Vogue Craft

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 14, 1955

111 N.L.R.B. 220 (N.L.R.B. 1955)

` `20 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Upon the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record in the case, I make
the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Local 1423, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL,
is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
2. By discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of Millard L.
Glass, James T. Adams, Jr., and Dewey D. Hale, thereby encouraging membership in
a labor organization, the Company has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
3. By the above discrimination and other conduct found above, thereby interfer-
ing with, restraining, and coercing employees or applicants for employment in the
exercise of rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act, the Company has engaged in
and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1)
of the Act.
4. By attempting to cause and causing the Company, an employer, to discriminate
against Glass, Adams, and Hale aforesaid, in violation of Section 8 (a) (3) of the
Act, the Union has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 8 (b) (2) of the Act.
5. By causing the Company to discriminate as aforesaid, and by other conduct
found above, thereby restraining and coercing employees or applicants for employ-
ment in the exercise of rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act, the Union has
engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section
8 (b) (1) (A) of the Act.
6. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
[Recommendations omitted from publication.]
TED RAZOOK AND BEVERLY RAZOOK, A CO -PARTNERSHIP , D/B/A VOGUE
CRAFT and INTERNATIONAL LADIES GARMENT WORKERS UNION, AFL.
Case No. 21-CA-1681. January 14, 1955
Decision and Order
On April 15, 1954, Trial Examiner Maurice M. Miller issued his
Intermediate Report 1 in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that
the Respondents had engaged in and were engaging in certain un-
fair labor practices alleged in the complaint and recommending that
they cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative remedial
action. Thereafter, following the Board's promulgation of its new
jurisdictional policy, the General Counsel moved to dismiss the com-
plaint on jurisdictional grounds. The Union filed objections thereto
with a supporting statement. The Board has considered the juris-
dictional issue in the case and finds merit in the General Counsel's
motion that the complaint be dismissed.
Respondents are engaged in the manufacture of women's wearing
apparel in the State of California. The record shows that Respond-
ents receive from Relax-Slax, another California firm, materials which
1 There are two Intermediate Reports. The first, dictated Into the record, was not con-
sidered by the Board as an Intermediate Report for purposes of Section 102.45 of the
Board's Rules and Regulations.
111 NLRB No. 32.
VOGUE CRAFT 221
Respondents sew into slacks, for which they are paid $16.50 per dozen
upon reshipment to Relax-Slax. During the 12-month period ending
April 30, 1953, Respondents received approximately $50,000 for such
services from Relax-Slax and for the period ending April 1954, they
received approximately $45,000. Respondents also have a similar ar-
rangement with Simonds Sportswear from which they receive about
$18,000 a year and a similar arrangement for the manufacture of
slacks and pedal pushers from other concerns for which Respondents
receive an income of some $7,000. It was stipulated that the out-of-
States sales by Relax-Slax for the past 12-month period was approxi-
mately $65,000 worth of products and by Simonds Sportswear about
$5,900 a year. It was also admitted that the value of the slacks for
Relax-Slax, after manufacture by the Respondents, is about $130,000
and for Simonds Sportswear about $50,000.
On the basis of the above, the General Counsel moved to dismiss
for failure of the Respondents to show $100,000 worth of services to
customers which themselves ship $50,000 worth of goods outside the
State. However, the Union, International Ladies' Garment Work-
ers Union, AFL, opposed the motion on the ground that title to the
materials received by the Respondent actually passed to the latter,
and that when the finished products are sent to Respondents' cus-
tomers, the Respondents are credited with the value thereof. The
Union thus urges that the Respondents having originally received title
to the materials, sell, as their own, finished products valued at more
than $100,000, which are directly utilized by a company which ships
$50,000 worth of goods outside the State. The Respondents contend
that their services are performed on materials owned by Relax-Slax
and are consigned to the Respondents as consignees for the sole and
express purpose of being manufactured into garments for the
consigner.
We find no necessity for passing upon the issue as to whether legal
title to the materials remained in the consigner or passed to the Re-
spondents, as we find that the Respondents are engaged primarily,
not in selling the finished products manufactured by them, but in
processing them for other firms in the same State. Because it ap-
pears from the above, that the dollar volume of Respondents' serv-
ices to Relax-Slax and others are insufficient to meet the indirect out-
flow standard of $100,000 set forth in the Jonesboro case,2 we find that
it will not effectuate the purposes of the Act to assert jurisdiction in
this case, and we shall therefore dismiss the complaint as requested by
the General Counsel.
[The Board dismissed the complaint.]
2 Jonesboro Grain Drying Cooperative , 110 NLRB 481.