Sussex Hats, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 28, 1949

85 N.L.R.B. 399 (N.L.R.B. 1949)

'In the Matter of SUSSEX HATS, INC. acid UNITED HATTERS, CAP &
MILLINERY WORKERS' INTERNATIONAL UNION, AFL
tCase No. 1-CA 407.Decided July 28, 19419
DECISION
AND
ORDER
On May 31, 1949, Trial Examiner Henry J. Kent issued his Inter-
mediate Report in the above -entitled proceeding , finding that the
Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor
practices in violation of Section 8 (a) (1) and 8 (a) (5) of the Act,
and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain
affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the Intermediate Report
.attached hereto. Thereafter , the Respondent filed exceptions to the
Intermediate Report, and a supporting brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended , the National Labor Relations Board has
delegated its powers in connection with this proceeding to a three-
member panel [Members Reynolds , Murdock, and Gray].
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner at the
,hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The
rulings are hereby affirmed . The Board has considered the Interme-
diate Report, the exceptions and brief filed by the Respondent , and the
entire record in the case ,' and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions,
and recommendations of the Trial Examiner, with the following
addition :
We find that the course of conduct followed by the Respondent, from
the very beginning , reflected bad faith and an intent to avoid rather
than to reach an agreement on a contract . Furthermore , the Respond-
end cannot avail itself of a claim of union loss of majority on April
. 27, 1948, because the presumption of majority status cannot be re-
butted during the year following certification.
IThe request of the Respondent for oral argument is denied because the record and
the brief submitted by Respondent , in our opinion , adequately present the issues and
positions of the parties.
85 N. L . R. B., No. 73.
399
400 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ORDER
Upon the entire record in the case, and pursuant to Section 10 (c)
of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board hereby orders that the Respondent, Sussex Hats,
Inc., Holyoke, Massachusetts, and its officers, agents, successors, and
assigns shall :
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Refusing to bargain collectively with United Hatters, Cap &
Millinery Workers' International Union, AFL, as the exclusive rep-
resentative of all production employees of the Respondent, including
packers, shippers, learners, and part-time students, but excluding ex-
ecutives, office employees, maintenance employees, and all super-
visors as defined in the Act ;
(b) In any manner interfering with the efforts of United Hatters,
Cap & Millinery Workers' International Union, AFL, to bargain
collectively with .it on behalf of the employees in the aforesaid ap-
propriate unit.
2. Take the following affirmative action, which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Upon request bargain collectively with United Hatters, Cap &
Millinery Workers' International Union, AFL, as the exclusive rep-
resentative of all production employees of the Respondent, including
packers, shippers, learners, and part-time students, but excluding
executives, office employees, maintenance employees, and all super-
visors as defined in the Act;
(b) Post at its plant in Holyoke, Massachusetts, copies of the
notice attached hereto, marked "Appendix A." 2 Copies of said
notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for the First Region,
shall, after being duly signed by the Respondent or its representative,
be posted by the Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof and
maintained by it for a period of sixty (60) consecutive days there-
after in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to em-
ployees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by
the Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or
covered by any other material ;
(c) Notify the Regional Director for the First Region, in writing,
within ten (10) days from the date of the receipt of this Order, what
steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
2 In the event this Order is enforced by decree of a United States Court of Appeals, there
shall be inserted in the notice , before the words, "A DECISION AND ORDER" the words,
"A DECREE OF THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS.'ENFORCING.'.' ' .
SUSSEX HATS, INC.
APPENDIX A
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
401
Pursuant to a Decision and Order of the National Labor Relations
Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, we hereby notify our employees that :
WE WILL BARGAIN collectively upon request with UNITED HAT-
TERS, GAP & MILLINERY WORKERS' INTERNATIONAL UNION, AFL,
as the exclusive representative of:
All production employees at our Holyoke plant, including
packers, shippers, learners, and part-time students, but excluding
executives, office employees, maintenance employees, and all super-
visors as defined in the Act and if an understanding is reached,
embody such understanding in a signed agreement.
WE WILL NOT in any manner interfere, with the efforts of the
above-named union to bargain with us, or refuse to bargain with
said union as the exclusive representative of the employees in the
bargaining unit set forth above.
SUSSEX HATS, INC.,
Employer.
Dated---------------------- By ------------------------
(Representative ) ( Title)
This notice must remain posted for sixty (60) days from the date
of posting , and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other
material.
INTERMEDIATE REPORT
Torbert H. MacDonald , Esq., for the General Counsel.
Edward B. Cooley, Esq ., of Springfield, Mass., for the Respondent.
Mr. Edwin Erwin , of Holyoke , Mass., for the Union.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon a charge duly filed on May 26, 1948,1 by United Hatters, Cap & Millinery
Workers' International Union, herein called the Union, the General Counsel of
the National Labor Relations Board,2 by the Regional Director for the First
Region ( Boston, Massachusetts ) issued a complaint , dated December 7, 1948,
against Sussex Hats, Inc., Holyoke , Massachusetts, herein called the Respondent,
alleging that the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor
1 A copy of this said charge was duly served upon the Respondent on May . 27, 1948.
'The General Counsel and his representative at the hearing are herein referred to as
the General Counsel , and the National Labor Relations Board is referred to as the Board.
=402 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) and (5)
.and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, by
Public Law 101, 80th Congress, Chapter 120, 1st Session,3 herein called the Act.
.Copies of the charge, complaint, and notice of hearing were duly served upon
the Respondent and the Union.
With respect to the unfair labor practices, the complaint alleged, in substance,
that the Respondent on or about May 1, 1947, and thereafter, refused to bargain
collectively with the Union as the exclusive bargaining representative of the
Respondent's employees within an appropriate bargaining unit, and that par-
ticularly on or about April 12, 1948, the Respondent refused to enter into a
written collective bargaining agreement with the Union containing those pro-
visions upon which the parties had reached an agreement, although the Board
-on April 30, 1947, had certified the Union as statutory representative of the em-
ployees for the purposes of collective bargaining. The complaint alleged that
.by the foregoing conduct the Respondent engaged in unfair labor practices within
the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) and (5) of the Act.
Thereafter the Respondent duly filed its answer in which it admitted the facts
..alleged in the complaint regarding its business operations, but denied that it had
engaged in any of the alleged unfair labor practices.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held on January 11 and 12, 1949, at Spring-
.field, Massachusetts, before Henry J. Kent, the undersigned Trial Examiner duly
.designated by the Chief Trial Examiner. The General Counsel and the Respond-
ent were represented by counsel and the Union by an official representative.
.Pull opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to
introduce evidence bearing on the issues was afforded all parties.
At the end of the hearing a motion by the General Counsel to conform the
pleadings to the proof in respect to formal matters was granted. At the same
time the Respondent moved to dismiss the complaint on the ground that service
of the "complaint" was made -upon Respondent more than 6 months after the
.alleged unfair labor practices allegedly occurred thereby violating Section 10 (b)
,of the amended Act. This motion was denied. The limiting language of Section
10 (b) refers to the time of filing a charge with the Board, and service of a copy
thereof upon Respondent, rather than the date of issuance of a complaint'
Upon the conclusion of the hearing, the undersigned advised the parties that.
they might presently argue orally before, and, thereafter, file briefs with the
undersigned within 15 days. The General Counsel and Respondent set forth their
respective positions in oral argument appearing on the record. Thereafter, upon
..a request from the Respondent, the time to file briefs was extended until Febru-
-ary 7, 1949, by the Chief Trial Examiner. Briefs have been duly received from
the General Counsel and Respondent.
Upon the entire record in the case and from his observation of the witnesses,
-the undersigned makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
Sussex Hats , Inc., a Massachusetts corporation , is engaged in the manufacture
of ladies ' hats at Holyoke, Massachusetts . In addition to its plant in Holyoke,
the Respondent maintains a sales office in New York City. During the last 6
3 61 Stat. 136.
4 See Matter of Vanette Hosiery Mills, 80 N. L. R. B. 1116.
SUSSEX HATS, INC. 403
months of 1946, the Respondent purchased raw materials, consisting principally
of felt bodies and. straw materials, amounting in value to more than $70,000,
approximately 50 percent of which was shipped to its plant from points outside the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts. During the same period the Respondent sold
finished products valued in excess of $150,000, 95 percent of which was shipped
to points outside the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.'
The Respondent concedes that it is engaged in commerce within the meaning
of the Act.
H. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
United Hatters, Cap & Millinery Workers' International Union, affiliated
with the American Federation of Labor, is a labor organization admitting em-
ployees of the Respondent to membership.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Sequence of material events
1. - Certification of the Union as statutory bargaining representative
Upon a petition duly filed, the Board conducted a consent prehearing election
among Respondent's employees on February 28, 1947. At the close of the election
a Tally of Ballots was furnished the parties. The Tally shows that there were
approximately 54 eligible voters and that 51 ballots were cast, of which 26 were
for the Union, 22 were against, and 3 were challenged.
Thereafter, a hearing was held in the matter on March 17, 1947.' Following
the hearing the Union was certified by the Board on April 30, 19.47, as the statu-
tory bargaining representative of Respondent's employees pursuant to Section 9
(a) of.the National Labor Relations Act for the employees in the following de-
scribed appropriate unit in accordance with Section 9 (b) of the said National
Labor Relations Act : °
All production employees of the Respondent, including packers, ship-
pers, learners, and part time students, but excluding. executives, office em-
ployees, maintenance employees, and all supervisory employees with au-
thority to hire, promote, discharge, discipline or otherwise effect changes
in the status of employees, or effectively recommend such action.
Relying upon the said certification by the Board, the complaint alleges, the
Respondent admits in its answer, and the undersigned finds that on April 30,
1947, the Union was duly certified as statutory bargaining representative for
Respondent's employees, in accordance with Section 9 (a) of the National Labor
Relations Act, for those employees in that appropriate unit set forth above pur-
suant to Section 9 (b) of the said National Labor Relations Act.
2. Factual findings regarding the refusal to bargain
Following the said certification, the Union by letter dated May 3, 1947, re-
quested the Respondent to fix a date for a bargaining conference. This letter
was ignored by the Respondent insofar as the Union, at least, was informed. On
6 The above findings were made by the Board in the flatter o f Sussex Hats, Inc. (Case
No. 1-R-3565 ), 73 N. L. R. B. 737. It was stipulated by the parties herein that the
present business operations 'of the Respondent are substantially similar, except for a cur-
tailment in the amount of the gross business handled.
6 See Matter of Sussex Hats, Inc., 73 N. L. R. B. 737.
857829-50-vol. 85-27
404 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
May 23, 1947, the Union sent a second and similar request to bargain to Re-
spondent. This too elicited no response from the Respondent. Thereafter, later
in the same month, Edwin Irwin, an organizer in charge of the Union's affairs
at this plant, called William Wolf, the Respondent's president,. on the telephone.
Irwin complained to Wolf regarding the delay in commencing negotiations. Wolf,
on this occasion, informed Irwin that he, Wolf, was too busy to engage in bar-
gaining conferences and said he was delegating authority to Edward B. Cooley,
the Respondent's attorney, to bargain with the Union.7
Following the above telephone conversation with Wolf, Irwin called Cooley on
the telephone and arranged for a meeting with Cooley, at Cooley's office in Spring-
field, Massachusetts, on June 10, 1947. At the meeting, Irwin handed Cooley a
draft of a proposed contract: The meeting was of short duration and concluded
with a statement by Cooley that he would read over and consider the Union's pro-
posals.
Irwin and Cooley met again about 2 weeks later in Cooley's office. At the
second meeting, Irwin, at Co.oley's request, explained to Cooley the Union's inter-
pretation of the various terms in the proposed agreement. On this occasion,
Cooley failed to commit the Respondent regarding the acceptance of any of the
provisions but said they would receive further consideration. Hence, nothing
of moment was accomplished at this meeting.
Irwin and Cooley met again for a third meeting, also at Cooley's office, about
July 10. At this meeting Cooley stated that they should have no trouble in finally
reaching an agreement upon the purely formal provisions although he refused to
commit himself definitely regarding those matters. Cooley asserted that all sub-
stantive terms liable to affect the financial interests of Respondent such as wage
increases, paid holidays and also provisions regarding union security would have
to be first submitted to Wolf for the latter's approval before Cooley could
enter into any commitments concerning them. Irwin asserted that at this meet-
ing he complained to Cooley that they had made no progress toward consummat-
ing an agreement since they first met, and that he endeavored without success to,
at least, get a commitment from Cooley regarding the more formal provisions in
the proposed agreement.
The above findings are based upon the credible and undenied testimony of Ir-
win, because Cooley, the only other person concerned in these conversations, gave
no testimony at the hearing. That Cooley, in fact, possessed limited bargaining
authority is convincingly shown by Wolf's testimony at the hearing, which was as
follows :
Q. When you gave [Cooley] power of attorney what did you say?
A. Well, he had to negotiate on all points, that he can agree to all the
points, but when he comes to the money matters, anything pertaining to
finance or union shop, he shall take it up with me.
Q. In negotiating a contract with any union, what, in your mind, are the
most vital parts of that contract that are about to affect you?
A. The most vital parts are the increase in wages, or paid holidays, or
welfare and union shops.
Q. And on those points Mr. Cooley had no authority to bargain at all?
A. No, Sir.
Q. By "No, Sir" you mean . . .
P These findings are based upon the credible and undenied testimony of Irwin, corrobo-
rated in part by testimony given by Wolf.
SUSSEX HATS, INC. 405
A. I mean, he had authority to bargain on it, but he had to consult me
about it. He .. .
Q. Did he have final authority to agree to any such proposal?
A. Not on those five points he didn't; on all the others he did.
Following the above meeting which was held in July, conflicting vacation
schedules of Cooley and. Irwin prevented the holding of another meeting until
sometime after the middle of August.
Meanwhile the Union called a strike at the plant on or about August 14, 1947..
According to Irwin the strike was called off on the same morning it commenced..
Some of the key' employees walked into work when the plant opened. Irwin;
said he then concluded to end the strike and requested iill of the employees to,
report for work on that day, and all but six employees did so. '
.
At the next negotiating meeting held on or about August 15, 1947, the Xniorf
was represented by William Munger, executive secretary of the parent union,
and Irwin. Cooley was the sole representative present for the Respondent.
At the opening of this meeting, Cooley asserted that he was unwilling to continue
with the negotiations unless and until the Union withdrew certain unfair labor.
practice charges previously filed by the Union. Irwin refused to withdraw the
charges and the Union representatives left Cooley's office where the meeting
took place!
Thereafter, Irwin called Cooley in September to inform the latter that he
would withdraw the charges after which Cooley agreed to meet with Irwin on
some unspecified date later. in that same month. Before they met, Irwin de-
livered a revised draft of the proposed contract to Cooley's office. This draft
Was substantially similar to the earlier draft previously submitted by the Union,
except that a demand for a closed shop had been deleted. in order to comply with
the provisions of the so-called Taft-Hartley Act.
At the opening of the September meeting between Irwin and Cooley, Cooley
asked Irwin. if the unfair labor practice charges. had been withdrawn. Irwin
replied that they had not been formally withdrawn, but assured Cooley. that the,
Union would not press for action concerning them, which explanation, according
to Irwin, satisfied Cooley. The two'men then started to discuss the contract:
According to the .credible and undenied testimony of Irwin, who, as previously
noted, was the only one of them to offer testimony at the hearing, Irwin was•
unable to elicit any commitment from Cooley regarding any of the contract pro-
visions other than the so-called preamble clause, which, in sum, stated that the.
Union had been certified as exclusive representative, and that the parties desired
to enter into a mutually satisfactory agreement. Irwin then expressed dissatis-
faction concerning the delay and failure to consummate an agreement, where-
upon Cooley asserted, "Well, look, this is as far as you and I can go. We"
haven't come to any agreement. We keep having these meetings;. we cannot.
come to any conclusion ; any further action is up to you.." With that remark.
from Cooley the meeting ended and Irwin withdrew.
s These charges consisted of : (1) an original charge filed April 3, 1947, alleging that
Respondent had discriminatorily laid off four employees ; ( 2) an amended charge filed'
May 27, 1947 , which in substance corresponded to the , earlier charge except that the
names of two of the four employees named in the earlier charge had been deleted ; .and
(3) a second amended charge restating the allegations in the first amended charge and,.
in addition averring a refusal to bargain on May 1, 1947 , and thereafter. The record:
shows that copies of the three above charges were served upon the Respondent by regis--
tered mail on July 14, 1947.
406 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
During the approximately next 2 months, national officers of the Union
attempted to negotiate with some of the Respondent's officials at New York City
.Insofar as the record shows nothing concrete developed as a result of these efforts
Jby the Union.
Following the failure of the Union's national officers to consummate an agree-
:.ment, Irwin requested one of the Board's agents at its Regional Office at Boston,
Massachusetts, to press the charges that had been previously filed by the Union.
Field Examiner Shooer arranged for a conference with representatives of the
.Respondent and the Union at the Board's Regional Office in Boston.
This meeting, which was held on or about November 18, 1947, was attended by
Respondent's president, Wolf, and Cooley.' Irwin and Walter R. Donovan, an
attorney for the Union, were present to represent the Union and Shooer was
present on behalf of the Board. At this meeting, the parties discussed all of the
terms and conditions of the agreement submitted by the Union. Many of the
formal provisions were agreed upon as well as some of those provisions regarding
-working conditions at the plant, especially those which merely conformed to
conditions currently in effect at the plant. But the Respondent refused to agree
,to any wage increases, pay for holidays not worked or other terms conferring
benefits upon employees which would affect the Respondent financially. Respond-
ent also refused to accede to the Union's request for a union shop. At the meeting
the Respondent also agreed to furnish the Union with the schedule of wage rates
currently in effect, but thereafter it failed to submit this information until
April 7, 1948.
Subsequently, on or about November 26, 1947, Wolf, Cooley, Irwin and Donovan
met at Cooley's office. Nothing of moment was accomplished at this meeting,
except the Respondent withdrew its former approval to a provision that it would
submit to employees any alleged bad. work turned out by an employee, in cases
where the employee was allegedly discharged for turning out alleged faulty
work.
Following this meeting, national officers of the Union stationed in New York
City again endeavored to negotiate an agreement between the parties. These
efforts proved fruitless and were abandoned.
In April 1948, the Union sought the assistance of the United States Conciliation
Service in an effort to bring the parties together again and consummate an
agreement.
Thereafter, pursuant to an arrangement made by Anna Weinstock, a United
States Conciliator for the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service, another
meeting was held at the Roger Smith Hotel at Holyoke, Massachusetts, on April
27, 1948. President Wolf and Cooley were present on behalf of the Respondent.
Irwin and Donovan appeared for the Union. The parties explained to Weinstock
the status of the Agreement regarding the terms agreed upon previously before
Field Examiner Shooer and bargaining was resumed regarding the other points
in dispute. Wolf took the position that Respondent was financially unable to
make any concessions in respect to wage increases, paid holidays or more lengthy
vacations and other benefits for employees that would increase Respondent's
costs and that consequently its former position had not been changed. He also
refused to agree to any form of so-called union security and was insistent that
only an open shop would be acceptable to the Respondent. Weinstock then
suggested that they sign a contract containing those terms and conditions upon
0 It is noted that this was the first meeting attended by any official of the Respondent
since the certification of the Union on April 30, 1947.
SUSSEX HATS, INC. 407
which an agreement had been reached. Irwin, following a telephone conversation
with a national officer of the Union, then stated that the Union would do so. Wolf,
for the first time since the bargaining negotiations had commenced, then asserted
the Respondent doubted that the Union presently represented a majority of the
employees. He refused to sign any contract until the Union furnished proof that.
it still represented a majority of the employees in the unit. The Union repre-
sentatives then withdrew from the meeting following an assertion by Donovan,
that the Respondent's claim was not advanced in good faith, and that the Union.
would file charges alleging a refusal to bargain in good faith.
B. Conclusions
The Respondent asserts in its brief that its request that the Union furnish-
proof that it has continued to be the choice of the majority of Respondent's
employees in the said appropriate unit was reasonable and proper and contends
that the evidence fails to show a refusal to bargain. The undersigned does
not agree.
The record shows that at all times since the Union was certified as exclusive
representative, namely, April 30, 1947, the Respondent has failed to recognize
its obligation to bargain in good faith.
It not only ignored the Union's two requests to fix a date for bargaining
,negotiations made by letters sent to Respondent in May 1947, but thereafter
when the Union's representative called its president by telephone, the latter
asserted he was "too busy" to engage in bargaining conferences and said be
was delegating such authority to the Respondent's attorney.10 Failure of an
employer to answer the letter of the union requesting a date for bargaining
negotiations, by itself, constitutes a refusal to bargain" Moreover, Cooley's
refusal to continue with negotiations unless and until the Union withdrew
unfair labor practice charges previously filed by the Union is also a violation
of Respondent's obligation to bargain in good faith'
. Nor can the Respondent successfully urge, under the facts herein, that it
was justified in refusing to bargain on April 27, 1948, within 1 year after the
Union had been certified as statutory representative. Majority status, once
established, is presumed to continue in the absence of evidence to the contrary"
The presumption of continuity of majority status may not be rebutted by a
showing of turn-over among employees in the unit." The position taken by the
Respondent is inconsistent by its very nature with any good faith doubt of
majority at any time while the negotiations were going on. Although Wolf
asserts that he entertained doubt regarding the Union's status as majority
representative after the August 14, 1947, strike, he admitted in his testimony
that he was not sure the Union had ceased to be the majority representative
in November 1947 and in April 1948 or he would not have resumed bargaining
negotiations with the Union. Had Wolf sincerely doubted the majority status
30 The authority vested in Attorney Cooley was so limited that Cooley had no power
to make commitments on any vital and substantive provisions entering into a collective
bargaining agreement, thus such limitations imposed on Cooley constituted an impediment
rather than an aid toward reaching an agreement.
n See Matter of Marshall and Bruce Co., 75 N. L. It. B. 90; Matter of West Side Coop-
erative Creamery Association, 69 N. L. It. B. 546.
12 See Matter of American Laundry Machine Company, 76 N. L. It. B. 981.
13 See Matter of Bethlehem Steel Company, 73 N. L. It. B. 277; Matter of Harris-Wood-
son Co., Inc., 70 N. L. It. B. 956, enf'd 162 F. 2d 97 (C. A. 4).
'A See Matter of Marshall and Bruce Co., 75 N. L. It. B. 90.
408 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
of'the Union after the August 1947 strike he would hardly have been willing
to travel to Boston in November and carry on further negotiations for several
hours and later again resume negotiations before the United States Conciliator
in April 1948. If Respondent had entertained a,good faith doubt of majority
following the August 1947 strike, a fair inference arises that it would have
refused to resume bargaining relations. until such a doubt was dispelled and
not wait until the Union requested it to sign an agreement covering those terms
the parties had reached an agreement on before asserting its alleged doubt
concerning the majority status of the Union."
On all of the foregoing and the entire record, the undersigned concludes and
finds that from on or about May 3, 1947, and at all times material thereafter,
the Respondent has refused to bargain in good faith with the Union as the
-exclusive representative of its employees in the appropriate unit, and thereby
interfered with its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section
.7 of the Act.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
:The activities of the Respondent set forth in Section III, above, occurring in
connection with the operations of the Respondent described in Section I, above,
have a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce
among the several States, and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and
obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Since it has been found that the Respondent has.engaged in unfair labor
practices, it will be recommended that the Respondent cease and desist there-
from and take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of
the Act. Having found that the Respondent has refused to bargain collectively
with the Union as the exclusive representative of its employees in an appro-
priate unit, the undersigned will recommend that the Respondent, upon request,
-bargain collectively with the Union.
Because of the basis of. the Respondent's refusal to bargain, as indicated in the
facts found, and because of the absence of any evidence that danger of other
unfair labor practices is to be anticipated from the Respondent's conduct in the
past, the undersigned will not recommend that the Respondent cease and desist
from the commission of any other unfair labor practice. Nevertheless, in order
to effectuate the policies of the Act, the undersigned will recommend that the
Respondent cease and desist from the unfair labor practices found and from in
any manner interfering with the efforts of the Union to bargain collectively
with it.18
- Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and upon the entire record in the
ease, the undersigned makes the following :
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
. 1. United Hatters, Cap & Millinery Workers' International Union, AFL, is a
9abor organization, within the meaning of the Act.
2. All production employees of the Respondent, including packers, shippers,
learners, and part time students, but excluding executives, office employees,
15 See Matter of Atlanta Journal Company, et al., 23 N. L. R. B. 1634.
10 See N. L. R. B. v. Express Publishing Company. 312 U. S. 426.
SUSSEX HATS, INC. 409
maintenance employees, and all supervisory employees with authority to hire,
promote, discharge, discipline or otherwise effect changes in the status of em-
ployees or effectively recommend such action, constitute a unit appropriate for
the purposes of collective bargaining, within the 'meaning of Section 9 (b) of
the Act.
3. United Hatters, Cap & Millinery Workers' International Union, AFL, was
on April 30, 1947, and at all times thereafter has been, the exclusive representa-
tive of all employees in the aforesaid unit for the purposes of collective bargain-
ing, within the meaning of Section 9 (a) of the Act.
. 4. By refusing on May 3, 1947, on August 15, 1947, on April 27, 1948, and at all
times thereafter, to bargain collectively with United Hatters, Cap & Millinery
Workers' International Union, AFL, as the exclusive representative of all its
employees in the appropriate unit, the Respondent has engaged and is engaging
in unfair labor practices, within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (5) of the Act.
5. By the aforesaid refusal to bargain, the Respondent has interfered with,
restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed
in Section 7 of the Act, and has thereby engaged in and is engaging in unfair
labor practices, within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.
6. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting
commerce, within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and conclusions of law, and upon
the entire record in the case, the undersigned recommends that the Respondent,
Sussex Hats, Inc., Holyoke, Massachusetts, and its officers, agents, successors,
and assigns, shall :
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Refusing to bargain collectively with United Hatters, Cap & Millinery
Workers' International Union, AFL, as the exclusive representative of all pro-
duction employees of the Respondent, including packers, shippers, learners, and
part time students, but excluding executives, office employees, maintenance em-
ployees, and all supervisory employees with authority to hire, promote, discharge,
discipline or otherwise effect changes in the status of employees or effectively
recommend such action, in respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment,
and other conditions of employment ;
(b) In any 'manner interfering with the efforts of United Hatters, Cap &
Millinery Workers' International Union, AFL, to bargain collectively with it
on behalf of the employees in the aforesaid appropriate unit.
2. Take the following affirmative action, which the undersigned finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Upon request bargain collectively with United Hatters, Cap & Millinery
Workers' International Union, AFL, as the exclusive representative of all pro-
duction employees of the Respondent, including packers, shippers, learners, and
part time students, but excluding executives, office employees, maintenance em-
ployees, and all supervisory employees with authority to hire, promote, dis-
charge, discipline or otherwise effect changes in the status of employees or
effectively recommend such action, in respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of
employment, and other conditions of employment, and if an understanding is
reached, embody such understanding in a signed agreement ;
(b) Post at its plant in Holyoke, Massachusetts, copies of the notice attached
hereto, marked "Appendix A." Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the
Regional Director for the First Region, shall, after being' duly signed by the
410 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Respondent or its representative , be posted by the Respondent immediately upon
receipt thereof and. maintained by it for a period of sixty (60) consecutive days
thereafter in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees
are 'customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent, to
insure that said notices are not altered , defaced, or covered by any other
material;
(c) Notify the Regional Director for the First Region, in writing, within
twenty ( 20) days from the date of the receipt of the Intermediate Report, what
steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
It is' further recommended ' that, unless the Respondent shall, within twenty
(20) days from the date of the receipt of this Intermediate Report, notify said
Regional Director in writing that it will comply with the foregoing recommenda-
tions, the National Labor Relations Board issue an order requiring the Respond-
ent to take such action.
'As' provided in Section 203.46 of the Rules and Regulations of the National
Labor Relations Board-Series 5, effective August 22 , 1948, as amended August
18, 1948, any party may, within twenty ( 20) days from the date of service of the
order transferring the case to the Board , pfirsuant to Section 203.45 of said
Rules and Regulations , file with the Board , Washington 25, D. C., an original and
six copies of a statement in writing setting forth such exceptions to the Interme-
diate Report or to any other part of the , record or proceeding ( including rulings
upon all motions or objections ) as he relies upon, together with the original and
six copies of a brief in support thereof ; and any party may, within the same
period, file an original and six copies of a brief in support of the Intermediate
Report. Immediately upon the filing of such statement of exceptions and/or
briefs, the party filing the same shall serve a copy thereof upon each of the other
parties. Statements of exceptions and briefs shall designate by precise citation
the portions of the record relied upon and shall be legibly printed or mimeo-
graphed, and if mimeographed shall be double spaced. Proof of service on the
other parties of all papers filed with the Board shall be promptly made as re-
quired by Seetion 203.85. As further provided in said Section 203.46 should any
party desire permission to argue orally before the Board, request therefor must
be made in writing to the Board within ten (10) days from the date of service
of the order transferring the case to the Board.
In the event no Statement of Exceptions is filed as provided by the aforesaid
Rules and Regulations , the findings , conclusions, recommendations , and recom-
mended order herein contained shall, as provided in Section 203.48 of said Rules
and Regulations , be adopted by the Board and become its findings , conclusions,
and order , and all objections thereto shall be deemed waived for all purposes.
Dated at Washington , D. C., this 31st day of May 1949.
HENRY J. KENT,
Trial Examiner.
APPENDIX A
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the recommendations of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor
Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, we hereby notify our employees that :
WE WILL BARGAIN collectively upon request with UNITED HATTERS, CAP &
MILLINERY WORKERS' INTERNATIONAL UNION, AFL, as the exclusive repre-
sentative of:
All production employees at our Holyoke plant, including packers, shippers,
learners , and part-time students , but excluding executives , office employees,
SUSSEX HATS, INC. 411
maintenance employees and all supervisory employees with authority to
hire, promote, discharge, discipline or otherwise effect changes in the status
of employees or effectively recommend such action, and if an understanding
is-,'reached, embody such understanding in a signed agreement.
WE 'WILL NOT in any manner interfere with the efforts of the above-named
Union to bargain with us, or refuse to bargain with said Union as the
exclusive representative of the employees in the bargaining unit set forth
above.
SUSSEX HATS, INC.,
Employer.
By -----------------------
(Representative ) (Title)
Dated --------------------
This notice must remain posted for sixty (60) days from the date of posting,
and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
0