of Klein, to the date of the
offer of reinstatement, less the net earnings 18 of each during said periods.
Upon the basis of the above findings pf fact, and upon the entire record in
.the case, the undersigned makes the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1 Wholesale' & Warehouse Workers Union, Local 65, affiliated with the Con-
gress of Industrial Organizations, is a labor organization within the meaning
of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
2. The respondent, by discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of em-
ployment of Jean Strackman and Arthur Klein, thereby discouraging member-
ship in a' labor organization, has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 8 (3) of the Act.
3. The respondent, by interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employ-
ees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them in Section 7 of the Act,,has
engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of
Section 8 (1) of the Act.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting
commerce, within the meaning of Section 2 ( 6) and (7), of the Act.
iS "By "net earnings" is meant earnings less expenses, such as for transportation, room,
and board, incurred by an employee in connection with obtaining work and working else-
where than for the respondent, which would not have been incurred but for his unlawful
discharge and the consequent necessity of his seeking employment elsewhere See Matter
of Crossett Lumber Company and United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of
America, Lumber and Sawmill Workers Union, Local 2590, 8 N L R. B 440. Monies
received for work performed upon Federal, State, county, municipal, or other work-relief
projects shall be considered as earnings. See Republic Steel Corporation v. N. L. R. B.,
311 U. S.'7. ,
f
REGAL KNITWEAR CO., INC. 571
RECOMMENDATIONS
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and conclusions of law, the under-
signed recommends that the respondent, Regal Knitwear Co., Inc., and its officers,
agents, successors, and assigns shall:
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Discouraging membership in Wholesale & Warehouse Workers Union,
Local 65, affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations, or 'any other
labor organization of its employees, by discharging or refusing to reinstate any
of its employees, or in-any other way discriminating in regard to their hire and
tenure of employment, or any term or condition of their employment ;
(b) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its em-
ployees in,the exercise of the right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist
labor organizations, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own
choosing, or to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bar-
gaining or other mutual aid or protection, as guaranteed in Section 7 of the
Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the undersigned finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Offer to Jean Strackman and Arthur Klein immediate and full reinstate-
ment to their former or substantially equivalent positions, without prejudice to
their seniority or other rights and privileges;
(b) 'Make whole the said Jean Strackman and Arthur Klein for any loss of
pay they may have suffered by reason of the discrimination against them, by -
payment to each of them of a sum of money equal to that which each would nor-
mally have earned as wages during the period from the date of discrimination,
I. e. March 20, 1942 as to Strackman, 'and May 22, 1942, as to Klein, to the
date of the offer of reinstatement, less the net earnings,"' of, each during said
periods ;
(c) Immediately post in conspicuous places in and about its plant in New
York, New York, and maintain for a period of at least sixty (60) consecutive
days, from the date of posting, notices to its employees stating: (1) that the
respondent-will not engage in the conduct from which it is recommended that it
cease and desist in paragraphs 1 (a) and (b) of these recommendations; (2)
that it will take the affirmative action set forth in paragraphs 2 (a) and (b)
of these recommendations; and (3) that respondent's employees are free to
become or remain members of Wholesale & Warehouse Workers Union, Local 65,
affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Oorganizations, and that the respondent
will not discriminate against any employee because of membership in or activity
on behalf of that organization;
(d) Notify the Regional Director for the Second Region in writing within
ten (10) days from the receipt of this Intermediate Report what steps the
respondent has taken to comply herewith.
It is further recommended that unless on or before ten (10) days from the
receipt of this Intermediate Report the respondent notifies said Regional
Director in writing that it has complied with the foregoing recommendation, the
National Labor Relations Board issue an order requiring the respondent to take
the action aforesaid.
As provided in Section 33 of Article II of the Rules and Regulations of the
National Labor Relations Board, Series 2-as amended, effective October 28,
1942-any party may within fifteen (15) days from the date of the entry of
the order transferring the case to the Board, pursuant to Section 32 of Article
19 See footnote 18, supra.`
572 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR R-MATION'S BOAIRD
II of said Rules and Regulations , file with the Board , Shoreham Building, Wash-
ington , D. C., an original and four copies of a statement in writing setting
forth such exceptions to the Intermediate Report or to any other part of the
record or proceeding ( including rulings upon all motions or objections) as it
relies upon, together with the original and four copies of a brief in support
thereof. As further provided in said Section 33, should any party desire per-
mission to argue orally before the Board , request therefor must be made in writ-
ing to the Board within ten (10 ) days from the date of the order transferring
the case to the Board.
PFrER F. WARn,
Trial Examiner.
Dated March 9, 1943.