Schwab & Schwab

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 28, 1939

10 N.L.R.B. 1455 (N.L.R.B. 1939)

In the Matter of JACK SCHWAB & MURRAY SCHWAB, INDIVIDUALS
DOING BUSINESS UNDER THE FIRM NAME AND STYLE OF SCHWAB &
SCHWAB and TEXTILE WORKERS ORGANIZING COMMITTEE, C. I. O.
Case No. C-400.-Decided January ^?8, 1939
Linen Manufacturing Industry-Interference, Restraint , and Coercion-Unit
Appropriate for Collective Bargaining : production employees , exclusive of sales-
men, office employees , foremen, and supervisors-Representatives : proof of
choice : membership in union-Collective Bargaining : refusal to bargain col-
lectively ; remedial order: recognition as exclusive representative-Company-
Dominated Union: domination of and interference with formation and admin-
istration ; support ; employers ordered to refrain from recognizing as repre-
sentative of employees-Discrimination : refusal to reinstate one striking em-
ployee ; charges of, not sustained-Strike: employers ' unfair labor practice one
of principal causes of-Reinstatement Ordered: of striking employees-Back
Pay: ordered to strikers who are not reinstated or placed on preferential list
within 5 days after application ; monies received by employees for work per-
formed upon Federal, State , county, municipal , or other work-relief projects
to be deducted and paid over to agency which supplied funds for said projects.
Mr. W. G. Stuart Sherman, for the Board.
Hertz & Wilson, by Mr. Charles Wilson and Mr. Milton Hertz,
of Brooklyn, N. Y., for the respondents.
Mr. Alfred Udoff, of New York City, for the T. W. O. C.
Mr. Willard Y. Morris, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon charges and amended charges duly filed by Textile Workers
Organizing Committee,' herein called the T. W. O. C., the National
Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board, by Elinore M. Her-
rick, Regional Director for the Second Region (New York City),
issued its complaint dated November 30, 1937, against Jack Schwab
and Murray Schwab, New York City, doing business under the firm
name and style of Schwab & Schwab, herein called the respondents,
alleging that the respondents had engaged in and were engaging in
3 Designated in the complaint as "Textile Workers Organizing Committee , C. I. 0."
10 N L. R. B., No. 132.
1455
1456 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
unfair labor practices affecting commerce, within the meaning of
Section 8 (1), (2), (3), and (5) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the
National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein called the Act.
The complaint, as amended, alleges, in substance: (a) that
although the T. W. 0. C. had been designated by a majority of the-
respondents' employees within an appropriate unit as their represent-
ative for the purposes of collective bargaining, the respondents, on
and after August 6, 1937, refused to bargain collectively with the
T. W. 0. C. as the exclusive representative of such employees; (b)
that on and after August 6, 1937, the respondents dominated, con-
tributed support to, and interfered with the formation and admin-
istration of a labor organization of their employees, herein called
the Committee; (c) that on or about November 2, 1937, employees
of the respondents went on strike because of the respondents' unfair
labor practices; (d) that on and after November 12, 1937, the re-
spondents discriminatorily refused to reinstate Ruth Adler, a striking
employee, to her former position; and (e) that, by the foregoing acts
and refusals to act, and in other ways, the respondents have inter-
fered with, restrained, and coerced their employees in the exercise
of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. The complaint
and accompanying notice of hearing were duly served upon the
respondents, the T. W. 0. C., and the Committee.
The respondents filed an answer denying the material averments
of the complaint, denying that the respondents had any knowledge
of the T. W. 0. C.'s designation by a majority of the respondents'
employees, and alleging affirmatively that no person had been hired
to replace Ruth Adler, and that the respondents' business does not
justify the hiring of any further employees.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held in New York City on-
December 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10, 1937, before George Bokat, the Trial
Examiner duly designated by the Board. The Board, the T. W. 0. C.,.
and the respondents were represented by counsel and participated
in the hearing. Full, opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-
examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing upon the issues
was afforded all parties. During the course of the hearing, the Trial
Examiner made various rulings on motions and objections to the
admission of evidence. The Board has reviewed the rulings of the-
Trial Examiner and finds that no prejudicial errors were committed.
The rulings are hereby affirmed.
Thereafter, the Trial Examiner filed his Intermediate Report,.
dated February 3, 1938, in which he found that the respondents had
committed unfair labor practices affecting commerce, within the
meaning of Section 8 (1), (2), (3), and (5), and Section 2 (6) and'
(7) of the Act, and recommended that the respondents cease and de-
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 1457
list from such unfair labor practices and take certain affirmative
action remedial of their effect. On February 15, 1938, the respond-
ents filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report. Pursuant to notice,
a hearing for the purpose of oral argument upon the exceptions to
the Intermediate Report was held on October 13, 1938, before the
Board in Washington, D. C. The respondents were represented by
counsel and participated in the argument. The Board has fully con-
sidered the exceptions to the Intermediate Report and, in so far as
they are inconsistent with the findings, conclusions, and order set
.forth below, finds them without merit.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENTS
Jack Schwab and Murray Schwab are copartners doing business
under the firm name and style of Schwab & Schwab and having their
principal office and place of business in New York City. They are
engaged in the manufacture, importation, and sale of decorative
linens. During the period from January 1 to November 30, 1937,
more than 90 per cent of all their purchases were made outside the
'State of New York. During the same period more than 75 per cent
.of all products sold by the respondents were shipped to points outside
the State of New York. In August 1937, there were approximately
-47 production employees in the respondents' plant. Jack Schwab
conceded, at the hearing, that the respondents are engaged in "what
is commonly known as interstate commerce."
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
Textile Workers Organizing Committee is a labor organization
affiliated with the Committee for Industrial Organization. It admits
to membership all production and clerical employees of the respond-
ents, excluding supervisory employees with power to hire and
discharge.
The Committee 2 is an unaffiliated labor organization, admitting to
membership all the respondents' production employees, exclusive of
,supervisory employees.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The refusal to bargain collectively
1. The appropriate emit
The complaint alleges, and the respondents and the T. W. O. C.,
by the testimony of their witnesses, agree that all production em-
2 The labor organization alleged in the complaint to be employer dominated has no name.
1458 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ployees of the respondents in their New York plant, exclusive of
salesmen, office employees, foremen, and supervisors, constitute a unit
appropriate for the purpose of collective bargaining. We see no
reason for not adopting the unit so agreed upon.
We find that the production employees of the respondents in their
New York plant, exclusive of salesmen, office employees, foremen, and
supervisors, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collec-
tive bargaining, and that said unit insures and will insure to said
employees the full benefit of their right to self-organization and to
collective bargaining, and otherwise effectuate the policies of the Act.
2. Representation by the T. W. 0. C. of a majority in the appropriate
unit
Prior to July 1937, when the T. W. 0. C. began to organize the
respondents' employees, no labor organization existed at the respond-
ents' plant. In the ensuing month, a number of employees joined the
T. W. 0. C. At the hearing, a list was introduced in evidence con-
taining the names of employees who had joined the T. W. 0. C. and
the dates on which they joined. Counsel for the respondents was
permitted to compare the list with the original membership and
application cards from which it was prepared. The genuineness of
the signatures on the cards was not contested. The respondents' pay
roll for the week ending August 11, 1937, in evidence, reveals that
during that week there were 47 employees within the appropriate
unit. From a comparison of the list of T. W. 0. C. members with
the pay roll it appears that on August 7, 1937, at least 27 of that
number had joined the T. W. 0. C.
During the 2 weeks which followed, the Committee came into
existence under circumstances which will be described, and almost, all
of the T. W. 0. C. members resigned from that organization and
designated the Committee, as their representative for collective bar-
gaining. In view of our finding, hereinafter made, that the re-
spondents dominated and interfered with the formation and admin-
istration of the Committee, encouraging membership therein, we shall
disregard these defections from the T. W. 0. C. With respect to a
similar situation we have said :
The unfair labor practices of the respondent cannot operate
to change the bargaining representative previously selected by
the untrammeled will of the majority s
We find that on August 7, 1937, and at all times thereafter, the
T. W. 0. C. was the duly designated representative of the majority
of the respondents' employees in a unit appropriate for the purposes
$ Matter of Bradford Dyeing Association ( U. S. A.) (a Corporation ) and Temtile
Workers' Organizing Committee of the C . I. 0., 4 N . L. R. B. 604.
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 1459
of collective bargaining, and that, pursuant to Section 9 (a) of the
Act, it was the exclusive representative of all the employees in such
unit for purposes of collective bargaining.
3. The refusal to bargain
During the forenoon of August 6, 193'4, Aaron Weinberg, a
T. W. O. C. representative, by telephone requested an appointment
with the respondents for the purpose of initiating collective bargain-
ing. Jack Schwab, the respondents' managing partner, advised
Weinberg to'embody his request in a letter. Weinberg complied by
sending the respondents such a letter on August 7, 1937. In a few
days' time, having received no reply, he again telephoned Jack
Schwab, who avoided making an appointment. Finally, on August
16, 1937, the respondents wrote to the T. W. O. C. advising it that
they had been notified by their employees that the T. W. O. C. did
not represent their employees for collective bargaining. On the
same day, the respondents' attorney forwarded to the T. W. O. C.
written resignations of most of its members.
The respondents' action in writing to the T. W. O. C. on August
16, 1937, constituted a refusal to bargain, and we so find. But the
respondents' delay in replying to Weinberg's letter of August 7,
written at Jack Schwab's request, and Schwab's failure to make an
appointment with Weinberg at the time of their second telephone
conversation, considered in the light of the respondents' simultaneous
effort, hereinafter described, to destroy the T. W. O. C.'s majority,
indicate that, from the very beginning, the respondents evaded their
obligation to treat with the T. W. O. C. under circumstances consti-
tuting a continuous refusal to bargain. On and after August 7,
1937, as we have found, the T. W. O. C. represented a majority of the
employees within an appropriate unit. We find, therefore, that the
respondents, on and after August 7, 1937, refused to bargain col-
lectively with the T. W. O. C. as the representative of their produc-
tion employees, and thereby interfered with, restrained, and coerced
their employees in the exercise of•the rights guaranteed in Section 7
of the Act.
B. Formation and domination of the Committee
A few days prior to August 6, 1937, Jack Schwab sought the advice
of an attorney regarding unions and employee organization. On
August 6, as has been stated, the T. W. O. C. made its first request
to bargain. Later on the same day, with Schwab's consent, Irving
Diamond, a salesman in the respondents' employ and brother of the
attorney consulted by Schwab, called and addressed a meeting of the
respondents' production employees within the plant during working
1460 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOA11D
hours. Diamond suggested to the employees that they form their
.own committee to discuss grievances with the respondents.
On August 9, another meeting was called during working hours,
this time by Jack Schwab. In the presence of his attorney, who
-attended at his instance and whom he requested to interrupt him
whenever it should appear that he was about to say anything "con-
trary to the Wagner Labor Act," Schwab addressed his employees.
.Schwab's own testimony regarding the substance of his speech con-
vinces us that it had the purpose and the necessary effect of dis-
cou raging the employees from continued affiliation with the
T. W. O. C. Schwab testified that he carefully avoided reference
to the T. W. O. C. In the absence of any other labor organization
among the employees, however, his admitted references to outside
unions could have only one significance to his hearers. He admitted
relating an account of an ex-plumber who, in the days of the National
'Industrial Recovery Act, had been placed in charge of the needle-
work industry. He explained that this reference was intended to
impress the employees with the need for choosing bargaining repre-
sentatives familiar with the trade, but denied intending the inference
-that the T. W. O. C. was unfamiliar with the trade. He admitted,
but was unable to explain, referring to a newspaper item which stated
that a certain labor organization had contributed a half-million
dollars to a political party. Opposing witnesses testified that Schwab
spoke of labor unions as rackets, but we need not resolve the conflict
in testimony. In either event, Schwab's speech, by indicating his
hostility to affiliated labor organizations, must have gone far to
undermine his employees' adherence to the T. W. O. C. and to pave
the way for the unaffiliated organization which shortly thereafter
came into being among them.
On August 11, with Schwab's permission, another meeting of the
-production employees was held in the plant. It began in the morn-
ing and lasted throughout the afternoon. The respondents not only
-paid the workers for time spent at this meeting but provided them
with lunch. At this meeting, the. employees resolved to resign from
-the T. W. O. C. and to form their own bargaining committee. The
next day they met again during working hours, elected the Commit-
tee as their bargaining representative, and signed resignations from
the T. W. O. C. which were later forwarded to that organization by
the respondents' attorney. On August 14, the elected representa-
tives were the guests of Jack Schwab at a beach resort where, after
-partaking of his hospitality, they discussed working conditions and
arrived at an agreement providing a slight increase in wages and
decrease in 'hours for most production employees.
The actions of the respondents constitute a succession of unfair
'labor practices. Confronted with the request of the T. W. O. C.
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 1461
to bargain collectively, they resorted to delay and evasion. Simul-
taneously they embarked upon a course of conduct calculated to
destroy the T. W. O. C. and to foist upon their employees an un-
affiliated labor organization. Irving Diamond's suggestion that the
employees form a committee of their own must, in view of his re-
lationship to Jack Schwab's attorney and in view of Schwab's sanc-
tion of the meeting at which he spoke, have been interpreted by the
employees as an expression of the respondents' own wishes. A few
days later Schwab's speech forcefully, if indirectly, reiterated Dia-
mond's suggestion. When the employees, thus impelled, themselves
considered changing their representatives, the respondents, as we
have seen, generously encouraged their deliberations. And when,
finally, the employees elected the Committee to represent them, the
respondents at once received it and bargained with it notwithstand-
ing the pendency of the T. W. O. C.'s request to bargain. Only after
successfully destroying the T. W. O. C.'s organization among their
employees did the respondents communicate with the T. W. O. C.
The respondents' deliberate assistance to the Committee is empha-
sized by their expressed hostility toward the T. W. O. C.
We find that the respondents have dominated and interfered with
the formation of the Committee and contributed support to it,
thereby interfering with, restraining, and coercing their employees
in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
C. The strike
On November 2, 1937, a number of the production employees went
on strike under the sponsorship of the T. W. O. C. The strike lasted
until November 14. Some of the strikers testified that, notwith-
standing their resignations, they still considered themselves members
of the T. W. O. C. Others stated that they considered that by par-
ticipating in the strike they had joined the organization anew.
Notwithstanding the lapse of 21/2 months between the unfair labor
practices above described and the strike, and notwithstanding the
testimony of strikers that they struck for higher wages and better
working conditions, we believe the strike to be a consequence of
the respondents' illegal acts. The attempt of the T. W. O. C. to
bargain collectively must have had for its objective the achievement
of an agreement covering wages, hours, and working conditions. A
majority of the employees in the appropriate unit having designated
the T. W. O. C. as their representative, the respondents were obliged,
under the Act, to bargain with it. Had they complied with the Act
in this regard, differences might have been composed through the
orderly procedure of collective bargaining. By refusing to bargain
with the T. W. O. C., by foisting upon their employees an un-
147841-39-vol 10-93
1462 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
affiliated labor organization , the respondents closed the avenues of
collective bargaining through freely chosen representatives , leaving
employees desirous of achieving better conditions to the expedient
of the strike . Significantly , the strikers sought the sponsorship of
the T. W. O. C., thus reasserting their desire to be represented by
the organization of their free choice, and rendering the strike one,
in effect for union recognition as well as for improved conditions.4
We find that the strike among the respondents ' production em-
ployees was a labor dispute within the meaning of Section 2 (9) of
the' Act , -and was caused in substantial part by the respondents'
unfair labor practices.
D: The alleged discriminatory refusal to reinstate Ruth Adler
The complaint alleges that on or about November 12, 1937, Ruth
Adler, one of the striking employees, applied for reinstatement and
that the respondents discriminatorily refused to reinstate her. On
November 3; 1937, Ruth Adler met Jack Schwab and was asked by
him why she did not return to work. She replied that she was on
strike and could not return. The following day she changed her
mind and talked with the respondents' supervisor relative to going
back to work. The supervisor told Adler that there was not enough
work to warrant putting her back.
There is no evidence of conspicuous union activity on the part
of Ruth Adler. She was among those who signed the resignation
from the T. W. O. C. and testified that she considered that her
participation in the strike on November 2, 1937, reinstated her as a
member of the T. W. O. C. She had nothing to do with calling the
strike and was prepared to go to work the morning of November 2,
1937. She arrived to learn of the strike from the pickets and fellow
employees on strike.
The respondents testified that they are willing to employ any or
all of the employees who went on strike, but that their volume of
business does riot justify it. They further testified that none of the
striking employees have been replaced. There is no evidence to the
d In National Labor Relations Board v. Remington Rand , Inc, 94 F. ( 2d) 862 (C. C A.
2d, 1938 ), enforcing order in Matter of Remington Rand, Inc . and Remington Rand Joint
Protective Board of the District Council Office Equipment Workers , 2 N L R. B 626,
certiorari denied , 304 U S 576, the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
said : "We have assumed hitherto that the strike here in question was only for the pur-
pose of enforcing the union 's power to negotiate for all the men. That is not true ;
there had been a wage dispute and, the men's inability to get at the truth of the Elmira
business was another cause. It is, of course, possible that the parties might have split
over wages, or over the Elmira plant, even if the respondent had negotiated with the
Joint Board But since the refusal was at least one cause of the strike. and was a
toit-a 'substtaction'-it rested upon the tortfeasor to disentangle the consequences for
which it was chargeable from those from which it was immune Since it cannot show
that the negotiations, if undertaken, would have broken down, it cannot say that the loss
of'the men's jobs was due to a controversy which the Act does not affect to regulate."
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 1463
contrary. There is testimony to the effect that the respondents'
volume of business diminished appreciably in the fall of 1937. While
it is singularly coincidental that the respondents should find that
they no longer needed the services of the striking employees, in the
absence of other proof we do not find that the respondents' refusal
to reinstate Adler was discriminatory.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON
COMMERCE
We find that the activities of the respondents set forth in Section
III A and B above, occurring in connection with the operations of
the respondents 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 bur-
dening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
We shall order the respondents to bargain collectively with the
T. W. 0. C. as the representative of their production employees.
We have found that the defection from membership in the T. W. 0. C.
was the direct and calculated result of the respondents' unfair labor
practices. In view of such finding, to refrain from ordering the
respondents to bargain collectively with the T. W. 0. C. would be to
permit the respondents to evade the obligation of one subdivision
of the Act by successfully violating another subdivision. We cannot
permit the freely expressed wishes of the majority of the employees
to be frustrated because the employer has brought to bear interfer-
ence, restraint, and coercion sufficient to undermine the representa-
tives' majority support.,,
We have found that the respondents have dominated and inter-
fered with the formation and administration of the Committee and
have contributed support to it. Under these circumstances, the Com-
mittee, cannot and does not offer to the respondents' employees the
free representation for collective bargaining which is guaranteed
by the Act. We shall, therefore, order the respondents to withdraw
from the Committee all recognition as representative of the respond-
ents' employees for the purposes of collective bargaining, and to dis-
establish it as such representative.
Since the strike was caused by the respondents' unfair labor prac-
tices, we shall, in accordance with our usual custom, order the re-
spondents, upon application, to offer reinstatement to their former
or substantially equivalent positions to those employees, including
5 See Matter of Bradford Dyeing Association ( U. S A ) (a Corporation ), 4 N L R B
604; Matter of Harter Corporation , 8 N L R B 391 ; Matter of Inland Steel Company,
9 N. L R . B. 783.
1464 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Ruth Adler, who went out on strike and have not since been fully
reinstated. Such reinstatement shall be effected in the following
manner : All employees hired after the commencement of the strike
shall, if necessary to provide employment for those to be offered
reinstatement, be dismissed. If, thereupon, by reason of a reduction
in force there is not sufficient employment immediately available for
the remaining employees, including those to be offered reinstatement,
all available positions shall be distributed among such remaining
employees in accordance with the respondents' usual method of re-
ducing their force, without discrimination against any employee be-
cause of his or her union affiliation or activities, following a system
of seniority to such extent as has heretofore been applied in the
conduct of the respondents' business. Those employees remaining
after such distribution, for whom no employment is immediately
,available, shall be placed upon a preferential list prepared in accord-
ance with the principles set forth in the previous sentence, and shall
thereafter, in accordance with such list, be offered employment in their
-former or substantially equivalent positions, as such employment be-
comes available and before other persons are hired for such work.
Our order will also provide that employees whose application for
reinstatement is refused by the respondents in violation of the order
herein shall be entitled to back pay in the amount which each would
normally have earned from the date of such refusal of his applica-
tion to the date of his reinstatement or placement upon a preferential
list, less his net earnings e during that period.
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and upon the entire
record in the case, the Board makes the following :
CoNcLusioN s OF LAW
1. Textile Workers Organizing Committee and the Committee are
labor organizations , within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the
Act. -
2. The respondents , by interfering with, restraining , and coercing
their employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7
of the Act, have engaged in and are engaging in unfair labor prac-
tices, within the meaning of Section 8 ( 1) of the Act.
U By "net earnings" is meant earnings less expenses , such as for transportation room,
and board incuned by an employee in connection with obtaining work and working
elsewhere than for the respondent, NNhich would not have been incurred but for the
respondents' refusal of his application, pursuant to this order, and the consequent neces-
sity of his seeking employment elsewhere. See Matter of Crossett Lumber Company
and United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Lambe?- and Sawmill
Workers Union, Local 2d90, 8 N L. R B. 440 . Monies received for work performed
upon Federal State, county, municipal, or other work-relief projects are not considered
as earnings, but. as provided below in the Order, shall be deducted from the sum due the
employee, and the amount tl.eleof shall be paid oler to the appropriate fiscal agency of
the Pedeial, State, county, municipal, or other government or governments which supplied
the funds for said work-relief projects.
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 1465
3. The respondents, by dominating and interfering with the for-
mation and administration of the Committee and by contributing sup-
port to it, have engaged in and are engaging in unfair labor practices,
within the meaning of Section 8 (2) of the Act.
4. The production employees of the respondents in their New York
plant, excluding salesmen, office employees, foremen, and supervisors,
constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bar-
gaining, within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
5. Textile Workers Organizing Committee was on August 7, 1937,
and at all times thereafter has been, the exclusive representative of
all the employees in such unit for purposes of collective bargaining,
within the meaning of Section 9 (a) of the Act.
6. By refusing to bargain collectively with the Textile Workers
Organizing Committee as the exclusive representative of their em-
ployees within an appropriate unit, the respondents have engaged in
and are engaging in unfair labor practices, within the meaning of
Section 8 (5) of 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. The respondents, by refusing to reinstate Ruth Adler, have not
discriminated in regard to her hire or tenure of employment, within
the meaning of Section 8 (3) of the Act.
ORDER
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions
of law, and pursuant to Section 10 (c) of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the
respondents, Jack Schwab and Murray Schwab, doing business under
the firm name and style of Schwab & Schwab, and their officers,
agents, successors, and assigns shall :
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) In any manner dominating or interfering with the administra-
tion of the Committee, or the formation or administration of any
other labor organization of their employees, and from contributing
financial or other support to the Committee or to any other labor
organization of their employees;
(b) Recognizing the Committee as the exclusive bargaining repre-
sentative of their employees ;
(c) Refusing tb bargain collectively with Textile Workers Organ-
izing Committee as the exclusive representative of their production
employees at the New York plant, .exclusive of, salesmen,, office, em-
ployees, foremen, and supervisors;
1466 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
(d) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coerc-
ing their employees 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, and to engage in con-
certed activities for the purpose of collective bargaining 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) Upon request, bargain collectively with Textile Workers Or-
ganizing Committee as the exclusive representative of all their pro-
duction employees at the New York plant, excluding salesmen, office
employees, foremen, and supervisors, in respect to rates of pay, wages,
hours of employment, and other conditions of employment;
(b) Upon application, offer to those employees who went out on
strike on November 2, 1937, and thereafter, immediate and full rein-
statement to their former or substantially equivalent positions, with-
out prejudice to their seniority and other rights and privileges, in
the manner set forth in the section entitled "The remedy" above,
placing those employees for whom employment is not immediately
available upon a preferential list in the manner set forth in said
section ;
(c) Make whole the employees ordered to be offered reinstatement
for any loss of pay they will have suffered by reason of the respond-
ents' refusal, upon application, to reinstate them or place them upon
a; preferential list, pursuant to the terms of this Order, by payment
to them, respectively, of a sum of money equal to that which each
would normally have earned as wages during the period from five
(5) days after the date of such application for reinstatement to the
date of the offer of employment or placement upon the preferential
list required by paragraph (b) above, less their net earnings during
that period ; deducting however, from the amount otherwise due to
each of the said employees, monies received by said employee dur-
ing said period for work performed upon Federal, State, county,
municipal, or other work-relief projects, and pay over the amount,
so deducted, to the appropriate fiscal agency of the Federal, State,
county, municipal, or other government or governments which sup-
plied the funds for said work-relief projects;
(d) Post immediately in conspicuous places throughout their New
York plant, and keep posted for a period of at least sixty (60) con-
secutive days from the date of posting, notices to their employees
stating that the respondents will cease and desist in the manner set
forth in 1 (a), (b), (c), and (d), and that they will take the affirma-
tive action set forth in 2 (a), (b), and (c), of this Order;
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 1467
(e) Notify the Regional Director for the Second Region, in writing,
within ten (10) days from the date of this Order what steps the
respondents have taken to comply herewith.
AND IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint, in so far as it alleges
that the respondents have engaged in unfair labor practices within
the meaning of Section 8 (3) of the Act, be, and it hereby is,
dismissed.
[SAME TITLE]
AMENDMENT TO ORDER
January 31,1939
On January 28, 1939, the National Labor Relations Board, herein
called the Board, issued a Decision and Order in the above-entitled
proceeding.
The Board hereby amends its Order by deleting paragraphs (d)
and (e) of Section 2, and by inserting, immediately after paragraph
(c) of Section 2, the following new paragraphs (d), (e), and (f) :
(d) Withdraw all recognition from the Committee as the rep-
resentative of any of their employees for the purposes of dealing
with the respondents concerning grievances, labor disputes, wages,
rates of pay, hours of employment, or other conditions of employ-
ment, and completely disestablish the Committee as such repre-
sentative ;
(e) Post immediately in conspicuous places throughout their
New York plant, and keep posted for a period of at least sixty
(60) consecutive days from the date of posting, notices to their
employees stating that the respondents will cease and desist in
the manner set forth in 1 (a), (b), (c), and (d), and that they
will take the affirmative action set forth in 2 (a), ,(b), (c), and
(d), of this Order; and
(f) Notify the Regional Director for the Second Region, in
writing, within ten (10) days from the date of this Order what
steps the respondents have taken to comply herewith.
10 N. L. R. B., No. 132a.