S. Blechman & Sons, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 4, 1937

4 N.L.R.B. 15 (N.L.R.B. 1937)

In the Matter of S. BLECHMAN & SONS, INC. and UNITED WHOLE-
SALE EMPLOYEES OF NEW YORK, LOCAL 65, TEXTILE WORKERS OR-
GANIZING COMMITTEE-COMMITTEE FOR INDUSTRIAL ORGANIZATION
Cases Nos. C-243 and R-205.-Decided November 4, 1937
Dry Goods Jobbing Industry-Interference , Restraint or Coercion : propa-
ganda against union; antiunion statements ; questioning employees regarding
union affiliation ; expressed opposition to labor organizations , threats of re-
taliatory ' action-Company-Domtinated ' Untion: ,domination and interference ' with
administration of ; financial and other support ; sponsoring and fostering
growth of ; qualification as collective bargaining agency ; disestablished as
agency for collective bargaining-Discrimination : discharge-Reinstatement
Ordered-Back Pay Awarded-Investigation of Representatives : controversy
concerning representation of employees : refusal by employer to meet and
negotiate with union representatives ; prior consent election in which company-
dominated union received plurality of votes cast held invalid-Units Appoo`-
priate for Collective Bargaining : occupational differences ; divergence of inter-
ests ; wage differentials-Electtidn Ordered: 'company-dominated union excluded
from ballot.
Mr. David A. Moscovitz and Mr. Victor A. Pascal, for the Board:
Mr. David Michelsohn, of New York City, for the respondent.
Mr. Bernard Shatzkin and Mr. Harry Bass, of Brooklyn, N. Y.,
for the Association.
Mr. Howard Lichtenstein, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
ORDER
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS '
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Charges and amended charges having been filed by Wholesale Dry
Goods Employees Union, Local 19932, American Federation of Labor,
herein called the Union, the National Labor Relations Board, herein
called the Board, by Elinore M. Herrick, Regional Director for the
Second Region (New York City), issued and duly served its com-
plaint dated July 26, 1937, against S. Blechman & Sons, Inc., of New
York City, the respondent herein, alleging that the respondent had
engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices affecting com-
merce, within- the meaning of Section 8 (1), (2), and (3)' and Section
15
16 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, here-
in called the Act. On July 28, 1937, a further amended charge was
filed by United Wholesale Employees of New York, Local 65, Textile
Workers Organizing Committee-Committee for Industrial Organi-
zation, the name and affiliation of the Union having been so changed
on July 22, 1937. In substance, the complaint, as amended,' alleged
that the respondent dominated and interfered with the administration
of Employees' Association of S.' Blechman & Sons., Inc., herein called
the Association, and contributed support thereto, that it intimidated
its employees to prevent their joining the Union, and that it demoted
Sol Joffe, Theodore Gartner and Louis Gordon, and discharged, Sam
Keenholtz, employees of the respondent, because of their activity on
behalf of the Union. On July 29, 1937, the respondent filed its answer
to the complaint admitting that it was engaged in interstate com-
merce but denying that it had engaged in the alleged unfair labor
practices.
Pursuant to a notice served upon the respondent, the Union, and
the Association, a hearing was held in New York City, on August 2
and 3, 1937, before Fred A. Hughes, the Trial Examiner duly desig-
nated.by the Board. The Board, the respondent, and the Association
appeared by counsel. At the opening of the hearing, counsel for the
Association withdrew from the hearing on the ground that the com-
plaint was not directed against the Association, and did not partici-
pate further, although he was apprised of his privilege to controvert
any testimony that might be elicited,, so far as it affected the Asso-
ciation. Full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine
witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing upon the issues was
afforded to all parties.
On September 20, 1937, the Trial Examiner filed his Intermediate
Report to the complaint, in which he found that the respondent had
dominated and-interfered with the administration of the Association,
had restrained and coerced its employees in the exercise of their right
to self-organization, and had discharged Sam Keenholtz because of
his activities on behalf of the Union. No findings were made with
respect to the alleged discriminatory demotions of Theodore Gartner
and Louis Gordon.
On September 30, 1937, the respondent filed its Exceptions to the
Intermediate Report, in which it excepted to the Trial Examiner's
findings that the respondent had engaged in and was engaging in
the unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint. It further ex-
cepted to the Trial Examiner's rulings in granting the motions of the
' Pursuant to a notice of motion issued on July 29, 1937 , the Board amended its com-
plaint to include the allegation with respect to the discharge of Sam Keenholtz . During
the course of the hearing, on motion of the Board 's attorney , the allegations concerning
the demotion of Sol Joffe were stricken from the complaint.
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 17
Board's attorney to amend the pleadings to conform to the proof, and
to strike from the answer of - the respondent allegations that the
Union is an irresponsible organization, and in denying the respond-
ent's motion to dismiss the complaint' for the reason that Wholesale
Dry Goods Employees Union, A. F. of L., having gone out of exist-
ence, was no longer a party to,, the proceedings.- - We find no merit
in the exceptions, and they are-hereby overruled.
On May 21, 1937, the Union petitioned the Board for an investiga-
tion and certification of representatives pursuant to Section 9 (c) of
the Act. On June 2, 1937, the Board directed the Regional Director
to conduct an investigation and provide for an appropriate hearing
upon due notice, pursuant to Section 9 (c) of the Act and Article III,
Section 3 of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations-
Series 1, as amended. -
Pursuant to a notice served upon the respondent, the Union, and
the Association, which had been named in the Union' s petition as a
labor organization claiming to represent employees of the respondent,
a hearing was held in New York City, on July 2 and 3, 1937, before
Henry J. Kent, the Trial Examiner duly designated by the Board.
All parties appeared by counsel and were afforded full opportunity
to be heard, to, examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce
evidence bearing upon the issues.
The Board has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiners
on motions, objections, and other matters during the hearings, and
finds that no prejudicial errors were committed. The rulings are
hereby affirmed.
On October 5, 1937, pursuant to Article III, Section 10 (c) (2)
of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series
1, as amended, the Board issued an order consolidating the cases
for all purposes.
Upon the records in both cases, the Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
The respondent, S. Blechman & Sons, Inc., is a corporation organ-
ized and existing under the laws of the State of New York, with
its principal office and place of business in New York City. The
respondent is a jobber engaged in the purchase and sale of dry goods,
including underwear, knitwear, notions, hosiery, gloves, and house-
hold merchandise. It employs approximately 248 employees, con-
sisting of inside and outside salesmen, buyers, shipping clerks, re-
ceiving clerks, order "takers, packers,-filing clerks, bookkeepers, and
`other clerical employees. The, extent of the respondent's business
18 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
activity is not disclosed in the records. The respondent stipulated,
however, that it receives approximately 70, per cent of its purchases
from points outside the State of New York, and that approximately
55 per cent of its sales are shipped to states other than New York.
II. THE ORGANIZATIONS , INVOLVED
United Wholesale Employees of New York, Local 65, Textile
Workers Organizing Committee-Committee for Industrial Organi-
zation, is a labor organization, first organized in 1933 as Wholesale
Dry Goods Workers Union. In February 1935 it became affiliated
with the American Federation of Labor and was designated as
Wholesale Dry Goods Employees Union, Local 19932, A. F. of L.
On July 22, 1937; the Union adopted its present name after merg-
ing with Local 65 of Textile House Workers Union and Ware-
house Workers Union, and becoming affiliated with the Committee
for Industrial Organization. The Union admits to membership all
employees of the respondent except credit men, buyers, assistant
buyers, department heads, other supervisory employees, and secre-
taries to such employees.
The Mutual Aid and Benevolent Association of S. Blechman &
Sons, Inc., was organized in 1929 for the purpose of extending finan-
cial assistance and other aid to the respondent's employees. In
January 1934 it was incorporated under the laws of the State of
New York as Employees' Association of S. Blechman & Sons, Inc.
At the same, time, it extended its activities to include the function of
collective bargaining. The Association is a labor organization ad-
mitting to membership all employees who have been employed by the
respondent for a period of at least six months.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Domination and interference with the Association and discrimi-
nation against the Union
As indicated above, the Association came into existence as an em-
ploybes' organization for the purpose of engaging in mutual welfare
activities among the respondent's employees. Upon its incorporation
in 1934, the following provision was included in its constitution :
In accordance with the principles expounded in the National,
Recovery Act, this organization shall function under the rulings
of the above Act, and also incorporate within itself the principle
of collective bargaining.2
An examination of the record, however, reveals that the Association
never-seriously attempted to bargain- collectively in the interests of
2 Board's Exhibit No. 13 (Hearing, July 2, 3, 19371.
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 19
its members. Instead, it became a convenient weapon in the hands
of the respondent to combat any form of genuine collective bargain-
ing activity in its plant.
Article V, Section 5, of the Association's constitution provides that
"all voting shall be strictly by open ballot". It is not therefore sur-
prising that supervisory and confidential employees succeeded in
monopolizing the offices of the Association and perverting its func-
tions to fit the labor policies of the respondent. From 1934 to 1937,
Aaron Hochberg, an office manager and assistant credit manager,
whose activities on behalf of the;respondent are hereinafter, set forth,
held the office of president of the Association. Other officers elected
during this period included Charles Feifer and Sam Littow, buyers,
Sol Eisenberg and Pincus Roth, assistant buyers, and Barney Elig-
man, department head. Meetings of the Association's grievance com-
mittee and other Association activities were permitted to be con-
ducted during working hours in the respondent's plant.
The history of collective bargaining between the grievance com-
mittee of the Association and the respondent is remarkably barren,
and fails to reveal even an effort on the part of the Association to
meet with the officers of the respondent regarding any problem of
consequence to the employees. Theodore Gartner, who had served on
the grievance committee for three years, could not recall any negotia-
tions with the respondent regarding salaries.
Jerome Eibner, recording secretary of the Association, testified,
after a recess during which Slonim, the respondent's treasurer, had
refreshed his previously blank memory, that an oral agreement as to
salary increases had existed between the respondent and the Associa-
tion, and that general wage increases had been granted in 1935 and
1936. He could not recall , however, any negotiations which the re-
spondent carried on with the grievance committee, nor could he recall
the details attendant upon the alleged wage increases.
He testified that finally, in 1937, the election for officers of the
Association was conducted by secret ballot, although the constitution,
as introduced, fails to disclose any amendment of the original pro-
vision with respect to voting. As an officer and member of the
grievance committee since 1936, Eibner displayed an astounding
ignorance of its activities and achievements. We can only conclude
that the Association's venture into the field of collective bargaining,
if it ventured at all, was both half-hearted and unproductive.3
The respondent made no effort to conceal its solicitude for the
Association or its use of the Association to combat the Union in its
3In June 1937 , when Union activity became increasingly manifest , the respondent an-
nounced that it would grant the equivalent of vacations with pay to its employees. We
are unimpressed with the claim of the Association that this concession was secured through
.its efforts since its previous request for vacations had been refused
20 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
attempts to* recruit members among the employees. During the
spring of 1937, as indicated more fully below, the respondent exerted
every possible effort to establish the Association, unquestionably as
the pseudo-representative of its employees. During this period,
Arthur Osman, executive secretary of the Union, communicated with
Hochberg and asked for permission either to deliver an address at
an Association meeting, or to engage in a debate with an Association
representative regarding the relative merits of the Association and
the Union. Although Osman's communication was brought up for
consideration at a general meeting of the'Association, the testimony
is not controverted that Hochberg refused to permit the members to
vote on Osman's proposal. The inference is inescapable that Hoch-
berg's interests as a supervisory employee and as president of the
Association conflicted, to the detriment of the employees.
In April 1937, prior to a consent election among the employees to
determine Whether they desired to be represented by the Association
or the Union, the respondent engaged in a course of conduct designed
to gain members for the Association and discourage membership in
the Union'
Stier, the respondent's credit manager, addressed a group of ship-
ping department employees during working hours, shortly before the
election, and advised them that if an "outside" union came into the
plant, existing employer-employee harmony would be destroyed. Sol
Kornblau, a stock clerk, was told by his supervisor, Harry Schneider,
a buyer, that his activities on behalf of the Union were known. He
was advised to see Nathan Blechman, one of the respondent's officers,
and profess his loyalty to the respondent. This incident likewise oc-
curred prior to the election.
Following the consent election of April 27, 1937, the respondent con-
tinued its policy of discouraging membership in the Union. In May
or June 1937, Theodore Gartner, an inside salesman, was called to
Hochberg's office, and later to the office of Slonim, the treasurer of
the respondent, and accused of being a member of the Union. He was
advised that he was being watched.
Evelyn Galkin, employed in the shipping department, though not a
member of the Union, was accused by Resnick, her superior, of union
activity. Her father, a customer of the respondent, was summoned
to the plant and told that his daughter was a union leader. There-
after Resnick transferred her to another desk in the office, saying,
"If I have to make another change, I will have to change you out of
here."
In contrast to its hostility toward all union activity, the respondent
carefully nurtured the growth of the Association. As we have noted
' The consent election is discussed under Section IV, infra.
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 21
above, the grievance committee- was permitted to meet on the re-
spondent's property during working hours. Prior to the 'election in
April 1937, supervisory, employees electioneered for the Association.
In June 1937, the Association distributed, petitions throughout the
plant which authorized the Association to represent the signers for
the purposes of collective bargaining. Although these petitions were
circulated during working hours, the respondent did not in any way
object to such activity.
We find that at all times since the formation of the Association,
the respondent dominated and interfered with its administration,
and contributed support to it; that since April 1937, the respondent
has engaged in a course of discrimination which has had the effect
of encouraging membership in the Association and discouraging mem-
bership in the Union.
B. The discharge of Sam Keenholtz
Keenholtz had been employed by the respondent since August 1936
as a reserve stock clerk. He was a member of both the Union and
the Association, and there is some evidence that he was active in
union affairs. Late in April 1937, Keenholtz was. transferred to the
sub-basement by Resnick, the general' superintendent of shipping and
stock, who claimed that an experienced clerk was required in that
position. Keenholtz was second in point of seniority among six re-
serve stock clerks, and although he protested against the transfer, he
assumed his duties in the sub-basement.
On June 29 ' Keenholtz was called to Slonim's office, accused of
soliciting union members during working hours, and was asked by
Slonim why he did not resign if he was not satisfied with his position.
He denied the charge and was permitted to return to work. On July
23, 1937, he was summoned to Nathan Blechman's office, told that the
sub-basement was being closed, and that since he was the last person
employed there his services were no longer required. Keenholtz com-
plained to the grievance committee of the Association but it failed to
secure his reinstatement.
The respondent does not contend that Keenholtz was discharged
because of inefficiency. Indeed, the testimony that he was trans-
ferred to the sub-basement because he was an experienced and respon-
sible employee, was not denied. The respondent maintains that
Keenholtz was discharged because he did not hold seniority in the
sub-basement.
The evidence discloses, however, that the, sub-basement was a part
of the reserve stock department, and that Keenholtz' status as a
reserve stock clerk and his seniority had not been changed by his
transfer to the sub-basement. It ' seems evident that the loss of
22 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
seniority was only an .asserted pretext. We find that the respondent
discharged Keenholtz because of his activities in behalf of the
Union.5 Since Keenholtz has not found substantially equivalent
employment since his 'discriminatory 'discharge, he has not lost his
status as an employee of the respondent.
IV: THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
During 1936 and the spring of 1937, the Union made numerous
unsuccessful attempts to negotiate with the respondent's officers.
The continued refusal of the respondent to meet with union repre-
sentatives culminated in the filing of charges with the Regional
Director on April 21, 1937. At the same time, the respondent, the
Association, and the Union consented to the holding of an election
among the respondent's employees. It was agreed by the repre-
sentatives of the Union and the respondent, and so appeared on
the notice of election, that those employees on the pay roll as of
April 15, 1937, except department heads, supervisors, credit men,
buyers, those assistant buyers who purchase substantial quantities
of merchandise, and secretaries to supervisory employees, would be
eligible to vote.
Although Hochberg was not- present when- the eligibility condi-
tions were concluded, the evidence is clear from the various confer-
ences he attended prior to the election, that he had knowledge of
the decision reached by the other parties, and that he made no objec-
tion. In any event, he later refused to distribute copies of the notice
of election, as he had previously consented to do.
The election was conducted under the supervision of the Regional
Director on April 27, 1937. The tally sheet recorded 231 ballots
cast : 108 for the Association, 94 for the Union, and 29 challenged and
not counted. The column on the tally sheet provided for the pur-
pose of showing.the number of employees eligible to participate in
the election was left blank.
The Union protested immediately thereafter that the election was
not conducted in accordance with the conditions upon which it had
given its'consent, and that the results did not fairly represent the
desires of those employees entitled to vote. We need not now con-
sider the contentions of the parties with respect to the validity of
the election. We have found that the respondent has dominated
and interfered with the administration of the Association, and that
such domination and interference continued and was effective at the
time of the election. It follows that the designation of the
Association on the ballots was illegal.
'The evidence with respect to the demotion of Theodore Gartner and Louis Gordon is
insufficient to warrant serious consideration In both cases , the demotions were tempo-
rary, and at the time of the hearing, both employees were engaged in their usual duties
for the respondent. In neither case was evidence elicited to show that the respondent's
activity in ordering the demotions constituted an unfair labor practice.
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 23
We find that the question which has arisen concerning the repre-
sentation of employees of the respondent has not been settled, and
can be resolved only by the conduct of an election in which the
Association does not participate.
V. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT
The Union contends that all employees of the respondent, except
outside salesmen, department heads, supervisors, credit men, buyers,
assistant buyers, and secretaries to supervisory employees, constitute
a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining. It was
agreed both by the Union and the respondent that these supervisory
and confidential employees" were to have been excluded from the
consent election of April 27. We shall exclude such employees from
the unit which we shall find to be appropriate for the purposes of
collective bargaining with the respondent.
The election agreement was silent with respect to the status of the
18 outside salesmen employed by the respondent, and the Union
maintains that these employees constitute a separate appropriate unit
among themselves. There is some evidence that the outside sales-
men have a benevolent organization similar to the Association, and
that prior to the election of April 27 the president of the outside
salesmen's organization agreed with the Association that the
Association represent it on the ballot.7 The Union claims to repre-
sent a majority of such employees.
The record is clear that the working conditions and problems of
outside salesmen are totally different from those of other employees.
All of the respondent's employees, including inside salesmen, but ex-
cluding outside salesmen, are salaried employees required to work a
fixed number of hours per week. Such employees are subject.to direct
siipervisiori 'by 'd'epartment heads and are at times shifted from one
position to another in the plant. The outside salesmen, on the other
hand, are paid on a commission basis, have no fixed hours of employ-
ment, and work away from the plant.
We therefore find that, in order to insure to.the employees of the
respondent the full benefit of their right to self-organization and
collective bargaining, and otherwise to effectuate the policies of the
Act, all of the respondent's employees, except department heads,
supervisors, credit men, buyers, assistant buyers, secretaries to super-
visory employees, and outside, salesmen, constitute a unit appropriate
for the purposes of collective bargaining. We further find that the
outside salesmen employed by the respondent also constitute a unit
appropriate for such purposes.
0 The outside salesmen are considered below
, The record does not disclose whether or not the meflibeis of the outside salesmen s
organization consented to this agreement.
67573-38-vol. IV--3
24 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
VI. EFFECT OF UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES AND QUESTION OF REPRESENTATION
ON COMMERCE
We find that the activities of the respondent set forth in Section
III above, and the question concerning representation which has
arisen occurring in connection with the operations of the respondent
described in Section I above, have a close, intimate, and substantial
relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several states,
and tend to lead to labor disputes- burdening and obstructing com-
merce and the free flow of commerce.
VII. TIIE REMEDY
We have found that the respondent has dominated and interfered
with the administration of the Association and has contributed sup-
port to it. Since its inception, and especially since the question con-
cerning the representation of the respondent's employees has arisen,
the respondent has used the Association as a convenient weapon to
prevent the exercise of its employees' rights to self-organization and
collective bargaining. The Association is engaged, however, in num-
erous activities aside from collective bargaining and therefore should
not be disestablished for all purposes by our order. But in order to
restore to the employees some measure of their rights guaranteed
under the Act and denied to them through the respondent's activities
in connection with the functioning of the Association, we shall order
the respondent to withdraw all recognition from the Association, and
disestablish it, as representative of its employees for the purpose of
dealing with the respondent concerning grievances, labor disputes,
rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, or other conditions of
employment. The Board's order will not interfere with the numerous
activities of the Association other than those with respect to collec-
tive bargaining.
We have concluded that the consent election of April 27, 1937, did
not reflect the free and independent choice of the respondent's em-
ployees in the units found above to be appropriate for the purposes
of collective bargaining. We shall therefore order elections to be
held among the employees of the respondent in such appropriate units.
In doing so, we shall make no provision for the designation of the
Association on the ballots.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact, the Board makes the
following conclusions of law :
1. United Wholesale Employees of New York, Local 65, Textile
Workers Organizing Committee-Committee for' Industrial Organi-
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 25
zation, previously known as Wholesale Dry Goods Employees Union,
Local 19932, A. F. of L., is a labor organization, within the meaning
of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
2. Employees' Association of S. Blechman & Sons, Inc., is a labor
organization, within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
3. By its domination and interference with the administration of
Employees' Association of S. Blechman & Sons., Inc., and by con-
tributing support thereto, the respondent has engaged in and is en-
gaging in unfair ' labor practices, within the meaning of Section
8 (2) of the Act.
4. Sam Keenholtz was, at the time of his discharge, and at all times
thereafter, an employee of the respondent, within the meaning of
Section 2 (3) of the Act.
5. By discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of employ-
ment of Sam Keenholtz, and thereby discouraging membership in
United Wholesale Employees of New York, Local 65, Textile Work-
ers Organizing Committee-Committee for Industrial Organization,
the respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor prac-
tices, within the meaning of Section 8 (3) of the Act.
6. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in
the exercise of the rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act, the
respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices
within the meaning of Section 8 (1) df the Act.
7. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices
affecting commerce, within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of
the Act.
8. By its demotion of Theodore Gartner and Louis Gordon, the
respondent has not engaged in and is not engaging in unfair labor
practices, within the meaning of Section 8 (3) of the Act.
9. A question affecting commerce has arisen concerning the repre-
sentation of employees of S. Blechman & Sons, Inc., within the
meaning of Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
10. All of the employees of S. Blechman & Sons, Inc., except de-
partment heads, supervisors, credit men, buyers, assistant buyers,
secretaries to supervisory employees, and outside salesmen, consti-
tute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining,
within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
11. All outside salesmen employed by S. Blechman & Sons, Inc.,
constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining,
within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
ORDER
L
Upon the basis of the findings of fact and conclusions of law, and
pursuant to Section 10 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, the
26 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the respondent
S. Blechman & Sons, Inc., and its officers, agents, successors, and
assigns shall:
1. Cease and desist :
(a) From in any manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing
its employees in the exercise of their rights to self-organization, to
form, join or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively
through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in con-
certed activities for the purpose of collective bargaining and other
mutual aid or protection, as guaranteed in Section 7 of the National
Labor Relations Act;
(b) From in any manner discouraging membership in United
Wholesale Employees of New York, Local 65, Textile Workers
Organizing Committee-Committee for Industrial Organization, or
any other labor organization of its employees, by discriminating
against its employees in regard to hire or tenure of employment or
any term or condition of employment;
(c) From in any manner dominating or interfering with the ad-
ministration of-Employees' Association of S. Blechman & Sons, Inc.,
or any other labor organization of its employees, and from contribut-
ing support to Employees' Association of S. Blechman & Sons, Inc.,
or to any other labor organization of its employees.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds
will effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Withdraw all recognition from Employees' Association of
S. Blechman & Sons, Inc., as the representative of any of its em-
ployees for the purpose of dealing with the respondent concerning
grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employment,
or other conditions of employment, and disestablish Employees' As-
sociation of S. Blechman & Sons, Inc. as such representative;
(b) Offer Sam Keenholtz immediate and full reinstatement to his
former position without prejudice to his seniority and other rights
and privileges;
(c) Make whole Sam Keenholtz for any loss of pay he has suffered
by reason of his discharge, by payment to him of a sum of money
equal to that which he would normally have earned as wages from
July 23, 1937, the date of his discharge, to the date of such offer
of reinstatement, less the amount. which he has earned during that
period ;
(d) Immediately post notices in conspicuous places throughout its
plant and maintain such notices for a period of thirty (30) con-
secutive days stating (1) that the respondent will cease and desist
as aforesaid; and, (2) that the respondent will withdraw all recog-
nition from Employees' Association of S. Blechman & Sons, Inc.,
as the representative of any of its employees for the purpose of
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 27
dealing with the respondent concerning grievances, labor dis-
putes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, or other conditions
of employment;
(e) Notify the Regional Director for the Second Region in writing
within ten (10) days from the date of this order what steps the
respondent has taken to comply therewith.
3. The complaint is hereby dismissed to the extent that it concerns
the demotions of Theodore Gartner and Louis Gordon.
DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS
By virtue of and pursuant to the power vested in the National
Labor Relations Board by Section 9 (c) of the National Laboi Re-
lations Act, and pursuant to Article III, Section 8 of National Labor
Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 1, as amended, it is
hereby
DIRECTED that, as part of the investigation authorized by the Board
to ascertain representatives for collective bargaining with S. Blech-
man & Sons, Inc., elections by secret ballot shall be conducted within
fifteen (15) days from the date of this Direction, under the direction
and supervision of the Regional Director for the Second Region,
acting in this manner as agent for the National Labor Relations
Board, and subject to Article III, Section 9 of said Rules and Regu-
lations, among :
(1) all the employees of S. Blechman & Sons, Inc., who were em-
ployed during the week of May 21, 1937, except department heads,
supervisors, credit men, buyers, assistant buyers, secretaries to super-
visory employees, and outside salesmen, and any other employees
who have since resigned or who have been discharged for cause, as
constituting one unit;
(2) all outside salesmen of S. Blechman & Sons, Inc. who were
employed during the week of May 21, 1937, except those who have
since resigned or who have been discharged for cause, as constitut-
ing another unit;
to determine, in the case of each unit, whether they desire to be
represented by United Wholesale Employees of New York, Local 65,
Textile Workers Organizing Committee-Committee for Industrial
Organization, for the purposes of collective bargaining.
[SAME TITLE]
AMENDMENT TO DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS
December 1, 1937
On November 4, 1937, the National Labor Relations Board, herein
called the Board, issued a Direction of Elections in the above-
28 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
entitled proceeding, the election to be held within fifteen (15) days
from the date of Direction, under the direction and supervision of
the Regional Director for the Second Region (New York City). The
Board, having been advised that an election at this time would not
settle the question concerning representation which has arisen, hereby
amends the Direction of Elections issued on November 4, 1937, by
striking therefrom the words, "within fifteen (15) days from the
date of this Direction", and substituting therefor the words, "within
a period to be determined hereafter by the Board."