Rose Knitting Mills, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 16, 1977

228 N.L.R.B. 746 (N.L.R.B. 1977)

746 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Rose Knitting Mills, Inc . and Knitgoods Workers'
Union, Local 155, a/w International Ladies'
Garment Workers Union , AFL-CIO. Case 22-
CA-6737
March 16, 1977
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS FANNING, PENELLO, AND
WALTHER
Upon a charge and amended charges filed on
December 16, 1975, January 6, 1976, and February
10, 1976, by the Knitgoods Workers' Union, Local
155 a/w International Ladies' Garment Workers
Union, AFL-CIO, herein called Local 155, and duly
served on Rose Knitting Mills, Inc., herein called the
Respondent, the General Counsel of the National
Labor Relations Board, by the Regional Director for
Region 22, issued a complaint and notice of hearing
on August 2, 1976, against Respondent alleging that
Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in
unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section
8(a)(1) and (3) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended.' Copies
of the charges and complaint and notice of hearing
before an Administrative Law Judge were duly
served on the parties to this proceeding. The
Respondent failed to file an answer to the complaint.
On December 27, 1976, counsel for the General
Counsel filed directly with the Board a Motion for
Summary Judgment and supporting memorandum
based on the Respondent's failure to file an answer
as required by Sections 102.20 and 102.21 of the
National Labor Relations Board's Rules and Regula-
tions, Series 8, as amended. The order transferring
proceeding to the Board and Notice To Show Cause
was issued by the Board on January 3, 1977. The
Respondent has filed no response to the Notice To
Show Cause, and accordingly the allegations of the
Motion for Summary Judgment and memorandum
in support stand uncontroverted.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
Upon the entire record in this proceeding, the
Board makes the following:
i In accord with Sec. 102. 18 of the Board's Rules and Regulations, the
earlier complaint issued herein on February 12, 1976, to which the
Respondent filed an answer, was withdrawn pursuant to an informal
settlement agreement executed on March 3, 1976, and approved by the
Regional Director on March 25 , 1976. On August 2, 1976, the Regional
Director withdrew approval of the informal settlement agreement and
issued the instant complaint . As set forth in fn I of the Memorandum in
Support of Motion for Summary Judgment, counsel for the General Counsel
notes that the Respondent had complied with the 8 (aXl) and (2) provisions
of the original complaint and had reinstated the alleged 8(a)(1) and (3)
228 NLRB No. 86
Ruling on the Motion for Summary Judgment
Rule 102.20 of the Board's Rules and Regulations,
Series 8, as amended, provides:
The respondent shall, within 10 days from the
service of the complaint, file an answer thereto.
The respondent shall specifically admit, deny, or
explain each of the facts alleged in the complaint,
unless the respondent is without knowledge, in
which case the respondent shall so state, such
statement operating as a denial. All allegations in
the complaint, if no answer is filed, or any
allegation in the complaint not specifically denied
or explained in an answer filed, unless the
respondent shall state in the answer that he is
without knowledge, shall be deemed to be
admitted to be true and shall be so found by the
Board, unless good cause to the contrary is
shown.
The complaint which issued on August 2, 1976, and
was served on Respondent's counsel by registered
mail and on the Respondent by regular mail, states
that "the Respondent shall file . . . an Answer to
said Complaint within ten (10) days from service
thereof, and that, unless it does so, all of the
allegations contained in the Complaint shall be
deemed to be admitted to be true and may be so
found by the Board." According to the uncontrovert-
ed allegations of the Memorandum in Support of
Motion for Summary Judgment, counsel for the
General Counsel, upon being advised telephonically
on September 27, 1976, that Respondent's counsel
was no longer representing Respondent and that
Respondent had closed its Ridgefield, New Jersey,
place of business, had service of the complaint made
at Respondent president's last known place of abode.
As of December 14, 1976, the date of the Motion for
Summary Judgment, Respondent has failed to file an
answer or to explain the reason for such failure. No
good cause to the contrary having been shown,2 in
accordance with the rules set forth above, the
allegations of the complaint herein are deemed to be
admitted as true and are so found to be true.
Accordingly, the General Counsel's Motion for
Summary Judgment is hereby granted.
On the basis of the entire record the Board makes
the following:
discnnunatees , but refused to make them whole. Accordingly, the instant
complaint refers solely to the 8(a)(1) and (3) allegations.
2 Since the withdrawal of the earlier February 12, 1976, complaint
resulted in the parties reverting to the situation existing prior to the issuance
of a complaint (cf. International Ladies' Garment Workers Union, Local 415-
475, AFL-CIO [Arosa Knitting Mills] v. N LR B., 501 F.2d 823 (C.A.D.C,
1974)), the filing of an answer to the complaint issued on February 12, 1976,
which had been withdrawn , does not constitute an answer to the new
complaint which issued on August 2, 1976.
ROSE KNITTING MILLS , INC. 747
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
Respondent , a New Jersey corporation , has its
principal office and plant at 486 Hendricks Cause-
way, Ridgefield, New Jersey, where it is engaged in
the manufacture , sale, and distribution of knit goods
and related products. During the calendar year 1975,
Respondent caused to be manufactured, sold, and
distributed at its Ridgefield plant , knit goods valued
in excess of $50,000 of which products valued in
excess of $50,000 were shipped from said Ridgefield
plant in interstate commerce directly to States of the
United States other than the State of New Jersey.
We find, on the basis of the foregoing, that
Respondent is, and has been at all times material
herein , an employer engaged in commerce within the
meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act and it will
effectuate the policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction
herein.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Knitgoods Workers' Umon, Local 155, a/w Inter-
national Ladies' Garment Workers Union, AFL-
CIO, and Local 363, International Brotherhood of
Teamsters , Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers
of America, herein called Local 363, are labor
organizations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of
the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The Independent 8(a)(1) Violations
On or about December 17, 1975, Respondent (1)
interrogated certain of its employees concerning their
membership in and activities on behalf of and
sympathy for Local 155, and (2) threatened certain of
its employees with discharge if they refused to give
assistance and support to Local 363.
B. The 8(a)(3) Violations
On or about December 3, 1975 , the Respondent
did discharge employees Ramon Alonso Martinez,
Jaime Espinosa , Federico Andrade, and Cesar
Iturralde and thereafter refused to reinstate or offer
reinstatement to said employees because said em-
ployees joined or assisted Local 155 or engaged in
other concerted activities for the purpose of collec-
tive bargaining , or mutual aid or protection. On or
about December 17, 1975, Respondent did discharge
employee Jesus Valdes and, thereafter , failed and
refused to reinstate or offer reinstatement to said
employee, because said employee refused to join
Local 363, and sought to assist Local 155 and
engaged in other concerted activities for the purposes
of collective bargaining , or mutual aid or protection.
Accordingly, we find that by the aforesaid conduct,
as set forth in sections III, A and B, above,
Respondent has interfered with , restrained, and
coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights
guaranteed them under Section 7 of the Act, and has
discriminated in regard to the terms and conditions
of employment of its employees Martinez , Espinosa,
Andrade, Iturralde, and Valdes , and, by such
conduct , Respondent has engaged and is engaging in
unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section
8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR
PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of Respondent set forth in section
III, above , occurring in connection with its opera-
tions described in section I, above , have a close,
intimate, and substantial relationship to trade,
traffic, and commerce among the several States and
tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and
obstructing commerce and the free flow thereof.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent has engaged in and
is engaging in unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 8 (a)(3) and (1) of the Act we shall
order that it cease and desist therefrom and take
certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the
policies of the Act.
We have also found that Respondent discriminato-
rily discharged and refused to reinstate or offer to
reinstate employees Martinez , Espinosa , Andrade,
Iturralde , and Valdes. However , as the General
Counsel' s Memorandum in Support of Motion for
Summary Judgment states at footnote 1, the Respon-
dent has reinstated said employees , but has refused
to make them whole . Accordingly, we shall not order
reinstatement but shall order that Respondent make
said employees whole for any loss of earnings
suffered because of discrimination against them.
Backpay shall be based upon the earnings which
each employee would normally have received from
the date of his discharge to the date of Respondent's
reinstatement of him , less any net interim earnings,
and shall be computed on the basis set forth in F. W.
Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289 (1950), and Isis
Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716 (1962).
The Board, upon the basis of the foregoing facts
and the entire record , makes the following:
748 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Rose Knitting Mills, Inc., is an employer
engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section
2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. Knitgoods Workers' Union, Local 155, a/w
International Ladies' Garment Workers Union,
AFL-CIO, and Local 363, International Brother-
hood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and
Helpers of America, are labor organizations within
the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. By the acts described in section III, above,
Respondent has interfered with, restrained, coerced,
and discriminated against employees in the exercise
of the rights guaranteed them in Section 7 of the Act,
and, therefore , has engaged in and is engaging in
unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section
8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair
labor practices affecting commerce within the mean-
ing of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board hereby orders that the Respondent,
Rose Knitting Mills, Inc., 486 Hendricks Causeway,
Ridgefield, New Jersey, and its officers , agents,
successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Interrogating its employees concerning their
membership in and activities on behalf of and
sympathy for Knitgoods Workers' Union, Local 155,
a/w International Ladies' Garment Workers Union,
AFL-CIO, or any labor organization.
(b) Threatening employees with discharge if they
refuse to give assistance and support to Local 363,
International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen and Helpers of America, or any
other labor organization.
(c) In any other manner interfering with, restrain-
ing, or coercing employees in their rights guaranteed
by Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended.
(d) Discouraging membership in, or activities on
behalf of, Knitgoods Workers' Union, Local 155,
a/w International Ladies' Garment Workers Union,
AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization, by
discriminatorily discharging or terminating employ-
ees, or by otherwise discriminating in regard to the
hire or tenure of its employees because they joined or
assisted the above-named or any other labor organi-
zation or engaged in other concerted activities for the
purposes of collective bargaining or mutual aid or
protection.
2. Take the following affirmative action which
the Board finds will effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Make whole employees Ramon Alonso Marti-
nez, Jaime Espinosa , Federico Andrade, Cesar
Iturralde, and Jesus Valdes for their losses suffered
by reason of the discrimination against them as set
forth in the section of this decision entitled "The
Remedy."
(b) Preserve and, upon request, make available to
the Board or its agents , for examination and copying,
all payroll records, social security payment records,
timecards, personnel records and reports, and all
other records necessary to analyze the amount of
backpay due under the terms of this Order.
(c) Post at its 486 Hendricks Causeway, Ridgefield,
New Jersey, facility copies of the attached notice
marked "Appendix." 3 Copies of said notice, on
forms provided by the Regional Director for Region
22, after being duly signed by Respondent's represen-
tative, shall be posted by Respondent immediately
upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60
consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places,
including all places where notices to employees are
customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken
by Respondent to insure that said notices are not
altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
(d) Notify the Regional Director for Region 22, in
writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order,
what steps the Respondent has taken to comply
herewith.
3 In the event that this Order is enforced by a Judgment of a United
States Court of Appeals , the words in the notice reading "Posted by Order
of the National Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursuant to a
Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the
National Labor Relations Board."
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT interrogate our employees con-
cerning their membership in and activities on
behalf of and sympathy for Knitgoods Workers'
Union, Local 155, a/w International Ladies'
Garment Workers Union, AFL-CIO, or any
other labor organization.
WE WILL NOT threaten employees with dis-
charge if they refuse to give assistance and
support to Local 363, International Brotherhood
of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and
Helpers of America, or any other labor organiza-
tion.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere
with, restrain, or coerce employees in their rights
ROSE KNITTING MILLS, INC. 749
guaranteed by Section 7 of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended.
WE WILL NOT discourage membership in, or
activities on behalf of, Knitgoods Workers'
Union, Local 155, a/w International Ladies'
Garment Workers Union, AFL-CIO, or any
other labor organization, by discriminatorily
discharging or terminating employees, or by
otherwise discriminating in regard to the hire or
tenure of employees because they joined or
assisted the above-named or any other labor
organization or engaged in other concerted
activities for purposes of collective bargaining or
mutual aid or protection.
WE WILL make whole employees Ramon
Alonso Martinez, Jaime Espinosa, Federico
Andrade, Cesar Iturralde, and Jesus Valdes for
their losses suffered by reason of the discrimina-
tion against them, with interest.
ROSE KNITTING MILLS,
INC.