Sunflower Novelty Bags, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 16, 1976

225 N.L.R.B. 1331 (N.L.R.B. 1976)

SUNFLOWER NOVELTY BAGS 1331
Sunflower Novelty Bags, Inc. and Local 107, Interna-
tional Ladies' Garment Workers ' Union , AFL-CIO.
Case 29-CA-4515
September 16, 1976
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MURPHY AND MEMBERS JENKINS
AND WALTHER
On April 19, 1976, Administrative Law Judge
Marion C. Ladwig issued the attached Decision in
this proceeding. Thereafter, the Charging Party and
General Counsel filed exceptions and briefs in sup-
port of their exceptions.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au-
thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the record and the at-
tached Decision in light of the exceptions and briefs
and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings,' and
conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge to the
extent consistent herewith.
AMENDED REMEDY
The record amply demonstrates that the strike
which began on July 30, 1975, resulted from
Respondent's discharge of the union leaders and
closing of the night shift. We therefore find that the
strike was an unfair labor practice strike and shall
accordingly modify the Order to provide for rein-
statement of all unfair labor practice strikers upon
their unconditional application for such reinstate-
ment.
We are in agreement with the Administrative Law
i We agree with the Administrative Law Judge's finding that on July 28,
1975, Respondent unlawfully refused to bargain with the Union since it
immediately thereafter embarked upon a course of unfair labor practices to
undermine the Union Trading Port, Inc, 219 NLRB 298 (1975)
No exceptions were taken to the Administrative Law Judge's failure to
find that Respondent's closing of the night shift violated Sec 8(a)(5) In the
absence of exceptions thereto, Members Jenkins and Walther adopt pro
forma the Administrative Law Judge's findings
Despite the absence of exceptions, Chairman Murphy would find that
Respondent's closing of the night shift violated Sec 8(a)(5) In her view, this
finding is fully supported by the record Furthermore, Respondent's action
in closing the night shift presents the very situation which the Board, by its
decision in Trading Port, sought to remedy Thus, we have adopted the
Administrative Law Judge's finding that Respondent had an obligation to
bargain with the Union about all terms and conditions of employment on
July 28 when the Union demanded recognition and Respondent countered
by embarking upon its course of unlawful conduct Additionally, the Union
at the time had authorization cards from a majority of Respondent's em-
ployees in an appropriate unit Respondent could not claim surprise by this
additional finding inasmuch as it was apprised of this possibility by the
complaint's allegation Moreover, this finding would not substantially affect
the remedy provided
Judge that the night shift was discriminatorily closed
in violation of the Act. In order fully to remedy the
unlawful closure, we shall direct that the night shift
be reinstated and that employees on the night shift at
the time of closure be offered reinstatement to that
shift. We shall also direct that Respondent make
whole any employee transferred to the day shift as
the result of the night-shift closure for any monetary
losses suffered as a result of the transfer.'
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Re-
lations Board orders that the Respondent, Sunflower
Novelty Bags, Inc., Deer Park, New York, its offi-
cers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Discharging or otherwise discriminating
against any employee for supporting Local 107, In-
ternational Ladies' Garment Workers' Union, AFL-
CIO, or any other union.
(b) Threatening to close the plant and discharge
the employees for supporting a union.
(c) Inducing employees to sign any petition op-
posing a union or withdrawing signatures from union
authorization cards.
(d) Informing employees that other employees
have been discharged for wearing union buttons.
(e) Informing employees that a work shift has
been abolished because of a union.
(f) Coercively interrogating employees.
(g) Unlawfully refusing to bargain with Local 107,
International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union,
AFL-CIO, as the exclusive representative of our em-
ployees in the following appropriate unit:
All production and maintenance employees in
the Employer's plant, excluding office clerical
employees and supervisors as defined in the Act.
(h) In any other manner interfering with, restrain-
ing, or coercing employees in the exercise of their
rights under Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary
to effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Offer Mary Cincotta, Susan Doig, Ruth Hicks,
Eleanor Nottingham, Frances O'Hara, and Elsie Ser-
pa immediate and full reinstatement to their former
jobs or, if their jobs no longer exist, to substantially
equivalent positions, without prejudice to their se-
2
Myriam Tejada, a night-shift employee, accepted day-shift employment
from Respondent after the night Shift was closed, but later left the day shift
and joined the unfair labor practice strike We leave it to the compliance
stage of this proceeding to determine whether she left work to join the unfair
labor practice strike and is therefore entitled only to the reinstatement reme-
dy accorded unfair labor practice strikers, or whether she left in circum-
stances which entitle her to the backpay remedy accorded discriminatees
225 NLRB No. 193
1332 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
niority or other rights and privileges, and make them
whole for any loss of pay or other benefits in the
manner set forth in the Remedy section.
(b) Upon their unconditional application for rein-
statement, offer the striking employees immediate
and full reinstatement to their formerjobs or, if those
jobs no longer exist, to substantially equivalent jobs,
without prejudice to their seniority or other rights or
privileges, dismissing, if necessary, any replacements,
and make them whole for any loss of earnings they
may have suffered as a result of Respondent's failure
to reinstate them upon application, by payment to
them of a sum of money equal to that which each
would have earned as wages from 5 days after the
date of their unconditional application to return to
work, to the date of Respondent's offer of reinstate-
ment, less their net earnings during such period, with
backpay and interest thereon to be computed in the
manner prescribed by the Board in F. W Woolworth
Company, 90 NLRB 289 (1950), and Isis Plumbing &
Heating Co, 138 NLRB 716 (1962).
(c) Resume operation of the night shift.
(d) Offer Delores Bisagni, Debra DeSimone,
Mary Ellen Munday, and Myriam Tejada 3 immedi-
ate and full reinstatement to their former positions
on the night shift without prejudice to their seniority
or other rights and privileges, and make them whole
for any monetary loss they may have suffered by rea-
son of their transfer to the day shift.
(e) Preserve and, upon request, make available to
the Board or its agents, for examination and copying,
all payroll records, social security payment records,
timecards, personnel records and reports, and all rec-
ords necessary to analyze the amount of backpay due
under the terms of this Order.
(f) Upon request, bargain in good faith with Local
107, International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union,
AFL-CIO, as the exclusive representative of the em-
ployees in the following appropriate unit and em-
body in a signed agreement any understanding
reached:
All production and maintenance employees in
the Employer's plant, excluding office clerical
employees and supervisors as defined in the Act.
(g) Post at its plant in Deer Park, New York, cop-
ies of the attached notice marked "Appendix." 4 Cop-
ies of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional
Director for Region 29, after being duly signed by
Respondent's authorized representative, shall be
posted by the Respondent immediately upon receipt
thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive
days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all
places where notices to employees are customarily
posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Re-
spondent to insure that said notices are not altered,
defaced, or covered by any other material.
(h) Notify the Regional Director for Region 29, in
writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order,
what steps the Respondent has taken to comply here-
with.
IT IS ALSO ORDERED that the complaint be dismissed
insofar as it alleges violations of the Act not specifi-
cally found.
3 See In 2, supra
° In the event that this Order is enforced by a Judgment of a United
States Court of Appeals the words in the notice reading "Posted by Order
of the National Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursuant to a
Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the
National Labor Relations Board "
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
The National Labor Relations Board having found,
after a hearing, that we violated Federal law by dis-
charging employees, has ordered us to post this no-
tice and abide by the following. We notify you that:
WE WILL offer full reinstatement upon de-
mand to all unfair labor practice workers.
WE WILL resume operation of the night shift.
WE WILL offer full reinstatement to Delores
Bisagni, Mary Cincotta, Susan Doig, Debra De-
Simone, Ruth Hicks, Mary Ellen Munday, Elea-
nor Nottingham, Frances O'Hara, and Elsie Ser-
pa, and will pay them any amount of money
they may have lost by reason of the discrimina-
tion against them plus 6-percent interest.
WE WILL NOT discharge any of you for sup-
porting Local 107, International Ladies' Gar-
ment Workers' Union, AFL-CIO, or any other
union.
WE WILL bargain upon request with Local 107
as the exclusive representative of our production
and maintenance employees, excluding office
clerical employees and supervisors, and put in
writing and sign any bargaining agreement
reached.
WE WILL NOT threaten to close the plant, dis-
charge employees, or abolish any work shift be-
cause of employee support of a union.
WE WILL NOT discharge any employee for
wearing a union button.
WE WILL NOT encourage you to sign any an-
tiunion petition.
SUNFLOWER NOVELTY BAGS 1333
WE WILL NOT coercively question you about
union support or union activities.
WE WILL NOT unlawfully interfere with your
union activities.
SUNFLOWER NOVELTY BAGS, INC.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
MARION C. LADWIG, Administrative Law Judge: This
case was heard at Brooklyn, New York, on December 9-
12, 1975.1 The charge was filed by the Union on August 11,
and the complaint was issued on October 31. The primary
issues are whether the Company, the Respondent, (a) dis-
criminatorily discharged two union leaders, including a key
employee on the night shift, (b) unlawfully abolished the
night shift, (c) coercively interrogated employees and
threatened to discharge them and close the plant, (d) in-
duced employees to sign antiunion petitions and to with-
draw their signatures on union authorization cards, and (e)
unlawfully refused to recognize and bargain with the
Union, in violation of Section 8(a)(1), (3), and (5) of the
National Labor Relations Act.
Upon the entire record, including my observation of the
demeanor of the witnesses, and after due consideration of
the briefs filed by the Company and the Union, I make the
following-
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. JURISDICTION
The Company, a New York corporation, is engaged in
the manufacture of handbags, tote bags, mailbags, and re-
lated products at its plant in Deer Park, New York, where
it annually ships goods valued in excess of $50,000 in inter-
state and foreign commerce. The Company admits, and I
find, that it is an employer engaged in commerce within the
meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act, and that
the Union is a labor organization within the meaning of
Section 2(5) of the Act
Ii. ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Background
The Company, in a nonunion plant which opened in
September 1973, has been engaged primarily in the manu-
facture of ladies' handbags, totebags, and tennis bags. A
"considerable amount" of its production is for department
stores, which buy on a "very strict deadline" basis, retain-
ing the right to refuse the entire order if not shipped on
time.
In April, it began production of Arab mailbags, which
likewise were required to be shipped (to Saudi Arabia)
within specific contractual deadlines. (Annual orders were
1 All dates are in 1975 unless otherwise stated
expected if quality, price, and delivery were satisfactory.)
Although a part-time night shift (from 5 to 10 p m.) was
added, the Company failed to meet both the May 30 or
June 30 deadlines, which had to be extended to June 20
and July 20, respectively.
The Company later failed to meet the extended July 20
deadline (for producing 10,000 white mailbags), and spe-
cial arrangements had to be made to receive payment for
the mailbags not shipped by that date
On July 28, 8 days after the expiration of the extended
July 20 deadline, about 2,800 of the 10,000 white mailbags
still remained to be produced. Yet that evening, the Com-
pany summarily abolished the night shift-after earlier in
the day terminating a key night shift employee, Elsie Serpa,
and another employee when they accompanied two union
representatives to the office, where the Union requested
recognition. The production of the overdue mailbags was
thereby further delayed. (The mailbags were finally
shipped by air freight on August 15-over 3-1/2 weeks after
the extended deadline.)
In the meantime, the Company refused to recognize the
Union; called a meeting of employees on company time,
interrogated them, and allegedly made threats of plant clo-
sure; and arranged for petitions to be signed, opposing the
Union and withdrawing union card signatures.
The General Counsel and the Union contends that a
bargaining order is required. The Company denies any vio-
lation of the Act.
B. Shifting Defenses
The Company's principal witness was General Manager
Angelo Molinari. He not only gave conflicting testimony at
the hearing, but gave different defenses in his August 22
written "explanation" to the Board's Regional Office and
in his October 3 prehearing affidavit.
I shall make references to some of the contradictions in
his testimony, statement, and affidavit. In addition, I note
that Molinari appeared, from his demeanor on the stand,
to be more interested in supporting the Company's cause
then accurately reporting what actually happened.
C. Discharge of Union Leaders
About 8.20 on Monday morning, July 28, night shift
employee Elsie "Chipp" Serpa and employee Mary Cincot-
ta went with two union representatives to the company
office and met with President Sam Storozum. Both Serpa
and Cincotta were wearing large (3-inch) union buttons.
Union Manager Ed Banyai (the Union's sole spokesman)
claimed a majority and requested recognition. Storozum
arranged for them to return at 11:30 that morning when
General Manager Molinari could be there. Serpa, who was
not scheduled to report to work until 5 p.m., left with the
union representatives. Cincotta clocked in and went to
work, wearing the union button at her machine.
Serpa, Cincotta, and the union representative met with
Molinari and Storozum about 11:35 a.m. Both Serpa and
Cincotta were still wearing the union buttons. Molinari
(the Company's sole spokesman) refused to go to a card-
check. As credibly testified by Cincotta (who impressed me
1334 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
as an honest forthright witness), Molinari said "he could
not afford the union. He said he had this trouble once
before in Brooklyn. And he said if he has to, he'll put the
key in the door and lock his place and walk away and leave
45 women out of work before anything else. . . Do you
represent those two-meaning Chippy and me, pointing
.... If you represent them both, you had best find them
jobs elsewhere because as of now they are presently unem-
ployed." (Emphasis supplied.) Similarly Serpa recalled that
Molinari said, "I don't want no union. . .. I've had this
trouble before in the city and I know how to handle it. If I
have to ... I'll put the key in the lock and you'll have 45
more employees out of work . I take these girls who have
no training. I train them . . . And it takes a couple of
troublemakers like these-gesturing to Mary and myself-
and they cause all the trouble. Are you representing these
girls? . . Well, then, you can represent these two because
they no longer work for me " (Emphasis supplied.) Union
Spokesman Banyai (who recalled that Molinari said, "they
no longer work here") credibly testified that in the conver-
sation, Molinari said, "only I know . . what my costs are,
what my expenses have been, how long it took me to train
people and if anyone who works here doesn't like it, they can
leave." (Emphasis supplied.) (Business Agent Gaspar Sciac-
ca, who was also present, recalled that Molinari used the
words, "as of right now these two girls are unemployed ")
Cincotta went to her machine for her purse, clocked out,
and left with Serpa and the union representatives.
General Manager Molinari, although giving conflicting
accounts of what happened, finally admitted saying that
"Serpa is now unemployed." (He did not admit announc-
ing also that Cincotta was unemployed President Storo-
zum did not testify.)
In his August 22 statement, Molinari omitted any refer-
ence to his saying that Serpa or Cincotta was unemployed.
He claimed that "we specificly [sic] told the representatives
that we would not give them recognition unless our em-
ployees demanded it. Upset by rejection, a strike threat
was made and at this time we asked them to leave Mary
Cincotta and Elsie Serpa joined the representatives and
within two days began their picketing procedures " (Em-
phasis supplied.)
In his October 3 affidavit, Molinari dropped the claim
that he "asked them to leave" his office. Instead, he
claimed that he told Union Manager Banyai that if he rep-
resented Serpa, "he should get her a job," and "With that,
Banyai said `Fine' and all four got up" and left (Although
the evidence is clear that Banyai had no notice of a closing
of the night shift until after the announcement was made
that Monday evening-several hours later-Molinari
claimed in his affidavit that Banyai was complaining in the
Monday morning meeting that Molinari had "fired ev-
eryone on the night shift," and "I said we didn't fire the
night shift, we'd hired them temporarily for a particular
[Arab mailbag] job and 2 weeks prior we'd told the night
shift employees we were closing it but we'd like them all to
stay with us at the same wage scale and in the same capaci-
ty." I find that this whole purported conversation about
closing the night shift was an afterthought.)
At the hearing, General Manager Molinari first testified
that he advised Union Manager Banyai "that we were
going to discontinue the night shift because the contract
that they were originally hired for was coming to its com-
pletion" (omitting any claim that he had previously, 2
weeks earlier, so notified the night shift employees and that
Banyai was complaining about it). He then claimed that he
told Banyai, "With the completion of the contract that I
have on abolishing the night shift, Chippy Serpa is now un-
employed. Can you find her a job?" (Emphasis supplied.)
Whereupon Banyai said, "Let's just leave." Yet later, on
cross-examination, Molinari dropped the claim that the
closing of the night shift was mentioned. He testified that
Banyai "mentioned to me that there were thousands of
people unemployed" and "told me that he could not" get
them jobs. "Then I pointed over to Chippy.... I said that
`Now that she's unemployed, can you get her a fob?' And
with that, he said, `Fine.' . . . The next thing I knew the
whole entourage walked out of the office." (Emphasis sup-
plied.) He thereafter testified:
Q. You said you told Banyai that you were going to
discontinue the night shift because of the end of the
contract, or not?
A I don't recall saying that to him.
I also note that Molinari claimed, "I didn't see Chippy
wearing" the badge, adding, "I don't recall it, anyhow."
However, in his prehearing affidavit, he stated that "Elsie
had a big green and white badge saying something about
supporting the ILG."
After weighing all the evidence of what transpired at the
July 28 Monday morning meeting, I find that General
Manager Molinari announced that both Elsie Serpa and
Mary Cincotta were forthwith "unemployed," thereby
summarily discharging them, and that the Company did
not announce the closing of the night shift until that Mon-
day evening, several hours later.
A few minutes after the summary discharge of Serpa and
Cincotta, General Manager Molinari told the employees to
shut off the machines, and had them gather around the
cutting table. As recalled by employee Rose Boccio (who
impressed me favorably as a witness), Molinari said that
Serpa and Cincotta had been terminated "for having the
nerve to come in here with union buttons." Another wit-
ness, employee June Berry (an antiunion employee who
refused to honor the General Counsel's subpena but who
came to the hearing with company representatives), did not
corroborate this testimony, but she testified that President
Storozum indicated that Mary Cincotta had been sent
home. Upon questioning by company counsel, Berry testi-
fied that Storozum answered the question at the meeting,
"What happened by Mary," by stating that "she was arro-
gant sitting at the machine wearing her button and he felt it
was better if she left because she was causing a lot of ten-
sion in the place." (Emphasis supplied.) (Molinari testified
that Storozum "might have said something, but he thought
it was bold of Mary to sit there with a badge on . . . . But
I made no mention of it"-although admitting, "I might
have been annoyed that she walked in with the button
on ") Berry also testified that she thought it was Storozum
who said "that Chippy wanted to be shop steward or repre-
sent the girls" (although Molinari admitted that neither
Serpa nor Cincotta had said anything in the office that
SUNFLOWER NOVELTY BAGS 1335
morning), and that Molinari "said that if Chippy and Mary
had any complaints, or anything they wanted to discuss,
they should have gone to him, but they did not." (Berry
appeared to be reluctant to give testimony adverse to the
Company.) Another witness, employee Carmela Lopergola,
appeared to have a poor recollection of the meeting, and
could not remember Storozum or Molinari mentioning
either Cincotta or Serpa.
It is undisputed that both Cincotta and Serpa were valu-
able employees. I find that the credible evidence clearly
shows that they were summarily discharged for wearing
union buttons and accompanying the union representatives
who were seeking recognition of the Union. The evidence
also shows that the Company failed to offer reinstatement
to either of them. I therefore find that Mary Cincotta and
Elsie Serpa were discriminatorily discharged and not of-
fered reinstatement in violation of Section 8(a)(3) and (1)
of the Act.
I also find from the credible evidence that General Man-
ager Molinari unlawfully threatened in the July 28 morning
meeting in his office to discharge the employees and close
the plant if the employees supported the Union, thereby
violating Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
D. Alleged Interrogation and Threats
In the employee meeting which the Company called on
July 28 about 15 minutes before the 12.30 lunch break,
General Manager Molinari admittedly interrogated the
employees about their union activity. He testified, "I asked
any of the girls if they would volunteer to let me know who
signed signature cards" and "many of them would not an-
swer." Finally, one employee said she had signed a card,
and a few others also said that they had He told them that
quite frankly, "I don't think that all of the people who
signed the cards are either here present or have come for-
ward." He thereafter asked those who admitted signing
cards, "Where were you approached," what they were
promised, "did they offer any guarantee of these benefits,"
and "whether or not they ever met in a group." I find that
this interrogation, in the context of the discharge of the
union leaders, Cincotta and Serpa, a few minutes earlier,
and the antiunion statements made during the meeting,
was coercive and violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
As previously found, Molinari stated in the meeting that
he had discharged the two employees "for having the nerve
to come in here with union buttons." He then stated, as
striking employee Boccio credibly testified:
This is my shop. There will be no union in my shop.
I closed the doors in New York for this reason. I will do
it again.
I don't have fifteen hundred dollars a month to sup-
port the union. . . . I don't have that kind of money.
Sam and I are just starting out. It's a new business.
If you all want to stay with us, you are welcome
. . .. but who wants to work for the union can be free
to leave and find a fob in the union shop. Again, this is
my shop, there will be no union in the shop I will close
the doors and lock up the shop.
I have a lot of work coming in. If you want to work,
let me know and I'll order it. If not, I will cancel it
because I will not work with the union in here.
This is going to be nonunion, and that's it. [Empha-
sis supplied I
(Although Boccio did not recall all of the speech, she ap-
peared to have a good recollection of these threatening
remarks, which are of the same tone as Molinari's threaten-
ing statements made a few minutes earlier to the union
leaders and representatives in his office.) General
Counsel's witness, Berry (the antiunion employee who ap-
peared reluctant to testify against the Company), testified
that Molinari "said it would be impossible to operate with
the Union with all his money tied up in his business," and
confirmed that Molinari used the phrase "would have to
close his doors " Four company witnesses had, or pro-
fessed to have, little recollection about what Molinari said.
Employee Wilhelmina Shaw denied that either Molinari or
Storozum threatened to close the business down if the
Union came in, but testified that Molinari said, "If a union
come in here, eventually I will be out of business." Em-
ployee Eleanor Oliveri (who gave other testimony which
was clearly false) denied that Molinari said "anything of
that nature" (that if a union came in, they would close the
plant.) Employee Lopergola testified that Molinari said for
the employees to decide "who wants to go with the union
and who wants to stay with him" and also said, "that his
money was tied up and that eventually he would be out of
work" or "out of business." Employee Frances Agugliaro
recalled Molinari stating that he could not afford what the
Union would want because of his money being tied up in
the new business, and testified that the only other thing
that "sticks in my mind" was Molinari's statement that he
could not afford it and "couldn't function at this time if the
union had to come in." She later confirmed that Molinari
said that those who wanted the Union were free to leave.
Molinari testified that he formerly had a business in
Brooklyn, but that "I don't recall" saying on July 28 that
he closed a business in Brooklyn or New York. He admit-
ted using the words "the doors are open," but claimed that
he stated that for those who "will work only in a union
shop." He testified that he told the employees that the
Company did show a "small profit" at the end of the first
year. (The Company introduced into evidence, unaudited
financial statements which were dated September 30-2
months after the strike began.) He then testified, "I might
have said at that point that it would be very difficult for me
to add the expense of the union at the present time." He
denied using the words "going out of business," but then
testified, "I might have made reference to the fact that
there is a remote possibility that if I had to recognize the
union and accept their . . . contract, that eventually the
expense would put the company out of business." (Empha-
sis supplied.) He then testified that he did not recall if he
used the term, "remote possibility." He thereafter admitted
recalling that he said "something about possibly going out
of business" as part of the discussion about the seriousness
of what the employees had done by signing union cards.
(From his demeanor on the stand, he appeared to be less
than candid.) The parties stipulated that if other employees
were called (the estimated number of 30 to 35 being cor-
1336 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
rected after hearing to about 17) they would give testimony
similar to those who did testify about this meeting.
After weighing all the conflicting testimony, I find that
the credible evidence shows that General Manager Moli-
nan threatened the employees with plant closure and ter-
mination of employment if they supported the Union in
violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
E. Circulating Petitions
After General Manager Molinari, in the 12:15 p.m.
meeting, told the employees about discharging Cincotta
and Serpa, interrogated the employees about their card-
signing and union activity, and threatened to close the
plant, one or more of the employees asked about changing
their minds or getting their union cards back. Molinari ad-
mittedly suggested that they could sign and send to the
Union a petition or "retraction," demanding the withdraw-
al of their signatures. He then designated employee June
Berry to circulate the petition, admittedly telling the em-
ployees, "Maybe June Berry can get this together for you."
(About 3 weeks earlier, as company witness Wilhelmina
Shaw revealed on direct examination, employee Berry told
employee Shaw, "Do not mention the union to me because
I'm not for a union. I don't want no part of a union. I will
go and tell Sam [Storozum] and Angelo [Molinari] " (Em-
phasis supplied.) Employee Cincotta had asked Shaw to
speak to Berry about the Union) Molinari advised the em-
ployees (as credibly testified by Floorlady Frances Agugli-
aro) that they could retract their signatures, and if they did
"there would be no hard feelings." Molinari and Storozum
left the plant and the employees began their lunch period.
Some of the women were crying-apparently in fear of
losing their jobs.
Employee Berry went into the office and got a sheet of
the Company's letterhead paper from the secretary. Berry
wrote "No Union" at the top, and wrote, "If you signed
Union Card Send Registered letter withdrawing Signature
if you want to" at the bottom of the sheet She then went
into the plant and circulated the petition on company time,
telling the employees, "It was the piece of paper that Ange-
lo sent around and it was entirely up to them if they signed.
There was no hard feelings on Angelo's and Sam's part."
Later that afternoon when he saw the "No Union" peti-
tion, Molinari told June Berry and "the group of girls that
were gathered around," that "I don't want it on Sunflower
stationery . . . If anything, it's to go on blank paper. Sec-
ondly, it should be directed to the union, not to me." Moli-
nari dictated a second petition, on plain paper. It was ad-
dressed to the Union and read:
We the undersigned hereby acknowledge and ex-
press our desire to withdraw our signatures and our
support to Local 107-International Ladies' Garment
Workers Union, and do not seek or request their assis-
tance or representation
Molinari explained to employee Berry that language was
needed for all employees "to be against the Union" as well
as for "cardsigners to retract their signatures."
After this petition was typed the following day, employ-
ee Berry started circulating it, again on company time
When asked if noncardsigners "have to sign this paper,"
Berry answered no, but "Maybe it would make it more
clear that the biggest percentage of the girls didn't want a
union." Thereafter, Molinari left the petition on his
secretary's desk for several weeks, for both new and previ-
ously absent employees to sign. A total of 32 persons
signed, including 14 cardsigners and 18 noncardsigners.
Although the petition was addressed to the Union, Moli-
nari "held on to" it, "on advice of counsel."
The complaint alleges that the Company unlawfully in-
duced employees to sign the petitions, and that employee
June Berry was its agent in circulating them. The Company
denies any violation, pointing out that the first petition was
signed while Molinari and Storozum were out to lunch,
and contending that the "assistance given by the company
in preparing the second petition did not constitute a threat
of reprisal, since no one was required to sign."
It is clear that after the Company discriminatorily dis-
charged the two union leaders, coercively interrogated the
employees, and threatened plant closure the employees
were acting under the fear of losing their jobs when they
asked how to retract their union cards. It was in this con-
text of coercion that the Company suggested the signing of
the petitions to oppose the Union and withdraw their
union card signatures. It is also clear that the Company
designated employee Berry as its agent in circulating the
petitions. I therefore find that the Company instigated, au-
thorized, and participated in the circulation of the anti-
union petitions, and that it coercively induced both card-
signers and noncardsigners to sign the petitions to with-
draw their signatures and to declare their opposition to the
Union. The Company thereby interfered with the employ-
ees' Section 7 rights in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the
Act.
F. Abolishing the Night Shift
1. Discriminatory motivation stated
It is undisputed that President Storozum, at the time,
stated that the 5-to-10 p.m. night shift was being discontin-
ued because of the Union 's presence.
As night shift employee Eleanor Nottingham credibly
testified, Storozum came over to her machine about 7:30
p.m. on Monday, July 28 (about 8 hours after night shift
employee Serpa was discharged), and told her, "Eleanor,
from tonight on, we [will] discontinue the second shift."
She asked why and he said, "Because the union is giving me
too much pressure " (Emphasis supplied.) In the same con-
versation, he asked her, "Did you hear anything about the
union')" and from whom. I find that this interrogation, in
the context of the discriminatory reason stated for abolish-
ing the night shift, was coercive and that both the interro-
gation and the statement interfered with employee Section
7 rights in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
2. Discharge of key night shift employee
It is clear that the discharge of employee Serpa earlier
that day had disrupted the production of mailbags on the
night shift. (However, as discussed below, other work was
regularly performed on the night shift.)
SUNFLOWER NOVELTY BAGS 1337
Serpa was an extremely fast worker. During the regular
5-hour shift, she could do 600 mailbags on the bar-tack
machine. This tripled the required production of 200 units
for the 5 hours, and far exceeded the average production of
300 to 358 on the 8-hour daytime shift. In fact, when the
day shift bar-tack operator went on sick leave on July 14,
General Mangager Molinari admittedly did not replace her
but instead permitted the production from the preceding
(three) machines to accumulate "so I could have the work
for Mrs. Serpa in the evening." (The three preceding ma-
chines were the special machine which sewed the mailbags,
the hemming machine, and the pin tack machine which put
on tabs. Serpa's machine reinforced the tabs.) Further-
more, in order to provide more production for Serpa's bar-
tack machine, the Company hired an additional night shift
employee, Mary Ellen Munday, on July 9 to operate the
pin tack machine, to "feed" (in Molinari's words) "the ma-
chine that Mrs. Serpa was working on." (Mary Cincotta
was the day shift operator on the pin tack machine.)
Thus, the different operators produced at different
speeds, and the production was geared to Serpa's high-
speed operation on her finishing machine Accordingly, she
was a key employee in the production of the Arab mail-
bags. When the Company discriminatorily discharged her
that Monday morning, and also discharged Cincotta whose
day shift production on the pin tack machine supplied
work for Serpa's night shift production, the Company seri-
ously disrupted the mailbag production-contrary to Gen-
eral Manager Molinari's denial that Serpa's leaving "put a
real crimp" in his production.
3. The Company' s defenses
a "Dwindling" crew
One of the Company's major defenses, as stated in its
brief, is that as its production of the Arab mailbags ap-
proached the end General Manager Molinari "allowed the
night shift to dwindle in number from the original fourteen
to five or six." At the hearing, Molinari claimed that the
night shift operated "with a full complement" of between
13 and 15 people for about 6 or 7 weeks, beginning the week
ending April 10, and that "By mid July, it had dwindled
down to approximately seven employees." He later
claimed that "we were down to machines where there were
two operators or three operators who only worked on one
specific operation of the manufacture of this bag and (ig-
noring the fact that the Company was deliberately holding
over production from the day shift to utilize Serpa's high-
speed finishing operation) it just wasn't coordinated. We
had reduced down to a complement of four or five people."
I note that in his prehearing affidavit, Molinari stated that
"The reason we abolished the night shift was only 6 people
out of 15 stayed on . . . and when operators were out the
other operators who waited on their work just sat around.
So we weren't getting more than maybe 10% production
... the crew had dwindled down to nothing." (Concerning
Molinari's prehearing claim that production was down to
"maybe 10%," he then admitted in the affidavit that "We
don't keep production records in section work." At the
hearing, Molinari dropped this contention, claiming in-
stead that production was down from "between 450 to 500
a day" at "a good turn" to "no more than about 350, 400
pieces per day." I consider these claims of production
being down to 10 percent and down from "450 to 500" to
"350, 400" to be mere shifting of "position," rather than
accurate estimates of actual production.)
It is true that there were 15 part-time employees hired on
the night shift. (They were Bisagni, Brown , Colichio, De
Simone, Doig, Gonzalez, Hicks, LaSorsa, Munday, Not-
tingham, O'Hara, Serpa, Tejada, Vega, and White.) But
there were never "between 13 and 15" of them working at
one time, and there was a higher-than-average complement
during the last 2 weeks before the closing of the night shift
Two of the night crew (Colichio and LaSorsa) worked for
only 4 or 5 days in April; another (Vega) also was termi-
nated in April; three (Bisagni, Brown, and Hicks) were not
hired until 2 months later in June (Brown becoming a full-
time day shift employee after only 3 days); and a seventh
employee (Munday) was not hired until July 9. Excluding a
day shift employee (Palminteri) who alternated working at
night with a night shift employee (De Simone), the average
number of night shift employees working during the 14 week-
ly payroll periods beginning April 4 and ending July 10 was
7 9 However, there were nine night shift employees (Bisagni,
De Simone, Doig, Hicks, Munday, Nottingham, O'Hara,
Serpa, and Tejada) who worked during each of the last 2
weeks (ending July 17 and 24) before the Monday closing
of the night shift. (The payroll records show that a total of
11 night shift employees worked during the week ending
June 26; 10 during the weeks ending April 24 and June 19;
9 during weeks ending April 17, May 1, and July 17 and
24; 8 during weeks ending April 10, May 8 and 29, June 5
and 12, and July 3; 7 employees during the week ending
July 10; and 3 during weeks ending May 15 and 22.)
Thus, in the last 2 preceding weeks (ending Thursday),
there was a full complement of night shift employees-with
the exception of a "special machine" operator (as testified
by Serpa, who also credibly testified that when the pin tack
operator did not keep up with Serpa's bar-tack production,
"I would work the single needle" machine or "I would
work the pin tack machine, the tabs").
On Monday evening, July 28, as night shift employee
Nottingham credibly testified, "They had just as much
work sitting at each machine," plus "work on the cutting
table to be cut" on the "Arab Job." (Nottingham continued
to work until 10 p.m. that evening) After discharging Ser-
pa that morning, the Company failed to assign to the night
shift that evening two employees (De Simone and Palmin-
teri, who usually alternated on the night shift but both of
whom were assigned to work at night when needed), al-
though they were working that day. In the absence that
evening of Serpa and De Simone (and/or Palminteri), and
also two night shift employees (Doig and O'Hara) who
were temporarily off, there were six regular night shift em-
ployees working that evening (Bisagni , Hicks, Munday,
Nottingham, Tejada, and Calandrino). The last employee
named (Calandrino) was a regular night shift employee
who performed other, nonmailbag production work (sew-
ing on zippers, a necessary preparatory operation required
for day shift production)
1338 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Therefore, the Company's contentions (that the night
shift had dwindled from 14 to 5 or 6, or from "between 13
and 15" to 4 or 5, or "down to nothing") are belied by the
evidence. The number of night shift employees working
during the last 2 weeks preceding the Monday closing was
above average, and the disruption of the night shift pro-
duction was largely the direct result of the summary dis-
charge of Serpa and Cincotta that Monday morning.
b. Prior decision
The Company took shifting positions on when the clos-
ing of the night shift was decided and announced. In its
brief, it contends that the night shift was initiated to meet
the production deadline for the Arab mailbags, that the
Company "had made a determination to discontinue the
night shift prior to any knowledge of the Union organiza-
tional activities," and that the night shift closing, "coming
at 5:00 [p.m.] on July 28th, was not known to the employ-
ees at the time" of the July 28 employee meeting. As men-
tioned above, General Manager Molinari claimed in his
October prehearing affidavit that "2 weeks prior we'd told
the night shift employees we were closing" the night shift.
(This claim was completely ignored in the Company's
brief, which states to the contrary that the employees did
not know about the closing before the July 28 Monday
evening shift.)
At the hearing, Molinari gave further conflicting posi-
tions. He first testified that he mentioned the night shift
closing to the union representatives on Monday morning,
July 28. Later he retracted that testimony, stating that he
did not recall mentioning it then. He also testified that he
visited Serpa's home on July 4, and about a week later
refused her request for a second raise, telling her, "Give me
a little more time and I'll manage to raise your salary be-
cause your work is good " Thereafter, he claimed, "I be-
lieve it was at her home" (on July 4) that he told her the
night shift would be closed around the end of the month,
July 30. He then claimed that he mentioned it to her "an-
other time" when she asked for the second raise, telling her
"that the night crew was going to come to a close in ap-
proximately two weeks." (No effort was made in the
Company's brief to reconcile this testimony that Serpa was
asking for a second raise about the second week in July
and Molinari was responding that she should give him "a
little more time," yet both at this time and a week earlier,
according to Molinari, he was telling her in effect that she
would be without a job in 2 weeks or by the end of the
month, July 30 )
Molinari claimed that the decision to close the night
shift "was made, I would say, the last week of June, the
first week of July." Before he gave this testimony, company
witness Shaw had testified that on or about July 8 or 9,
employee Berry said, "I will go and tell Sam [Storozum]
and Angelo [Molinari]" about the union organizing. Thus,
Molinari was testifying "I would say" the decision was
made immediately before Berry's statement to Shaw (I
note that in Molinari's August 22 "explanation," he dubi-
ously claimed that prior to July 28 "we had absolutely no
inkling of any union involvement.") However, by fixing the
date of the decision that early, Molinari was claiming that
the decision made before two additional employees were
hired on the night shift (Munday on July 9 and Calandrino
on July 16).
As credibly testified by Serpa, the only mention before
July 28 of closing the night shift was on or about July 22 or
23. It was then that Serpa met with Molinari (along with
President Storozum's wife and the secretary who did not
testify) Serpa announced, "Angelo, I'm up to 600 pieces.
I'd like a raise." Molinari answered, "I'm sorry, Chippy,
I'm thinking of laying off the night shift.. . . Most likely it
will run into September. " (Emphasis supplied.) Thus, less
than a week before the July 28 closing of the night shift,
Molinari stated (whether or not as an excuse for refusing
then to pay Serpa more money for her extremely fast work)
that he was "thinking" about closing the night shift. How-
ever, he also indicated that even if he did decide to close it
the night shift would "most likely" continue to run into
September (when Serpa had agreed to work full time, after
her children were in school).
The evidence shows that there were good reasons for
waiting until September to make the decision whether or
not to abolish the night shift. There was a continuing short-
age of trained employees. Several part-time and full-time
employees were absent for the summer, when children
were out of school, and an unknown number of them
would probably be returning in September, after some
summer student employees returned to school. (Former
employees Abela and Hoggard returned during the strike
in August, and former employees Boyd, Guido, Mazzoc-
chi, McFee, and Mistretta returned in September Molinari
testified that about eight employees left at the end of sum-
mer.) The Company's principal business (including ladies'
handbags, totebags, tennis bags, booze bags, bank money
bags, and backgammon orders) would remain to be done,
and hopefully the Company would be receiving additional
orders for mailbags. There was the necessity of a substan-
tial amount of overtime (at time and a half), particularly on
the considerable amount of strict deadline orders which the
Company was handling. (The overtime could be limited by
retaining the night shift.) I note that in Molinari's August
22 written "explanation" he claimed that "All employees
hired for the night shift were . . informed at time of em-
ployment that the position was temporary and would ter-
minate at the end of the [Arab mailbag] contract." At the
hearing, the Company called one witness, Dolores Bisagni
(who formerly worked on the night shift) to support this
position. However, she gave other incorrect testimony
(about transferring immediately to the day shift where she
is still employed, being the only one on the night shift when
she was transferred, and there being "very few" mailbags
to do on July 28), and I discredit her testimony that she
was "hired temporarily." Night employees Serpa and Not-
tingham credibly testified that nothing had been said about
their jobs being temporary. Serpa, who recalled once being
assigned to other work, credibly denied ever being told that
the night shift was hired for the special Arab work.
c. No "talent"
General Manager Molinari claimed at the hearing, "The
girls that worked on the Arab bags, not any of them had the
SUNFLOWER NOVELTY BAGS 1339
talent to work on any of the other items." (Emphasis sup-
plied .) I discredit this testimony as another fabrication.
The Company admittedly offered daytime employment
to the six night shift employees who were working on Mon-
day evening , July 28. Moreover , Molinari was aware that
one of them , Ruth Hicks , was able to work on other items
because he knew she not only was working for the Compa-
ny in the evenings , but was working full time in a union-
represented shop during the day. (He acknowledged that
he did not expect her to accept his offer of daytime em-
ployment , knowing that she would have to quit her full-
time job to do so. ) Of course , Molinari was aware that
night shift employee Serpa had the talent to perform other
work, because he had agreed to employ her full time in
September , when her children would be in school. And I
note that Molinari finally admitted that the (single- and
double-needle ) machines on which night shift employee
Nottingham worked could be used on other production.
4. Continuation of night work
Even during the strike , which resulted from the dis-
charge of the union leaders and the closing of the night
shift , the Company was required to continue both produc-
tion and maintenance work in the evenings . The payroll
records in evidence show that , during the 11 weeks from
August 1 through October 16, employees often worked un-
til 9, 10 , or I1 p.m ., for an average of 65 hours a week (and
over 100 hours a week during the first 2 weeks of October).
During the week ending August 21 , employee Phillip Fos-
ter was hired to do the silk -screening work "primarily at
night." Molinari purported to explain operator McFee's
evening production work by testifying that she "is off on
Wednesday and we allow her to stay some extra hours to
make up for that one day's work "-while ignoring the fact
that she worked on Wednesdays for 3 weeks beginning the
week ending September 25, and worked more than 40
hours each of the weeks- 47-3/4, 52, and 48-1 /2 hours,
respectively . Employee Joe Flammia not only did "clean-
up maintenance ," but he did packing and "a lot of rivet
work" (production work ). Employees Agugliari , Brown,
Caldandrino , Faust , Fonville, Hoggard , Livreri, Lomeili,
Lopo, Oliveri , Panariello , Shaw, and Valenti also per-
formed work after the end of the day shift
The Company was planning to move its plant (as it has
now done) to a larger building and was advertising for
employees . The shortage of machines (which had long re-
stricted the number of day shift employees and had pre-
vented all the work being done on the day shift) contribut-
ed to the overtime problem. In the absence of a part-time
night shift , as Molinari admitted , the Company paid over-
time rates when there was "a carryover of hours from a
production run," and when , in order to avoid cancellation
of an entire department store order , "we will put in addi-
tional hours to complete a certain lot to be shipped to the
store" to "meet a deadline."
As found above, Molinari told the employees in a meet-
ing on July 28, "I have a lot of work coming in If you want
to work, let me know and I'll order it. If not , I will cancel
[emphasis supplied ] it because I will not work with the
union in here ." The Company had offered employee Cin-
cotta the job of running, in September , the renewal of the
Velcro "Marine" order, which previously had "kept us
busy for about two months or so," according to Molinari.
He did not testify whether or not he canceled the order, for
lack of employees and/or machines during the strike: stat-
ing only that Velcro "decided to do it themselves ." Without
being specific, Molinari testified , "We've taken on some
new accounts ." In its brief , the Company conceded that
"the total payroll was higher at the time of the hearing and
after the summer than it was during the summer."
Under all these circumstances , I find it unlikely that the
Company, in the absence of the union organizing drive,
would have decided in September to close the night shift.
5. Concealment of deadline
General Manager Molinari testified that when the Com-
pany got the Arab mailbag business , the customers' agent
said he would not insist on a performance bond, "But I
insist upon the delivery dates." The agent also stated that
in his country , "if the initial supplier does a satisfactory job
in regard to quality, performance, price , et cetera , and dc-
livery, that they will get continuing orders every year. So we
strove quite diligently to get this thing delivered ." (Empha-
sis supplied.)
It was in the context of this testimony that Molinari con-
cealed , throughout his direct examination , the fact that the
Company had been unable to meet the original deadline of
June 30 on the last contract (for 10 ,000 white mailbags),
and had failed to meet the extended deadline of July 20. In
fact, he gave inaccurate testimony. He represented that the
deadline on this contract was within 60 days from about
the end of May: "the end of July, exactly." When so testi-
fying, he was explaining some documents which the Com-
pany was entering into evidence . Finally on cross-examina-
tion, he conceded that the documents were incomplete,
because the written postponement of the deadline had
been omitted.
Thus, on direct examination, Molinari claimed that the
deadline (which was deemed critical for future business)
was "the end of July, exactly"; whereas in fact , it was first
set for June 30, then extended to July 20. He was also
concealing the fact that the extended July 20 deadline had
already expired 8 days before the July 28 closing of the
night shift , with 2,800 of the 10,000 mailbags remaining to
be produced and shipped (As found above, the closing of
the night shift further delayed the shipment , until August
15.) I note that when Molinari was asked how long he had
to ship the final 2,800 white mailbags, he answered that the
Arab agent telephoned him from London, asked, "'How
long do you think it would take to finish the other 2,800
bags, or whatever ?' I think I told him two or three weeks.
He said , `Fine.' " Molinari then claimed that this occurred
"Right after the July 4th holiday," about July 6 or 7. (Such
a date would fit Molinari 's position that he planned the
closing of the night shift on July 30. However , of course,
neither he nor the Arab agent would have had any way of
knowing on July 6 or 7-about a week after the extension
of the June 30 deadline-that there would be 2 ,800 mail-
bags left undone on July 28.)
1340 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
6. Concluding findings
Although the Company contends that the closing of the
night shift was economically motivated, the overwhelming
evidence shows otherwise.
At the time, President Storozum admitted that union
pressure for recognition was the reason for the closing.
Both the day and night shift production was geared to the
high-speed finishing work which union leader Serpa was
doing on the night shift. By summarily discharging her, as
well as union leader Cincotta, when they (wearing union
buttons) accompanied the union representatives to the of-
fice to seek union recognition earlier that day, July 28, the
Company seriously disrupted the production of the over-
due Arab mailbags. Instead of recalling the two employees,
or hiring replacements, the Company closed down the
mailbag part of the night shift production (although retain-
ing other necessary night work), thereby risking the perma-
nent loss of the mailbag business, for which prompt deliv-
eries were required. The closing also necessitated a
considerable amount of overtime work, requiring premium
pay.
After weighing all the evidence and after considering all
the circumstances, the shifting positions taken by the Com-
pany, as well as General Manager Molinari's attempted
concealment of material facts, I agree with the Union that
the firing of the two union leaders and the closing of the
night shift were motivated by the Company's desire "to
smash the Union which had appeared in its factory that
very day" and "to prove to its remaining employees that
[Molinari] would not hesitate to close the entire factory
because of the Union," as threatened that same day in the
employee meeting Accordingly, I find that the July 28
abolishing of the regular night shift, like the discharge of
the union leaders, was discriminatorily motiviated to un-
dermine the Union, in violation of Section 8(a)(3) and (1)
of the Act. This discriminatory action did not adversely
affect employees Dolores Bisagm, Debra De Simone, Mary
Ellen Munday, and Myriam Tejada, who were able to and
did accept the Company's July 28 offer of similar day shift
employment (Tejada later, however, joining the unfair la-
bor practice strike which began on July 30). The discrimi-
natory action did adversely affect Ruth Hicks and Eleanor
Nottingham, who were unable to accept the offer of day
shift employment, and also Susan Doig and Frances
O'Hara, who were temporarily absent and not present
when the offer was made. (Serpa, having already been dis-
charged, was not offered day shift employment.) I there-
fore find that Susan Doig, Ruth Hicks, Eleanor Notting-
ham, and Frances O'Hara were discriminatonly discharged
in violation of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act.
G. Alleged Refusal To Bargain
The parties agree, and I find, that the following is an
appropriate bargaining unit*
All production and maintenance employees in the
Employer's plant, excluding office clerical employees
and supervisors as defined in the Act.
On July 28, the Union had valid authorization cards
signed by 24 (Bisagm, Boccio, Brown, Capone, Cincotta,
Di Maio, De Simone, Fonville, Hicks, Klement, Livreri,
Munday, Nottingham, O'Hara, Oliveri, Palminteri , Panar-
iello, Sadlo, Santos, Serpa, Shaw, Tejada, Vaia, and Valen-
ti) of the 43 employees in this unit. The remaining 19 em-
ployees were Agugliari, Bariciano , Berry, Cahill,
Calandrino, Coelus, Doig, Faust, Joe Flammia, Lena
Flammia, Guzman, Harro, Levanti, Lopergola, Lomeli,
Lopo, Miceli, Napolitano, and Newman. The Union thus
represented a clear majority of the employees in the bar-
gaining unit.
In the 11:35 a.m. meeting on July 28 with President Sto-
rozum and General Manager Molinari, the Union request-
ed recognition, and to bargain for the employees in this
appropriate bargaining unit. The Company refused to go to
a cardcheck, refused to recognize and bargain with the
Union, and, as previously discussed, began an immediate
campaign to undermine the Union. It summarily dis-
charged the two union leaders present, and threatened to
discharge other employees and close the plant if the em-
ployees supported the Union. Within a few minutes, the
Company called an employee meeting in which Molinari
advised the employees that the union leaders had been ter-
minated "for having the nerve to come in here with union
buttons," coercively interrogated the employees about their
union support and activities, and threatened the employees
with plant closure and termination of employment if they
supported the Union. Molinari thereafter induced present
and future employees to sign petitions opposing the Union
and withdrawing their signatures on union authorization
cards. The Company also abolished the night shift, as
found, to prove to the remaining employees that Molinari
would not hesitate to close the plant because of the Union.
All efforts to organize the plant ceased, and the Union is
still engaged in an unfair labor practice strike in protest.
Under these circumstances, I agree with the Union that
"This is a classic case for the application of a Gissel bar-
gaining order." N.L.R B v. Gissel Packing Co., Inc., 395
U.S. 575 (1969) The extensive and flagrant unfair labor
practices, beginning immediately after the Union requested
recognition, are so "outrageous" and "pervasive" that a
fair and reliable election cannot now be held. I therefore
find that the Company unlawfully refused to bargain on
July 28 in violation of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act,
and that a bargaining order is required for an effective
remedy.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. By discharging Mary Cincotta, Susan Doig, Ruth
Hicks, Eleanor Nottingham, Frances O'Hara, and Elsie
Serpa, on July 28, 1975, and abolishing the night shift on
the same day, in order to undermine support for the
Union, the Company engaged in unfair labor practices af-
fecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8(a)(3)
and (1) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2 By coercively interrogating employees, by stating that
employees had been discharged for wearing union buttons,
by threatening to discharge employees and close the plant
if the employees supported the Union, by instigating, au-
thorizing, and participating in the circulation of petitions
SUNFLOWER NOVELTY BAGS 1341
opposing the Union and withdrawing union card signa-
tures, and by stating that the night shift was closing be-
cause of the Union, the Company violated Section 8(a)(1)
of the Act.
3. By refusing to bargain on July 28, 1975, when imme-
diately launching a campaign of unfair labor practices
which undermined the Union's majority status and made a
fair election impossible, the Company violated Section
8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act.
REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in cer-
tain unfair labor practices, I find it necessary to order the
Respondent to cease and desist therefrom and to take cer-
tain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of
the Act.
The Respondent having discriminatorily discharged six
employees, I find it necessary to order it to offer them full
reinstatement, with backpay computed on a quarterly ba-
sis, plus interest at 6 percent per annum, in accordance
with F W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289 (1950), and
Isis Plumbing & Heating Co, 138 NLRB 716 (1962), from
date of discharge to date of proper offer of reinstatement. I
further find that the Respondent's unfair labor practices
are so serious in nature that a "broad" cease-and-desist
order is required. However, I do not find it necessary, as
contended by the Union, to require the general manager or
a Board agent to read the notice to the assembled employ-
ees, or the Respondent to mail copies to the homes of the
employees.
[Recommended Order omitted from publication.]