Supreme Dyeing & Finishing Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 29, 1964

147 N.L.R.B. 1094 (N.L.R.B. 1964)

1094 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to a Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor
Relations Board , and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, we hereby notify our employees that:
WE WILL NOT coercively interrogate our employees concerning their mem-
bership in United Furniture Workers of America, AFL-CIO; or threaten them
with discharge or layoff for engaging in union activities ; or threaten them that
our Branford, Connecticut , plant, will be closed in the event the above-mentioned
Union succeeds in - organizing that plant ; or threaten them with economic
reprisals if they select that Union as their collective -bargaining representative.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with , restrain , or coerce
our employees in the exercise of the right to self-organization , to form labor
organizations to join or assist United Furniture Workers of America, AFL-CIO,
or any other labor organization , to bargain collectively through representatives of
their own choosing , and to engage in any other concerted activities for the pur-
pose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from
any or all such activities , except to the extent that such right may be affected
by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition
of employment , as authorized in Section 8(a)(3) of the Act.
ELMWOOD UPHOLSTERY CO., INC.,
Employer.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------
(Representative) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting,
and must not be altered, defaced , or covered by any other material.
Employees may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office , 24 School
Street, Boston , Massachusetts , Telephone No. 523 -8100, if they have any questions
concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions.
Supreme Dyeing & Finishing Corp . and Valley Maid Co., Inc.
and Amalgamated Lace Operatives of America , Levers Aux-
iliary Section . Case No. 1-CA-4248. June L9, 1964
DECISION AND ORDER
On March 10, 1964, Trial Examiner Reeves R. Hilton issued his
Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that both Com-
panies constituted a single employer (herein called Respondent) and
that Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair
labor practices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom
and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the_ attached Trial
Examiner's Decision. Thereafter, Respondent and the General Coun-
sel filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision and supporting
briefs.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the Act, the Board
has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member
panel [Chairman McCulloch and Members Leedom and Brown].
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial- Examiner made
at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The
147 NLRB No. 112.
SUPREME DYEING & FINISHING CORP., ETC. 1095
rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the entire
record iii this case,' including the Trial Examiner's Decision, the ex-
ceptions, and the briefs, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions,
and recommendations of the Trial Examiner,2 as modified herein.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended, the Board hereby adopts as its Order, the Order recom-
mended by the Trial Examiner and orders that the Respondent, its
officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth
in the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order, with the following
modifications :
1. Insert the following paragraph :
(a) Withhold all recognition from Textile Workers Union of
America, AFL-CIO, or any successor labor organization, as the
exclusive representative of its employees for the purposes of collec-
tive bargaining, unless and until such labor organization has been
duly certified by the National Labor Relations Board as the
exclusive representative of such employees.
2. Renumber the remaining paragraphs appropriately. -
3. Amend the Appendix to correspond with the above modifications.
1 As the Trial Examiner found, the claimants in the present proceeding received notices
signed by a manager of the Department of Employment Security of Rhode Island, stating
that they had left their employment without good cause and hence were not entitled-to
unemployment compensation benefits. The Trial Examiner did not find, however, that
this evidence was sufficient to overcome all the other evidence, detailed In his Decision,
warranting finding the unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint. Respondent now
moves to reopen the record for the limited purpose of adducing evidence that the Depart-
ment's Board of Review, in a decision issued after the hearing in this ease had closed,
affirmed the manager's decision. The Board has held that although a decision of a State
agency on a related issue is not controlling, it is relevant and admissible into evidence
for whatever probative value It may have. See Cadillac Marine & Boat Company, 115
NLRB 107, footnote 1. Accordingly, the motion is granted. Assuming that the facts
are as Respondent alleges in the motion, we are satisfied that such facts add no probative
value to the Department of Employment Security's notices considered by the Trial
Examiner.
2 We find, In agreement with the Trial Examiner, that before the strike commenced on
July 15, 1963, Respondent rendered unlawful assistance and support to Textile Workers
Union of America in violation of Section 8 (a) (2) and (1) of the Act We further agree
with the Trial Examiner that It was the employees' resistance to and protest against the
Respondent's continued pattern of unlawful assistance and support on July 16 that served
to prolong the strike then in progress, and converted it to an unfair labor practice strike.
In reaching this conclusion, we particularly rely on the fact that after the striking em-
ployees were visited by Respondent at their homes on July 16, they concertedly decided to
resist the Respondent's attempts to force them to join the Textile Workers Union and took
immediate steps to join a union of their own free choosing. Since no replacements were
yet hired when the strike became an unfair labor practice strike, we find that Respond-
ent's subsequent rejection of the strikers' unconditional application to return to work was
discriminatory and a violation of Section 8(a) (3) and (1) of the Act.
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon a charge duly filed by Amalgamated Lace Operatives of America, Levers
Auxiliary Section, herein called the Union, the General Counsel of the National
1096 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Labor Relations Board, through the Acting Regional Director for the First Region,
issued a complaint , dated September 13, 1963, against Supreme Dyeing & Finishing
Corp. and Valley Maid Co., Inc., alleging the Companies to be a single employer
and as such engaged in violations of Section 8(a)(1), (2 ), and (3 ) of the National
Labor Relations Act, as amended (29 U.S.C. 151, et seq.), herein called the Act.
The separate answers of the Companies admit certain allegations of the complaint
but deny they constitute a single employer and that they engaged in any unfair
labor practices.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held before Trial Examiner Reeves R. Hilton
at Providence , Rhode Island , on October 14 and 15, 1963. All parties were present
and represented at the hearing and were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to
introduce relevant evidence , to present oral argument , and to file briefs . About
November 12 and December 2, 1963, I received briefs from the General Counsel
and counsel for the Companies , which I have fully considered.
Upon consideration of the entire record, and upon my observation of the witnesses,
I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANIES
A. Respondent Supreme Dyeing & Finishing Corp.
Supreme, a Rhode Island corporation , maintains its office and place of business
at 129 Brookside Avenue, West Warwick, Rhode Island, where it is engaged in the
dyeing , bleaching , and processing of lace, lace products , and related products. In
the year preceding the issuance of the complaint , Supreme shipped goods valued in
excess of $50,000 from its plant directly to points outside the State of Rhode Island.
Supreme admits it is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act, and I so
find and conclude.
B. Respondent Valley Maid Co., Inc.
Valley, a Rhode Island corporation , maintains its office and place of business at
the same location as Supreme , where it is engaged in the manufacture , sale, and
distribution of lace and lace products . In the year preceding the issuance of the
complaint , Valley purchased raw materials valued in excess of $50,000, which were
shipped to its plant from places outside the State. Valley admits it is engaged in
commerce within the meaning of the Act , and I so find and conclude.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
The Union and Textile Workers Union of America, AFL-CIO, herein called
TWUA, are each labor organizations as defined in Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The issues
In brief, the issues presented are whether Respondent Supreme and Respondent
Valley ( 1) constitute a single employer , ( 2) unlawfully assisted or supported TWUA,
and (3 ) discriminatorily discharged or refused to reinstate 12 employees because
they engaged in protected activities.
B. Organization and operations of Respondent Supreme and Respondent Valley
The officers and stockholders of Supreme are William Hubbard , president, 90
shares; William Urban, vice president , 30 shares ; Carmine G . Palmisciano , secretary,
90 shares ; and Kenneth G. Matteson , treasurer, 90 shares.
The stock of Valley is wholly owned by Kenneth G . Matteson and Edith Matteson,
his wife, who hold the offices of treasurer and president , respectively, with Carmine
G. Palmisciano serving as secretary.
William Hubbard is Edith Matteson's father and Kenneth Matteson's father-in-law.
Kenneth Matteson testified that he managed and controlled all the affairs, func-
tions, and operations of both Supreme and Valley, including the hiring and firing
of employees . Each of these Companies conduct their business operations in the
same building, which is owned by the B & L Realty Company. Supreme, which is
engaged in the dyeing and finishing of lace products occupies part of the second floor
and part of the basement , while Valley, which is engaged in the manufacture of lace
products , is located in the basement of the building . As of July 31 , 1963 , Supreme
had between 30 and 40 employees on its payroll and Valley had 6 employees on its
payroll . The Companies also have connecting offices but the clerical work of each
SUPREME DYEING & FINISHING CORP., ETC. 1097
is performed by its own employees. Supreme, according to Matteson, performs
services for more than 50 companies including Valley, and he estimated Valley's
work amounted to approximately 5 percent of the total work performed by Supreme.
However, Valley uses Supreme exclusively for its dyeing and finishing work. Admit-
tedly, Supreme is listed in the local telephone directory but the name of Valley does
not appear therein.
It is also undisputed, as related by Philomina Tivey, an employee of Supreme,
that the employees of Supreme and Valley use the same timeclock, timecard rack,
and restrooms.
There is no evidence indicating any interchange or transfer of employees between
the two Companies. However, Beatrice Verrier, employed by Supreme for about
6 years, stated that for the past 11/2 years she has spent about 90 percent of her
time inspecting and mending grey goods manufactured by Valley. While her testi-
mony is not too clear, she, and apparently one or two other employees, inspected and
mended lace products for Valley, as well as other companies, but the type of inspec-
tion and mending performed on Valley lace differed somewhat from the inspection
and mending of laces from other companies. Matteson said Verrier did mending on
grey lace for Valley and on finished lace for all his customers, which, seemingly, sup-
ports Verrier's testimony concerning the type of services performed on Valley goods.
Clearly, and for all practical purposes, Supreme and Valley are commonly owned
and controlled by virtue of the Hubbard-Matteson family stock ownership, although
the officers of the Companies may not be identical. Moreover, complete manage-
ment and control of the business and operations of both Supreme and Valley, which
would certainly embrace labor policy, is vested in Kenneth Matteson, who holds
the title of treasurer in each of the Companies. Further, Valley depends solely upon
Supreme to dye and finish its products and both Companies share the same business
location. Likewise, their employees share common facilities, such as the timeclock,
timecard rack, and restrooms.
I, therefore, find and conclude Supreme and Valley, for the purpose of this proceed-
ing, constitute a single employer within the meaning of the Act.'
C. Background and events leading to the present dispute
John J. Hardiman, president of the Levers Auxiliary Section, the Charging Party,
testified the Amalgamated Lace Operatives of America is an amalgamation consist-
ing of four sections, each of which is a separate, independent organization having its
own constitution and bylaws. These organizations are known as the Levers Section,
Levers Auxiliary Section, Curtain Section, and Curtain Auxiliary Section and the gov-
erning body of the Amalgamated is composed of the president and treasurer of each
section. Hardiman stated that Levers Section represents twist hands who operate lace
machines and produce the material. The Levers Auxiliary Section represents the
threaders and employees who produce the work to go on the machines and also em-
ployees engaged in finishing and dyeing operations. These are the only sections in-
volved in this case.
Hardiman further stated that some 4 or 5 months prior to the date of the hearing
the Levers Section and Levers Auxiliary Section engaged in a drive to organize var-
ious lace mills in the Rhode Island area, which embraced Supreme and Valley.
The testimony of Matteson, which is rather sketchy, is to the effect that Messrs.
Dickson and Bradley, chairman of the amalgamation and an official of the Levers
Section, respectively, met with him two or three times in early July, the last meeting
being held about July 12, and requested that Matteson sign an agreement with the
Levers Section covering the employees of Valley, which he refused to do. Matteson
said Dickson and Bradley made no mention of Supreme at any of these meetings.
While Hardiman did not attend any of these sessions, Bradley informed him of
the substance of the meetings.
1. The picketing
On Monday morning, July 15, the Levers Section established a picket line at the
building, the pickets carrying placards which bore the legend:
Supreme Dyeing is endangering the labor standards in the lace industry, ALO
of America, Levers Section
Hardiman was present when the picket line was set up.
I New England Webb, Inc., et al., 135 NLRB 1019 , 1026-1027 ; Majestic . Molded Prod-
ucts, Inc., et al., 143 NLRB 71 ; Schnell Tool & Dye Corporation, et al., 144 NLRB 385.
See also N.L.R.B. v. Gibraltar Industries , Inc., 307 F. 2d 428 (C.A. 4), cert . denied
372 U. S. 911.
1098 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
According to the undisputed testimony of Matteson and employee Tivey, none of
the employees of Supreme or Valley appeared on the picket line that morning, but,
as set forth below, 10 women employees refused to !cross the picket line and work that
day:
2. Unlawful assistance and support to TWUA
Albert H. St. Germaine stated he was, and is, employed by Valley as a leadman
and twist mechanic. He is paid on :a production basis plus a salary, with his earnings
from production accounting for 80 or 90 percent of his total wages. St. Germaine,
unlike the production employees, does not punch the timeclock. However, he takes
care of the timecards for the employees, in that he fills out the cards, places them
in the rack, collects them, and turns them into the office. St. Germaine also works
directly under Matteson, reports to Matteson on matters pertaining to work and
work assignments, and is responsible for carrying out Mattesonis orders to the em-
ployees. Employees also check with him regarding work assignments and on one
occasion when. he believed additional help was necessary the recommended that Mat-
teson hire a man, which he did.
On the evening of July 12, St. Germaine held a meeting at his home for the pur-
pose of having Ferdinand Sylvia, International representative of TWUA, explain
the benefits of his organization to all of the employees of Valley, except one, and
two or three employees of Supreme. Sylvia passed out TWUA cards during the
meeting.
Sylvia testified he was present at the above meeting, he signed up some of the
employees, and left a package of 50 TWUA cards with St. Germaine.
Antonio F. DiChristofaro stated he has been employed by Supreme for about 6
years and is, and has been, foreman of the frame room department. As foreman,
hiChristofaro directs the work of eight employees and is employed on a salary
basis while employees under him are paid on hourly rate. Although DiChristofaro
cannot employ or lay off a large number of employees, he does have authority to
hire or fire where only one or two employees are involved. DiChristofaro testified
that Joseph Brodeur, who was employed by Supreme in a similar capacity, gave him
some TWUA cards and told him to distribute them among his men, DiChristofaro
handed out the cards and told the employees they could sign up if they so desired, if
not they could disregard the cards. Some of the men signed the cards and returned
them to DiChristofaro who, in turn, gave them to St. Germaine, a boss or leadman
employed by Valley. DiChristofaro could not recall the approximate date he dis-
tributed the cards, other than it was before or after the commencement of the
picketing.
Matteson testified DiChristofaro was a leadman in the frame department and
Brodeur acted in a like capacity in the separating department and also handled the
shipping operations. St. Germaine was employed as a weaver and leadman and,
in addition to his production earnings, he received a salary of $10 per week "for
overseeing this part of the operation." He stated none of these individuals could
hire or fire without his consent or approval. Matteson further stated that ,St. Ger-
maine,' DiChristofaro, and Brodeur worked directly under him and constituted his
link orcontact with the production employees.
From the foregoing evidence I have no difficulty in finding St. Germaine, DiChristo-
faro, and Brodeur were employed as supervisors as defined in the Act.
The employees' refusal to cross the picket line; additional assistance and
- rt to TWUA
-Philomina Tivey, employed by Supreme as a lace carder for about 5 years, testified
she and nine other Supreme employees reported: for work shortly before 9 o'clock
the morning of July 15. When the group saw the picket line they held a meeting at
which they expressed their dissatisfaction with working conditions such as lack of
seniority in making layoffs, the elimination of Blue Cross benefits during layoffs,
and the inequitable-:wage schedule. While there is no evidence the employees ever
presented these complaints to management through a representative or a committee,
Tivey said she had spoken to Matteson on occasions, the last time being in May, when
she protested that a new part-time girl was receiving 15 cents an hour more than
the regular employees. After discussing the situation the girls decided "we would
stay out and see this thing through and we agreed to stick together until the end." 2
. 2The group was composed of Tivey, Lena Fontaine, Vivian Carlson, Vivian Rockwell,
Clara Fischer ; Mary Betrand , Yvonne Pollard, Sophie Defosse, Regina Luba , and Beraudette
Demers. Luba and Demers returned to work and are not involved in the case.
SUPREME DYEING & FINISHING CORP., ETC. 1099
Although none of these employees worked that day, they did not engage in any
picketing.
Four additional Supreme employees , while not present at ' the above meeting,
joined the group under the following circumstances:
Verrier was scheduled to report for work at 10 o'clock that morning and when she
arrived at the mill she refused to cross the picket line and went home. She then
telephoned the other girls and told them she was joining them in their refusal to
work.
. Lucy Correia worked July 15; apparently she reported early that morning, but
the next day she joined the group.
Linda Bettez worked July 15 and 16 and then joined the group.
Estelle Fontaine had been absent because of illness and when she was able to
return to her job, apparently around July 15, she refused to cross the picket line
and joined the other employees.
The eight individuals named supra, plus the four above-named individuals, are
the employees involved in this proceeding.
Upon arriving home the morning of July 15, Tivey received a message to call
Brodeur and when she returned his call, Matteson spoke to her. Matteson inquired
why she had not reported for work and she told him she would not cross the picket
line. He then asked if she was afraid and she told him, "Not exactly." Matteson
thereupon volunteered to bring her through the picket line but she refused his offer.
Early the evening of July 16, Brodeur and his wife came to Tivey's home and gave
her a TWUA application for membership and authorization form or card. Brodeur's
wife, in his presence, told Tivey, "nis was the only way out, that Mr. Matteson said
if we signed the cards and put them in the mail, the sooner the better, everybody
would get back to work." The Brodeurs then left. Tivey did not sign or return the
card to TWUA.
Verrier testified Brodeur and his wife came to her home the same evening, at
which time Brodeur handed her an identical TWUA card and told her Matteson
favored this union and "the sooner we signed the card and mailed it the sooner we
would get back to work." Verrier did not sign or mail the card to TWUA.
Later that evening some of the other girls telephoned Tivey to report they had
had similar visits and they all agreed they should join a union of their own choice.
Tivey thereupon contacted Hardiman ,and arranged for a meeting to be held at her
home on July 19.
Matteson stated there was no dispute between the employees of Valley or Supreme
and management concerning wages or conditions of employment on or prior to
July 15. Matteson further stated that when the girls did not come to work the morn-
ing of July 15, he, as well as the office girls and Brodeur, called them to request
that they return to their jobs and offered to furnish transportation for them, but they
declined these offers. He also stated he did not "directly authorize" anyone to dis-
tribute TWUA cards.
It is undisputed that the picketing was peaceful, the Valley employees continued
to work throughout this period, and the 12 Supreme employees did not engage in any
picketing activities until August 1.
4. The meeting of July 19
On the above date Hardiman met with the 12 employees involved -herein at Tivey's
home, at which time they all signed cards for the Levers Auxiliary Section.
5. The request for reinstatement
On the morning of July 31 , Hardiman, John Judge, a union representative , and the
12 employees went to the plant where Hardiman and Judge met with Matteson.
Hardiman advised Matteson the 12 employees were present, that they wanted to re-
turn to work and as their representative he was unconditionally requesting that they
be reinstated to their jobs. Matteson said the employees did not call up for their
jobs and as far as he was concerned they were fired. Hardiman asked Matteson to
speak with the Union's attorney, which he declined to do. The meeting then ended.
Hardiman informed the 12 employees, who were waiting in the hallway, of Matteson's
decision and they then left the mill.
Matteson said he refused Hardiman 's request for reinstatement because all 12 of
the employees had been replaced. Admittedly, none of the 12 employees has been
reinstated.
1100 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
. On August 1, and thereafter, the 12 employees joined the picket line and the-placards
were changed to read:
Supreme Dyeing and Valley Maid refused to recognize the union wanted by the
employees-Locked out. Company advises employees to accept company
supported union, ALO of America, Levers Auxiliary Section.
6. The denial of State unemployment benefits
It is undisputed the 12 employees filed applications for unemployment benefits
with the Rhode Islahd Department of Employment Security around July 15 or 16.
It is equally clear that each of the employees received a document, by mail, entitled
"Notice to Claimant of Disqualification," dated July 29, and signed by Helen L.
Sweeney, manager.3 In substance, the notices state that the claimant did not report
for work on and after July 15, because of fear of crossing a picket line, although
other employees were working and there was no violence or threats of violence.
The claimant therefore voluntarily left her employment without ,good cause, hence
she was not entitled to benefits. The notice concluded with a statement that the:
claimant had the right to appeal the determination on or before August 5, otherwise
it became final.
Tivey and Verner testified they told representatives of the employment security
office their refusal to work was attributable to the fact that they decided to honor
the picket line, not because they were afraid to cross it, although, obviously, they
signed papers containing the latter statement. Correia said the subject of fear
was not even mentioned in the course of her interview.
Matteson testified he contacted Sweeney at the employment office, seemingly on
July 15, and requested her to inform the employees when they came in for interview
that their jobs were still open, that he would like to have them back, and that he
would transport them through the picket line.
7. Analysis and concluding findings
In brief, Supreme and Valley contend that the cessation of work by the 12 em-
ployees was not a strike in the ordinary meaning of the term; that the employees
voluntarily quit their employment and were replaced, and that they did not engage
in any picketing until after their applications for unemployment benefits had been
denied.
The first question to be determined is the status of the eight employees who refused
to work the morning of July 15 and the four additional employees who joined the
group on or before July 17. Actually, the question is more academic than real.
Since St. Germaine arranged, attended, and participated in a meeting of the em-
ployees at his own home, the evening of July 12, for the purpose of having Sylvia
sign up the employees in the TWUA, and he himself accepted a batch of TWUA
cards for later distribution, Supreme and Valley rendered unlawful assistance and
support to TWUA in violation of Section 8(a)(2) and (1) of the Act, and I so find
and conclude. While St. Germaine's conduct may lend some support to the Gen-
eral Counsel's argument that the "strike" was an unfair labor practice one from
its inception, I must disagree with his position. From the evidence herein, I am
of the opinion the picketing, at least at the commencement thereof, was informational
in character. It is also clear that when the 10 employees arrived at the plant that
morning they held a meeting and, after discussing their dissatisfaction with wages,
and other conditions of employment, decided to withhold their services until their
complaints had been adjusted or remedied. Thus, a labor dispute existed between
the 12 employees involved herein and Supreme and by refusing to work under these
circumstances, they were engaging in protected concerted activities, even though
they did not actually participate in the picketing. Therefore, the 12 employees
assumed or held a status similar to economic strikers, who could be replaced but
who, if not permanently replaced, were entitled to reinstatement upon unconditional
application 4
Here, Matteson made no attempt whatever to replace the 12 employees until
July 22, and then only after pressure and coercive tactics failed to induce the em-
'These notices were received in evidence as Respondent's Exhibits Nos. 1, 2, 3, and
4(a) through (j).
'L. G. Everist, Inc., 142 ,NLRB 197. See also Philadelphia Marine Trade Association,
eto., 138 NLRB 737, 739.
. SUPREME DYEING & FINISHING CORP., ETC. 1101
ployees'to return to work.5 Thus, on the morning of July 15, Matteson, together
with the office girls and Brodeur, solicited the employees individually to return to
their jobs and offered free transportation to and from their homes and the mill.
Matteson also requested the manager of the State Employment Security office to
propose like offers to the employees when they applied for unemployment benefits.
When these steps proved unsuccessful, Brodeur and his wife called upon the em-
ployees at their home on the evening of July 16 for the purpose of soliciting their
membership in TWUA, which Matteson favored, and warned them "this was the
only way out," and the sooner they signed TWUA cards, the quicker they would
return to work.6
DiChristofaro obtained TWUA cards from Brodeur which he distributed among
the employees in his department and accepted cards signed by some of the men,
which he turned over to St. Germaine. DiChristofaro could not remember the
approximate date, other than it was around the date picketing commenced at the mill.
Since St. Germaine and Brodeur solicited employees to sign TWUA cards on July 12
and 16, respectively, and as Matteson attempted to pressure the employees to return
to work on July 15 and 16, it is reasonable to conclude that DiChristofaro's activities
were an integral part of the pattern of conduct directed against the employees and
that his solicitations took place at or about the same time, namely, July 15 or 16.
I have no difficulty in finding that Matteson, Brodeur, and DiChristofaro engaged
in the foregoing acts and conduct and thereby Respondent Supreme rendered un-
lawful assistance and support to TWUA, and interfered with, restrained, and coerced
the employees in the exercise of their rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, in
violation of Section 8(a) (2) and (1) thereof.?
I further find the employees not only resisted Supreme's attempts to force them
into TWUA, but, on the evening of July 16, they concertedly decided to join a
union of their own choosing and immediately took the necessary steps to carry out
their decision . I, therefore, find that on and after July 16, the employees concertedly
refused to work in protest against the unfair labor practices directed against them and,
if they were not de facto unfair labor practice strikers, they certainly enjoyed the same
rights as this class of strikers, hence, upon application, they were entitled to rein-
statement irrespective of whether they had been replaced by newly hired employees .8
It is undisputed that on July 31, Hardiman, as representative of the 12 employees,
made an unconditional application for their reinstatement. Although the Respondent
was under obligation to reinstate these employees, Matteson rejected the offer because
they had been replaced and, admittedly, none of the employees has ever been
reinstated.9
Accordingly , I find and conclude that Respondent Supreme, by refusing to rein-
state the 12 employees, in the circumstances found herein, thereby violated Section
8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act.
G The parties stipulated that between July 22 and 30, Supreme hired 11 new employees.
Practically all the replacements were high school girls, who had no prior work experience,
and since they were under 18 years of age, Matteson had to "send them out for working
papers." Of the it girls thus hired , 8 quit their jobs between- August 3 and September 21,
and only 3 were still working at the time of the hearing . As noted earlier, two of the
original group , Luba and Demers , returned to work , apparently during the week of July 15.
"In his brief , counsel for Supreme contends that the General Counsel 's failure to call
Brodeur as a witness , although under subpena and present at the hearing, constitutes an
admission his testimony would not support the Section 8(a) (2) allegations of the com-
plaint. It is sufficient to say the General Counsel was under no obligation to call Brodeur
and his decision not to use him does not warrant any inference that his testimony would
have been unfavorable to the General Counsel . Of course. Supreme could have called
Brodeur as its witness and its failure to do so leaves the evidence adduced by the General
Counsel concerning Brodeur 's activities undenled in the record.
7 Coast Aluminum Company , 120 NLRB 1320,: Trenton Manufacturing and Distributing
Company, 129 NLRB 797 ; Fiore Brother8 Oil Co., Inc., 137 NLRB 191; Campco Plastics
•Company, etc., 142 NLRB 1272.
s L. O. Everist , Inc., supra.
*Counsel for the Respondent contends that the 12 employees voluntarily quit their em-
ployment and this fact is conclusively established by the denial of unemployment benefits
to them . While the notices of disqualification , treating them as decisions , may be relevant,
they are not controlling or decisive of the issues herein. Cadillac Marine d Boat Com-
pany , 115 NLRB 107, footnote I ; Mitchell Plastics, Inc., 117 NLRB 597, footnote I;
Morris Fishman & Sons, Inc., 122 NLRB 1436, footnote 2; Alex Waslef Building Mainte-
.nanoe Company, 130 NLRB 50, footnote 3.
1 102 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of Respondent Supreme and Respondent Valley set forth in section
III, above , occurring in connection with the operations of the Respondents described
in section I, above, have a close, intimate , and substantial relation to trade, traffic,
and commerce among the several States , and tend to lead to labor disputes burden-
ing and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent Supreme and Respondent Valley constitute
a single employer for the purpose of this proceeding , and having found that both
Respondents have engaged in unfair labor practices , I will recommend that each of
them cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action in order to
effectuate the policies of the Act.
Having found that Respondent Supreme and Respondent Valley violated Section
8(a)(2) and ( 1) of the Act by rendering unlawful assistance and support to TWUA
.by soliciting employees to become members thereof, I will recommend that the
Respondents cease and desist from all such activities.
I 'have found that the Respondent Supreme violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of
the Act by refusing to reinstate the following named employees on and after
July 31, 1963:
Mary R. Betrand Sophie M. Defosse Yvonne Pollard
Linda Bettez Clara Fischer Vivian Rockwell
Vivian. Carlson Estelle C. Fontaine Philomina Tivey
Lucy Correia Lena Fontaine Beatrice Verrier
I will therefore recommend that the Respondent Supreme offer these individuals
immediate and full reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent positions,
without prejudice to their seniority and other rights and privileges, dismissing, if nec-
essary, in order to provide places for said individuals, all persons hired on and
after July 16, 1963, and make them whole for any loss of earnings they may have
suffered by reason of the Respondent's refusal to reinstate them, by the payment to
each of them a sum of money equal to that each normally would have earned as
wages from July 31, 1963, the date of the Respondent's refusal' to reinstate them, to
the date of the Respondent's offer of reinstatement, less the net earnings of each dur-
ing such period. Backpay shall be computed on a quarterly basis in the manner
established in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289, and shall include an allow-
ance of interest at the rate of 6 percent per annum to be computed in the manner
set forth in Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716.
In view of the nature of the unfair labor practices committed, the commission by
the Respondents of similar and other unfair labor practices may be anticipated. I
will therefore recommend that the Respondents cease and desist from infringing in
any manner upon 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, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
.1. Respondent Supreme Dyeing & Finishing Corp. and Respondent Valley Maid
Co., Inc., are employers and are engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section
2(2) and 2(6) and (7) of the Act, respectively, and are jointly and severally liable
for the redress of the unfair labor practices committed by them.
.2. Amalgamated Lace Operatives of America, Levers Auxiliary Section, and
• Textile Workers Union of America, AFL-CIO, are labor organizations as defined
in Section 2 (5) of the Act.
3. By soliciting employees to become members of TWUA thereby rendering un-
,lawful assistance and support to TWUA, the Respondents have engaged in and are
engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a) (2), and (1)
of the Act.
4. By refusing to reinstate the employees on and after July 31, 1963, the. Respond-
ents have - engaged in- and are engaging in unfair labor practices within , the meaning
of Section 8(a) (3) and ('1) of the Act. .
5. By the aforesaid discrimination and unlawful assistance and support, the Re-
spondents have further interfered with , restrained , and coerced their .; employees in
,the exercise of,the rights guaranteed them in Section 7 of the Act, and thereby have
additionally engaged in and are engaging in unfair labor practices within the mean-
ing of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.
6. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices 'affecting com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2 ( 6) and (7) of the Act.
,
SLTPREME DYEING & FINISHING CORP., ETC. 1103
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, and
pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, I recommend that Supreme Dyeing & Finishing
Corp. and Valley Maid Co., Inc., their officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Assisting and supporting Textile Workers Union of America, AFL-CIO,
by soliciting employees to become members thereof, or in any other manner.
(b) Refusing to reinstate employees because they have engaged in activities guar-
anteed in Section 7 of the Act.
(c) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing their employees
in the exercise of the right to self-organization, to form labor organizations, to join
or assist Amalgamated Lace Operatives of America, Levers Auxiliary Section, or
any other labor organization, to bargain. collectively through representatives of their
own choosing, and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collec-
tive bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any and all
such activities, as guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, except to the extent that such
right may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organiza-
tion as a condition of employment, as authorized in Section 8(a.) (3) of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which I find will effectuate the policies
of the Act:
(a) Offer to the employees named. below, immediate and full reinstatement to
their former or substantially equivalent positions, without prejudice to their seniority
or other rights and privileges, dismissing, if necessary, in order to, provide places
for these individuals, all persons hired on and after July 16, 1963, and make them
whole for any loss of pay each may have suffered by reason of the unlawful refusal
to reinstate them, in the manner set forth in the section of this Decision entitled
"The Remedy."
Mary R. Betrand Sophie M. Defosse Yvonne Pollard
Linda Bettez Clara Fischer Vivian Rockwell
Vivian Carlson Estelle C. Fontaine Philomina Tivey
Lucy Correia Lena Fontaine Beatrice Verrier
(b) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the Board or its agents, for
examination and copying, all payroll records, social security payment records, time-
cards, personnel records and reports, all other records necessary to analyze and
determine the amount of backpay due and the right to reinstatement under the terms
of this Recommended Order.
(c) Post at their respective mills in Providence, Rhode Island, copies of the at-
tached notice marked "Appendix." 10 Copies of said notice, to be furnished by
the Regional Director for the First Region, shall, upon being duly signed by each
Respondent, be posted by them immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained
by them for a period of 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, in-
cluding all places where notices to their employees are customarily posted. Reason-
able steps shall be taken by the Respondents to insure that said notices are not altered,
defaced, or covered by any other material.
(d) Notify said Regional Director, in writing, within 20 days from the date of
the receipt of this Trial Examiner's Decision and Recommended Order, what steps
the Respondents have taken to comply herewith.ll
It is further recommended that unless on or before 20 days from the date of
the receipt of this Decision and Recommended Order, the Respondents notify the
said Regional Director, in writing, that they will comply with the above Recom-
mended Order, the National Labor Relations Board issue an order requiring them to
take such action.
10If this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board, the words "a Decision and
Order" shall be substituted for the words "the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner"
in the notice. If the Board's Order is enforced by a decree of a United States Court of
Appeals, the notice will be further amended by the substitution of the words "a Decree
of the United States Court of Appeals, Enforcing an Order" for the words "a Decision
and Order."
U If this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board , this provision shall be modified
to read: "Notify the Regional Director for the First Region , in writing, within 10 days
from the date of this Order, what steps the Respondents have taken to comply herewith."
1104 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor
Relations Board , and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, as amended , we hereby notify our employees that:
WE WILL NOT assist and support Textile Workers Union of America, AFL_
CIO, by soliciting employees to become members thereof, or in any other manner.
WE WILL NOT refuse to reinstate employees because they have engaged in
activities guaranteed in Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with , restrain , or coerce our
employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization , to form, join, or
assist Amalgamated Lace Operatives of America , Levers Auxiliary Section, or
any other labor organization , to bargain collectively with representatives of
their own choosing , and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of
collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection , or to refrain from any
and all such activities, as guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, except to the ex-
tent that such right may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in
a labor organization as a condition of employment , as authorized in Section
8(a)(3) of the Act.
All our employees are free to become or remain, or to refrain from becom-
ing or remaining , members of any labor organization.
WE WILL offer to the employees named below immediate and full reinstate-
ment to their former or substantially equivalent positions , without prejudice to
their seniority or other rights and privileges , dismissing , if necessary , in order
to provide places for these individuals , all persons hired on and after July 16,
1963 , and make them whole for any loss of pay each may have suffered by
reason of our unlawful refusal to reinstate them.
Mary R. Betrand Sophie M. Defosse Yvonne Pollard
Linda Bettez Clara Fischer Vivian Rockwell
Vivian Carlson Estelle C. Fontaine Philomina Tivey
Lucy Correia Lena Fontaine Beatrice Verrier
SUPREME DYEING & FINISHING CORP.,
VALLEY MAID CO., INC.,
Employers.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------
(Representative ) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting,
and must not be altered , defaced , or covered by any other material.
Employees may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office , Boston
Five Cents Savings Bank Building , 24 School Street , Boston , Massachusetts, Tele-
phone No . 523-8100 , if they have any questions concerning this notice or com-
pliance with its provisions.
Mt. Vernon Telephone Corporation and Communications Work-
ers of America, AFL-CIO. Cases Nos. 8-CA-3028-2 and 8-
CA-3293. June 29, 19014
DECISION AND ORDER
On April 15, 1964 , Trial Examiner Sidney Sherman issued his De-
cision 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 certain
affirmative action , as set forth in the attached Decision . Thereafter,
the Respondent filed exceptions and a supporting brief.
147 NLRB No. 125.