Stylecraft Leather Goods Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 27, 1937

3 N.L.R.B. 920 (N.L.R.B. 1937)

In the Matter of STYLECRAFT LEATHER GOODS COMPANY. INC. and
BENJAMIN MARSALA
Ca.se No. C-210.-Decided October 27, 1937
Ladies Pocketbook Manufacturing-Interference, Restraint or Coercion: sur-
veillance of and questioning employees regarding organizational activities;
instigating arrest of 1eiider of organizational activities-Discrimination. dis-
charge-Reinstatement Ordered-Back Pay: awarded
Mr. Samuel J. Zack for the Board.
Mr. Archibald Palmer, of New York City, for the respondent.
Mr. S. G. Lippman, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
On September 11, 1936, Benjamin Marsala filed a charge with
the Regional Director for the Fourth Region (Philadelphia, Penn-
sylvania) alleging that Stylecraft Leather Goods Company, Inc.,
Scranton, Pennsylvania, herein called the respondent, had engaged
in and was engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce
within the meaning of Section 8 (1) and (3) of the National Labor
Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein called the Act. On May 14, 1937,
the National Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board, by the
Regional Director for the Fourth Region, issued its complaint against
the respondent, alleging that the respondent had engaged in unfair
labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning, of Section 8
(1) and (3) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act, in that the re-
spondent discharged and refused to reinstate Benjamin Marsala for
the reason that he joined and assisted a labor organization known as
the International Ladies' Handbag, Pocketbook and Novelty Work-
ers Union, herein called the Union, and engaged in concerted activi-
ties with other employees for the purpose of collective bargaining
and other mutual aid and protection; and that the respondent insti-
gated and encouraged the arrest and incarceration of Benjamin
Marsala by false statements to the police for the purpose of interfer-
ing with and restraining and coercing its employees in the exercise
of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
920
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 92i
The respondent in its verified answer dated June 19, 1937, in sub-
stance denied each and every material allegation of the complaint.
After two postponements at the request of the respondent's coun-
sel, notice of a hearing to be held on July 6, 1937, in Scranton, Penn-
sylvania, was issued and duly served on the respondent. On July
2, the respondent's counsel telegraphed a request for a third contin-
uance, which was denied by the Regional Director. The respondent
then telegraphed a request for permission to cross-examine the wit-
nesses at an adjourned hearing.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held in Scranton, Pennsylvania,
on July 6, 1937, before Fred A. Hughes, the Trial Examiner duly
designated by the Board. Though the respondent was given full
opportunity to appear at the hearing and to introduce into the record
documentary and other evidence, the respondent did not avail itself
of such opportunity.
On August 4, 1937, the Trial Examiner filed his Intermediate Re-
port, in which he treated the respondent's telegraphic requests as
motions, and denied both of them. He also found and concluded
that the respondent had engaged in unfair labor practices affecting
commerce, within the meaning of Section 8 (1) and (3) and Section
2 (6) and (7) of the Act, and recommended that the respondent re-
instate Benjamin Marsala with back pay. The respondent thereafter
filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's rulings upon its motions
as well as to findings of the Intermediate Report. The Board has
reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner and finds that no pre-
judicial errors were committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed.
The Board has also considered the exceptions to the findings of the
Intermediate Report and finds that they are without merit.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE RESPONDENT AND ITS BUSINESS
The respondent is and has been since January 4, 1917, a corpora-
tion organized and existing by virtue of the laws of the State of
New York. The respondent maintains and operates a plant in
Scranton, Pennsylvania, where ladies' pocketbooks are manufactured
and distributed. This plant resumed operation in July 1936, after
having been closed for a period of approximately 10 months because
of financial difficulties. The respondent employs 160 men and
women, who produce 150 gross of pocketbooks per week. The re-
spondent also operates a second plant at Bridgeport, Connecticut,
for the manufacture and distribution of pocketbooks of a more ex-
pensive grade than those produced at the Scranton plant. The re-
spondent maintains a general office in New York City. The two
922 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
plants are administered from this New York City office. The pres-
ent case involves only the Scranton plant.
At its Scranton plant the respondent uses many kinds of raw
materials, including silk, cotton goods, frames, buttons, imitation
and genuine leather, cloth, cardboard and paper, and various other
materials depending on the pattern and quality of the product.
These raw materials for the most part have their source in the New
England States.
The necessary raw materials are purchased by the New York City
office and shipped from New York City by rail and truck to the
respondent's plants in accordance with the manufacturing needs.
At the Stylecraft plant the material is first subjected to cutting
in accordance with a pattern or design. 'The material then moves
to the operating or the stitching and sewing department; there-
after it is framed; then the pocketbook is examined and packed and
is ready for shipment.
The respondent employs salesmen who travel throughout the
United States. Its products are sold throughout the United States
and in many foreign countries. Ninety-five per cent of Stylecraft
products are shipped in interstate commerce.
H. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
Benjamin Marsala worked for the respondent in the capacity
of a framer from 1933 to the date of his discharge. When discharged
he was earning about $14 a week.
Until October 1935 the employees were paid time and one-half
for all overtime work. At that time the management decided to
stop the extra payment for overtime work. A committee of five,
consisting of Benjamin Marsala, James Reed, John Sysko, Eugene
Donaldson, and Harry Shopay, all employees in the framing de-
partment, went to Meyer Nitsky, the then general manager, and
protested the cut in overtime payments and' asked for a general
raise. Nitsky is alleged to have replied, "If you like it, stay. If
you don't like it, go."
The men decided that their only recourse was to form a union
in order to secure effective collective bargaining. On October 12,
1935, the same committee of five went to the local office of the
Amalgamated Clothing Workers and asked to be organized. They
were informed that the Amalgamated had no jurisdiction, but that
their case would be referred to the proper union organizer.
The men had gone to the union headquarters about lunch time.
When Marsala returned to work, Nitsky called him into his office
and accused Marsala of going to a union office. When Marsala de-
nied this, Nitsky stated, "I have a man watching you. I know
every move you made. Tell me or I'll fire you." Marsa] a then re-
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 923
turned to work. An hour and a half later Nitsky discharged him.
Soon afterwards Nitsky also discharged Eugene Donaldson and
James Reed, two other members of the committee.
Detective Donaldson of the local police was called by Nitsky and
informed of the fact that Marsala was discharged because he had
visited the union headquarters. Nitsky accused Marsala of threat-
ening girls employed by the respondent with bodily harm if they
went to work. On October 14, 1935, at about 2 o'clock in the morn-
ing, local police officers called at Marsala's home and took him to
police headquarters. Marsala was held on no specific charge, merely
as a suspicious character. About 10 o'clock the same morning de-
tective Donaldson 1 came in and, according to Marsala's testimony,
said, "'What was I trying to organize a shop for? Aren't you mak-
ing enough money . . .' He says, `I have a notion to give you a
slap in the face."' When Marsala inquired the reason for his be-
ing held, detective Donaldson answered, "For union activities."
Marsala was released at about 5 o'clock, being first, however, ac-
cused of having attempted the kidnapping of Nitsky's wife and chil-
dren. He was released on condition that he hand over to detective
Donaldson a list of all the employees he had visited in connection
with his attempts to organize a union. Marsala kept his promise.
It is obvious that Marsala's incarceration and detective Donaldson's
statements were directly instigated by the respondent and that the
charges against Marsala of threatening the employees of the respond-
ent and attempting the kidnapping of Nitsky's wife and children
were entirely unfounded but made for the purpose of punishing him
for his union activities.
After this incident Marsala applied for but was denied reinstate-
ment.
When the factory reopened, Marsala again applied for reinstate-
ment, but the new general manager, Harry Wolitsky, was made ac-
quainted with Marsala's union activities by Morris Brenner, the
office manager, and his reinstatement was refused.
We find that the respondent's conduct in discharging and refusing
to reinstate Benjamin Marsala, and causing his subsequent incarcera-
tion, had the necessary effect of discouraging union membership.
We find that the respondent has discriminated in regard to hire and
tenure of employment in order to discourage membership in a labor
organization, and has interfered with, restrained, and coerced its em-
ployees in the exercise of their rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the
Act.
The work of Benjamin Marsala having ceased as a result of an
unfair labor practice, he at all times retained his status as an em-
Father of Eugene Donaldson , one of the discharged men who was reinstated by the
respondent after being out of work for one day.
924 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ployee of the respondent within the meaning of Section 2 (3) of
the Act. He has not obtained any regular or substantially equiva-
lent employment so as to terminate his status 'as an employee of the
respondent. At the time of' the hearing, Benjamin Marsala had
earned in all between $15 and $20 after his discharge.
III. EFFECT OF UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the, respondent set forth in Section II above, oc-
curring in connection with the operations of the respondent de-
scribed in Section I above, have a close, intimate, and substantial
relation to trade, traffic , and commerce among the several States and
tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce
and the free flow of commerce.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact the Board makes
the following conclusions of law :
1. Benjamin Marsala was , at the time of his discharge, and at
all times thereafter , an employee of the respondent , within the mean-
ing of Section 2 (3) of the Act.
2. The respondent , by discriminating in regard to the hire and
tenure of employment of Benjamin Marsala, and thereby discourag-
ing membership in a labor organization , has engaged in and is en-
gaging in unfair labor practices , within the meaning of Section 8
(3) of the Act.
3. The respondent , by interfering with, restraining , and coercing
its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of
the Act, has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices,
within the meaning of Section 8 ( 1) of the Act.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor prac-
tices affecting commerce, within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and
(7) of the Act.
ORDER
On the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of
law, and pursuant to Section 10 (c) of the National Labor Relations
Act, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the re-
spondent, Stylecraft Leather Goods Company, Incorporated, and its
officers, agents, successors and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from discharging or refusing to reinstate any
of its employees, or from in any other manner discriminating in
regard to hire or tenure of employment of any of its employees, in
order to discourage membership in any labor organization of its
employees;
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 925
2. Cease and desist from in any manner interfering with, restrain-
ing, or coercing its employees in the exercise of their rights to self-
organization, to form, join or assist labor organizations, to bargain
collectively through representatives of their own choosing, or to
engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargain-
ing or other mutual aid or protection as guaranteed in Section 7 of
the Act;
3. Take the following affirmative action, which the Board finds
will effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Offer to Benjamin Marsala immediate and full reinstatement
to his former position without prejudice to his seniority or other
rights and privileges;
(b) Make whole Benjamin Marsala for any i ss of pay he may
have suffered by reason of his discharge, by payment to him of a
sum equal to that which he would normally have earned during the
period from the date of his discharge on October 12, 1935, to the
date of such offer of reinstatement, less the amount earned by him
during such period. This excludes the period in which the plant was
not in operation;
(c) Post notices in conspicuous places where they will be observed
by the respondent's employees stating (1) that the respondent will
cease and desist as aforesaid, and (2) that such notices will remain
posted for a period of thirty (30) consecutive days from the date of
posting;
(d) Notify the Regional Director for the Fourth Region in writ-
ing within ten (10) days from the date of this order what steps the
respondent has taken to comply herewith.