The James Textile Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 28, 1970

184 N.L.R.B. 650 (N.L.R.B. 1970)

650 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The James Textile Corp . and Local 148-162, Inter-
national Ladies ' Garment Workers' Union,
AFL-CIO. Case 22-CA-3530
July 28, 1970
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS FANNING, BROWN, AND JENKINS
On February 26, 1969 , Trial Examiner John M.
Dyer issued his Decision in the above-entitled
proceeding , finding that the Respondent had en-
gaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor
practices , and recommending that it cease and de-
sist therefrom and take certain affirmative action,
as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner 's Deci-
sion . He also found that the Respondent had not
engaged in other unfair labor practices alleged in
the complaint and recommended that such allega-
tions be dismissed . Thereafter , the Respondent filed
exceptions to the Trial Examiner 's Decision and a
supporting brief.
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
powers in connection with this case to a three-
member panel.
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial
Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no
prejudicial error was committed . The rulings are
hereby affirmed . The Board has considered the
,Trial Examiner 's Decision , the exceptions and brief,
,and the entire record in the case, and hereby
adopts the findings , conclusions , and recommenda-
tions of the Trial Examiner , except as modified
herein.
While we concur in the Trial Examiner 's findings
of violations with respect to allegations embracing
violations of Section 8(a)(1) and ( 3) of the Act, we
conclude for the reasons discussed hereafter, that
neither a finding of an unlawful refusal to bargain
nor a bargaining order is warranted here.
BACKGROUND
The Respondent formerly operated its business in
New York City, where it was engaged under its
present name and under the name of Spun-Jee in
basically the same business ; i.e., manufacture , sales,
and distribution of ladies ' garments , knitwear, and
related products . From around 1955 to 1963, the
Respondent was a member of the Allied Underwear
' N.L.R.B. v Spun-!ee Corporation, et al., 385 F .2d 379 (C A 2), as
amended , December 7, 1967
Association , a multiemployer bargaining group,
which had successive contracts with the Undergar-
ment and Negligee Workers Union, Local 62 of the
International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union,
AFL-CIO. In 1963, the Respondent resigned from
the Association , declined to bargain further with
New York Local 62, and moved to its present plant
in New Jersey.
After litigation of a refusal -to-bargain charge in-
itiated by Local 62, the Board issued a decision
(152 NLRB 943) finding that the Employer's
withdrawal from multiemployer bargaining was un-
timely and ordered the Employer to bargain
separately with Local 62 about the resumption of
the unilaterally subcontracted and removed opera-
tions . The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
declined to enforce the Order, noting that while the
withdrawal may have been untimely , special cir-
cumstances existed and remanded the case to the
Board for reconsideration.'
On May 20, 1968, the Board issued a Supple-
mental Decision (171 NLRB 557) and concluded
that, in light of the Employer's economic hardships
in continuing to do business in the New York area,
its withdrawal from the Association was justifiable
and it was not bound by the Association 's contract
subsequently reached . The Board then concluded
that Respondent had not refused to bargain unlaw-
fully and the complaint against the Employer was
dismissed.
THE CURRENT DISPUTE
In February or March 1968 , the same Interna-
tional Union, ILGWU, but a different local,
Local 148-162, initiated an organizational cam-
paign among Respondent 's employees at its New
Jersey plant . A lunchtime union meeting was held
at the Mayflower Restaurant on May 7 with ap-
proximately 14 employees in attendance and a peti-
tion was drawn up to present to the Employer con-
taining the signatures of 17 employees. The petition
stated that the signatories were a "committee
representing the majority of the Miss Ingenue
[James Textile] workers and are formally
requesting recognition based on a card count which
we are prepared to show you at this time."
Following the luncheon, some 14 employees ac-
companied by Union Representatives DeYoung and
Scotti entered the plant's premises, and were met
by Davis Pillet, secretary -treasurer , and one of the
owners. DeYoung read the petition to Pillet, of-
fered to show him signed authorization cards from
184 NLRB No. 70
THE JAMES TEXTILE CORP. 651
the employees, and requested recognition and bar-
gaining . Pillet responded that he did not believe the
Union represented a majority of the employees,
refused to look at the cards, told the employees to
return to work, and advised DeYoung that he
would not meet with him until later in the after-
noon after consulting his attorney. Whereupon
DeYoung, who wanted an immediate meeting, de-
parted and the employees returned to work. The
following day, May 8, there was a written demand
for recognition by the Union and Respondent's
written refusal to recognize on the same grounds;
namely, that the Union did not represent a majori-
ty. About noon of the same day, May 8, four em-
ployees who had signed union authorization cards
were terminated , presumably for nondiscriminatory
reasons . 2 In responding that it had a good-faith
doubt that the Union represented a majority, the
Respondent suggested that the Union request a
Board-conducted election . On May 20, the Union
filed a petition for an election and on June 10,
1968, the parties agreed to a stipulation for a con-
sent election to be held on July 15 following the
Company's vacation period. Following the
discharge of employee Gutirrez (also identified as
King ) on or about June 14, the Union withdrew
from the stipulation and filed these unfair labor
practice charges.
The Trial Examiner found that as the initial
date of the demand for recognition, May 7, 1968,
the Union represented 29 of the 54 employees he
found were properly included in the unit on the
basis of validly executed authorization cards.' He
thereafter found that Respondent's denial of
recognition was not made in good faith but was
made to allow time to undermine and destroy the
Union's majority and was violative of Section
8(a)(5) of the Act. In so concluding, the Trial Ex-
aminer did not go into the question of the Union's
majority status on May 8 or thereafter.4 With
respect to Respondent's contention that it could
not bargain with this Union because it was still
under a Board Order requiring it to bargain with
New York Local 62, the Trial Examiner concluded
that this was an afterthought because this reason
was never given to the Union when the demand was
made and, secondly, that the Board on further con-
sideration decided that there was no legal impedi-
ment extant at that time.
As the Trial Examiner noted, it appears that
Respondent did not rely on the fact that a Board
Order requiring the Respondent to bargain with
Local 62 was outstanding at the time it rejected a
new demand for recognition by Local 148-162. We
conclude, however, that at least in the present cir-
cumstances, Respondent cannot be found to have
refused to bargain with one union while awaiting
the Board's decision on whether Respondent was
required to continue to bargain with still another
union. To hold otherwise would obviously be in
derogation of our own processes. Since Local
148-162's demand for recognition occurred on
May 7, 1968, some 13 days before the Board's Sup-
plemental Decision issued on May 20 relieving the
Respondent of any obligation to bargain with New
York Local 62, the Respondent was not under any
obligation to recognize or bargain with another
union prior to May 20.
Furthermore, on the facts previously set forth,
the Union did not possess a clear majority on and
after May 8, 1968, the day 4 employees who had
signed authorization cards were terminated, leaving
the Union as the representative of 25 of 50 em-
ployees remaining in the unit. The loss of majority
was not attributable to discriminatory or unlawful
conduct by the Employer. Inasmuch as Local
148-162 failed to establish a clear majority on or
after May 20, after the legal impediment to recog-
nition was removed, we need not reach the
question of whether the conduct found violative of
the Act here would otherwise warrant the issuance
of a bargaining order. Accordingly, we conclude
that Respondent did not refuse to bargain in viola-
tion of Section 8(a)(5) of the Act.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board hereby adopts as its Order the
Recommended Order of the Trial Examiner as
modified below and hereby orders that Respondent,
' Two of the four employees terminated, Lemon and Kleber, filed
charges with the Board 's regional office alleging that their termination was
discriminatory After investigation , the Regional Director refused to issue a
complaint on their behalf.
' In finding that the unit consisted of 54 employees as of May 7, 1968,
the date of the demand , the Trial Examiner excluded 5 employees He
found that Anna Thomas, Sylvia Sanchez , and Alida Cappelluti were office
clerical employees ; that Kevin McCarthy held a quasi-supervisory position,
was salaried , and was allied with management, that Andrew Pillet , the son
of one of the principal owners of the Company, worked as an irregular part-
time employee while in school and had no community of interest with em-
ployees in the unit We agree that the unit was composed of 54 employees
on May 7, 1968
4 In explanation of the narrow basis upon which this case was litigated by
the General Counsel and thereafter decided by the Trial Examiner, it
should be noted that the case was tried on a Joy Silk Mill theory, namely,
that a refusal to recognize a union was not made in good faith if accom-
panied by contemporaneous unfair labor practices by the employer The
Board has since modified its standards, particularly its reliance on good or
bad faith of an employer, and now follows the standards set out in Gissel
v NLRB,395US 575
652 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL
The James Textile Corp., North Bergen, New Jer-
sey, its officers, agents , successors , and assigns,
shall take the action set forth in the Trial Ex-
aminer 's Recommended Order as so modified:
1. Delete paragraphs 1(a) and 2 ( a) and reletter
the following paragraphs accordingly.
2. Delete the first indented paragraph of the
notice together with the description of the unit as
therein contained.
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
JOHN M. DYER, Trial Examiner: The charge in
this matter was filed on July 9, 1968 ,' alleging that
the James Textile Corp., herein called Respondent
or Company , had violated Section 8 (a)(5) of the
Act by refusing to recognize and bargain with the
Charging Party, Local 148-162, International
Ladies' Garment Workers ' Union , AFL-CIO,
herein called the Union , and in violation of Section
8(a)(3) had discharged four employees and com-
mitted various violations of Section 8(a)(1).
The Regional Director for Region 22 of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board , herein called the
Board , issued a complaint on August 21, alleging
that Respondent engaged in various acts violative
of Section 8(a)(1) and discharged Joaquin Gutirrez
in violation of Section 8(a)(3), all of which activity
was intended to undermine the Union 's majority
status and further Respondent had rejected the
prinicple of collective bargaining and had violated
Section 8 (a)(5) of the Act by its refusal to recog-
nize and negotiate with the Union.
Respondent admitted it was engaged in com-
merce within the meaning of the Act and
acknowledged the status of the Union as a labor or-
ganization and agreed that the unit as set forth in the
complaint was the appropriate unit. Respondent al-
leged that the parties had entered into a stipulation
for certification upon a consent election and the
agreement had been abrogated by the Union and
the Region improperly and such was the only
proper way to resolve any question concerning
representation . Respondent denied that it had com-
mitted any unfair labor practices.
All parties were afforded full opportunity to par-
ticipate and to examine and cross -examine wit-
nesses in the hearing held on October 22, 23, 24,
30, and 31 at Newark, New Jersey, and all parties
have filed extensive briefs which have been care-
fully considered.
Upon the complete record in this case including
certain undenied evidence and on my evaluation of
the reliability of the witnesses based both on the
evidence received and my observation of their
demeanor I make the following:
LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS INVOLVED AND THE LABOR
ORGANIZATION
Respondent, a New York corporation, has its
principal office and plant in North Bergen, New
Jersey, where it is engaged in the manufacture, sale,
and distribution of ladies' garments, knitwear, and
related products. During the prior 12-month period
Respondent sold and shipped from its plant goods
and products valued in excess of $50,000 in in-
terstate commerce directly to customers in other
States.
Respondent concedes and I find that it is engaged
in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6)
and (7) of the Act.
Respondent concedes and I find that the Union
herein is a labor organization within the meaning of
Section 2(5) of the Act.
II. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Background and Undisputed Facts
Respondent formerly operated its business in
New York City, where it was engaged under its
present name and under the name of Spun-Jee in
basically the same business . From around 1955 to
1963 Respondent was a member of the Allied
Underwear Association, a multiemployer bargain-
ing group, which had successive contracts with the
Undergarment and Negligee Workers Union, Local
62 of the International Ladies' Garment Workers'
Union , AFL-CIO. In 1963 Respondent resigned
from the Association, declined to bargain further
with New York Local 62 and moved to its present
plant in New Jersey. Apparently the sewing opera-
tions were performed by Spun-Jee and were
thereafter subcontracted and the Spun -Jee name
was not used.
Respondent 's resignation from the New York As-
sociation and cessation of its bargaining relation-
ship with New York Local 62 was the subject of
Board case 152 NLRB 953. The U.S. Court of Ap-
peals for the Second Circuit declined to enforce the
Board's Order, finding that although Respondent's
withdrawal from the employer association appeared
to be untimely, Respondent was under no duty to
bargain with New York Local 62 regarding its deci-
sion to withdraw from business in New York and
move to New Jersey. The court remanded to the
Board the question of whether Respondent was
bound by the Association's contract with New York
Local 62.
In its Decision, 171 NLRB 557, the Board
determined , in the light of the court 's conclusions
and in view of the economic hardships which were
inherent in Respondent 's continuance of business in
' Unless specifically stated otherwise all dates herein occurred in 1968
THE JAMES TEXTILE CORP.
the New York area, that unusual circumstances ex-
isted which justified Respondent 's withdrawal from
the Association and its removal to New Jersey, so
that it was not bound by the contract negotiated by
New York Local 62 and the Association.
Respondent is owned by two brothers , James and
Davis Pillet , and their sister Frances Menken. They
have divided the responsibilities of the Company
with James Pillet as Respondent 's president exercis-
ing overall control and taking care of sales and the
showroom . Davis Pillet is the secretary-treasurer
and oversees the plant and the work in the shop.
Frances Menken is vice president and oversees the
office and acts as Respondent 's controller.
Under Mrs . Menken is assistant controller, Jacob
Baurer , and the office staff . The plant supervisory
staff under Davis Pillet is headed by Production
Manager Nicholas DeLeo who oversees the work of
Cutting Room Foreman Samuel Colon.
The Employer's plant and facilities are located
on the second floor of a building in North Bergen,
New Jersey . On entering the premises one goes up
steps to a door controlled by an electric lock which
is opened by the switchboard operator . There was
testimony that in the hall which serves as a
passageway between the offices and the production
and packing area there is a timeclock , which ac-
cording to one witness is visible from the cutting
room across the main floor of the facility.
The appropriate unit as agreed to by all parties
consists of all production , maintenance , shipping,
receiving and cutting department employees, ex-
cluding office clerical employees , professional em-
ployees, salesmen , porters, guards, and all super-
visors as defined in the Act.
Respondent 's normal plant hours for the produc-
tion and maintenance employees , from the
testimony , appear to be from 8:45 or 9 a.m. until
5:30 or 6 p .m. with a half-hour lunch period from
12 to 12 : 30 p.m . on a 5-day week . During the rush
season , normally March to mid-June, employees
may work a half day on Saturday . In keeping em-
ployees' time they are paid for 15-minute segments
and punching in after a quarter hour period may
mean the loss of that period for pay purposes unless
it is a matter of a minute or so which might be ex-
cused in the office when the time was checked for
the week 's work.
There is no dispute that on May 7, Respondent
had 59 employees on its payroll . General Counsel
and the Union contend that 3 of the 59 were office
clerical employees and a fourth a salaried employee
aligned with managment , if he was not a supervisor,
and that these 4 should not be included in the unit.
They further contend that Andrew Pillet , the son of
Davis Pillet and consequently the nephew of the
other two principal owners of the Company, should
not be included in the unit since he is a son of one
of the principals , enjoyed special privileges, at-
tended high school , and was not a regular em-
ployee . Respondent contended that 1 of the 59 was
653
not a regular employee in that she had been em-
ployed under a Government program of assistance
granted to the Employer in the nature of a partial
payment of supervisors ' salaries for the training of
people over 45 years of age. Respondent 's other
contention concerning the group of employees has
reference to four employees who left Respondent
on May 8, and is only relevant if Respondent 's posi-
tion as to the date of the union demand is accepted.
There is no disagreement that the employees in
the plant were hourly paid , punched a timeclock,
and that their duties were solely in the plant area.
There is also no dispute that the employees alleged
by General Counsel and the Union as office cleri-
cals, namely, Anna Thomas, Sylvia Sanchez, and
Alida Cappelluti, were salaried personnel none of
whom punched the timeclock and whose normal
duties were in the office. Kevin McCarthy the
fourth employee objected to by General Counsel
and the Union was hired , according to his
testimony , as the assistant production manager, was
salaried , and did not punch a timeclock.
Assistant Controller Baurer with the assistance of
Supervisor Dot Brown and other employees took
care of the plant orders . Under this direct supervi-
sion and generally under the supervision of Frances
Menken were Sylvia Sanchez, who ran a Friden
Computyper , which machine prepared and typed
invoices and shipping labels . This machine is in the
last of the offices and the office physically projects
into the working area . In running the machine
Sanchez gets the information from finished goods in
the production area . Anna Thomas has general of-
fice clerical duties but in the "rush season" when
the work was too much for Sanchez , she assisted by
hand preparing invoices and shipping labels, per-
forming this work in the shop area . Alida Cappellu-
ti, who during normal times is the telephone opera-
tor, during rush times worked in the shop approxi-
mately 6 hours a day, pulling orders for packing
and shipping of garments . In the shop she assisted
Louis Signore who was in charge of the order-pul-
lers, by instructing new order-pullers on where to
go and what to do, particularly in a second room
where Signore could not be present. In Cappelluti's
absence from the office, Supervisor Dot Brown,
Anna Thomas, and Assistant Controller Jacob
Baurer assisted in taking care of the switchboard.
Andrew Pillet worked in the production area at
various jobs during school vacations and holidays.
Only one timecard for him was offered and that
showed that his working hours were written in
rather than the card being punched . Respondent's
explanation that the timeclock was not available for
punching on holidays or after regular hours does
not bear out here since the date is May 11, 1968, a
Saturday and the hours are 9 a.m. to 3 p.m. A com-
parison with General Counsel 's Exhibit 11, a
timecard for Joaquin Gutirrez, shows his card was
punched on a Saturday . Further Andrew Pillet rode
with his father to and from work , was there before
654 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
and after the regular production and maintenance
employees , took his breaks in the office , and ap-
pears from the testimony to be an irregular em-
ployee, who worked when his high school vacations
and holidays permitted.
McCarthy described his duties as keeping track
of production and keeping Production Manager
DeLeo informed of what was going on in the plant.
To this end he would inspect the cutting room,
determine what had been done on a particular day,
and note the assignments for the following day. He
would also secure information from the shop as to
shipments , orders, receipt of goods, etc. He occa-
sionally performed some physical labor after hours
or in an emergency . He left Respondent when, after
the rush season , Nick DeLeo said he was not
completely pleased with his work and offered to
train him as a cutter at a reduction in pay, which
McCarthy refused.
Carolyn Ward, who was hired under the OASI
program ( referred to above as the Government pro-
gram ), was a production employee who was hourly
paid and punched a timecard . The only distinction
between her and the other employees was that she
was hired in conjunction with the OASI program of
providing job opportunities for persons over 45
years old . Baurer testified that in all regards she
performed as a regular production and main-
tenance employee , the sole distinction being that
Respondent received some $300 from the govern-
ment as partial payment for the wages of the super-
visor who trained her.
As to the unit placement of these six employees, I
find that Carolyn Ward is a regular production and
maintenance employee, who works under the same
conditions as the other unit employees and that she
was employed under a program which seeks to have
persons over 45 employed in such a regular
manner . I find that she does not come under any
exclusion as a pensioner and should be included in
the unit . Andrew Pillet is the son of one of the prin-
cipals of the Company and works as an irregular
part-time employee while going to high school. I
find he has no community of interest with the em-
ployees in the unit and should be excluded from the
unit . I find that Anna Thomas, Sylvia Sanchez, and
Alida Cappelluti are office clerical employees who
during the rush season assist in the plant but whose
main duties are those of office clericals . They are
paid on a different basis and have no clear commu-
nity of interest with the employees in the unit and
should be excluded as office clericals . Kevin Mc-
Carthy, similarly a salaried employee, was essen-
tially an office clerical employee whose duties took
him into the plant and while he had no clear status
as a supervisor , was in a quasi-supervisory position,
had a desk in the office, and acted as an arm of
management. In this capacity I conclude and find
that he should be excluded from the unit.
Therefore , I find and conclude that there were 54
employees in the unit on May 7, 1968, and with the
above exclusions are those employees named in
General Counsel 's Exhibit 2.
From the uncontradicted testimony it was the
beginning of March when union representatives ap-
peared outside Respondent 's plant seeking to in-
terest employees in the Union. Employees Wend-
ell Moyd and Joaquin Gutirrez, who is known as
King , were among the first employees contacted.
The union representatives contacted other em-
ployees on the street and ate lunch with employees
at the Mayflower Restaurant several blocks from
the plant . Moyd testified he signed a union
authorization card and received blank cards from
organizers which he passed out to employees. King
also signed a card and solicited signatures of other
employees , principally among the Spanish-speaking
employees . The union campaign continued into
May and on May 7, following a lunchtime meeting
at the Mayflower Restaurant , Union Representa-
tives Walter De Young and Fred Scotti with a
group of employees met with Davis Pillet at the
plant.
There are a number of questions as to what oc-
curred on and after May 7, in the series of events of
this case . The answers depend mostly on credibility
determinations and the inferences to be drawn
therefrom and whether assertions made are backed
up with competent evidence . I have made these
determinations , relying not only on demeanor but
also on the series of events considered as a whole,
together with the positions taken and claims made
and the weight of proof or lack thereof . Setting the
events chronologically seems to best illustrate the
pattern of events and demonstrates why I have
reached the findings and conclusions made herein.
A number of the witnesses and employees are
from Puerto Rico and some of them had sufficient
difficulty with English that the services of an in-
terpreter were necessary . Some of such testimony
appeared to be repetitive in an apparent effort that
it be understood and I have set forth where ap-
propriate what appears to be the essence of this
testimony. In this connection we may note that
some of the authorization cards were in Spanish
and that in other instances there was testimony that
the solicitations were in Spanish and that the cards
printed in English were translated into Spanish for
the benefit of those solicited.
B. The Events Beginning With May 7
1. A lunchtime union meeting was held at the
Mayflower Restaurant on May 7, with some 14 or
more employees in attendance besides Union
Representatives De Young and Scotti . At this meet-
ing a typed document, hereafter called the petition,
was signed by 14 or more employees as members of
the union organizing committee . Some two or three
other names were added of those not present but
who had authorized their names to be included.
This petition on union stationary read as follows:
THE JAMES TEXTILE CORP. 655
Attention: Owners of Miss Ingenue (James
Textile) 2031 42nd Street, North Bergen, N.J.
We are a committee representing the majority
of the Miss Ingenue workers and are formally
requesting recognition based on a card count
which we are prepared to show you at this
time.
The petition was dated in ink May 7 and con-
tained the purported signatures of 17 employees.
Apparently most of the employees at this meeting
agreed to seek a meeting with Respondent follow-
ing the lunch period , and so around 12 :25 or 12:30
p.m. some 14 employees with Union Representa-
tives De Young and Scotti entered Respondent's
premises in a group.
After entering the normally locked exterior door
and the plant area , they were seen by Davis Pillet
who walked over to the group and was presented by
De Young with his business card.
Employee Wendell Moyd, who favorably im-
pressed me as trying to tell the truth without distor-
tion , testified that De Young told Davis Pillet that
he had a letter signed by the committee and read it
to Pillet . De Young then handed him the petition
and asked Pillet to recognize the Union . Pillet said
he would talk to De Young but not with the em-
ployees present. De Young said that he did not
want to talk to him alone but if he could have two
or three of the workers with him they would talk.
Pillet said that he would not takl to any of the work-
ers and told them that if they were going back to
work to check in and if they were not, to leave.
King , Silvano Rivera, and Allen Brown, Jr.,
together with Moyd , testified that the petition was
handed to Davis Pillet . Pillet testified that the peti-
tion was not handed to him until the close of the
meeting when the employees were clocking in and
Moyd and Scotti were leaving the premises. King
and Allen Brown , Jr., testified that De Young had
the authorization cards in his hand at the time and
Brown testified that he showed the cards to Pillet
but that Pillet did not look at them . The testimony
of Allen Brown and Davis Pillet is in agreement
that Pillet said the Union did not have a majority.
Davis Pillet testified that on May 7, when 10 to
12 people in a group came in the plant, he walked
over to see what was wrong . De Young handed him
his business card and said he had a petition and that
he had a majority of the workers and wanted to
hold a meeting with Pillet right then. Pillet said they
were on working time and if De Young wanted to
talk, the people could punch in and go back to
work and that after a few hours he would call his
lawyer and De Young could come in and talk to
him after that , later that afternoon . De Young in-
sisted on a meeting and that they had a majority
and Pillet told De Young he did not think they had
a majority . According to Pillet , some of the workers
started to punch in about that time , and the meet-
ing ended with De Young handing him the petition.
Pillet stated he did not recall everything that was
said and to a question of whether De Young said
anything about cards , Pillet replied that something
was said about a majority of names or cards and
that he said he doubted it. He said he did not think
De Young had the cards in his hand , but did not
deny that the petition had been read to him.
Of the people in the group , King punched his
timecard at 12:33 p.m.; four other employees
punched in at 12 :37; five punched in at 12:38; one
punched in at 12:39 ; and three punched in at
12:45. Thus 14 employees at a minimum were
present at this meeting which the parties agree took
some 5 to 7 minutes and they started checking in at
approximately 12:33 indicating that the meeting
started shortly before the lunch period ended and
broke up around 12:35 or so. Respondent 's system
of paying in quarter hour segments accounts for
those who punched in at 12:45 p.m.
I find that the petition was read to Davis Pillet at
the beginning of this 5- to 7-minute meeting and
that Pillet recognized and understood that the
Union was asserting its majority status and
requesting recognition and bargaining . Pillet recog-
nized the Union's claim and answered he did not
believe they represented a majority of the em-
ployees, asserted he would not meet with em-
ployees present and would not meet with the union
representatives until late in the afternoon after con-
sulting his attorney . Thus the demand and the
refusal to bargain occurred on May 7. There was a
subsequent written demand and written refusal
couched mainly in the same language.
Activities of Foreman Sam Colon
2. King testified that at breaktime on May 7,
around 2 : 50 p.m ., Cutting Room Foreman Sam
Colon came to where he worked and told King
they were foolish to join a union when they only
had 10 on the list and that was all they had.
Foreman Colon testified that around 2:50 p.m.
on May 7, King came to him and said you see we
have lots of people , and that he replied , he did not
think they had more than 10. Colon stated he had
no other conversations with King about the Union.
Colon, after denying that he saw the petition or
that he saw the group talking to Davis Pillet, was
asked the source of his figure 10 and from his re-
port of the conversation how he knew or un-
derstood King was talking about the Union. After a
number of answers , which appeared to be attempts
at evading this issue , Colon testified that he and
King had a conversation on May 6 in which, ac-
cording to him, King talked about trying to bring a
union into the plant . Colon said he presumed the
Union had no more than 10 having assumed when
none of the 8 people in his cutting department
came back to work at 12: 30 p.m . on May 7, that
the cutting department was the hotbed of unionism.
Colon testified that when the eight employees did
not return he did not go looking for them and did
656 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
not report this event to his superiors , but rather
kept himself busy in the cutting room and did not
see the group enter the building or talk to Davis Pil-
let but finally saw them when they punched in
around 12:45 p.m. and thereafter returned to work
in the cutting room.
3. Allen Brown testified that on May 7, while in
the cutting room , Sam Colon asked if he had signed
a union card and that he did not answer Colon.
Colon continued that if the Union came in he
would lose hours and would not make any over-
time.
In his direct testimony Colon denied talking to
Allen Brown about the Union and then said that
around 4 p .m. on May 7, he asked Brown if he had
signed a union card . He said he had no other con-
versations with Brown regarding the Union.
4. Gregorio Rodriquez was not in the group
which met with Pillet on May 7, having been absent
that morning . He testified that following the May 7
meeting Sam Colon on one occasion asked him to
explain why he was joining the Union and that he
answered he was joining to get more benefits.
Colon asked if they knew what they were doing and
he replied that he did. Rodriquez testified that on a
number of occasions Colon told him and others
that if they joined the Union, the Company would
cut out the overtime and they would lose their
time -and-a-half pay and they would not receive the
same considerations they presently got from the
Company.
Allen Brown confirmed this testimony stating
that on a number of occasions Colon told him and
the other employees in the cutting room that if the
Union came in the plant they would lose their over-
time.
Colon denied having any conversation about the
Union with Gregorio Rodriguez.
5. Eulogio Rodriquez further confirmed Colon's
actions, testifying that for about 3 weeks after the
May 7 meeting , Colon continually told the cutting
room employees that if the Union came in there
would be a reduction in overtime and they would
lose their time-and-a-half pay . On at least three oc-
casions during that time Colon told him that he
would be fired and be thrown out of the plant
because he was a union leader.
Colon denied talking about the Union to
Eulogio Rodriquez, stating that they were friendly
having both come with the Company from New
York.
6. King testified that a few days after the May 7
meeting , Colon came to his workplace and told him
the Company had laid off two of the workers and
now there were only eight names left on the list.
Colon said the bosses were very smart and were
going to lay off everybody on the list little by little.
Colon on another occasion told King the bosses
were very smart and would get rid of the Union and
keep it from coming in.
Colon denied any such conversations with King.
On May 8, Eileen Kleber and Linda Lemmon,
whose names are on the petition handed to Respon-
dent on May 7, were laid off by Respondent.
Allen Brown testified that several days after May
7, Sam Colon told him one girl was fired because
she had signed a card for the Union.
Colon denied having any conversations with
Brown concerning the Union other than the one on
May 7. He further testified that James Pillet held a
supervisors ' meeting on Friday, May 10, and told
them not to talk to employees about the Union.
Colon maintained that he had only two conver-
sations about the Union and they were his May 7
talks with King and Brown.
There is no testimony that Respondent informed
its employees about the restrictions-issued to the
supervisors or that it disapproved of or disavowed
any of the actions taken by them before then.
Conclusions as to Foreman Sam Colon
Colon testified that when the cutting room em-
ployees did not return to work at 12:30 p.m. on
May 7, he stayed busy in the cutting room and did
not report this mass work disruption to his superi-
ors, nor seek to determine where the employees
were and did not even stick his head out the cutting
room door to look , maintaining he first saw them
punching the timeclock when they came back to
the cutting room as a group around 12 : 45 p.m.
Colon testified that the following day it appeared to
him that the cutting room employees were slowing
down their work and he reported this to Davis Pil-
let.
I find it impossible to believe that a supervisor
apparently faced with a group of his employees
refraining from work would not look for them or
report the matter to his supervisors . Such behavior
is incredible if he did not know of it in advance or
learn of the meeting with Pillet while it was going
on. He could have observed the meeting by walking
out in the shop or to the timeclock or by even look-
ing out the cutting room door. In any case Colon
was not a truthful or forthright witness and I can
not credit him. The stipulation regarding the times
the employees punched in at noontime show they
punched in as two groups not one as Colon
testified . Similarly he was not truthful regarding his
assumption of Eulogio Rodriguez ' union affiliations
since he was not at work that morning nor with the
group meeting with Pillet and Colon could have
learned of his union affiliation only by seeing his
name on the petition or by having prior knowledge
of his union membership. I feel that Colon's
testimony about a May 6 conversation with King
was an invention to cover his other testimony of
not seeing the group meeting or the petition to ex-
plain why he knew King was talking about the
Union. I credit King 's version of his conversations
with Colon as to where and when they took place
and to what was said.
THE JAMES TEXTILE CORP. 657
I conclude and find that Colon did make the
statements testified to by King , Gregorio
Rodriguez , Eulogio Rodriquez , and Allen Brown
and that by the statements set forth above and
credited , Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of
the Act in that Foreman Colon 's statements
threatened the employees with discharge and other
economic reprisals if the Union came in , indicated
to employees that other employees had been
discharged because of their union affiliation, and
interrogated employees in a discriminatory fashion
regarding their union sympathies and desires.
7. Silvano Rivera testified that on May 8, he had
a conversation with the Nick who worked in the of-
fice . Nick was identified by Colon as Nicholas
DeLeo, the production superintendent , and from
the testimony he appears to be the only Nick who
worked in the office . The complaint in paragraph
14 alleged that Production Manager Nicholas
DeLeo in violation of Section 8(a)(1) interrogated
employees concerning their membership in, activi-
ties on behalf of, and sympathy to the Union, on or
about May 7 and 8, 1968 . I find this identity suffi-
cient.
Rivera testified that he was at work when Nick
came by and asked if he wanted the Union. When
he replied yes, DeLeo asked why, telling him to
think it over, that the Company would give him
better work , more salary , and eventually teach him
how to be a cutter.
Respondent did not produce or explain the non-
production of Nick DeLeo and consequently
Rivera 's credible testimony stands uncontradicted. I
credit Rivera and conclude and find that by De-
Leo's questioning and promises of better working
conditions and salary increases, Respondent en-
gaged in coercive interrogation and thereby vio-
lated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
8. Union Organizer Fred Scotti testified that on
May 22, while as usual he was sitting in his car in
front of the plant prior to the employees'
lunchtime , James Pillet came out of the plant just
before the lunchbreak and stood beside Scotti's car,
staring at him , his car , and the plant . As the em-
ployees left the plant Scotti got out of his car and
attempted to talk to the employees while Pillet was
standing close to him , but the employees passed by
and did not speak. Scotti got in his car and drove
the three or four blocks to the Mayflower Restau-
rant and after parking outside the restaurant and
while waiting for the employees to come noticed
Pillet standing on a corner on the same side of the
street down from the restaurant . Scotti testified that
when some of the employees came to the restaurant
they told him they were afraid to speak to him
because Pillet had been standing near him.
Although James Pillet was present in the hearing
room for most if not all of the hearing he did not
testify . I credit Scotti 's testimony concerning Pil-
let's standing near him and his car and conclude
that this unexplained juxtaposition could have no
purpose other than as an attempt to inhibit the em-
ployees in their right to contact or converse with
the union representative and.thus constitutes an in-
terference with their Section 7 rights . I do not be-
lieve this constitutes surveillance in the normal
sense of that word but that as a lesser offense it still
constitutes an interference with employees ' rights
and violates Section 8 ( a)(1) of the Act and I so
find . However , Scotti's testimony in regard to Pillet
appearing almost simultaneously with him several
blocks away strains credulity , is ambiguous, and I
cannot find a violation thereby.
9. Without objection, the following notice,
which was posted on Respondent 's bulletin board
about the time it is dated , was received in evidence
as General Counsel 's Exhibit 13.
June 15, 1968
Dear Employees,
James Textile Corp. is considering setting up
one fully paid scholarship at New York's
Fashion Institute of Technology. This would be
a two year college level course in production
management.
Sons and daughters of employees would be
given priority with graduates of North Bergen
High School having secondary preference. If
interested kindly contact Jack in the office.
Sincerely
/s/ Frances Menken
Frances Menken
Vice President
Frances Menken testified that around the fall of
1967 she and her brothers decided to set up a
scholarship fund to the Fashion Institute of
Technology . Correspondence with the institute and
telephone calls established that there were two
kinds of endowments but as she testified no deci-
sion was made as to which of the methods should
be adopted and, as of the time of the hearing, no
decision had been made and the scholarship had
not been established . This scholarship program had
been under consideration according to her for some
6 to 9 months without a determination as to its im-
plementation. She further testified that nothing re-
garding the scholarship had occurred at the time
this notice to the employees was prepared and
posted and offered no explanation as to the timing
of this notice other than that she decided to do it.
The only event nearly contemporaneous with this
posting was that the parties about 1 week earlier
had agreed to a consent election to be held in July.
Considering the violative events prior thereto, in-
cluding the threats regarding loss of hours and the
promises of benefits made to employees , I can only
determine that the purpose of publicizing this possi-
ble grant of a college level scholarship to an em-
ployee's child was an inducement of benefit held
658 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
out to the employees to influence them against the
Union . No other rational explanation is extant or
was offered.
10. On June 27, Respondent had a luncheon
meeting of its employees at which James Pillet
spoke. From the testimony it appears that Respon-
dent annually held such a luncheon meeting prior
to its vacation period. It further appears that
Respondent annually distributed bonuses and vaca-
tion checks to the employees at this time of the
year and that such a distribution was a regular prac-
tice.
General Counsel alleged that James Pillet's
speech on this occasion contained promises of
benefit and threats violative of Section 8(a)(1) and
offered the testimony of several witnesses in sup-
port thereof. I have considered the testimony and
find that Wendell Moyd' s account of the event ap-
pears to be the clearest.
According to Moyd, Pillet told the employees
that it was a pleasure to have lunch with them as he
did every vacation time . He talked about the dif-
ferent things that the Union did and that the Com-
pany was not forced by the Union to do the things
it did for the employees. Pillet said no one forced
the Company to give the employees a dinner or-to-
give them a holiday turkey, that the Company did
this on their own. Pillet went on to enumerate other
company benefits such as loan funds and having a
medical plan stating that each of these was not
forced on them by a union but that the Company
did it for the employees . He added that the Union
was not forcing them to air-condition the plant, that
they were doing that for the people and would start
first with the operations room and proceed through
the rest of the plant , one area at a time . During this
meeting Jack Baurer asked Pillet if he was going to
let them have a union and Pillet replied that if the
people were willing to pay $80 or $100 a year for
union dues that it was up to them.
Gregorio Rodriguez testified that Pillet said they
had stopped their relations with the union in New
York and moved to New Jersey and that they had
problems with the Union and were trying to im-
prove the factory.
Allen Brown remembered Pillet said they had a
union in New York which had made certain de-
mands on him and that he was the one to make the
decision and they came to New Jersey.
The complaint allegations relative to James Pil-
let's June 27 speech that employees were warned
they would be discharged and suffer economic
reprisals or suffer the shutdown of the plant if they
became or remained union members or gave
assistance or support to it and that they were of-
fered , promised , and granted bonuses and extra va-
cation pay and other employment benefits or im-
provements if they would refrain from becoming or
remaining union members or supporting it.
I find that none of these allegations are sustained
by the testimony offered by the General Counsel.
The testimony regarding the air-conditioning does
not show that this was a new benefit being offered
for the first time and the testimony about union
dues is at best ambiguous and not shown to be
false . I recommend that these allegations as to
James Pillet be dismissed.
C. The Discharge of King (Joaquin Gutirrez)
King was in the group which met with Davis Pil-
let on May 7, and his name was on the petition. The
evidence disclosed that King was one of the main
employee solicitors for union cards and did most of
the soliciting of the Spanish -speaking employees.
During the last week in May, King was informed
that his father who lived in Puerto Rico was seri-
ously ill. On the day before Decoration Day (May
29) King asked Jack (Jacob) Baurer and Davis Pil-
let separately for permission to go to Puerto Rico to
see his father saying he would be gone about a
week . He also asked for and got approval of a loan
to buy his ticket . On Friday, May 31, he got permis-
sion to extend his lunch period to buy his ticket. His
timecard shows that he punched out at 12 :01 p.m.
and returned to work at 1:16 p.m. King worked
Saturday morning and left for Puerto Rico Sunday
taking his 16-month old daughter with him . Mr. and
Mrs. Gutirrez agrees that she was unhappy with
King taking his trip with their daughter since they
had been planning to all go at a later time.
On Monday evening, June 3, Mrs. Gutirrez was at
the home of her sister -in-law, King 's sister, when he
called from Puerto Rico . He told her that his
father's illness appeared to be very serious and he
would have to be gone longer than I week and
asked her to contact the Company and so inform
them and get the balance of his paycheck . Mrs. Gu-
tirrez said she would call the Company the next day
and he should call back the following evening.
Mrs. Gutirrez called the Company on Tuesday,
June 4, and asked the switchboard operator for one
of the bosses . She stated she was connected with
somebody who called himself Dave and then said
Davis and that she told him her husband was going
to have to extend his stay in Puerto Rico and asked
to have the balance of her husband 's paycheck sent
to her . She was told her husband had been replaced
and she could not have the paycheck because her
husband would have to come in and sign the $40
loan check before the balance of his pay could be
disbursed . She replied she would tell her husband
what she had been told and that evening she talked
with King and informed him of the conversation.
King returned on June 13, and on the morning of
June 14, around 10 a.m ., went to Respondent's
plant and saw Jack Baurer . He told Baurer his wife
reported he had been replaced and asked if this was
true . Baurer said it was . King asked for the balance
of his pay and was taken by Baurer to Fran Men-
ken. She asked what had happened to him and he
started to tell her he had to go to Puerto Rico and
i
THE JAMES TEXTILE CORP. 659
offered to show her his plane ticket when she said
she was not interested in his explanation.
King testified he had taken off a week from work
once before when his wife had their last child in
December 1967.
Respondent's counsel stated the Company's posi-
tion was that it did not discharge King-but that he
left Respondent's employ voluntarily and without
notice on June 1, because of a warrant against him
charging him with neglect of a child's welfare by
taking the child from its mother. Counsel stated,
"We are also prepared to prove that his wife came
to the plant at the beginning of the next week, told
us the story." Respondent's counsel stated it was
because of King's marital difficulties with his wife
that he left the country. He reiterated that it was
Respondent's contention that King was not fired,
that his job was there but that "He voluntarily left
and never came back to his job and he left because
his wife came in the following week and told us,
you know where he was. She had no money to live
on and she needed the check and we refused it to
her and that she was having him arrested on this
warrant. This is all part of the 8(A). This is not an
attempt to attack credibility. This is the basic reason
why the respondent claims that we discharged this
employee later on, but on June 1 he left this employ-
ment and never returned2 and I submit that since his
family life is the reason why he ran away from the
job, it is material and relevant to the issues." In ex-
tension of this statement Respondent's counsel
claimed King had not requested leave and that
Respondent expected him back to work on Mon-
day, June 3, and that it is their position he left his
job because of matrimonial difficulties. Respon-
dent's counsel also contended that King never
requested leave to go to Puerto Rico, stating that
Respondent had no leave policy as such and that
King did not ask for a loan to purchase his ticket
but merely asked for a loan and that Respondent
had been advancing him sums of money. Respon-
dent's counsel stated it was Respondent's conten-
tion that when King returned about 2 weeks later
. .. he picked up his check and turned around and
walked out, didn't say a thing about a job. Say I got
this trouble with my wife, I need the money. That is
all that happened on the day that he came back."
Respondent's counsel stated in support of his
request to question King concerning marital dif-
ficulties he might have had with his wife that "I
have a right to inquire on this whole matrimonial
issue because we say this is the reason why he left
the job." Further, counsel stated, "We submit the
issue of whether he had matrimonial difficulty or
not at that time is crucial to the issues which you
have to decide. Did this man pick himself up and if
you don't have the matrimonial difficulty, if I was
sitting in your position in view of what he testified
to about being the leader of the union and drawing
inference as you do from evidence , you don't have
the complete picture . There is no flesh around this
bone and I submit , sir, that the matrimonial difficul-
ty supports the respondent 's contention that he left
and didn 't return because of that."
Respondent was permitted to inquire of King as
to whether he had any marital difficulties with his
wife in early June . King testified that on Sunday
morning before he left for Puerto Rico he told his
wife he wanted to take his 16-month-old daughter
with him because his father was critically ill and did
not know her. He stated that initially his wife op-
posed him and was angry because they had been
planning to go to Puerto Rico together on a vaca-
tion and she was upset at this change in their plans.
A copy of a complaint and warrant was received
in evidence . It appears to have been sworn out on
June 5, 1968 , before a clerk of the Municipal Court
of Jersey City by Mrs. Gutirez under the name of
Julia Casanovas of the 245 Ogden Avenue address,
charging Joaquin Gutirrez ( King ) of another ad-
dress ( his sister 's) with being neglectful of the well-
being of a 16-month-old child by taking it from the
care and custody of the child 's mother . According
to a part bf the document this report was made be-
fore a judge of the municipal court on June 6,
1968.
Mrs. Gutirrez testified that she swore out the
warrant against her husband when she was angry
and depressed because the child was away from
her, and that the warrant was dismissed and she
apologized to the judge for having sworn it out. She
testified that she never told anybody at the Company
about the warrant and had only talked to someone
at the Company on the one occasion , Tuesday,
June 4, prior to the issuance of the warrant.
In further support of its allegations and conten-
tions Respondent offered the testimony of Jack
Baurer who stated that King did not ask him for
leave to go to Puerto Rico nor did he hear King ask
Davis Pillet for such leave . In regard to the $40
loan, Baurer stated King got the loan after telling
him he needed the money for a doctor bill for his
baby who had been born a month earlier. On Mon-
day, June 3, when King did not report for work,
Baurer waited until 9 :30 or so and then checked
with Davis Pillet as to King 's whereabouts , saying
he wanted to put someone from the shipping de-
partment in King 's place . When King came in June
14, Baurer said he had no conversation with him
but merely took King to Fran Menken to get his
check . He confirmed that King told Fran Menken
he had to go to Puerto Rico and offered to show
her the ticket.
Baurer testified he received two telephone calls
from the same woman , one on June 4 and the other
' Emphasis supplied
427-835 0 - 74 - 43
660 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
on June 6, and the woman was looking for King,
the second time stating that she had not heard from
him and had a warrant for him because he had left
with her child . Baurer testified he did not ask King
to come back to work on June 14.
Davis Pillet first testified he remembered no con-
versations with King during the week of June 1, and
specifically none concerning a leave, maintaining
that the Company has no definite leave policy. He
then testified that he might have had a talk with
King regarding a $40 loan but did not recall King
asking for time to go buy his ticket , nor was such
request reported to him.
Davis Pillet was asked why employee Silvano
Rivera had been given a leave of 4 to 5 months to
visit his family in Puerto Rico and then come back
to work . Pillet said Rivera had not had leave for
that length of time , but when Rivera came back to
visit some friends in the plant , he saw Rivera and
asked if he wanted to go to work. Rivera said he did
and Pillet immediately put him to work.
Fran Menken testified that on the Wednesday
after King left (June 5) she was told King 's wife was
on the telephone and she spoke to her concerning
King 's wife getting King 's paycheck and told her
King would have to come in for it . She stated it was
reported to her that King's daughter was on the
telephone on another occasion asking where King
was. She said no one was hired for King's job
and she gave orders to have King come to her for
his check when he returned. When King was
brought to her on June 14, she asked where he
had been. He said he had to go to Puerto Rico be-
cause of his father and offered to show her his ticket.
King 's timecard for the week ending June 1
showed he had punched out for lunch only on
Friday of that week and was gone an hour and 15.
minutes or 45 minutes over the allowed lunch
period . The card is initialed by H. A. ( Harold An-
derson , who worked in the office and took care of
the timecards ), allowing King the 1 minute into the
succeeding quarter of an hour instead of docking
him 15 minutes because he punched in at 1:16 p.m.
In assessing this conflicting testimony I have
determined that Respondent has not proved its
broad claims as to the reasons King left its employ.
First , the warrant itself shows it was not issued until
the 5th or 6th of June, which was long after King
went to Puerto Rico, so that Respondent counsel's
contention that King left because of the warrant
clearly is false. Secondly, Respondent counsel's
contention that King left the country because of
problems with his wife is clearly not demonstrated
by the evidence . The testimony indicates that some
friction arose in the Gutirrez family because King
felt he must go to his seriously ill father and wanted
to take his 16 -month old daughter so that her
grandfather could see her . It appears that anger,
disappointment , and despondency caused Mrs. Gu-
tirrez to seek a measure of revenge on her husband
by swearing out a warrant against him , which might
cause him difficulty with the law. It further appears
that this matter was settled by the dismissal or
withdrawal of the complaint and her apology to the
court . Thus, Respondent 's claims that marital dif-
ficulties caused Gutirrez to leave his job were not
substantiated and appear to be figments of Respon-
dent 's imagination as does the claim that King's
wife came to the plant.
I cannot believe Jacob Baurer 's testimony that
King asked for a $40 loan to pay a doctor bill for a
1-month old baby, since certainly in Baurer 's posi-
tion of knowing who was and who was not at work,
Baurer would have known that King had been off
for a week in December 1967 for the birth of their
youngest baby. King's testimony regarding his leave
at that time was uncontradicted . I further do not
credit Baurer 's testimony that he received two
telephone calls from the same woman concerning
King . Mrs. Gutirrez denied she made a second
telephone call and there would have been no
reason for her to inquire where her husband was
since she knew he was in Puerto Rico. I do not
credit Baurer 's testimony that he said nothing to
King when he came in the plant on June 14. I be-
lieve King did talk to Baurer as he testified and
that Baurer confirmed the message that King had
been replaced . There was no reason why Baurer
should not have spoken to King and certainly if it
had not been Respondent 's intention to replace
King , he would have been asked if he wanted to
return to work as was Rivera after his 4 to 5
months' absence . Respondent admits it had not
replaced King and his job was available at that
time . Another statement made by Respondent
counsel (noted and emphasized above ) that it was
because of King 's problems with his wife and the
warrant that Respondent discharged him after June
1, was not mentioned thereafter by Respondent but
the treatment afforded King on June 14 may be the
subsequent discharge Respondent counsel contends
was effected.
Respondent 's contentions that King 's daughter
called for him, asking where he was, appears lu-
dicrous since the evidence is that King had his 16-
month-old daughter with him and his other child
was a 1-month-old infant.
There is yet another conflict regarding the events
preceding King 's trip to Puerto Rico and that in-
volves King 's testimony that he talked to Davis Pil-
let on May 31 . After denying that he talked to King
during the week ending June 1, Davis Pillet ad-
mitted one conversation with King but stated he
was out of town on May 31 and June 1, making it
impossible for him to have talked to King on May
31. It is not necessary for me to resolve this conflict
between King and Davis Pillet, since King had
authority for the loan and evidently had permission
from someone in authority to extend his lunch
period on Friday to purchase his airplane ticket.
Certainly Harold Anderson in Respondent 's office
knew of this extended lunch period when he in-
THE JAMES TEXTILE CORP. 661
initiated the approval for not docking King for the
15-minute period.
To summarize the positions , we have the fact that
King was the main protagonist in securing union
authorization cards from the employees and
Respondent knew his prounion sentiments and
leadership in the Union as evidenced by Foreman
Colon 's conversation with him and his appearance
at the May 7 meeting . I have determined and found
that King having on a prior occasion been granted a
week off, similarly sought and received permission
to go to Puerto Rico and secured a loan for that
purpose, and Respondent informed him through his
wife that he had been replaced and confirmed this
message on June 14 when he returned to the plant.
Respondent 's contentions regarding King, which
were set forth at length above, were not borne out
by the evidence , and have to be adjudged false and
appear to be nothing more than ill-founded suspi-
cious imaginings urged as a cloak for Respondent's
illegal discharge of King.
I conclude and find that Joaquin Gutirrez (King)
was informed that he had been replaced and was
not rehired by Respondent because of his union ad-
vocacy and predilections in violations of Section
8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act. This release of King ap-
pears to have been an opportunistic event seized
upon by Respondent to extend its antiunion cam-
paign , begun on May 7, and continued with the
purpose of discouraging union membership and
support for the then impending union election.
D. The Refusal To Bargain
The parties agreed on the appropriateness of the
unit which I have determined is appropriate here
and contained 54 employees on May 7, when the
Union made its demand and Davis Pillet refused
recognition . Though Respondent 's counsel raised a
question as to whether a sufficient legal demand for
recognition was made on May 7, the petition and
the actions of the Union are clear and Davis Pillet,
from his testimony , understood the request and
refused it . Additionally Respondent had dealt with
another local of the International Ladies' Garment
Workers' Union for a number of years and was not
uninformed on the subject. The questions remain-
ing are whether the Union had the support of a
majority of the employees on that date and whether
Respondent 's denial of the demand was made in
good faith or was given to allow Respondent time
to undermine and destroy the Union's majority.
The union authorization cards offered in this
proceeding were authenticated in one of three
ways. Either the person who signed the card
identified it, or the person who witnessed the signa-
ture identified it, or the person who had given the
card to the signatory testified that he had given the
signatory a blank card and received a signed
card back from the signatory. I held during the trial
and again affirm my ruling that each of these
methods of authentication was valid . Respondent
contended that each card had to be authenticated
by either of the first two methods . The Board and
several courts have held that the third method of
authentication , in circumstances less certain than
those herein , is permissable and in effect is the
same as witnessing the signature . See Sandy's
Stores, 163 NLRB 728, enfd. in part 398 F.2d 268
(C.A. I ), and 1. Taitel & Son, 119 NLRB 910, enfd.
261 F.2d 1 (C.A. 7). This latter case also obviates
Respondent's contentions about its suspicions as
to when some of the authorization cards were
dated , and as to the actual date of some cards
which appear to have been dated erroneously and
Respondent's noting that a phrase ("Strictly con-
fidential") had been crossed out on the cards.
Respondent 's contentions were suspicions in most
cases and were not supported . As to dates, General
Counsel offered testimony , which Respondent, with
one exceptions , did not attempt to contradict and
concerning which it did not claim it was in no posi-
tion to contradict , that the cards were signed prior
to the date of the demand. Some of the cards appear
to have been dated by someone other than the
signatory but the available testimony is that the
cards with one possible exception were all signed
prior to May 7 by the signatories . This point was
also covered in the Taitel case mentioned above.
I find that Respondent 's argument that its
questioning of the dates invalidated the cards and
necessitated identity by the signatory is not persua-
sive and that such does not vitiate the testimony by
those witnessing the cards and identifying them that
the cards were signed prior to the demand date.
Further there is no evidence of a union campaign at
Respondent 's New Jersey plant prior to March
1968 . There is then no evidence that the cards were
undated from a previous campaign and thus "stale"
so as to disqualify them under the Board 's R case
rules . Similarly Respondent offered no testimony
that the quoted phrase on a clearly unambiguous
card had either not been crossed out before it was
signed or that signatories were deluded thereby.
The authorization cards were printed either in
English or Spanish. Some of the Spanish-speaking
employees who signed cards printed in English
testified when asked that the card had been trans-
lated for them by the solicitor . Respondent offered
no testimony to show that those signing the cards
did not understand them . Moreover the solicitors
testifed without contradiction and were cor-
roborated by several witnesses that they told em-
ployees that the purpose of the card was for the
employee to authorize the Union to represent him
in the shop.
The parties stipulated as to the authenticity of
the cards of Linda Lemmon , Eileen Kleber,
Michael Dispoto , Allen Brown, Wendell Moyd, and
his sister Rebecca Moyd . Wendell Moyd addi-
tionally testified as to the authenticity of his and his
sister 's cards, and Allen Brown identified and addi-
tionally authenticated his card . The parties also
662 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
stipulated as to the genuineness of Michel Miller's
signature . Her card is dated June 2 but contains a
Board office stamp of May 20 showing that the
written date was an error. Respondent contended
that the date of June 2 governed the card and that
it could not be counted for the union majority on
May 7. Wendell Moyd tesfified that he gave the
card to Michel Miller early in the union campaign
and that she returned it to him signed and filled out
long before May 7 and to his best memory in
March . There was no contradictory testimony and I
credit Moyd that the card was signed prior to May
7 and is authentic and a valid designation of the
Union by Michel Miller prior to May 7.
King solicited most of the Spanish-speaking em-
ployees, translating English printed cards for them,
explaining union benefits and telling them that by
signing the card they were authorizing the Union to
represent them in the shop. He denied telling any of
those whose cards he identified that the purpose of
the card was to have an election and no testimony
counter to this assertion was offered. Besides his
own card which he testified he signed early in the
campaign , he authenticated other cards saying
either that he saw the card signed or that he had
given a blank card to the signatory who returned it
to him signed . In this manner King identified the
cards of Robert Aymar, Antonio Quintana, Eulogio
Rosado, Miguellina Martin also known as Miguel-
lina Rodriquez , Armanda Esquibel, Daniel B.
Leone, Michael R. Allen, Richard Petrini , and Ed-
ward Kohler . Miguellina Martin's card has a date of
January 17 which was about the date she started
her employment with Respondent . The evidence
disclosed that the union campiaign did not start
until around March and that all the cards were
signed thereafter . King testified that this card was
signed before May 7, and the inserted date is an er-
ror.
In addition to these cards, King identified the
cards of other employees who themselves testified
and further identified their cards. In this group are
the cards of Vitelio Toledo, Gregorio Rodriguez,
and Silvano Rivera. In each instance it was testified
that these cards were signed prior to the date of de-
mand.
King testified he gave two blank cards to Vitelio
Toledo to give to two employees in his work area.
Toledo testified he gave blank cards to Candelaria
Perez and Leopoldina Diaz and they returned the
signed cards to him . Toledo testified although he
did not know when they or he signed their cards,
the cards were signed before May 7, because he
thereafter signed the petition and added Can-
dlelaria 's , name to the petition having been
authorized by her to do so.
Eulogio Rodriguez identified his card and
although he was uncertain as to when he dated it,
he testified it had been signed prior to May 7. He
had also authorized his signature to be affixed to
the petition , testifying he was aware that the Union
was planning to hold a meeting at lunchtime but he
was absent from the plant until that afternoon.
Margaret Fisher identified her card and the card
of her husband , testifying that her husband does not
read very well and that she read the card to him
and told him the purpose of it and he authorized
her to sign it for him. He confirmed her testimony.
These two cards were signed prior to May 7.
Wendell Moyd testified he explained the ad-
vantages of the Union and gave blank authorization
cards to some five employees who either signed the
card as he watched them or that they personally
returned the signed card to him . In this manner he
identified the cards of Carolyn Ward , Peter Steller,
Vangie Martin , Dorothy Hall, and Ada Shipman.
Moyd testified he was pretty certain it was a few
days before May 7, that Ada Shipman signed her
card , stating he remembered her telling him that of-
fice worker Alida Cappelluti had gone to Shipman
and apparently sought to find fault with Shipman's
work . He then advised Shipman to sign a union
card to have someone to back her up. She did so
and gave it to him and he told her to insert the date
which was missing . It was stipulated that company
records showed Ada Shipman was not at work on
May 6 or 7 but returned about noontime on May 8.
There is no affirmative evidence that Shipman was
at work on May 6, and I feel I must here rely on
Respondent 's records . Shipman 's authorization
card contains her name and the information in red
ink and her craft and the date in blue ink. The date
has been traced over and there appears to have
been an effort to change an 8, a 7, or a 1, to a 6,
which would make it the day before the demand. I
rely on Respondent's records that Shipman was not
at work on May 6 and 7 and with Moyd's descrip-
tion that she signed the card at work , and with this
obvious irregularity , I will not include this card as a
valid authorization made by Ada Shipman prior to
May 7. This card will therefore not be counted in
determining the Union 's majority status.
General Counsel offered a card which was
identified by King and received in evidence as
General Counsel's Exhibit 6N. This card, dated
April 4, 1968, bears a signature which seems to be
Joseph Lyman. No such name , nor one which might
be remotely similar appears on the list of employees
in the unit (G.C. Exh. 2) and this card will not be
considered.
In summary I find that the cards of the employees
listed above other than Shipman and Lyman were
properly authenticated and received in evidence
and were in each instance signed prior to May 7,
1968, and constituted evidence that the Union on
that date represented 29 employees , a majority of
the 54 employees then in the unit.
The answer as to whether Respondent 's refusal to
recognize the Union on May 7 was in good faith
must be found by examining the circumstances and
what Respondent did then and subsequently.
Respondent offered no testimony as to prescisely
THE JAMES TEXTILE CORP. 663
why it said it doubted the Union 's majority other
than point out that the petition contained the
names of only 17 employees and that there were 10
or 12 employees with De Young and Scotti at the
May 7 meeting with Davis Pillet . The language of
the peitition is clear that this group is a committee
representing the employees and not a roster of
those supporting the Union and further offers to
show the authorization cards to Respondent. Two
employees testified that De Young had the cards in
his hands . Davis Pillet said he was not offered the
authorization cards and that the petition was
handed to him folded , but he did not deny that the
petition was read to him and agrees that he said the
Union did not have a majority. After the May 7
meeting a telegram and a letter both confirming the
request for recognition and a meeting were sent to
Respondent by the Union and Respondent by letter
answered that it had a good -faith doubt that the
Union represented a majority and suggested that
the Union request the labor board to conduct an
election . Thereafter the Union filed a petition with
the Board's Regional office and on June 10 the
parties agreed to a stipulation for a consent election
to be held July 15 following the Company's vaca-
tion period. Following the discharge of King the
Union withdrew from the stipulation and filed the
instant charge.
In the light of the events and circumstances in
this matter , herein set forth , I am persuaded that
Respondent did not have a valid good -faith doubt
of the Union 's majority , but rather after receiving
the Union 's demand on May 7, began , principally
by its Supervisor Colon, to determine the extent of
the Union 's organization and then to undermine the
Union 's strength . Cutting Room Supervisor Colon
immediately began his extensive campaign of inter-
rogation and threats as set forth above, concentrat-
ing on the cutting room where the obvious strength
of the Union rested , since the cutting room em-
ployees were the majority of the union committee
which met with Davis Pillet on May 7 . As noted
above I did not believe Colon's denials of his ac-
tions but I do agree with his view that the Union's
center was in the cutting room, aside from King.
Colon's remarks to King and Allen Brown that
Respondent was smart and was getting rid of the
Union by getting rid of those on the union commit-
tee was a graphic example of how Respondent
sought to undermine the Union . The discharge and
refusal to reinstate King was an opportunity
grasped by Respondent to further its antiunion
campaign . James Pillet's standing by Union Or-
ganizer Scotti's car and Fran Menken 's holding out
of a benefit to employees in the establishment of a
scholarship for which employees ' children would
have precedence were two more maneuvers to
discourage support for the Union. Respondent's
campaign started when the Union 's demand was
made and ran into June . The interrogation and
threats were heaviest at the beginning , but King's
release and the Menken notice maintained it.
I cannot absolve Respondent from its responsi-
bility for Colon's behavior on the basis that it held a
conference with supervisors on the Friday after
May 7, and therein told them not to talk with em-
ployees concerning the Union . There is evidence
that Colon continued to talk about the Union with
employees following this meeting and no attempt
was made to advise employees of the restrictions on
supervisors nor did management disavow the state-
ments and threats made by the supervisors prior to
that time.
It is reasonably clear that Respondent did not
want a union in its plant . Secondly, Respondent's
supervisors and in particular Colon immediately
began to discourage and try to undermine the union
strength by interrogating employees and threaten-
ing that they could be discharged , warning them of
discharges of other union committee members, and
interfering with the union representative talking to
employees on their own time outside the plant. The
refusal to take King back after his Puerto Rican trip
when his job was available and the holding out of a
scholarship with precedence to employees ' children
complete the picture painted illegally by Respon-
dent to demonstrate to the employees that their
best interests woluld be served by not supporting
the Union . Responddent , with no expressed
reasonable basis for doubting that the Union had a
majority, embarked on a course of undermining the
Union through its supervisors and continued this
campaign after the stipulation for a union election
was signed . When the Union withdrew from the
stipulation and filed the charges herein it
acknowledged it felt a fair election could not be
held in the circumstances and charged that Respon-
dent had been undermining its position as the
majority representative of the employees.
I cannot say that Respondent's campaign was
widespread and flagrant but rather Respondent
acted at a measured pace in a consistent pattern to
undo what the Union had accomplished . Respon-
dent was not unlearned in dealing with unions.
I conclude and find that Respondent , as disclosed
by its violative acts set forth above, did not have a
good-faith doubt of the Union' s majority and that
by refusing to bargain with the Union on and after
May 7, 1968, Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5)
and (1) of the Act.
Respondent in its brief offers another reason as
to why it could not have bargained with the Union
when the request was made on May 7. Respondent
states that at that time it was still under a Board
Order requiring it to bargain with New York Local
62, although the Second Circuit court had denied
enforcement of that Board Order and the case had
been remanded to the Board for its further con-
sideration of whether Respondent was bound by the
contract . Respondent had contended it was not
bound.
This argument may be answered by stating that
Respondent never offered this reason to the Union
when the demand was made and, secondly, the
664 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Board on further consideration decided that
Respondent was not bound by the contract and
therefore there was no legal impediment extant at
that time . This argument is clearly an afterthought
and deserves no further consideration.
III. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
UPON COMMERCE
The activities of Respondent set forth in section
II, above, and therein found to constitute unfair
labor practices in violation of Section 8(a)(5), (3),
and (1 ), of the Act, occurring in connection with
Respondent 's business operations as set forth in
section I , above, have a close, intimate , and sub-
stantial relationship 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.
IV. THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent engaged in unfair
labor practices as set forth above , I recommend
that they cease and desist therefrom and take cer-
tain affirmative action designed to effectuate the
policies of the Act as follows:
Respondent , since on or about May 7, 1968, has
at all times since then refused and still refuses to
bargain with the Union in good faith as the
representative of its employees in an appropriate
unit . Therefore I recommend that Respondent upon
request bargain collectively with the Union in good
faith and , in the event that an understanding is
reached , embody such understanding in a signed
agreement.
Respondent having terminated Joaquin Gutirrez
(King ) on or about June 3, 1968, because of his
union activities and not having thereafter offered
him reinstatement, I recommend that Respondent
offer him immediate and full reinstatement 3 to his
former position , or if such position has been
abolished through change in Respondent's opera-
tion then to any substantially similar position,
without prejudice to his seniority or other rights
and privileges and that Respondent make him
whole for any loss of pay he may have suffered by
reason of Respondent 's discrimination against him
by payment to him of a sum equal to that which he
would have normally received as wages from June
3, the date of his termination, until the date
Respondent offers him reinstatement , less any net
earnings for the interim. Backpay is to be computed
on a quarterly basis in the manner established by
the Board in F.W . Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB
289, with interest at the rate of 6 percent per
' Respondent amended its answer to allege it made an offer of reinstate-
ment to Joaquin Gutirrez ( King) on or about August 29, 1968 , and further
stated during the hearing it was making a subsequent offer of reinstatement
to him I will not at this point attempt to determine whether the offers of
annum to be computed in the manner set forth in
Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., NLRB 716. 1
further recommend that Respondent make availa-
ble to the Board , upon request , payroll and other
records in order to facilitate the checking of the
amount of backpay due and the rights of Joaquin
Gutirrez ( King).
I have found that Respondent discriminated
against Joaquin Gutirrez (King) for exercising his
rights under the Act and Respondent thereby inter-
fered with the rights of its other employees and
further interfered with them by various threats and
interrogations of employees . I am concerned that
Respondent might commit further unfair labor
practices ; however , as set forth above, I have deter-
mined that Respondent 's antiunion campaign was
not a wholesale broad -gauged campaign but rather
was a select campaign engaged in to achieve a
specific result . I note moreover that Respondent
prior to this time had engaged in collective bargain-
ing with another union . I am not convinced there-
fore that a broad enjoinder prohibiting Respondent
from any further unfair labor practices is necessary
and therefore will recommend that Respondent be
placed under an enjoinder to cease and desist
from violating the Act in the same or a manner
similar to the violations herein found.
On the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and
the entire record , I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. James Textile Corp ., is an employer engaged
in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6)
and (7 ) of the Act.
2. The Union is a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. All production , maintenance , shipping,
receiving and cutting department employees em-
ployed at Respondent 's North Bergen plant , exclud-
ing office clerical employees, professional em-
ployees, salesmen , porters, guards, and all super-
visors as defined in the Act , constitute a unit ap-
propriate for the purposes of collective bargaining
within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act.
4. At all times since May 7, 1968, the Union has
been , and now is , the exclusive representative of
the employees in the said unit for the purposes of
collective bargaining within the meaning of Section
9(a) of the Act.
5. Respondent by refusing to bargain in good
faith with the Union on and after May 7, 1968, as
the exclusive representative of its employees in the
appropriate unit, has engaged in and is engaging in
unfair labor practices within the meaning of Sections
8(a)(5) and ( 1) and 2 ( 6) and (7) of the Act.
reinstatement were proper under the circumstances current when made
but will leave such determinations , if necessary , to any subsequent com-
pliance proceedings
THE JAMES TEXTILE CORP. 665
6. By discriminatorily terminating employee
Joaquin Gutirrez (King) on June 3, 1968, and not
thereafter having reinstated him because of his
union activities and desires, Respondent engaged in
and is engaging in unfair labor practices affecting
commerce within the meaning of Sections 8(a)(3)
and (1) and 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
7. Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in
unfair labor practices affecting commerce within
the meaning of Sections 8(a)(1) and 2(6) and (7)
of the Act by:
(a) Interrogating employees concerning their
membership in or support for the Union.
(b) Threatening employees that others had been
discharged and they might be discharged or suffer
other economic reprisals if they became members
of or supported the Union.
(c) Interfering with employees contacting a
union representative on their own time in front of
the plant.
(d) Promising benefits of possible scholarships
for employees' children to dissuade support of the
Union.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
On the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and
conclusions of law, and upon the entire record in
this case considered as a whole, it is recommended
that James Textile Corp . of North Bergen , New Jer-
sey, its officers , agents, successors , and assigns,
shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Refusing to bargain collectively in good faith
concering rates of pay , hours of employment, and
other terms and conditions of employment with
Local 148-162 , International Ladies' Garment
Workers' Union , AFL-CIO, as the exclusive
representative of the employees in the appropriate
unit described in the section entitled "Conclusions
of Law" above.
(b) Discouraging membership in and activities
on behalf of Local 148-162, International Ladies'
Garment Workers ' Union , AFL-CIO, or any other
labor organization , by discharging employees.
(c) Interrogating its employees about their union
membership or sympathies.
(d) Threatening employees that they discharged
other employees and would discharge them or
would effect economic reprisals if the employees
retained membership in or supported the Union.
(e) Interfering with employees contacting a
union representative on their own time in front of
the company plant.
(f) Promising employees benefits of possible
scholarships for the employees ' children to dissuade
support of the Union.
2. Take the following affirmative action which is
necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Upon request , bargain collectively in good
faith with the above -named Union as the exclusive
representative of all employees in the appropriate
unit , and embody in a signed agreement any un-
derstanding reached.
(b) Offer to Joaquin Gutirrez (King ) reinstate-
ment in accordance with the recommendations set
forth in the section of this Decision entitled "The
Remedy."
(c) Make Joaquin Gutirrez ( King ) whole for any
loss of pay he may have suffered by reason of
Respondent 's discrimination against him in ac-
cordance with the recommendations set forth in the
section of this Decision entitled "The Remedy."
(d) 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 other records necessary to analyze the
amount of backpay due and the other rights and
privileges accorded to Joaquin Gutirrez ( King) as
set forth in the section of this Decision entitled
"The Remedy."
(e) Notify the above-named employees if
presently serving in the Armed Forces of the United
States of his right to full reinstatement upon appli-
cation in accordance with the Selective Service Act
and the Universal Military Training and Service
Act, as amended , after discharge from the Armed
Forces.
(f) Post at its North Bergen , New Jersey, plant,
copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix."4
Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the Re-
gional Director for Region 22, after being duly
signed by Respondent 's representative , shall be
posted by 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 Respon-
dent to insure that said notices are not altered,
defaced , or covered by any other material .
(g) Notify the Regional Director for Region 22,
in writing , within 20 days from the receipt of this
Decision, what steps have been taken to comply
herewith.'
Those parts of the complaint not found violative
of the Act herein should be dismissed.
4 In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board , the and Order."
words "a Decision and Order " shall be substituted for the words " the ° In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board,
Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner " in the notice In the further this provision shall be modified to read " Notify the Regional OrDirector
event that the Board 's Order is enforced by a decree of a United States for Region 22, in wirriting , within 10 days from the date of this Order, what
Court of Appeals , the words "a Decree of the United States Court of Ap- steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith
peals Enforcing an Order " shall be substituted for the words "a Decision
666 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial
Examiner of the National Labor Relations Board
and in order to effectuate the policies of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Act, as amended, we hereby
notify our employees that:
Following a trial in which the Company, the
Union, and the General Counsel of the National
Labor Relations Board participated and offered
their evidence, it has been found that we violated
the Act. We have been ordered to post this notice
and to abide by what we say in this notice.
WE WILL bargain collectively in good faith,
upon request , with Local 148-162, Interna-
tional Ladies' Garment Workers' Union,
AFL-CIO, as the exclusive representative of all
the employees in the bargaining unit described
below with respect to rates of pay, wages,
hours of employment , and other terms and
conditions of employment and, if an un-
derstanding is reached, WE WILL sign a con-
tract containing such understanding . The bar-
gaining unit is:
All production, maintenance, shipping,
receiving and cutting department em-
ployees employed in Respondent's North
Bergen plant, excluding office clerical em-
ployees, professional employees , salesmen,
porters, guards, and all supervisors as
defined in the Act.
WE WILL offer Joaquin Gutirrez (King) his
former job with all his rights and any backpay
due him.
LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
WE WILL NOT ask our employees about their
union membership, support, or sympathies.
WE WILL NOT warn employees that other em-
ployees have been discharged because of the
Union or that employees may be discharged
because of the Union or that we will take
economic reprisals against them if the Union is
successful in organizing the plant.
WE WILL NOT interfere with employees who
may wish to contact a union representative on
their own time outside the plant.
WE WILL NOT hold out the possibility of
benefits for employees' children in order to
discourage employees from supporting the
Union.
WE WILL notify the above-named employee
if presently serving in the Armed Forces of the
United States of his right to full reinstatement
upon application in accordance with the Selec-
tive Service Act and the Universal Military
Training and Service Act, as amended, after
discharge from the Armed Forces.
All our employees are free to become or remain
union members.
THE JAMES TEXTILE
CORP.
(Employer)
Dated By
(Representative ) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecu-
tive days from the date of posting and must not be
altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
If employees have any question concerning this
notice or compliance with its provisions, they may
communicate directly with the Board 's Regional
Office, Federal Building , 16th Floor, 970 Broad
Street, Newark, New Jersey 07102, Telephone
201-645-3240.