Virgo Dress Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 2, 1977

228 N.L.R.B. 565 (N.L.R.B. 1977)

VIRGO DRESS COMPANY 565
Anthony Salerno, doing business as Virgo Dress
Company and Local 259, International Ladies'
Garment Workers ' Union, AFL-CIO. Case 3-CA-
6672
March 2, 1977
DECISION AND ORDER
allegation in the complaint not specifically denied
or explained in an answer filed, unless the
respondent shall state in the answer that he is
without knowledge, shall be deemed to be
admitted to be true and shall be so found by the
Board, unless good cause to the contrary is
shown.
By CHAIRMAN MURPHY AND MEMBERS
JENKINS AND WALTHER
Upon a charge filed on August 3, 1976, by Local
259, International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union,
AFL-CIO, herein called the Union, and duly served
on Anthony Salerno, doing business as Virgo Dress
Company, herein called Respondent, the General
Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board, by
the Regional Director for Region 3, issued a
complaint and notice of hearing on September 27,
1976, against Respondent, alleging that Respondent
had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor
practices affecting commerce within the meaning of
Section 8(a)(3) and (1) and Section (2)(6) and (7) of
the National Labor Relations Act, as amended.
Copies of the charge, complaint, and notice of
hearing before an Administrative Law Judge were
duly served on the parties to this proceeding.
On November 15, 1976, counsel for the General
Counsel filed directly with the Board a Motion for
Summary Judgment. Subsequently, on November 19,
1976, the Board issued an order transferring the
proceeding to the Board and a Notice To Show
Cause why the General Counsel's Motion for
Summary Judgment should not be granted. Respon-
dent failed to file a response to Notice To Show
Cause and the allegation of the Motion for Summary
Judgment stands uncontroverted.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
Upon the entire record in this proceeding, the
Board makes the following.
Ruling on the Motion for Summary Judgment
Section 102.20 of the Board's Rules and Regula-
tions, Series 8, as amended, provides as follows:
The respondent shall, within 10 days from the
service of the complaint, file an answer thereto.
The respondent shall specifically admit, deny, or
explain each of the facts alleged in the complaint,
unless the respondent is without knowledge, in
which case the respondent shall so state, such
statement operating as a denial. All allegations in
the complaint, if no answer is filed, or any
228 NLRB No. 55
The complaint and notice of hearing served on
Respondent specifically states that unless an answer
to the complaint is filed by Respondent within 10
days of service thereof "all of the allegations in the
Complaint shall be deemed to be admitted by it to be
true and may so be found by the Board." Further,
according to the uncontroverted Motion for Summa-
ry Judgment, on October 28, 1973, counsel for the
General Counsel mailed to Respondent by regular
mail a letter, in confirmation of a previous telephone
call notifying it of its failure to file an answer and
informing Respondent that unless an answer to the
complaint was received by October 29, 1976, a
Motion for Summary Judgment would be made. As
of November 12, 1976, that date of the Motion for
Summary Judgment, no answer has been filed. Since
Respondent did not file an answer to the complaint
nor a response to the Notice To Show Cause, and
since no good cause for these failures has been
shown, the allegations of the complaint are deemed
to be admitted and are found to be true in
accordance with the rules set forth above. We shall,
accordingly, grant the Motion for Summary Judg-
ment.
On the basis of the entire record, the Board makes
the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
Respondent, an individual proprietor doing busi-
ness under the trade name and style of Virgo Dress
Company, maintains its principal office and place of
business in New Paltz, New York, where it is
engaged in the manufacture, sale, and distribution of
women's apparel. Respondent annually manufac-
tures and sells goods valued in excess of $50,000, of
which goods valued in excess of $50,000 are sold to
various jobbers in the garment industry located in
the State of New York, each of which jobbers
annually sells and ships goods valued in excess of
$50,000 directly to States of the United States other
than the State of New York.
We find, on the basis of the foregoing, that
Respondent is, and has been at all times material
herein, an employer engaged in commerce within the
meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act, and that
566 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
it will effectuate the policies of the Act to assert V. THE REMEDY
jurisdiction herein.
H. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Local 259, International Ladies' Garment Workers'
Union , AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The Independent 8(a)(1) Violations
On or about July 20-22, 1976, Respondent,
through its officers, agents, and/or representatives,
(a) interrogated its employees concerning their own
and other employees' membership in, activities on
behalf of, and sympathies with the Union; (b)
threatened its employees with discharge because of
their activities in support of the Union; and (c)
threatened to close its plant if its employees selected
the Union as their bargaining representative.
Accordingly, we find that, by the aforesaid con-
duct, Respondent interfered with, restrained, and
coerced its employees in the exercise of rights
guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act and has thereby
engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices
within the meaning of Section 8(a)(l) of the Act.
B. The 8(a)(3) Violation
On or about July 22, 1976, Respondent terminated
the employment of its employees Ruth Keesler and
Barbara Gardner and has failed and refused to
reinstate them because they joined or assisted the
Union or engaged in other union or concerted
activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or
mutual aid or protection.
We accordingly find that, by the aforesaid conduct,
Respondent discriminated in regard to the terms and
conditions of employment of its employees thereby
discouraging membership in a labor organization
and that by such conduct Respondent engaged in
and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR
PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of Respondent set forth in section
III, above, occurring in connection with its opera-
tions described in section I, above, have a close,
intimate, and substantial 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 com-
merce.
Having found that Respondent has engaged in and
is engaging in unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 8(aX3) and (1) of the Act, we
shall order that it cease and desist therefrom and take
certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the
policies of the Act.
Having also found that Respondent discriminatori-
ly discharged employees Ruth Keesler and Barbara
Gardner, we shall order Respondent to offer them
immediate and full reinstatement to their former jobs
or, if those jobs no longer exist, to substantially
equivalent positions, without prejudice to their
seniority and other rights and privileges, and to make
them whole for any loss of earnings they may have
suffered by payment to them of a sum of money
equal to the amount they normally would have
earned as wages from the date of their discharge to
the date of Respondent's offer of reinstatement, less
net earnings, in accordance with the formula set
forth in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289
(1950), with interest as prescribed in Isis Plumbing &
Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716 (1962).
As the unfair labor practices committed by
Respondent were of a character which go to the very
heart of the Act, we shall order Respondent to cease
and desist from infringing in any other manner upon
the rights of employees guaranteed by Section 7 of
the Act.
The Board, upon the basis of the foregoing facts
and the entire record, makes the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Anthony Salerno, doing business as Virgo
Dress Company, is an employer engaged in com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of
the Act.
2. Local 259, International Ladies' Garment
Workers' Union, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization
within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. By the conduct set forth in section III, A and
B, Respondent has interfered with, restrained, and
coerced, and is interfering with, restraining, and
coercing, employees in the exercise of the rights
guaranteed to them in Section 7 of the Act, and
thereby has engaged in and is engaging in unfair
labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(3)
and (1) of the Act.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair
labor practices affecting commerce within the mean-
ing of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
VIRGO DRESS COMPANY
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended , the National Labor
Relations Board hereby orders that the Respondent,
Anthony Salerno , doing business as Virgo Dress
Company , New Paltz , New York, its officers , agents,
successors, and assigns , shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Interrogating its employees concerning their
own and other employees ' membership in, activities
on behalf of, and sympathy with the Union.
(b) Threatening its employees with discharge
because of their activities in support of the Union.
(c) Threatening to close its plant if its employees
select the Union as their collective-bargaining repre-
sentative.
(d) Discouraging membership in Local 259 , Inter-
national Ladies' Garment Workers ' Union, AFL-
CIO, or any other labor organization, by discrimina-
torily discharging or by otherwise discriminating in
regard to hire and tenure of employment of any of its
employees because they joined or assisted the
aforesaid Union or any other labor organization, or
engaged in other concerted activity for the purpose
of collective bargaining or any mutual aid or
protection.
(e) In any other manner interfering with , restrain-
ing, or coercing employees in the exercise of rights
guaranteed them in Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which
the Board finds will effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Offer Ruth Keesler and Barbara Gardner
immediate and full reinstatement to their former jobs
or, if those jobs no longer exist , to substantially
equivalent positions, without prejudice to their
seniority or other rights and privileges and make
them whole for any loss of pay they may have
suffered by reason of the discrimination against them
in the manner set forth in the section herein entitled
"The Remedy."
(b) Post at its New Paltz , New York, plant copies
of the attached notice marked "Appendix ." ' Copies
of said notice , on forms provided by the Regional
Director for Region 3, 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 thereaf-
ter, in conspicuous places, including all places where
notices to employees are customarily posted . Reason-
able steps shall be taken by Respondent to insure
that said notices are not altered , defaced, or covered
by any other material.
567
(c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 3, in
writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order,
what steps Respondent has taken to comply here-
with.
1 In the event that this Order is enforced by a Judgment of a United
States Court of Appeals , the words in the notice reading "Posted by Order
of the National Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursuant to a
Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the
National Labor Relations Board."
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT interrogate our employees con-
cerning their own and other employees' member-
ship in, activities on behalf of, and sympathy with
Local 259, International Ladies' Garment Work-
ers' Union, AFL-CIO.
WE wiLL NOT threaten our employees with
discharge because of their activities in support of
the Union.
WE WILL NOT threaten to close our plant if our
employees select the Union as their collective-
bargaining representative.
WE wiLL NOT discourage membership in Local
259, International Ladies' Garment Workers'
Union, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organiza-
tion, by discriminatorily discharging or by other-
wise discriminating in regard to hire and tenure of
employment of any of our employees because
they joined or assisted the aforesaid Union, or
any other labor organization, or engaged in other
concerted activity for the purpose of collective
bargaining or any mutual aid or protection.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere
with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the
exercise of their rights guaranteed them in Section
7 of the Act.
WE WILL offer Ruth Keesler and Barbara
Gardner immediate and full reinstatement to
their former jobs or, if those jobs no longer exist,
to substantially equivalent positions, without
prejudice to their seniority or other rights and
privileges and make them whole for any loss of
pay they may have suffered by reason of the
discrimination against them.
ANTHONY SALERNO,
DOING BUSINESS AS
VIRGO DRESS COMPANY