S.H. Camp and Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 4, 1943

52 N.L.R.B. 1078 (N.L.R.B. 1943)

In the Matter of S. H. CAMP AND COMPANY and AMALGAMATED
CLOTHING WORKERS OF AMERICA, AFFUJATED WITH THE CIO
Case No. C-0687.-Decided October 4, 1943
DECISION
AND
ORDER
On July 28, 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 take cer-
tain affirmative action, as set out in the copy- of the Intermediate
Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the respondent and the Surgical
Workers filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and briefs in
support of their 9xceptions. On August 13, 1943, the respondent also
filed with the Board a request to reopen the record on the ground that
the instant case is one within the terms of the amendment to the 1944
Appropriations Act,' and to show that notice of the 1943 contract
between the respondent and the Surgical Workers was posted on
January 13, 1943, in compliance with the proviso of the amendment.
In view of the sequence of events disclosed by the record, it is clear
that the instant case is not one coming under the bar set up by the
terms of the amendment. On January 5, 1943, the Union filed both
a petition for investigation and certification of representatives, and
charges of unfair labor practices, alleging in the latter that there
spondent had dominated and supported the Surgical Workers in
violation of Section 8 (1) and (2) of the Act. Two days later, on
January 7, 1943, the respondent executed a third contract with the
Surgical Workers, providing for the first time for a union shop.
Although the complaint did not issue until April 30, 1943, it is now
1 This amendment provides that "No part of the funds appropriated in this title shall be
used in any way in connection with a complaint case arising over an agreement between
management and labor which has been in existence for three months or longer without
complaint being filed Provided, That, hereafter , notice of such agreement shall have been
posted in the plant affected for said period of three months , said notice containing informa-
tion as to the location at an accessible place of such agreement where said agreement shall
be open for inspection by any interested persons." Public Law 135 of the 78th Congress,
Chapter 221, of the First Session, Title IV.
52 N. L. R. B., No. 184.
1078
S. H. CAMP AND COMPANY 1079
established that, pursuant to the ruling of the Comptroller General
of the United States issued on July 29, 1943, the words of the amend-
ment, "without complaint being filed," are to be construed as meaning
"without charge being filed." We find that the filing of charges
alleging violation of Section 8 (2) of the Act, through domination
and support of the Surgical Workers, 2 days prior to the execution
of the 1943 contract between the respondent and. the Surgical Work-
ers, placed in issue the legitimacy of the Surgical Workers, and con-
sequently effectively raised the issue of the validity of such a contract
within the intent of the amendment. We conclude, therefore, that
the amendment to the Appropriations Act is not a bar to the instant
proceeding.2 It is therefore immaterial whether or not the contract
was posted. The request to reopen the record is accordingly denied.
Pursuant to notice duly served on all the parties, a hearing for the
purpose of oral argument was held before the Board in Washington,
D. C., on September 9, 1943. At this time argument- was heard on the
respondent's motion to reopen the record as well as on the merits of the
case. The Board has considered the rulings of the Trial Examiner
at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The
rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Intermedi-
ate.Report, the exceptions and briefs, and the entire record in the case,
and Whereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of
the Trial Examiner to the extent that they are consistent with the con-
clusions hereinafer set forth.
1. We find that, by the statements of Foreman Siegrist, Supervisor
Clara Jones, and Forelady Brown, as set forth in the Intermediate Re-
port, the respondent interfered with, restrained, and coerced its em-
ployeees-in the exercise of the rights guaranteed to them in Section 7
of the Act.
2. Employee Irene Washburn testified without contradiction that,
on the occasion when Forelady Brown called her a "C. I. 0. agitator,"
as set forth in the Intermediate Report, Brown further said, "if the
C. I. 0. got in there, when I was through on end finishing I would be
sent home," whereas if the status quo were maintained, Washburn
could "go on several [other] jobs and still work" when she completed
the work on end finishing. We find that, by the warning of Forelady
Brown that Washburn would be deprived of work if the Union were
successful in its organizational campaign, the respondent interfered
with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights
guaranteed to them in Section 7 of the Act.
3. Employees Amanda Sanford and Anna Gilbert testified that, im-
mediately after Dawson discussed with each of them the consequences
2 The Comptroller General has not as yet passed upon the broad question whether the
amendment has any application to cases in which the contracting labor organization has
been found to be illegally dominated or supported in violation of Section 8 (2) of the Act.
1080 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
of the union-shop clause in the Surgical Workers' 1943 contract, Fore-
lady Jean Miller gave each of them an application card of the Sur-
gical Workers. Gilbert further testified that her conference with
Dawson occurred about March 23, 1943. According to the testimony
of employee Margaret Kirby, she saw Forelady Miller give Surgical
Workers' application cards to Sanford and Gilbert and heard Miller
ask employee May Jones "which union she belonged to, because she
said that her name had come up at the union meeting and they wondered
which one she belonged to." Miller was not called as a witness, and
consequently the above testimony is undenied. Although a factory no-
tice, dated January 21, 1943, indicates that Miller was only temporarily
a forelady,3 Sanford testified that, at the time she was given the Surgi-
cal Workers' application card by Miller, the latter was her forelady, and
Kirby similarly testified that, at the time of the hearing, Miller was a
forelady. The testimony of Sanford, Gilbert, and Kirby is not denied.
We find that Miller was a supervisory employee and that her acts and
statements are attributable to the respondent. We further find that,
by Miller's questioning of Jones with respect to the latter's union affili-
ation and by Miller's solicitation of memberships in behalf of the Sur-
gical Workers, the respondent interfered with, restrained, and coerced
its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of
the Act. -
4. The respondent contends that the wage increases granted shortly
before the scheduled election in February 1943 were simply adjust-
ments in piece rates made pursuant to the long established policy of
the respondent and necessitated by the changes in operations due to
governmental restrictions in materials and supplies, and that the Trial
Examiner erred in finding that the increases were granted to aid the
Surgical Workers in the coming election. Even if this contention were
credited, it is clear that assistance was given the Surgical Workers
through the method of announcing the increases. The record estab-
lishes that, although the Surgical Workers was not instrumental in
securing most of the increases, the respondent nevertheless permitted
the Surgical Workers to announce or to participate with the manage-
ment in the announcement of substantially all of the increases shortly
prior to the date set for the scheduled election. We find that by this
method, the respondent rendered further assistance to the Surgical
Wor^ers and interfered with the conduct of an election, and thereby
interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise
of the rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act.
8 The notice stated, in part, "3rd Floor East Side, including Hose Supporter and Strap
Assembly Departments will be temporarily supervised by Mrs. Jean Miller. Mrs Miller will
act with full supervisory authority under Mr . Dawson until such time as she can be relieved
and a ' permanent forelady placed in that position."
S. H. CAMP AND COMPANY 1081
5. The Trial Examiner has found that the 1943 contract between
the respondent and the Surgical Workers was "also" illegal for
the reason that, at the time it was executed, the Surgical Workers
had made no,proper proof that it was the "representative of the em-
ployees as provided in Section 9 (a) . . ." of the Act. The pro-
viso to Section 8 (3) of the Act makes a closed-shop contract illegal
if made with an organization which has been unlawfully assisted or
which does not represent a majority of the employees. It is the
absence of majority status, not the absence of proper proof, which
per se makes a contract illegal under the proviso. The Trial Exam-
iner did not find that the Surgical Workers in fact did not have a
majority when the contract was made. However, the making of such
a contract without proper proof of majority is a form of unlawful
assistance, and the contract then becomes illegal because made with
an unlawfully assisted organization. In the instant case, no effort
was made, by. the respondent to determine the authenticity of the
petitions submitted by the Surgical Workers before the execution of
the contract, at a time when the respondent had knowledge that the
Union claimed to represent a majority of the employees in substan-
tially the same unit. Moreover, as the Trial Examiner .found, it
appears that many employees had signed applications for both or-
ganizations and that, e'en if a check had been made, it would not
have been determinative of the question of representation raised,
namely, whether the Surgical Workers or the Union was the free
and uncoerced choice of a majority of the employees in an appropriate
unit. We find that, by entering into the 1943 contract with the
Surgical Workers without proper proof by that organization of its
claim to majority' representation, the respondent afforded further
assistance to the Surgical Workers and thereby interfered with, re-
strained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guar-
anteed by Section 7 of the Act. We agree with the Trial Examiner
that, because of the various forms of assistance rendered to the Surgi-
cal Workers, the contract of January 7, 1943, is illegal under the
proviso to Section 8 (3) of the Act.
6. We concur in the Trial Examiner's finding that the discharge
of Minnie Lowe was discriminatory. According to Lowe's uncon-
tradicted testimony, on March 22, 1943, Dawson called her to his
office and discussed with, her the consequences of the union-shop
clause in the Surgical Workers' 1943 contract. Lowe informed
Dawson that she would not join the Surgical Workers because she
did not believe that the organization had accomplished anything for
the employees. Dawson replied that she would be interviewed again
after she had had an opportunity to give further consideration to the
question of joining the Surgical Workers. When she refused to
1082 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
work on Saturday afternoon, April 24, 1943, she was summarily dis-
charged. The record establishes that between February and April
1943, difficulty arose over the enforcement of the union-shop provision
of the contract. On February 22, 1943, the Surgical Workers posted
a notice calling the employees' attention to the union-shop provision
in the 1943 contract and stating that, at the expiration of 30 days from
the date of the notice, it would request the respondent to discharge
all employees who had failed to join the Surgical Workers. On
March 19, 1943, the Board's Regional Attorney informed the respond-
ent by letter that the Union had filed unfair labor practice charges
on January 5, 1943, that such charges were then being investigated,
and that, should the contract between the respondent and the Surgical
Workers ultimately be found to be invalid, the respondent might suf-
fer loss by reason of back-pay awards to employees discharged pur-
suant to the union-shop provision of the contract. Subsequent to the
deadline of March 24, 1943, provided by the above notice. posted by
the Surgical Workers, the latter agreed with the respondent to extend
the time limit for the enforcement of the union-shop provision for 10
days. On or about April 5,1943, the respondent called the conciliation
division of the United States Department of Labor and reported that
a strike was threatened at its plant. On April 6, 1943, the Jackson
County C. I. O. Council also sent a telegram to the Director of the
United States Conciliation Service, calling attention to the recent
discharge of union members. On or about April 9, 1943, Ricketts, a
representative of the United States Conciliation Service, met with
the parties in Jackson, Michigan, and an agreement to arbitrate the
issues was reached. Camp testified that Ricketts informed the parties
that within a few days he would mail them a stipulation to be signed
pursuant to such agreement. On April 27, 1943, the respondent and
the Surgical Workers signed a "stipulation to arbitrate," in which
it was agreed that the issues pertaining to the enforcement of the
union-shop provision of the 1943 contract should be heard by an arbi-
trator to be named by the Director of the United States Conciliation
Service, Department of Labor. Under these circumstances the union-
shop provision being held in abeyance pursuant to the agreement to
arbitrate, it becomes clear why the respondent had to give some other,
reason as a pretext to rid itself of a union adherent who was adamant
in her refusal to join the Surgical Workers. Lowe's refusal to work
on Saturday afternoon, April 24, 1943, offered the respondent such a
pretext. That Lowe's summary dismissal was harsh and unreason-
able is clear, in view of the fact that employees in her department cus-'
tomarily did not work on Saturday afternoons, that the following day
was Easter Sunday, that the request to work was made on extremely'
short notice, and' that, Lowe had given reasonable excuse for her re-
S. H. CAMP AND COMPANY 1083
fusal. Under the circumstances, we find, as did the Trial Examiner,
that the respondent in fact discharged Lowe because of her member-
ship and activity in the Union and because she refused to join the
Surgical Workers.
7. The Trial Examiner found that Mabel Cooper was discharged on
March 6, 1943, and notes that she was thus discharged even prior to
the deadline date of March 24 set for joining the Surgical Workers.
The record, however, establishes that Cooper was discharged on April
6. 1943. This error in date does not affect the discriminatory charac-
ter of her discharge.
ORDER
Upon 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, S. H. Camp and Company,
Jackson, Michigan, and its officers, agents, successors, and assigns,
shall :
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Dominating or interfering with the administration of Jackson
Surgical Garment Workers, Inc., or with the formation or adminis-
tration of any other labor organization of its employees, and from
contributing support to Jackson Surgical Garment Workers, Inc., or
to any other labor organization of its employees;
(b) Recognizing Jackson Surgical Garment Workers, Inc., as the
representative of any of its employees for the purpose of deal-
ing with the respondent concerning grievances, labor disputes, rates
of pay, wages, hours of employment, or conditions of work;
(c) Giving effect to its contract, dated January 7, 1943, with Jack-
son Surgical Garment Workers, Inc., or to any extension, renewal,
modification, or supplement thereof, or to any superseding contract
with. Jackson Surgical Garment Workers, Inc., which may now be in
force;
(d) Discouraging membership in Amalgamated Clothing Workers
of America, affiliated with the C. I. 0., or in any other labor organiza-
tion of its employees, by discharging, laying off, or refusing to rein-
state any of its employees, or in any other manner discriminating in
regard to their hire and tenure of employment, or any term or condi-
tion of their employment;.
(e) 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
representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted
activities for the purposes of collective bargaining or other mutual
aid or protection, as guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
1084 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
2. Take the following affirmative action, which the Board finds
will effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Withdraw all recognition from Jackson Surgical Garment
Workers, Inc., as the representative of any of its employees for the
purpose of dealing with the respondent concerning grievances, labor
disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, or conditions of
work, and completely disestablish Jackson Surgical Garment Workers,
Inc., as such representative;
(b) Offer to Mabel Cooper, Ethel Russell , Mary Poynter, Hazel
Keyes, Frances Herda, Angela Clark, Ethel Woods, and Minnie Lowe
immediate and full reinstatement to their former or substantially
equivalent positions, without prejudice to their seniority and other
rights and privileges;
(c) Make whole Mabel Cooper, Ethel Russell, Mary Poynter, Hazel
Keyes, Frances Herda, Angela Clark, Ethel Woods, and Minnie Lowe
for any loss of pay they have suffered by reason of the respondent's
discrimination against them by payment to each of them of a sum of
money equal to that which she normally would have earned as wages
from the date of the respondent's discrimination against her to the
date of the respondent's offer of reinstatement, less her net' earnings
during' such period;
(d) Reimburse all of its employees who were members of Jackson
Surgical Garment Workers, Inc., for all dues and assessments, if any,
which it deducted from their wages on behalf of Jackson Surgical
Garment Workers, Inc. ;
(e) Post immediately in conspicuous places throughout its plant,
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), (b), (c), (d), and (e) of this
Order; (2) that the respondent will take the affirmative action set
forth in paragraphs 2 (a), (b), (c), and (d) of this Order; and (3)
that the respondent's employees are free to become and remain mem-
bers of Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America, affiliated with
the C. I. 0., and that the respondent will not discriminate against any
employee because of membership or activity in that organization;
(f) Notify the Regional Director for the Seventh Region in writ-
ing, within ten (10) days from the date of this Order, what steps the
respondent 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 has discriminated
in regard to the hire and'tenure of employment of Mabel Van Buren,
Mary Manor, and Evelyn Lozier. '
S. H. CAMP AND COMPANY 1085
MR. GERARD D. REILLY took no part in the consideration of the above
Decision and Order.
INTERMEDIATE REPORT
Mr. Sylvester J. Pheney, for the Board.
Bisbee, McKone, Badgley and Mclnally, by Mr. Leland S. Bisbee and Mr.
Maxwell F. Badgley, of Jackson, Mich., for the respondent.
Mr. Frank Schaps, of Chicago, Ill., for the Union.
Mr. Frank L. Blackman, of Jackson, Mich., for Jackson Surgical Garment%
Workers, Inc.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon a charge and amended charges' duly filed by the Amalgamated Clothing
Workers of America, affiliated with the CIO, herein called the Union, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board, by its Regional Director
for the Seventh Region (Detroit, Michigan), issued its complaint dated April 30;
1943, against S. H. Camp and Company, Jackson, Michigan, herein called the
respondent, alleging that the respondent had engaged in and was engaging in
unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8 (1),
(2) and (3) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act,
49 Stat. 449 herein called the Act. Copies of the complaint, accompanied by
notices of hearing thereon, were duly served upon the respondent, the Union,
and the Jackson Surgical Garment Workers, Inc., an unaffiliated organization,
herein called the Surgical Workers.
With respect to the unfair labor practices, the complaint alleged, in substance:
(1) that beginning in the spring of 1937 to the date of the complaint, the respond-
ent dominated, assisted and interfered with the formation and administration
of the Surgical Workers, and contributed financial and other support to it; (2)
that the respondent discharged Mabel Cooper on March 6, 1943, Ethel Russell
on March 29, 1943, Mary Poynter on March 30, 1943, Hazel Keyes on March 30,
1943, Frances Herda on April 2, 1943, Angela Clark on April 2, 1943, Ethel Woods
on April 8, 1943, Mabel L. Van Buren on April 16, 1943, Mary Manor on April
20, 1943, and Minnie Lowe on April 24, 1943, because each of them refused to
i join the Surgical Workers, and because of their membership in and activities
on behalf of the Union; (3) that on or about April 21, 1943, the respondent trans-
ferred Evelyn Lozier to a less desirable position because of her membership in
and activities on behalf of the Union ; and (4) that the respondent interfered
with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guar-
anteed them under Section 7 of the National Labor-Relations Act, in the follow-
ing respects : That in the Spring of 1937, President Camp threatened to close
the plant before he would permit an outside union to gain a foothold in it;
that it black listed employees of the Trenton Garment Company who had partici-
pated in a strike at that plant and discharged one of the employees whose name
had been on the said black list, and whom the respondent had "mistakenly"
hired; that it made derogatory statements to its employees concerning outside
unions; and that in January and February 1943, it interfered with the holding
of a consent election.
On March 5, 1943, the respondent filed its answer, admitting that it was engaged
in interstate commerce within the meaning of the Act but denying it had com-
mitted any of the unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint, and affirma-
1 The original charge was filed on January 5, 1943, and an amended charge on April 19,
1943.
1086 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
tively stating reasons for the termination of or transfer to other employment of
those employees alleged to have been discriminated against. Further, by way of
affirmative defense the answer alleged, in substance : (1) that on January 21,
1943, the respondent, the Union, and the Surgical Workers entered into a consent
election agreement and that at the same time the Union agreed in writing not
to protest the said election because of the alleged unfair labor practices that may
have appeared in charges filed by the Union with the Board at that time ; and
that on February 4, 1943, the date set for the election; an agent of the Board
cancelled the said election, for the alleged reason that certain wage increases
approved by the National War Labor Board had been improperly granted to a
number of the respondent's employees shortly prior to February 4, 1943, (whereas
the real reason was to favor-the Union in its organizational drive) ; and (2) that
the 1943 contract entered into between the respondent and the Surgical Workers
is a binding obligation upon the respondent and that jurisdiction concerning
disputes involving the said contract is exclusively vested in the United States De-
partment of Labor and the National War Labor Board. 1
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held between May 27 and June 4, 1943, at
Jackson, Michigan, before the undersigned, the Trial Examiner duly designated
by the Chief Trial -Examiner. The Board, the respondent, the Union, and the
Surgical Workers were all represented by counsel and participated in the hearing.
At the opening of the hearing, the Surgical Workers offered a written motion
to intervene. The motion was granted, limiting however, the participation of
the Surgical Workers to issues affecting it. The answer of the Surgical Workers
denied that the respondent had dominated or interfered with the formation or ad-
ministration of the organization and interposed an affirmative defense based on
the consent election agreement, similar to that raised by the respondent. At the
opening of the hearing, counsel for the respondent moved that the complaint be
dismissed on the grounds stated in a written motion 3 The motion was denied
as to the second ground and denied without prejudice subject to later renewal
in respect to the first and third grounds. At the conclusion of the hearing, the
motion in its entirety was renewed and is hereby denied. At the close of the
Board's case, counsel for the Board moved that Intervenor's Exhibits 3A to 3U
inclusive (handbills circulated by the Union) be stricken from the record. This
motion was granted but is now modified in that Intervenor's Exhibit 3L is re-
ceived in evidence.3 At the conclusion of the hearing, the parties were offered "
and waived an opportunity to present oral argument. Thereafter counsel for
the respondent, the intervenor, and the Union were granted ten (10) days to Me
briefs with the undersigned. Briefs have been received from the respondent and
intervenor. On June 29, 1943 the undersigned received an application for leave
to file a brief from the attorney for the Board with copies of the proposed brief
attached. Leave to file this brief is hereby granted.
Upon the entire record in the case, and from his observation of the witnesses,
the undersigned makes the following :
2 1. That under the order of the President of the United States jurisdiction herein is now
exclusively in the Department of Labor and the War Labor Board for the duration of
the war.
2. That all allegations in said complaint have been waived.
3. That the contract between the respondent and Surgical Workers has become binding for
the duration of the war by virtue of the President's directive and the determination of the
War Labor Board.
3Intervenor's Exhibit 3L was a union handbill announcing that an election set for Febru-
ary 4, 1943, was called off. Subsequent to the above ruling, additional evidence was offered
by the Intervenor which indicated that the contents of the said Exhibit were material to a
consideration of the issues.
` S. H. CAMP AND COMPANY
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
1087
The respondent is a Michigan corporation engaged in the manufacture, distri-
bution and sale of surgical garments at Jackson, Michigan. It also operates
plants at Marshall, Michigan, Windsor, Canada, and one in England. Only
the•Jackson plant is involved in these proceedings.
The respondent has approximately 375 production employees on its Jackson
pay roll in addition to clerical and supervisory employees. During an average
year it purchased approximately 94.5 percent of the raw materials and supplies
used in its business in various States of the United States other than Michigan,
and caused them to be transported to its Jackson, Michigan plant. During a
similar period if, manufactured, sold and thereafter caused to be transported
about 97.7 percent of its processed products to points in other States of the
United States. The respondent concedes that it is engaged in commerce within
the meaning of the Act.
II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America, affiliated with the CIO, and
Jackson Surgical Garment Workers, Inc., an unaffiliated organization are both
labor organizations admitting to membership employees of the respondent.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Domination and interference with the formation and administration of the
Surgical Workers ; interference, restraint and coercion
I. MANAGEMENT CONTROL IN THE PLANT
The events material to a consideration of the issues herein occurred betweeen
'April 1937 and the date of the hearing. Before considering these events in
detail, it may be well to preliminarily, discuss the hierarchy of management of
the plant in order that some of the participants in the events below may be
identified.
The line of supervisory authority in the plant descended from Samuel H.
Camp, the president of the company, to Christian H. Fleck, the executive vice
president and general manager and thence to Jess R. Dawson, the superintendent
and production manager. Under Dawson were the foremen and foreladies of the
various production departments.
In addition to its regular production department the respondent also operates
a receiving department. This department receives all incoming raw materials
and transmits them when needed to the various production departments. Harold
Harrington has been employed in businesses conducted by Camp since 1927.
In 1933, when the present corporation was organized Harrington became the
receiving clerk for the respondent which position he still holds. Harrington has
always had from one to three employees working under his supervision in con-
nection with the operations of this department since 1937.`
On October 1, 1939, Dawson was employed as the plant superintendent and
production manager for the company. Prior to the time Dawson became super-
intendent, general authority to hire and discharge was held by Mrs. Aikin, the
4 Harrington testified that he had no authority to hire or discharge the employees working
under his supervision, but could recommend the hire or discharge of the said employees.
1088 ' DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD -
head forelady. On assuming the position Dawson took over all authority per-
taining to the hiring and discharging of employees. Presently, Camp and
Fleck are the only other officials of the company who have retained the right
to hire and discharge employees.
Aside from the power to hire and discharge, the supervisors below the status
of officials of the company, exercise the usual powers delegated to departmental
supervisors in industrial plants.
2. Sequence of events beginning with the formation of the Surgical Workers in
May 1937, to the advent of the Union in the plant in December 1942
Prior to May 25, 1937, there was no labor organization in the respondent's
plant. In the spring of that year the International Ladies' Garment Workers,
C. I. O. initiated an organizational campaign at the Trenton Garment Company
in Jackson, and in April 1937, a strike was called which continued thereafter
for a period of several weeks. Several of the Board's witnesses testified that
the United Auto Workers, C. I O. instituted an organizational drive in the
respondent's plant at the time of the Trenton Garment Strike.'
Arthur Siegrist, foreman of the cutting room in the plant, testified that dur-
ing the,Trenton Garment Company strike in Jackson, some of the employees
wanted to organize an independent union in the plant, and he volunteered to
help organize one.' On May 24, 1937,-Siegrist, Clarence Kilgallin, a machinist,
and Wallace Wilson, a cutter who worked under Siegrist went to the law offices
of Painter and Rosenburg in Jackson for advice. After talking to these lawyers,
it was decided to incorporate the proposed organization under the name of The
Jackson Surgical Garment Workers, Inc. On May 25 and 27, 1937, two meetings
were held in the cafeteria of the plant. At these meetings Siegrist, Kilgallin,
Wilson and seven other employees met together with the attorneys and pro-
ceeded, with the necessary steps to incorporate the organization. At the May
25 meeting, the directors were elected and the Articles of Association were
drawn up and signed. At the May 27 meeting, officers were elected and the.
bylaws adopted.7' Siegrist was elected president and Harold Harrington, super-
visor of the receiving department, was elected secretary.
5 Norman Crapo, president, and Harold Marsh, a member of the Executive Board of the
Jackson County Joint Labor Council, testified that the U. A. W. commenced an organiza-
tional drive in respondent's plant at this time This was further corroborated by the
testimony of Edna Kappler, Ethel Russell and Frances Herds. Mable Cooper testified that
Foreman Siegrist accused her of being a member of the C.' I. O. The respondent denied
that it had knowledge of the C. I O. organizational drive. The undenied testimony that
Siegrist accused Mable Cooper of being a member of the C. I. 0 as well as the undenied
testimony of several witnesses that there was an organizational drive at the time is suf-
ficient evidence to support the inference, and it is found, that the respondent was aware of
this activity. As will be noted below, Foreman Siegrist admitted that the Independent was
organized for the purpose of keeping the C. I O. out of the plant; thus, admitting knowledge
of the threat of a C. I O. organizational drive.
U Edna Kappler testified that Siegrist was the foreman of the cutting room at the time
he organized the Surgical Workers. In 1943, the respondent published a list of all foremen
and forelaches Siegrist's name appeared on this list as the foreman of the cutting room,
and Fleck also testified that Siegrist held the same position in 1937. As appears below,
Siegrist became the first president of the Surgical Workers on or about May 27, 1937.
Under 'the bylaws of the organization, the president of the organization was ex officio a
member of the Factory Relations Committee. According to the testimony of Kappler,
Siegrist, although president, did not serve as a member of this committee because he was
regarded as a supervisor and therefore ineligible to serve under the bylaws as adopted.
-happier, as vice president, served in the place of Siegrist as a member of the said committee.
7 Siegrist, who testified concerning the preliminary stages of organization, seemed to
have only a slight recollection as to just what transpired at these meetings. The findings
above concerning the proceedings are largely based on the fact that a bill for services was
N
S. H. CAMP AND COMPANY 1089
As stated in the Articles of Association and the bylaws, the purpose of organ-
izing the Surgical Workers was in substance: (1) to provide for a cooperative
buying and selling organization ; (2) to provide for a collective bargaining
organization to represent the respondent's employees; and (3) to set up a
cooperative loan fund. The record indicates that in practice, the principal and
substantially its only real purpose and function was to serve as a labor organiza-
tion.' Excerpts from the bylaws that are deemed material to the issues herein,
are as follows :
*
(a) Superintendent, foremen, sub-foremen, foreladies, sub-foreladies, office
help and salesmen shall be eligible to membership in this organization,
provided they possess the qualifications necessary for membership and pro-
vided further that none of the class designated in this sub-division shall be
eligible to serve on the Factory Relations Committee, hereinafter designated.
ARTICLE III
OFFICERS
Section 1. The business, property and affairs of this corporation shall be
managed by a Board of Directors composed of seven (7) persons who shall
be members of this corporation. Each director shall hold office for the term
of one (1) year and until his successor is elected and qualified.
Section 2. -Vacancies in the Board of Directors shall be filled by appoint-
ment made by the remaining directors. Each person so elected to fill a
vacancy shall remain a director until his successor has been elected by the
members, who may make such election at their next annual meeting or at any
special meeting duly called for that purpose and held prior thereto.
Section S. The Directors shall elect the following officers: President,
Vice-President, Secretary and Treasurer, which officer's need not be Directors
of the Company. -
ARTICLE IV
MEMBERSHIP
COMMITTEES
Section 1. The standing committees of this organization shall be, Factory
Relations Committee, Entertainment Committee, Purchasing Committee,
and 'Loan Fund Committee. All committees shall be elected at the annual
meeting to serve for one year. All committees, with the exception of the
Factory Relations Committee, shall be appointed by the President of the
Company.
rendered to the Surgical Workers by Painter and Rosenburg, which bill indicates that meet-
ings were held at the plant on May 25 and 27, 1937, and the Articles of Association, also
in evidence, indicate that they were executed on May 25, 1937. The said Articles were
subsequently filed with the Michigan Corporation and Securities Commission on June 15,
1937; at which time the organization attained full legal status as a corporation
8 Siegrist testified that for a time during his tenure as president, the Surgical Workers
had made an arrangement to obtain discounts on the purchase of gasoline for members, but
otherwise nothing else appears to have been done toward the development of a cooperative
enterprise.
1090 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Section 2. Factory Relations Committee 9 The Factory Relations Com-
mittee shall consist of five (5) members, four ( 4) of whom shall be elected
by the members of the organization, and the President of the organization
shall constitute the fifth member, or if ineligible, then the Vice-President.
This committee shall represent the members of this organization for the pur-
pose of collective bargaining with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of
employment or other conditions of employment , and shall have as its general
purpose, to insure to the members of this organization the full benefits of
their rights of self-organization and to collective bargaining and .shall deal
and negotiate with the S H. Camp & Company in all matters relating to all
of the foregoing items or the general welfare of the members of this organ-
ization.
Eligibility to Members. Any member In good standing may be elected to,
and serve upon , one or more committees , provided however, that no superin-
tendent, foreman, sub-foreman , executives , salesman, foreladies , sub-fore-
ladies or office help of the S H. Camp & Company shall "serve on the Factory
Relations Committee.
*
DISSOLUTION
Section 1. Upon a petition or application filed by Twenty-five (25%)
percent of the members in good standing at any time with the President,
the latter shall direct the Secretary to send notice to all members in good
standing, in writing, to their last known post office address, that an applica-
tion has been made for the dissolution of this corporation. Such notice shall
be of at least ten (10) days. At such meeting, upon a majority vote of
all members in good standing, the corporation shall proceed to liquidate and
dissolve.
* * * * * * *
Under these bylaws the superintendent of the respondent is eligible to hold
the office of president of the Surgical Workers, and the President of the Surgical
Workers may dominate all committees except the Relations committee by his
appointive power. The officers may be selected by a Board of Directors which
may be composed of executives of the company and supervisory employees. Exec-
utives of the company, as members of the Surgical Workers, may vote for members
of the Factory Relations Committee or Grievance Committee.'°
On June 3, 1937, Siegrist called a meeting of all of the employees to be held
in the plant cafeteria at the end of the work day. Notice of the meeting was
given to the employees by passing the word along from employee to employee
while they were working in the plant that day." This meeting was attended
0 Generally called the Relations Committee or Grievance Committee in the record.
10 Edna Kappler testified that the Relations Committee is the Grievance Committee but
since the "president of the company , Mr Camp, preferred to call it by the Relations Com-
mittee, so we always try to abide by it."
Zella Dixon , president of the Surgical Workers, admitted that these by-laws have never
been amended.
11 Siegrist testified that the Surgical Workers took possession of the cafeteria without
- permission from management , and that shortly after the second meeting , Camp and Fleck
discovered that the Surgical Workers had been using the cafeteria , and prohibited its, use
for its meetings . The testimony of Fleck and Camp corroborates Siegrist. Edna Kappler
testified that Camp authorized the use of the cafeteria at one of the first two meetings of
the Surgical Workers. She subsequently modified her testimony and said that he granted
S. H. CAMP AND COMPANY 1091
by 200 to 300 employees. Attorney Painter was introduced to the group by either
Siegrist or Kilgallin. Painter called attention to the strike at Trenton Garment
Company, and stated that the purpose of organizing was to form an independent
organization to keep other unions out of the respondent's plant. Immediately
thereafter, all the employees were solicited to join the organization, and within
a few weeks, approximately 216 had joined. Forelady Herda joined at this
time and, together with Head Forelady Aikin2 openly solicited and encouraged
the production employees to join the Surgical Workers, while these employees
were engaged in their usual duties at the plant.
Siegrist continued to serve as president of the organization until October 14,
1940. During his administration no effort was made to secure a collective bar-
gaining agreement. The evidence shows that the organization merely drifted
along, handling few grievances and holding only 11 membership meetings over a
period of 3 years and 4 months, 3 of which were called to hold annual elections
of officers. According to the official minutes, covering several of the other meet-
ings, the principal business on the agenda concerned plans for holding saner kraut
suppers or wiener roasts. The official minutes of the organization and the evi-
dence as a whole clearly indicate that during Siegrist's entire term as president,
the organization did not function as an effective labor organization.
During the fall of 1940 the Textile Workers Union of America, C. I. O. attempted
to organize the employees of the respondent. According to the testimony of
Russell Pahl, president of Local 313, an affiliate of that organization, Pahl solicited
a number of them to join it, but they refused to sign application cards and stated,
according to Pahl's testimony, that they were afraid to sign the cards and would
not give their names. He further testified that he was working in a shop at the
time and because the International Union failed to send an organizer to Jackson
to assist him, he discontinued his activities. Mable Cooper, a witness for the
Board, and other Board witnesses also testified that the Textile Workers at-
tempted to organize the respondent's employees at this time. Witnesses for
the Intervenor and the respondent, however, testified that they had no recollec-
tion of such activities by the Textile Workers. It is generally accepted that such
activities are ordinarily discussed among employees and in view of the subsequent
renewal of activities by the Surgical Workers, discussed below, the undersigned
is convinced that these organizational activities by the Textile Workers not only
occurred, but that the respondent and leading supporters-of the Surgical Workers
had knowledge of them at the time.
On October 14, 1940, Siegrist called a meeting of the Surgical Workers. He
stated that one of the purposes of the meeting was to decide whether or not the
employees desired to continue the Surgical Workers as a labor organization.
According to the minutes, a vote was taken which resulted in a vote of 59 in the
affirmative and 32 in the negative. Following this vote, Christian H. Fleck,
Jr." was elected president. of the organization. One evening between October 14
and November 4, 1940, the Relations Committee and officers of the Surgical
Workers met in the apartment of Fleck, Jr. At this meeting the matter of
the use of the cafeteria at a later meeting of the Factory Relations Committee. Camp
denied this . It is deemed unnecessary to resolve this conflict between Camp and Kappler,
since the taking of possession of the cafeteria was initiated by Foreman Siegrist, and
knowledge of its use is therefore attributable to management. Altogether there were four
meetings held in the cafeteria from May 25 to June 19, 1937. From the above, the under-
signed concludes that the cafeteria was used for Surgical Workers meetings with the knowl-
edge and consent of management.
u Aikin also appears frequently in the record as Aiken
13 Christian Fleck, Jr. is the son of Christian Fleck, the executive vice president of the
respondent.
549875-44-vol. 52-70
1092 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
negotiating a contract with the respondent was proposed ' and young Fleck
recommended that the organization retain the services of Attorney Nichols,
formerly associated with Fleck, Sr., vice president of the respondent, as his per-
sonal counsel. Nichols was retained and'drafted a proposed contract which was
submitted to the membership at a meeting presided over by Fleck, Jr. on Novem-
ber 4, 1940. Without offering more than signed applications and without a check
of the pay roll as proof of a majority, the respondent entered into negotiations
with the Surgical Workers. The proposed contract was submitted to Fleck,
Sr. and the respondent submitted a draft of a counterproposal which was sub-
mitted to the membership at a meeting of the Surgical Workers on November
18, 1940." A. contract between the respondent and the Surgical Workers for a
term of one year was signed on January 10, 1941. It is clear from the foregoing
and the undersigned finds that Fleck, Jr. took an important part in initiating
the negotiations which culminated in the contract. It is further significant that
the contract was negotiated at the time the Textile Workers initiated a campaign
for membership among the respondent's employees.
On January 10, 1942, a second agreement was entered into between the re-
spondent and the Surgical Workers At this time there were 403 employees in
the unit covered by the agreement and a list of 238 names of alleged members
was submitted to the respondent. The names of the purported members on the
list were not subscribed by those persons whose names appeared thereon.
Dixon testified that the list contained all names on file since 1937, whether paid
up members or not. Accordingly, no satisfactory check could be made to deter-
mine whether or not a majority of the employees in the unit, covered by the con-
'tract designated the Surgical Workers as their representative, despite which the
contract was entered into.
Serrin, who succeeded Fleck, Jr. as president, continued to hold the office until
November 2, 1942, when a meeting was held to elect officers for the ensuing year.
Zella Dixon was elected president 'and has continued to hold the office to the
present time. Early in December negotiations were commenced concerning a
new contract for 1943, but according to the findings below little progress was
made concerning these negotiations until after the Union's organizational efforts
in the plant.
3. Sequence of 'events subsequent to the advent of the Union on
December 22, 1942
On December 22, 1942, Sebastien Cubeta, an organizer for the Union, began an
organizing campaign among the respondent's employees. In connection there-
with he undertook a house to house solicitation; held many meetings and passed
out numerous handbills at the plant. Cubeta testified that as a result of these
organizational efforts, over 250'employees of the respondent signed application
cards authorizing the Union to represent them as their collective bargaining
representative.
On December 29, 1942, the Union, by letter to the respondent, stated that it
represented a majority of the respondent's employees and requested a meeting
to negotiate a contract.
14 This was the first time since the inception of the organization 4 years ago that a
contract was proposed. Zella Dixon testified "That they never felt that they should have
a contract ; that it was not necessary to have one until in 1941."
15 At this meeting a letter of resignation from Fleck, Jr. was read, stating that he was
resigning the office of President. Zella Dixon, at this time a member of the Relations
Committee and presently President df the Surgical Workers, testified that Fleck, Jr. resigned
because he was too closely connected with the management. Carl Serrin, directly under
Siegrist in the cutting department, was elected to succeed him.
t
S-11. CAMP AND COMPANY 1093
On December 30, 1942, the Union distributed handbills at the plant, claiming
among other things, that it could secure wage increases for the employees if
certified as their collective bargaining agent.
On December 31, 1942, the respondent replied, by letter, to the Union's re-
quest'for recognition, and stated that it was under contract with a union of its
employees and under the circumstances could not grant the Union's request.16
.The undersigned finds that in failing to meet with the Union representative, the
respondent did not treat the representatives of the competing unions impartially
since it-afforded the Union no opportunity to furnish proof of its claimed major-
ity, but, as appears below, the respondent signed a new contract with the Sur-
gical Workers on January 7, 1943 without a proper investigation of its claim to
be the majority representative. The undersigned further finds that by refusing
to meet with the Union's representatives concerning its above claim of majority
representation the respondent interfered with concerted activities of its employees
within the meaning of Section 7 of the Act.
On January 2, 1943, the respondent posted a notice on the plant bulletin board
notifying its employees that the committee of the Surgical Workers requested the
management to explain to the employees the Wage and Salary Stabilization orders
of the United States Government;' and that a meeting would be held in the plant
at 3 p. in. Fleck testified in substance that at this meeting, he told the group
that general increases in pay were governed by the "Little Steel Formula" and
that increases could not exceed over 15 percent of the wages paid in January
1941 and to that extent wages were frozen. He also testified that he told them
that there were some exceptions to the general rule, but in such cases govern-
mental approval would have to be obtained before any increases could be granted.
The testimony of the other witnesses, who testified concerning the event, in
general agreed with Fleck's version.
Employees Poynter, Russell, and Kirby, all witnesses of the Board, testified
without contradiction that on or about January 2 or 3, 1943, Zella Dixon and
other representatives of the Surgical Workers circulated petitions among the
employees while they were at work in the plant. These petitions were captioned
as follows :
Please confirm below (sic) who would dike to join the Union [Surgical
Workers] for 1943. We would like to get over 51 percent or over (sic).
ZELLA [DIXON]
On January 2, 1943, according to the undenied testimony of Margaret Kirby,
Zella Dixon, Edith Darling, and Mrs. Glen explained to the girls in the seamers
department during working hours the new seniority clause in the contract. The
forelady was present and raised no objections. On January 4, 1943, Jones said
to the girls who were discussing the C. I. 0., "If you girls do not want the
C. I. 0., join up with your local union, because if we get 51% they cannot get in."'$
1° The statements made in this letter do not fully conform to the facts, for at this time
negotiations were still pending with the Surgical Workers concerning the 1943 contract,
and by reason thereof the respondent was under a duty to consider proof concerning a
competing union's claim of representation before concluding the negotiations and entering
into a new contract with the Surgical Workers.
11 Obviously this request was due to the statements made by the Union in the handbill
passed out on December 30, 1942
18 Jones had been forelady on the second floor for a number of years. In 1942 Josephine
Brown had been appointed to take over Jones' duties but Jones continued in the employ
of the respondent. On January 21, 1943, management clarified the status of Jones by
publishing a Factory Notice notifying its employees that Brown was forelady and Jones
was retained in an "advisory capacity." At the time this remark was made, Mabel Cooper
regarded Jones as a forelady. 'The undersigned finds that due to Jones' long tenure as a
1094 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Dixon admitted that she and other representatives of the Surgical Workers
solicited signatures during working hours, but said in explanation that her lunch
hour was earlier than that of other employees working in other departments
and, therefore, it was the only opportunity that she, Dixon, had to solicit their
signatures. Irrespective of the reason stated by Dixon, it is clear that many
of the signatures on these petitions were obtained from employees while they
were engaged in their regular plant duties and that the circulation and solic-
itation was so openly conducted that it must have been done with the knowledge
and consent of the management. Employee Washburn testified that during
the latter part of December 1942 and early in January 1943, she passed out a
few union application cards in the plant. Following this incident, a fellow
employee informed Washburn that Forelady Brown had stated, in substance,
that Washburn had better stop passing outs those cards or she would be dis-
charged. Washburn asked Brown if she had made that statement whereupon
Brown denied that she said Washburn would be discharged, but told Washburn
that she, Brown, had told the other employee that Washburn had better watch
out. Washburn further testified that a few days later Forelady Brown ap-
proached her and said "C. I. O. agitator." Employee Clark testified that during
the latter part of December 1942, some of the girls in her department were dis-
cussing the possibility of the Union organizing in the plant. Forelady Brown
came over to them and said, in substance, that she, Brown, was unable to under-
stand why the girls should be disturbed over union matters ; that she was satisfied
with conditions in the plant, for she had been given a job when jobs were unavail-
able elsewhere and therefore felt that she owed something to the Company's
Brown was not called as a witness and the above testimony of Washburn and
Clark stands uncontradicted. A consideration of the above facts convinces the
undersigned that the respondent encouraged the organizational activities par-
ticipated in by representatives of the Surgical Workers in the plant during
working hours but discouraged similar activities by Union adherents.
On January 4, 1943, the respondent posted the following notice on its bulletin
board :
At the request of the Jackson Surgical Garment Workers, Inc., the fac-
tory will close at 4: 15 p. in. in all departments on the first Monday in each
month.
This time schedule will be effective today, Monday, January 4, 1943.
The usual closing hour at the plant was 4: 30 p.Im. and in some of the depart-
ments the employees worked later. The regular monthly meetings of the Sur-
gical Workers were held on the first Monday of the month. Obviously, the
request granted was to aid and assist the Surgical Workers. It follows that
the employees of the respondent would so construe it.
Following the posting of the above notice by the respondent, a meeting was
held on the afternoon of January 4, 1943. Approximately 150 employees attended
the meeting and Attorney Heuman, who had been retained by the organization
to draft a contract for it, read and explained the provisions of an amended
draft of a contract that had previously been discussed with the respondent. The
minutes of this meeting clearly indicate that a preferential union shop clause.
I
forelady and since Brown had not been officially announced as forelady until January 21,
1943, Jones was reasonably identifiable with management at the time the remarks attributed
to Jones were made.
' Christian Fleck, vice president of the respondent, testified that supervisory employees
were not instructed to remain neutral in union matters until the latter part of 1942.
S. H. CAMP AND COMPANY 1095
was considered for the first time at this meeting for the official minutes contain
the following:
A suggestion was made to have a closed shop with a check-out system. Mr.
Heuman suggested that he would have enough copies [drafted] so we all could -
have one.
Vice-president Fleck testified that several meetings had been held in December
1942 pertaining to the negotiation of the proposed 1943 contract. He said that
-at these meetings two proposed drafts had been submitted, but further testified
that a closed or preferential union clause had never been discussed at any of
.the negotiation meetings until a day or two before the union shop contract was
signed on January 7, 1943. The evidence above is convincing to the undersigned
that no form of a preferential shop contract was considered until after January 4,
1943. It is significant that this question was not raised until after the Union
.herein had commenced an aggressive membership drive.
On January 5, 1943, the Union filed a petition for Investigation and Certification
of Representatives and also filed a charge that the respondent had been engaging
in alleged unfair labor practices.20 The Regional Director for the Seventh Region,
.by a letter to the respondent, notified the respondent of the filing of the said
petition and also stated in the letter that Field Examiner Cassidy had been
assigned to investigate the case. Vice-president Fleck admitted in his testimony
that at a conference with Cassidy on the morning of January 7, 1943, the latter
advised the respondent not to sign the contract then under negotiation with the
Surgical Workers. That same afternoon the respondent entered into a new
,contract with the Surgical Workers which contract contained a union shop and
dues check-off clause. The respondent made no request of the Surgical Workers
to furnish proof of its claim of majority representation in the unit covered by
the contract until the parties met to sign it on the afternoon of January 7, 1943,
despite the fact that the Union herein on December 29, 1942, notified the re-
spondent that it claimed to represent a majority of the employees in substantially
the same unit as that covered by the contract. At the time the contract was
signed the Surgical Workers' representatives handed to the respondent those
membership petitions which had been obtained a few days previously. Two
hundred and sixteen of 373 employees in the unit covered by the contract pur-
portedly signed these petitions. The evidence, however, indicates that some
of the employees had signed both this petition and also application cards for the
Union. Dixon admitted in her testimony that she believed that some of the
employees had signed membership applications for both organizations but could
not say how many. An inspection of the petitions in evidence clearly, indicates
that a check of the names and signatures appearing thereon against other
records in the respondent's files would consume several hours time. President
Camp testified that the terms of final draft of the contract had been previously
agreed upon and except for a few typographical errors, which were then cor-
rected, it was signed. Under the above circumstances the undersigned concludes
and finds that no proper check was made to determine whether or not the
Surgical Workers represented an uncoereed majority of its employees in that
bargaining unit covered by the contract.
Zella Dixon testified that on January 14, 1943, the officers and the Relations
Committee, and Attorney Heuman, met at a hotel in Jackson with Field Examiner
Cassidy. Dixon further testified that on this occasion Cassidy, examined some
of the records of the Surgical Workers and stated at the time, in substance, that
20 This charge alleged; among other things, that the Surgical Workers was a company
dominated labor organization.
1096 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the organization seemed to be a valid labor organization ;- but Dixon further
testified that at a second meeting with Cassidy, held on the following day, he
advised them to dissolve, and thereby avoid the possible expense of defending
the organization at a hearing, which might subsequently be ordered by the Board.21'
On January 16, 1943, a joint meeting was held between representatives of the
Surgical Workers, the Union, the respondent, and Cassidy. Cassidy advised
the group at the meeting that since one of the-two labor organizations would
probably seek an election, they should agree to bold a consent election. The
terms of a consent election agreement were tentatively agreed upon and on-
January 21, 1943, the respondent, the Union, and the Surgical Workers entered
into a written agreement for a consent election, which agreement was later
approved by the Acting Regional Director of the Seventh Region for' the Board
on January 23, 1943. Also on January 21, 1943, the Union executed a waiver of
protest in which it agreed in substance to waive any unfair labor practices which
allegedly had been committed by the respondent and concerning which charges
had been filed. February 4, 1943, was the election date set in the above consent
election agreement.
Following the signing of the consent election agreement on January 21, the
respondent gave wage piece rate increases to 71 employees from January 26 to
February 3, 1943, the latter date being the day before the election had been
scheduled. Amanda Sanford, a seamer operator, testified without contradiction
that the seamers had asked for wage increases on numerous occasions during
the year of 1942. She said the requests had always been made to the forelady
who then presented the request to the superintendent. She further testified
she had' never heard that any of the operators had ever asked the Surgical.
Workers for assistance concerning the obtaining of wage increases. Employee
Herda testified without contradiction, that the boxers group had gone up in a body
to Dawson's office in December 1942, to ask for rate increases and that Dawson,
on this occasion, told them that wages were frozen.
Vice-president Fleck testified that in December 1942 many of the employees
had requested wage increases or rate adjustments and said that substantially
all of the requests had been made originally by the employees on their own behalf,
but that subsequently the' Surgical Workers carried on the negotiations con-
cerning them with Superintendent Dawson. On December 11, 1942, Fleck said
that he visited the Detroit office of the Wage and Hour Division of the United
States Department of Labor. He asked about the regulations concerning wage
increases and said that he was informed by an employee in the office that the
respondent could grant wage increases or rate increases if the facts as stated
to him by Fleck were correct. He also informed Fleck at the time that the latter
might file applications for rulings on the questions on Form N. W. L. B. #1.
No copies of these forms were available at this time and Fleck requested that
copies be mailed to him when they were received. Fleck testified that he received
some of these forms on or about January 13, 1943. On January 20, 1943, the day
before the consent election agreement was signed, he filled out four of the forms
and requested rulings. Specific rulings were requested concerning wage increases
for a truck driver and a sewing machine operator, and for piece rate adjustments
for a group of 11 boning operators and 5 boxing operators. Fleck received rulings
• concerning the truck driver and sewing machine operator on January 23 and
rulings concerning the piece rate'adjustments pertaining to the boning and boxing
operations on January 26, 1943. The rulings, in substance, stated that under the
21 Cassidy was not a witness at the hearing but Dixon 's testimony indicates that aftei a
partial investigation made by Cassidy in connection with the pending case, he clearly
expressed doubt concerning its validity. '
S. H. CAMP AND COMPANY 1097
facts presented the proposed wage adjustments were permissible under the gen-
eral orders issued by the National War Labor Board.
Shortly after January 26, the boning and boxing operators were told, that
wage increases retroactive from December 1, 1942, would be paid to them. Herda
testified without contradiction that Tom Smalley, a member of the Surgical
Workers' Relations Committee "came into their department" and told them
that they would receive them. Angela Clark, a lacer, testified without contra-
diction, that Forelady Brown approached their group about a week before Feb-
ruary 4 and called Irene Abbott, another lacer, over to a table where Brown
was standing and handed Abbott a slip of paper. Clark testified that Abbott
then asked all of the lacers who wanted to go up and talk to Tom Smalley con-
cerning piece rate increases to sign it, but they all refused and Abbott was the
only one who signed it. She further testified that Alma Chapin, also a lacer,
told her a few days later that Forelady Brown sent Chapin and three or four
of the lacers to talk to Smalley. After talking to him this group returned with
a slip of paper containing a request for rate increases of 4 or 5 cents per bundle
which was submitted to all the lacers for their approval. The lacers failed to
receive any increases.
Minnie Lowe testified without contradiction that on January 30, 1943, 12 em-
ployees including Tom Smalley and Hazel King, both members of the Relations
Committee of the Surgical Workers, were called into the office by Dawson. Daw-
son announced the wage raise to the group. Tom Smalley nodded his,head to the
group and then Dawson said, "How's that, how does that sound?" Hazel King
patted Minnie Lowe, one of the employees present, on the back and said, "Now,
do not forget to vote the right way the time the election comes."
On February 2 or 3, 1943, piece rate increases were given to 28 operators in
the seaming department and to 20 examiners, although no rulings from the Wage
and Hour Division of the United States Department of Labor had been requested
concerning their eases.
Superintendent Dawson testified that he followed the usual plant practice con-
cerning the announcement of wage increases. He said that when individuals had
presented such requests, he notified them personally concerning the action taken,
but if the Surgical Workers committee had initiated the request, its committee
was notified when the raises were approved. He said that he told President
Dixon, of the Surgical Workers, that increases, would be granted to the boxer's
group and said that he personally did not talk with them after the decision had
been made.
From the facts above, the undersigned concludes that the Surgical Workers
had-no part in initiating or obtaining favorable action on most of the requests for
rate increases granted to the employees just prior to the date set for the con-
sent election. Nevertheless, the respondent permitted the Surgical Workers to
announce or to participate with the management in the announcement to sub-
stantially all of the employees concerned, that the rate increases had been granted.
Under the circumstances this action would erroneously indicate to the respondent's
employees that the Surgical Workers were entitled to credit for obtaining the
increases and would tend to influence them to vote for the Surgical Workers in the
proposed election, thereby constituting interference with the proposed election.
On February 3, 1943, the day before the election was to be held, Schultz, a na-
tional representative of the Union, arrived in Jackson. Upon learning that a large
number of wage increases had been granted after the signing of the consent elec-
tion agreement on January 21, Schultz became concerned and about noontime
on February 4 called Regional Director Bowen for the Board, in, Detroit; and
informed.him of the increases. Bowen told him to discuss the situation with
1098 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Field Examiner Cassidy who had left Detroit and was then on his way to Jack-
son to conduct the election. Schultz also testified that after talking to Bowen, he
ordered some of his union associates to prepare a leaflet calling a meeting for
that night, in the expectation that the election might be called off. Cassidy, ac-
companied by Bannasch, also a Field Examiner for the Board, arrived in Jack-
son about 2: 18 on the afternoon of February 4. Schultz 'met him about 10 min-
utes later and complained to Cassidy about the increases, which had been re-
cently granted. After talking with Schultz, Cassidy and Bannasch proceeded to
the respondent's plant to discuss the question of these wage increases with Fleck.
As appears above, Cassidy did not testify, but Bannasch testified that he went to
the plant with Cassidy and said that Fleck and Cassidy held a conversation in
his presence concerning the wage increases which lasted from approximately 2: 45
to 3:30 at which time Cassidy told Fleck that he [Cassidy] was going to call off
the election. Notices were drafted and posted on the plant bulletin boards an-
nouncing that the election was called off. Bannasch also testified that it was
then about 3: 30 p. m. and that Cassidy called Schultz from the plant and told
him that the election had been called off.
Fleck testified that the conference with Cassidy occurred between 3: 30 and
4: 15 p. m. and that Cassidy did not arrive at his decision to call off the election
until about 4: 10 p. m. At 4: 30 p. in., the Union was distributing handbills at the
door of the plant which stated among other things that the election had been
called off.
The variation in the testimony concerning the time of the conference between
Fleck and Cassidy becomes important only because of a contention urged by
the respondent and intervenor that the election had been called off after a
prearranged understanding between Cassidy and Schultz based presumably upon
a collateral inference that the union handbill could not have been prepared after
Cassidy's decision had been made to call off the election. It appears, however,
from Schultz's uncontradicted testimony that he had ordered the handbills to
be prepared before he first met Cassidy on that afternoon and the undersigned
finds that they had been prepared in time for distribution at 4: 30. The down-
town. section of Jackson, where the plant and the, Union's offices are located is
rather limited in its extent and the undersigned finds that the arrangements
for the distribution of the handbills could have been made assuming that Schultz
did not hear from Cassidy concerning the election until 4: 15.
On or about February 22, 1943, the Surgical Workers posted a notice on the
plant bulletin board. This notice stated in substance that the January 7, 1943,
contract contained a union shop provision and after the expiration of 30 days
from the date of the above notice, it would request the respondent to discharge
all of the employees who, failed to join the Surgical Workers. A copy of the
notice was also handed to one of the officials of the respondent at the time it
was posted.
On March 6, 1943, the respondent summarily discharged Mable Cooper for her
refusal to join the Surgical Workers after Superintendent Dawson zZ had re-
quested her to join it.
On March 19, 1943, Regional Attorney Cranefield n by letter informed the
respondent that on January 5 the Union had filed charges with the Board which
charges were then being investigated. He also stated in the letter that he had
received information indicating that the respondent intended to enforce the
union shop provision of the contract. He further stated that if a complaint
22 It is noted that Cooper was discharged before the deadline set up by the, Surgical
Workers in the above notice.
23 Regional Attorney for the Board in the Seventh Regional Office, Detroit, Michigan.
S. H. CAMP AND COMPANY 1099
issued and a hearing thereafter held resulted in a decision that the contract
was invalid, the respondent might i suffer loss by reason of back pay awards.
Subsequent to the deadline of March 24 provided for in the above notice posted
in February by the Surgical Workers the latter agreed with the respondent to
extend the time limit 10 days.24
Dixon testified that at a meeting of the Surgical Workers Committee with
management representatives held in the early part of April 1943 some member
of the committee had stated that the Surgical Workers might walk out of the
plant if the union shop contract was not enforced. Dixon's testimony in reference
to this incident was as follows :
Q. Did you threaten the Company that you would go out on strike if they
wouldn't enforce that union shop clause?
A. We talked about it.
Q. Who did you talk about it with? -
A. I guess the committee talked with the Company.
Q. Well, were you a part of the committee?
A. I was president of the thing.
Q. Yes, I know, put you say the committee talked with ,the Company
about it. Were you present when the committee talked with the Company?
A. Absolutely, I was to the meetings all. I don't think I missed any of
the meetings.
Q. I don't care-about any of the meetings. ,I want to know if you were
present when your committee threatened the Company they would strike
if they didn't enforce the provision?
A. Yes.
Q. You were present?
A. Yes.
Q. And who did the talking for the union?
A. I don't remember.
Q. What did the person say, if you remember? Do you remember that?
A. No, I don't remember.
Q. Did he tell the Company that if they didn't fire these girls, you would
go on strike?
A. I don't know if they came out with just those words or-not. I don't
-remember anything about it.
Q. Did you have only one meeting with them in regard to that subject?
A. I don't remember that.
Vice President Fleck's testimony was substantially in accord with the above
testimony of Dixon. From the above, the undersigned concludes that the con-
versation concerning the strike was so casual that the danger of a strike being
called by the Surgical Workers was more fancied than real.
On April 5 or shortly prior thereto, (minutes of meeting) the respondent had
called the conciliation division of the United States Department of Labor and
reported that a strike was threatened at its plant. Mr. Ricketts, a conciliator,
went to Jackson to consult with the parties involved in the claimed dispute."
u Notwithstanding the dead line set, employees Russell , Poynter , Keyes, Herda, and Clark
were discharged on various dates from March 29 to April 2 inclusive . All of these employees
and also Cooper, who had been discharged on March 6 , 1943, had signed union application
-cards
26 Oil April 6 , 1943, the Jackson County C. I. O. Council also sent a telegram to John R.
Steelman, director of the United States Conciliation Service calling attention to the recent
discharges of union members.
1100 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
On April 27, 1943, the respondent and the Surgical Workers entered into a
"stipulation to arbitrate" in which it was agreed that the issues set forth in the
agreement should be heard by an arbitrator named by the Director of the United
Conciliation Service, Department of Labor. The issues to be determined as
provided in the agreement were as follows :
1. Whether or not the contract between the Jackson Surgical Garment
Workers, Inc., and S. H. Camp & Co, dated January 7, 1943, should be
enforced as to all of its provisions.'
2. Should the Union shop provision of said contract be enforced.
On April 30, 1943, the Board issued its complaint and on May 3, 1943, service
of the complaint accompanied by notice of hearing was duly, made upon the
respondent and the Surgical Workers."
On May 12, 1943, Director Steelman notified the Company that he had appointed
Dudley E. Whiting as arbitrator. On May 18, 1943, Whiting by letter notified
the Company that he had been advised of his appointment and that the first
convenient date that he could arrange for a hearing would be on June 7
or 8, 1943 24
B. Concluding findings
- The initial impetus to the formation of the Surgical Workers stems from
Foreman Siegrist's preliminary organizational activities beginning in May 1937.
The first four meetings of the Surgical Workers called by him in May and June
1937 were held in the cafeteria maintained by the respondent in its plant. He
became the first president of the organization and continued to hold the office
for over 3 years. Harrington, the supervisor in charge of the respondent's
receiving department became its first Secretary. Head Forelady Aikin and
Forelady Herda during working hours in the plant solicited employees to join
it. Herda was a member during the early period of its'existence. The bylaws
of the Surgical Workers which have never been amended, admits all employees
up to and including the rank of plant _superintendent to membership. Super-
visory employees may hold any office _in the organization except that of a
member of the "Factory Relations Committee,'! the collective bargaining repre-
sentative of the employees. Although not eligible for membership on this com-
mittee, supervisors may vote for the committee members and thus exercise
some control over its collective bargaining functions, and they may also partic-
ipate in a vote to dissolve the organization. The framework devised for its
administration and the steps subsequently taken by supervisory officials con-
cerning its formation and administration clearly show it to be an illegal labor
organization within the meaning of the Act. Whether or not the respondent
explicitly authorized its supervisory employees to engage in these activities,
it is nevertheless responsible for them.2'
Following the formation and the subsequent administration of the affairs
of the Surgical Workers, by Foreman Siegrist, for over 3 years, the respondent
has done nothing to publicly deprive the Surgical Workers of the advantage
of its continued favor, which might indicate that the employees were absolutely
free to join and assist in the organization and activities of any labor organiza-
29 As appears above charges, on which the complaint was based, had been previously filed
by the Union at the Regional Office of the Board, on January 5 and April 19, 1943.
21 The Board 's hearing in this case began on May 27 and closed on June 4, 1943.
?1 Cf. Amalgamated Utility Workers V. The Consolidated Edison Company, 309 U: S. 261;
International Association of Machinists , Toot & Die Makers, Lodge No . $5, etc., Petitioners,
v. N. L. R . B., 8 N. L. R. B. 621 , 311 U. S. 72, affirming ; R J. Heinz Company v. Cannery)
and Pickle Workers, Local Unwn No. 325, 10 N. L. R. B. 963, 311 U S. 514, affirming.
S. H. CAMP AND COMPANY 1101
tion. Nearly 4 years after its inception the Relations Committee of the Surgical
Workers initiated negotiations for a contract with the respondent with the
assistance of Fleck, Jr., son of the respondent's Executive Vice-president. The
respondent recognized the Surgical Workers after a cursory examination of
application forms submitted as proof of a majority of its employees. These
negotiations culminated in a contract signed January 10, 1941. It is significant
that the negotiations for the contract between the respondent and Surgical
Workers commenced, for the first time since the inception of the Surgical
Workers, shortly after the Textile Workers initiated an organizational drive
among the respondent's employees. One year later a second agreement was
entered into between the respondent and the Surgical Workers. The respond-
ent accepted as proof of a majority a copied list of names of employees allegedly
members of the Surgical Workers since 1937 and who were retained as members
whether they paid dues or not. Despite this fact, the respondent denied the
Union claiming a majority the right of a bargaining conference while negotia-
tions were pending with the Surgical Workers. On January 5, 1943, the Union
filed charges of company domination of the Surgical Workers with the National
Labor Relations Board. In the face of a claim of a majority by the Union and
notice of unfair labor practice charges filed with the Board with reference to
the respondent's domination of the Surgical Workers, the respondent and the
Surgical Workers signed a union shop contract on January 7, 1943. It is
significant that shortly after the Union drive was initiated in December 1942,
and after the Union claimed to represent a majority of the employees, the
respondent granted a union shop contract to the Surgical Workers.
The union shop contract signed on January 7, 1943, must be evaluated in
the light of the proviso to Section 8 (3) of the Act. That proviso reads: ,
Provided, That nothing in this Act-shall preclude an Employer from
making an agreement with a labor organization (not established, maintained,
or assisted by any action defined in the Act as an unfair labor practice)
to require as a condition of employment membership therein, if such labor
organization is the representative of the employees as provided in Section
9 (a) in the appropriate collective bargaining unit covered by such agree-
ment when made.
As indicated supra, within a few days prior to the signing of the contract, the
respondent permitted representatives of the Surgical Workers to openly solicit
the employees to sign memberships petitions in the plant during working hours ;
and at or about the same time reprimanded Union adherents for engaging in
similar activities. Also on January 4, 1943, 3 days before the Surgical Workers
,contract was signed, the respondent posted a notice on its bulletin boards in
the plant, stating that at the request of the Surgical Workers the plant would
close at 4:15 on that day. 4:15 was 15 minutes before the usual closing hour
and obviously the plant was closed early to permit the employees to attend
a meeting of the Surgical Workers, scheduled for that day. It is clear that
by virtue of these activities, the Surgical Workers was "assisted" by the respond-
ent within the meaning of the express terms of the proviso, and that because of
such assistance the contract is illegal and must be set aside.
The contract is also illegal for the reason that at the time it was entered into,
the Surgical Workers made no proper proof that it was the "representative of
the employees as provided in Section 9 (a) . . ." of the Act. While it is true
that the Surgical Workers tendered membership petitions purportedly signed
by 216 of 373 employees in the unit concerned , no check was made to determine
the authenticity of the signatures on the said petitions before the contract was
signed . At the time the respondent had knowledge that the Union herein
1102 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
claimed to represent a majority in substantially the same unit. From the facts
above and other evidence in the record, it is a fair inference that many of
the employees had signed applications for both organizations, hence under the
circumstances even had a check been made, it would not have been determinative
of the question of representation raised, namely : which of the two organizations
was the free and uncoerced choice of a majority of the employees in the unit
involved. ,
From the above the undersigned concludes that the respondent established,
maintained and assisted the Surgical Workers and therefore the contract of
January 7, 1943, between the respondent and the Surgical Workers is illegal,
within the meaning of the proviso of Section 8 (3) of the, Act.
The undersigned further concludes, that by granting approximately 71 wage,
or piece rate increases between January 21, the date on which the consent
election agreement was signed and February 4, 1943, the date set for the elec-
tion, under the circumstances found above, the respondent's rendered further
assistance to the Surgical Workers enhancing its chance of winning the pro-
posed election. Such assistance constitutes interference with the conduct of
an election," and is obviously an interference with the rights of employees to-
self organization.
The respondent, and intervenor herein, interposed special defenses to the-
allegations in the complaint as follows :
1. The respondent and, intervenor both contended that by reason of the consent
election of January 21, 1943, entered into between the respondent, the Union,
and the Surgical Workers, which had been approved by a Board's agent and
also by reason of the waiver of protest executed at the time by the Union, that
all allegations in the complaint had been waived.
Section 10 (a) of the Act reads :
The Board is empowered, as hereinafter provided, to prevent any person
from, engaging in any unfair labor practices (listed in Section 8) affecting
commerce. This power shall- be exclusive and shall not be affected by any
other means of adjustment or prevention that has been or may be established
by agreement, code, law, or otherwise.
The Board in its fifth annual report for the year ending June 30, 1940, dis-
cussed similar contentions to those raised by the parties herein. On page 77
of the said report the Board stated the following principles:
The Board in exercising this exclusive power, [under Section 10 (a) of
the Act] gives effect to compromise agreements which effectuate the pur-
poses of the Act and therefore normally gives effect to agreements, purporting
to settle charges of unfair labor practices, when Board agents participate in
such agreements.
w s s t t •
The Board will disregard the settlement agreement as not effectuating
the policies of the Act, even when participated in by its agents, if after
making the agreement the employer engaged in a continuation of its unfair
labor practices.
Since as found above, the respondent granted numerous wage and rate in-
creases to many of its employees, after it had signed the consent election agree-
ment on January 21, 1943, for the purpose of aiding the Surgical Workers in
the election set for February 4, 1943, thereby engaging in a continuation of its
unfair labor practices, the undersigned further.finds by reason thereof and also.
21 Max Kaplan and Jacob Kaplan, copartners , d. D. a. Kaplan Brothers and Textile Workers
Union of America , 46 N. L. R B. 1057.
S. H. CAMP AND COMPANY 1103
upon a further consideration of all of the evidence, that the above special defenses
have no merit 30
2. The respondent by a written motion moved that the complaint be dismissed
on the grounds that issues herein are subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of
the Department of Labor of the United States and the National War Labor
Board. In support of the motion, it urged in its brief that the Conciliation Division
of the United States Department of Labor had been called into the case not only
before a charge had been filed, but before the complaint was drawn. Also that
the respondent and the Surgical Workers had entered into a stipulation for ar-
bitration concerning performance under the January 7, 1943, contract, at the
request of the Labor Department, prior to the date of filing of,any charges with
the Board and that an arbitration hearing under the said agreement was sched-
uled and has been held. -
The record fails to support the above contentions urged in the respondent's
brief. A charge was filed by the Union on January 5, 1943, in the Seventh Re-
gional Office of the Board, Detroit, Michigan. On March 19, 1943, by a letter
to the respondent written by the Regional Attorney for the Seventh Region, the
respondent was notified among other things, that charges filed by the Union of
January 5, 1943, were then being investigated.S1 The stipulation for arbitration
was not entered into until April 27, 1943. On May 18, 1943, a hearing was tenta-
tively set by the arbitrator appointed by the Director of the Conciliation Divi-
sion of the United States Department of Labor, for some date after June 7, 1943.
The Board's complaint issued on April 30, 1943, and a hearing was held on
the complaint from May 27 to June 4, 1943.
Section 10 (a) of the Act confers exclusive jurisdiction in the Board to pre-
vent any person-from engaging in unfair labor practices. The issues raised in
the Board's complaint clearly called for a determination as to whether or not
the contract was invalid, because it had been made with a dominated or assisted
labor organization. The respondent's contention that the Board lacked juris-
diction to hear and determine the cause is without merit.
Upon a consideration of the above and all of the other evidence in the record,
the undersigned finds that the respondent dominated and interfered with the
formation and administration of the Surgical Workers and contributed support
to it. It is further found that by entering into a union shop contract with Sur-
gical Workers without proper proof that it represented an uncoerced majority of
its employees in an appropriate bargaining unit, by compelling the employees
to pay dues which it checked off and paid over to the Surgical Workers, by per-
mitting representatives of the Surgical Workers to openly solicit members in the
plant during working hours while reprimanding and threatening union adherents
with reprisals for engaging in similar solicitation, and by interfering with the
conducting of a proposed election, the respondent has interfered with, restrained,
and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section
7 of the Act.
80 Cf. Magnolia Petroleum Company and Oil Workers Int'l Union, 19 N. L. R. B. 184,
115 F (2d) 1007 (C C. A. 4) enf. ; Max Kaplan and Jacob Kaplan co -partners d b. a, Kaplan
Brothers and Textile Workers Union of America, 46 N. L R . B. 1057.
31 This letter was offered in evidence by counsel for the respondent , hence there can be
no doubt that the respondent had knowledge concerning the charge . A copy of this charge
was received at the Washington office of the Board on January 7, 1943, and entered in the
Board's formal file in the case. It alleges , in substance , that the respondent has engaged
in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of the Act, in that the
company, through its officer 's and agents , interfered with, restrained , and coerced Its
employees within the meaning of the Act, and that the company has fostered and dominated
an organization known as the Jackson Surgical Workers, Inc ., in its plant.
1104 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
0. Alleged interference , restraint and coercion
Counsel for the Board contended in his brief that the evidence shows that
the respondent threatened to close its.. plant in 1937 if an outside union gained
a foothold.
Frances Herda testified that her aunt, Tillie Herda, told her after Frances
had been discharged on April 2, 1943, that Camp stated to Tillie in 1937 that
he would "close his doors before he would let the C. I. O. come in ." She further
testified that Tillie had been a forelady in the plant from 1936 to 1940, at which
time Tillie had been discharged . The evidence shows that Tillie Herda has
recently suffered from a stroke of apoplexy and was physically unable to testify.
Camp denied that he had ever made the statement attributed to him. From the
above, it appears that Tillie Herda was no longer a supervisory employee at the
time the purported statement was made to Frances in 1943. Since the testimony
of Frances was uncorroborated hearsay testimony which was denied by Camp,
the undersigned concludes that the allegations of the complaint pertaining to
this incident have not been sustained by the proof.
Counsel for the Board further contended , in substance , that the respondent
maintained a blacklist , containing names of employees of the Trenton Garment
Company who had engaged in a strike at that plant in 1937, and that the respond-
ent discharged an employee whose name appeared on,the said blacklist after the
said employee had been "mistakenly" hired.
Frances Herda testified that after the Trenton Garment strike in 1937,
the respondent made use of a blacklist of names of Trenton Garment strikers,
and checked the names of applicants against this list in making personnel selec-
tions. She testified that she had received this information from her aunt, Tillie
Herda, the forelady above mentioned . She further testified that one Vida Strong
told her that she was refused employment at the plant because she participated
in the Trenton Garment strike and her name was on the blacklist . Edna Kappler
testified , without contradiction , that on several , occasions she overheard Head
Forelady Aikin asking Mrs. Lynch , a former employee of the Trenton Garment
Company, whether or not certain applicants for employment had worked in the
Trenton Garment Company, and whether or not the applicants had engaged in
the strike at the Trenton Garment plant . On cross -examination, Kappler admitted
that a number of former Trenton Garment Company employees were hired by
the respondent , but that she did not know whether or not they had participated
in the strike.
. Helen Marriott testified, that in 1943 , after Forelady Herda had ceased her
employment in the plant , Herda told her that Head Forelady Aikin had hired
Bernadine Hamilton , not knowing at the time that Hamilton was a former Tren-
ton Garment employee . Marriott further testified that Herda told her that
Aikin had informed Hamilton that she should not have hired her, and thereafter
one of the company officials told Aikin "she shouldn ' t have said it ; for her to
go over and make a fuss over her so she [Hamilton ] would not think,nothing
over after they had hired her."
Vice-president Fleck testified that the respondent had received a list of the-
employees at the Trenton Garment plant in 1937 after the Trenton plant had
closed and moved away from Jackson. He said that the list had been received
from either the Employers Association or the Chamber of Commerce in Jackson
and that a similar list had been received in 1933, when the Jackson Corset Com-
pany had left Jackson. He further testified that at the time the list was received,
Head Forelady Aikin was hiring the employees and that he gave the list to Aikin,
whom he testified liked to employ former Trenton employees because they were
S. H. CAMP AND COMPANY 1105
experienced operators . He said that he had had no further conversation with
Aikin concerning the persons whose names were on the list, but knew that a
number of former Trenton operators had been hired.
Superintendent Dawson testified that when he became superintendent , he found
the list of former Trenton Garment employees in the office file, and further said
that he had hired approximately 15 operators who were former employees of
the Trenton Garment Company.
A consideration of the above testimony has failed to convince the under-
signed that the list of former employees of the Trenton Garment Company was a
blacklist , or that any employee whose name appeared on the said list, was dis-
charged after having been "mistakenly" hired by the respondent.
I
D. The discharges and the alleged discriminatory transfer
The complaint alleged that the respondent "terminated the employment" of
10 named employees on specific dates and has at all times thereafter refused
to reinstate them because of (a) their refusal to join the Surgical Workers
pursuant to the illegal collective bargaining contract of January 7, 1943, (b)
their membership in and activities on behalf of the Union , and for the purposes
of discouraging membership in or activities on behalf of the Union and encourag-
ing membership in and activities on behalf of Surgical Workers, as follows :
Mabel Cooper , March 6, 1943.
Ethel Russell , March 29, 1943.
Mary Poynter , March 30, 1943.
Hazel Keyes , March 30, 1943.
Frances Herda , April 2, 1943.
Angela Clark , April 2, 1943.
Ethel Woods , April 8, 1943.
Mabel L . Van Buren , April 16, 1943.
Mary Manor, April 20, 1943.
Minnie Lowe, April 24, 1943.
The complaint further alleged that the respondent on or about April 13, 1943,
transferred Evelyn Lozier to a less desirable position and continued to employ
her on such work because of her membership in and activities on behalf of
the Union.
Mabel Cooper, Ethel Russell, Mary Poynter, Hazel Keyes , Frances Herda,
Angela Clark , Ethel Woods.
The respondent in its answer admitted that all of the above employees had
been discharged because of their failure to join the Surgical Workers. They
were all called to Superintendent Dawson's office on the dates above specified..
Dawson, in substance , stated to them that he assumed they knew that, the
respondent had entered into a union shop contract with the Surgical Workers
and further stated that the respondent intended to live up to its provisions.
Dawson then asked them if they intended to join the Surgical Workers. In
all cases these employees refused to join the organization , whereupon Dawson
at that time or at a subsequent time on the same day told them to bring their
piece rate tickets to his office . The current earnings for the day were then
computed and Dawson sent to the accounting department for their checks and
discharged them. It is found that the above named employees were discharged
because of their failure to join the Surgical Workers pursuant to the Union
shop clause in the January 7, 1943 contract , which was found above to be invalid.
1106 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Minnie Lowe
Lowe commenced working in the plant In 1937 and was regularly employed
as an operator until discharged on April 24, 1943. Lowe was active in the
Union as a member of the membership committee. Lowe testified without
contradiction that on March 22, 1943, she was called into Superintendent Daw-
son's office and Dawson informed her that President Camp had signed a contract
with the Surgical Workers and expected all of the employees of the respondent
to comply with the provisions of the contract 32 Lowe told Dawson at the time
that she would not join the Surgical Workers' organization, as she did not be-
lieve the organization had accomplished anything for the employees. Dawson
then said she would be interviewed again after she had had an opportunity
to give further consideration to the question of joining the Surgical Workers.
Since that date nothing further was said to Lowe concerning joining the Surgical,
Workers. On Saturday, April 24, 1943, Forelady Brown came to the work
table, where Lowe and other operators were working, and asked them to work
that afternoon. For some time previously these operators had not been work-
ing on Saturday afternoons. The following day was Easter Sunday and Lowe
had made plans to go away over the holiday. She told Forelady Brown that
shq had arranged to do some work at home and could not work in the pliant
that afternoon. Shortly thereafter she was called to Superintendent Dawson's
office. Dawson told her that it had been reported to him that she had refused
to work. She explained the circumstances'of her refusal as previously stated
to Brown. Dawson said, "After all, this is your job and we are expecting you
to work until 4:00-are you going to?" Lowe replied, "No." Dawson then
requested Forelady Brown to bring Lowe's piece rate tickets to the office. Brown
returned with the tickets and Lowe figured out the amount she had earned
that day. Dawson sent to the office for her pay check and then discharged her.
When it is considered that Lowe had been an employee for approximately 6
years in the plant; that her department had not been operating on Saturday
afternoons for a considerable period betore this incident occurred; that Lowe
had offered reasonable excuse, for her unwillingness to work on that particular
Saturday afternoon; and that the request to work on that particular Saturday
afternoon was given on very short notice, the extreme penalty of summary dis-
missal imposed was unduly harsh and unreasonable. When it is further consid-
ered that Dawson had requested her to join the Surgical Workers about 1 month
before this incident occurred and that Lowe had refused to join that organization,
the undersigned is convinced that the real reason for her discharge was based
upon her refusal to join the Surgical Workers rather than upon her refusal to
work on the Saturday afternoon preceding Easter. It is found that Lowe's
discharge was effected in pursuance of the respondent's intention to enforce
the invalid union shop clause of the January 7, 1943, contract.
Upon a consideration of the above facts the undersigned finds that Mabel
Cooper, Ethel Russell, Mary Poynter, Hazel Keyes, Frances Herda, Angela
Clark, Ethel Woods and Minnie Lowe were discharged by the respondent on
the dates above mentioned pursuant to the terms of the union shop contract
which has been found above to be invalid and has since failed to reinstate them
because of their activities on behalf of the Union, and because they failed to
join the Surgical Workers, thereby discouraging membership in the Union,
encouraging membership in the Surgical Workers, and interfering with, re-
12 Lowe testified that Dawson said that Camp expected all the employees to join the
Surgical Workers and if they did not they " would be fired."
S. H. CAMP AND COMPANY 1107
straining , and coercing its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed
in Section 7 of the Act.
Mabel Van Buren
Counsel for all parties stipulated on the record that Mabel Van Buren had not
been discharged, but had been granted a leave of absence because of illness at
or about the time of the alleged discharge. In view of the stipulation it is
recommended that the allegations of the complaint herein pertaining to Mabel
Van Buren be dismissed.
Mary Manor
As above stated, the complaint alleged that Mary Manor was discharged on
April 20, 1943, and refused reinstatement because of her refusal to join the
Surgical Workers. About the first of the year her name appeared on the peti-
tion for the Surgical Workers, although she had not signed it. She joined the
Union January 6, 1943. On March 5th she and other girls asked Smalley to re-
move their names from the membership list of the Surgical Workers since they
had not signed applications for membership and had not authorized deductions
of union dues from their paychecks. Manor, steaming operator, testified that
she voluntarily requested leave to remain away from work on Monday, April 19,
1943, which request was granted. Thereafter, on the afternoon of April 19 the
respondent called her by telephone and told her to remain home for a few days.
On April 22 she went to the plant and asked Superintendent Dawson how long
her lay off would last. She also asked him whether the hours of other em-
ployees should not be reduced to 36 hours per week under the provisions of the
1943 contract before any of them were laid off when work was slack and told
him that Joan Zimmer who had less seniority then Lowe in the department was
working. Dawson said he would investigate Manor's claim. She was called
back to work on May 5 but at her request was excused from reporting for work
until May 6. She returned to work on May 6 and is still employed. The respond-
ent offered no ev4dence concerning Manor other than that adduced during her
cross-examination by the respondent's attorney sa In view of the allegations
of the complaint pertaining to Manor which were not amended, it is recommended
that the said allegations pertaining to her be dismissed.
Evelyn Lozier
The complaint alleged that on or about April 21, 1943, the respondent trans-
ferred Lozier to a less desirable and more onerous job because of her member-
ship in and activities on behalf of the Union. In its answer the respondent
denied the allegation.
Lozier commenced her employment with the respondent in October 1939. For
a considerable period before April 1943 she had been working as an operator on
hose supporter operations, but had previously been employed as a shaper opera-
tor for about 6 months. Lozier had been a member of the Union herein in 1937
when she was working for another employer and secured a withdrawal card
from the Union on terminating this employment. She testified that on or about
December 28, 1942, that she gave two of her fellow employees application cards
for the Union, whilgnhey were working and that shortly after Lozier returned
m On cross-examination , she admitted that Zimmer was working on hose supporter opera-
tions and testified that she had never had experience on that type of work . She also
testified that Zimmer was working on buckles when the special work was not available and
that she was equally qualified to work on buckles.
549875-44-vol. 52-71
1108 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATION'S BOARD
to her machine, Zella Dixon came over to her and asked for a union card. She
further testified that she gave Dixon a card whereupon the latter then said
"You know, we do not want the C. I 0 in here. Please do not pass any more
cards." Dixon denied in her testimony that she had ever told any employee
not to circulate C. I. O. cards. Dixon impressed the undersigned as being an ex-
ceptionally truthful witness and basing his conclusion upon his observation of
these witnesses and upon a consideration of all of their testimony, the under-
signed accepts Dixon's denial as true.
Lozier signed the membership petition for the Surgical Workers in early
January 1943 34 On March 3 she called Zella Dixon over the telephone and
asked her for a withdrawal card from the Surgical Workers. Dixon told her
that she would inquire about the matter and let her know. She called Dixon on
the following day and was told that "there were not any withdrawal cards."
On or about April 21, 1943, Superintendent Dawson sent for her and told her
that he was transferring her to a shaping job She started on the latter operation
about 8: 20 in the morning and shortly thereafter the other seven shaping
operators left the department and went to Dawson's office 95 and remained there
about 20 minutes. About 11: 50 a. in. Forelady Brown told Lozier to return to
work in the hose supporter department after lunch.
Lozier testified that she then went up to Dawson's office and asked why he
had taken her off of the shaping operation, and that he told her the other operators
had requested him to do so. She further testified that she told him at the time
that she had greater seniority than two of the other shaper operators and Dawson
replied that he would investigate the matter further. She also testified that her
earnings as a shaper operator would amount to $2 or $3 more per day than she
had been earning as an operator in the hose supporter department Dawson
denied this testimony and said that Lozier's earnings on the hose supporter line
are now 93.3 cents per hour and that her average over a 3-months period while
she formerly worked on the shaping line had been 66 5 cents per hour The record
fails to show just when Lozier had formerly worked as a shaper There has been
a general 20 percent increase in pay since 1940 and the shapers may presently be
earning more money than they were when Lozier formerly worked in that depart-
ment. There was no testimony offered in rebuttal to refute Dawson's testimony
above concerning Lozier's hourly earnings and the undersigned accepts Dawson's
denial concerning her claimed loss of earnings because of the retransfer back
to hose supporter work Lozier also testified concerning a conversation with
Teresa Wilcox, Dawson's secretary. Lozier's testimony was as follows :
A few days after that [her retransfer] I was in the office in the First Aid
room, and I was talking to her [Wilcox] about it, and she said, Well, she
had heard a lot about it, but she was not allowed to mention names.
Q What else did she say?
A. She says that if I was wise I would know who was to blame for it.
Q Did she refer to anything?
A. She referred to the person sitting in the corner working and to a
certain person that had been talking to me when the C. I. O. first started to
organize there.
Q. Who was that person? rx
A. Zella Dixon. :1t
34 This finding is based upon the fact that her name is on the 1943 membership petition
of the Surgical Workers and also upon her testimony that on March 3, 1943, she asked
Dixon for a withdrawal card from the Surgical Workers.
as Lozier testified that 2 of these operators had signed applications for membership in
the Union.
S. H. CAMP AND COMPANY 1109
Wilcox was not called as a witness and there is no other testimony concerning
the conversation. It is too, vague and uncertain to support a conclusion that
Lozier's retransfer was due to activities in the Union
Dawson testified that production in the shaping department was not sufficient
to keep the operators in the next department busy on follow up operations and
since Lozier previously had several months experience as a shaper operator he
decided to add her to the shaping group. About 2 hours later while in.the
main office he received a call that the shapers were all in his office and wanted
to talk with him. , He found all the shapers but Lozier in his office and said
they demanded that he remove Lozier from the shaping line. He asked them
the reason and they told him, that they did not like Lozier and refused to work
with her. Dawson said that he then told them that it was necessary to in
crease production in that department and that the addition of Lozier on the
line would not affect them so far as their work was concerned. They said that
was not a consideration, and they would work overtime if necessary but they
all objected to working with Lozier. Dawson said he then decided to transfer
Lozier back to her regular work rather than have the other seven operators walk
out. He further testified that since that time the shaping department has con-
tinued to operate with the seven regular operators, who work overtime when
necessary, and Lozier admitted,on cross-examination that no additional operator
replaced her in the department.
A consideration of the above testimony pertaining to the Lozier incident has
failed to convince the undersigned that Lozier was discriminated against because
of her activities in the Union. Aside from her testimony that the shaping job
paid more money, which the undersigned does not accept as true, there is no evi-
dence that work on the hose supporter line was more onerous or less desirable
work, as alleged in the complaint. Accordingly, the undersigned finds that the
evidence has failed to support the allegations in the complaint pertaining to
Lozier.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the respondent -set forth in Section III above, 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 ob-
structing commerce and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that the respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices it
will be recommended that the respondent cease and desist therefrom and that
it take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act
The undersigned has found that the respondent sponsored, maintained, assisted,
and supported the Surgical Workers by reason of the formation and organiza-
tion of the Surgical Workers by supervisory employees and by the activities of
other supervisors in soliciting its employees to join the said organization, and
the undersigned has further found that as part of such conduct, the respondent,
on January 7, 1943, without proper proof of the fact that the Surgical Workers
represented a majority of its employees entered into a union shop and check-off
agreement with that organization. In order to restore the status quo and to per-
mit employees of the respondent full freedom of self-organization, without hin-
drance by reason of the respondent's unfair labor practices, it is recommended
that the respondent withdraw all recognization from the Surgical Workers as the
exclusive representative of its employees for the purpose of collective bargaining.
1110 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RE'LATION'S BOARD
Since the contract of January 7, 1943, embodied recognition of the Surgical
Workers as the exclusive representative of the respondent's employees, and
makes membership in Surgical Workers a condition of employment and repre-
sents the fruits of the respondent's unfair labor practices and a device to per-
petuate their effects, it will be recommended that the respondent cease and
desist from giving effect to this or any other agreement which it may have
entered into with the Surgical Workers with respect to rates of pay, wages,
hours of employment; or other conditions of employment, provided, however,
that nothing in this recommendation shall be construed to require, authorize,
or permit the respondent to reduce or minimize the wage, hour, or other sub-
stantive features of its relations with the employees themselves, which the
respondent may have established in performance of the invalid contract, as
extended, renewed, modified, supplemented, or superseded. , Since the-contract
of January 7, 1943, provided for a check-off and the respondent has deducted
from the wages of those employees who were members of the Surgical Workers
dues for the Surgical Workers it will also be recommended that the respondent
reimburse the employees who were members of the Surgical Workers for the
dues and assessments, if any, which the respondent has deducted from their
wages on behalf of the Surgical Workers 36
Since it was also found above that the respondent's discharges of Mabel
Cooper, Ethel Russell, Mary Poynter, Hazel Keyes, Frances Herda, Angela
Clark, Ethel Woods, and Minnie Lowe were unfair labor practices, it is recom-
mended that the respondent reinstate each of them to her former position,
without prejudice to her seniority and other rights and privileges. It is further
recommended that the respondent make whole Cooper, Russell, Poynter, Keyes,
Herda, Clark, Woods, and Lowe for any loss of pay they may have suffered by
reason of the respondent's discrimination against them by payment to each of
them of a sum of money equal to the amount which she normally would have
earned as wages from the date of her discharge to the date of the respondent's
offer of reinstatement, less her net earnings" during said period.
Since, as the undersigned has found, the respondent also engaged in other
unfair labor practices, it is recommended that the respondent cease and desist
from interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of
the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record
in the case, the undersigned makes the following:
CONCLUSIONS or LAW
1. Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America, affiliated with the C. I. 0.,
and Jackson Surgical Garment Workers, Inc, an unaffiliated organization, are
labor organizations, within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
2 By dominating and interfering with the formation and administration of
Jackson Surgical Garment Workers, Inc, and contributing support to it, the
respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices, within the
meaning of Section 8 (2) of the Act.
30 See Virginia Electric & Power Company v. N L R B., 319 U. S. 533
" 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 Wort ers 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. It. B, 311 U S 7.
S. H. CAMP AND COMPANY 1111
3. By discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of
Mabel Cooper, Ethel Russell, Mary Poynter, Hazel Keyes, Frances Herda, An-
gela Clark, Ethel Woods, and Minnie Lowe, and thereby discouraging member-
ship in Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America, and encouraging member-
ship in Jackson Surgical Garment Workers, Inc., the respondent has engaged in
and is engaging in unfair labor practices, within the meaning of Section 8 (3)
of the Act.
4. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise
cf the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the respondent has engaged in
and is engaging in unfair labor practices, within the meaning of Section 8 (1) of
the Act.
5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting
commerce, within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
6. The respondent by laying off Mary Manor and transferring Evelyn Lozier
to other employment in the plant and by carrying Mabel Van Buren `on the
pay roll as an employee on leave of absence has not engaged in unfair labor
practices, within the meaning of Section 8 (3) of the Act.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and the conclusions of law and
upon the entire record in this case , the undersigned recommends that the re-
spondent , S. H. Camp and Company, its officers, agents , successors , and assigns
shall :
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) In any manner dominating or interfering with the administration of
Jackson Surgical Garment Workers , Inc. or the formation and administration
of any other labor organization of its employees or contributing support to Jack-
son Surgical Garment Workers, Inc, or any other labor organization of its em-
ployees;
(b) In any manner giving effect to its contract heretofore described with
Jackson Surgical Garment Workers, Inc , or to any extension , renewal, modifica-
tion, or supplement thereof, or to any successor contract with Jackson Surgical
Workers, Inc., which may now be in force ;
(c) Discouraging membership in Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America
or any other labor organization of its employees, or encouraging membership in
Jackson Surgical Garment Workers , Inc, or any other labor organization of its
employees , by discharging, laying off, or refusing to reinstate any of its em-
ployees, or in any other manner discriminating in regard to their hire and
tenure of employment ;
(d) 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 purposes of collective bar-
gaining and other mutual aid or protection as guaranteed in Section 7 of the
National Labor Relations Act. -
2. Take the following affirmative action which the undersigned finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
( a) Withdraw all recognition from Jackson Surgical Garment Workers, Inc.
as the representative of any of its employees for the purpose of dealing with the
respondent concerning grievances, labor disputes , wages, rates of pay, hours of
employment , or conditions of employment and completely disestablish Jackson
Surgical Garment Workers, Inc. as such representative;
1112 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
(b) Offer to Mabel Cooper, Ethel Russell , Mary Poynter , Hazel Keyes, Frances
Herda, Angela Clark, Ethel Woods, and Minnie Lowe immediate and full rein-
statement to their former positions without prejudice to their seniority and other
rights and privileges ;
(c) Make whole Mabel 'Cooper, Ethel Russell, Mary Poynter, Hazel Keyes,
Frances Herda, Angela Clark, Ethel Woods, and Minnie Lowe and each of them
for any loss of pay she may have suffered by. reason of the respondent's discrim-
ination against her, by payment to each of them of a sum of money equal to that
which she normally would have earned from the date of her discharge to the
date of the respondent's offer of reinstatement, less her net earnings during-
said period ;
( d) Reimburse each of its employees who were members of Jackson Surgical
Garment Workers, Inc. for all the dues and assessments, if any, which it had
deducted from their wages on behalf of Jackson Surgical Garment Workers, Inc ;
(e) Post immediately in conspicuous places throughout the respondent's plant
and niaintain for a period of at least sixty (00) consecutive days 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 as provided in paragraph 1 (a),
(b), (c) and (d) of these recommendations; (2) that it will take the affirmative
action set'forth in paragraphs 2 (a), (b), (c), and (d) of these recommendations;'
and (3) that the respondent's employees are free to become or remain members
of Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America, and that the respondent will not
discriminate against any employee because of his membership or activity in such
organization;
(f) It is further recommended that the complaint, to the extent that it alleges
that the respondent discriminated in regard to the hire and tenure of employment
of Mabel Van Buren, Mary Manor and Evelyn Lozier, within the meaning of
Section 8 (3) of the Act, be dismissed;
(g) Notify the Regional Director for, the Seventh Region in writing within
ten (10) days from the date of 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 will comply with the foregoing recommendations, 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 II
of said Rules and Regulations, file with the Board, Rochambeau 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 he
relies upon, together with the original and four copies of a brief in support
thereof. As further provided in said Section 33, should Ytny party desire per-
mission to argue orally before the Board, request therefor must be made in
writing to the Board within ten (10 ) days after the date of the order trans-
ferring the case to the Board.
HENRY J. KENT, '
Trial Examiner.
Dated July 28, 1943. 1