Ballston-Stillwater Knitting Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 7, 1938

6 N.L.R.B. 470 (N.L.R.B. 1938)

In the Matter of BALLSTON-STILLWATER KNITTING Co., INC. and
TEXTILE WORKERS ORGANIZING COMMITTEE
Case No. C-td74.Decided April 7, 1938
hosiery and Sweater Manufacturing Industry-Interfercnice, Restraint, and
Coercion-Discrimination: lay-off and discharge of employees to discourage
membership in labor organization-Company-Domunated Union: domination of
and interference with formation and administration of; solicitation of support
for, by supervisory employees ; meetings on company time ; contrast between
hostility toward "outside" unions and open favoritism toward company-domi-
nated union; dismissal of allegation of financial contributions to; disestablished
as agency for collective bargaining -Lock-Out-Strike: brought on by employer's
unfair labor practices-Reinstatement Ordered: persons laid off or discharged ;
strikers, upon application-Discharge Ordered: persons hired since beginning of
strike if necessary to make room for employees reinstated-Back Pay: awarded
to employees locked out, to persons laid off or discharged, to strikers whose appli-
cations for reinstatement are refused by employer.
Mr. Lee Loevinger, for the Board.
Mr. James M. Noonan, of Albany, N. Y., for the respondent.
.41r. Theodore A. Knapp, of Saratoga Springs, N. Y., for the
T. W. 0. C.
Mr. Burton D. Esmond, of Ballston Spa, N. Y., for the Association.
Mr. Fran/c M. Noonan, of Ballston Spa, N. Y., for the Village of
Ballston Spa.
Miss Margaret B. Bennett, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
A charge and amended charge having been filed by Textile Work-
ers Organizing Committee, herein called the T. W. O. C., the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board, by Elinore
M. Herrick, Regional Director for the Second Region (New York
City), issued its complaint dated August 11, 1937, against Ballston-
Stillwater Knitting Co., Inc., Ballston Spa, New York, herein called
the respondent, alleging that the respondent had engaged in and
was engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce, within
470
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 471
the meaning of Section 8 (1), (2), and (3) and Section 2 (6) and
(7) of the National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein called
the Act. Copies of the complaint were duly served upon the re-
spondent, upon Employees Welfare and Protective Association of
the Ballston-Stillwater Knitting Mill, herein called the. Association,
and upon the T. W. 0. C. On August 14, 1937, the respondent filed
its answer, in which it denied that it had engaged in or was engaging
in the unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint and prayed that
the complaint be dismissed.
Pursuant to notice served upon the respondent, the T. W. 0. C.,
and the Association, a hearing was held at Ballston Spa, New York,
from August 19 through August 21, from August 23 through August
28, and from August 30 through August 31, 1937, before Charles B.
Bayley, the Trial Examiner duly designated by the Board. The
Board, the respondent, the T. W. 0. C., the Association, and the
Village of Ballston Spa were represented by counsel. All parties
participated in the hearing and were afforded full opportunity to be
heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce
evidence bearing upon the issues. At the beginning of the hearing
the Trial Examiner denied a motion by counsel for the Board to
strike out,. as irrelevant. paragraphs 17, 18, and 19 of the answer.
At the close of the Board's case, the Trial Examiner granted a mo-
tion by counsel for the Board to strike from the complaint, for
failure of proof, the names Jessie L. Petronis, maiden name Jessie
Olewicki, and Elizabeth Tardoff. At the same time, a motion by
counsel for the respondent to dismiss the complaint was denied.
These rulings by the Trial Examiner are hereby affirmed. At the
end of the hearing the Trial Examiner granted a motion by counsel
for the T. W. 0. C. to "amend the pleadings to include attempted
coercion by legal actions, prosecutions, and litigation" on the part
of the respondent against its employees, which ruling is hereby re-
versed. During the course of the hearing the Trial Examiner ruled
upon other motions and upon objections to evidence. The Board
has reviewed these rulings and finds that no prejudicial errors were
committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed.
On October 25, 1937, the Trial Examiner filed his Intermediate
Report, in which he found that the respondent had engaged in and
was engaging in the unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint,
as amended, except with respect to the allegation of surveillance by
the respondent of the meeting places of the T. W. 0. C., which alle-
gation he dismissed, as being unsupported by the evidence. He rec-
ommended that the respondent withdraw recognition from and dis-
establish the Association as a collective bargaining agency; that the
respondent cease and desist from interfering with its employees in
q0618-38-10L Vi-31
472 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the exercise of their right of self-organization and collective bargain-
ing through representatives of their own choosing; that the persons
alleged in the complaint , as amended , to have been discriminatorily
laid off or discharged be offered reinstatement with back pay from the
date of such lay-off or discharge; and that the respondent offer
reinstatement to all of its employees , not now employed by it, who,
went out on strike June 12, 1937.
Exceptions to the Intermediate Report were filed by the respond-
ent on November 3, 1937, and by the Association on November 5,
1937 . The Board has considered these exceptions and, save to the
extent that its findings set forth below depart from those of the
Trial Examiner , finds that they are without merit.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
The respondent is a corporation organized and existing under the
laws of the State of New York and having its principal place of
business at Ballston Spa, New York. It is engaged in the manufac-
ture of woolen and merino sweaters and wool, one -half wool, and
cotton hosiery. It has two hosiery plants, one at Stillwater, New
York, and one at Ballston Spa, New York, and one sweater plant
at Ballston Spa. It produces about 40 per cent of all men's woolen
socks manufactured in the United States. In 1936 it shipped 1,270,-
983 dozen pairs of hosiery, at a value of about $1,834,980, and 37,599
dozen sweaters, at a value of about $322,845. Approximately 90 per
cent of the respondent 's manufactured products are sold outside the
State of New York, and over 50 per cent of the materials purchased
by the respondent come from States other than New York. From
January 1936 until April 1937 the total number of persons employed
by the respondent ranged from about 886 to about 924, and its
weekly pay roll from about $13,640 to about $17,720.
II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
Textile Workers Organizing Committee is a labor organization
affiliated with the Committee for Industrial Organization , herein
called the C. I. 0., admitting to membership employees of the
respondent.
Employees Welfare and Protective Association of the Ballston-
Stillwater Knitting Mill is an unaffiliated labor organization , admit-
ting only employees of the respondent , including supervisory
employees. I'
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 473
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The lock-out
On Friday , March 26, 1937 , employees in several departments of the
Ballston Spa hosiery plant presented to the respondent 's president,
Walter J. Mooney, petitions asking for a 15-per cent increase in
wages. Immediately upon receiving the petitions, Mooney posted a
notice, acknowledging receipt of the petitions and reading in part as
follows :
... In the absence of any representatives from these depart-
ments it was deemed advisable to close down the plant on Satur-
day March 27, 1937, at 7 a. in., and I have instructed the foreman
of each department to have their representatives meet with the
officers on March 29th , at 2: 30 P. M... .
Employees who came to work Saturday morning found the doors
locked. They remained locked until about 11 o'clock Monday morning,
at which time representatives were elected in the various departments
under the supervision of the foremen.
At 2: 30 that afternoon Mooney addressed the representatives. He
said he was "indeed happy" that the employees had presented their
petitions "without outside interference ." He reminded them that the
business was highly competitive and that the past president, whose
place he had recently taken, had planned to dismantle the mill and
move to the South. He said he could not discuss an increase until
August, because "we have to sell our merchandise in November and
December for delivery the following July, August, and Septem-
ber . . . As a result , we have at the present time our production sold
on that basis ." In conclusion, referring to the petitions for an increase
in wages, he said :
Now, fellow employees, if you are willing to cooperate with
us and fill these orders, we-in turn-will give you our solemn
pledge that we will summons your representatives in our office in
August for a conference. . . .
I want to make it emphatic that no discrimination will be made
for signers on the petition and if you accept my proposal, all
employees will be restored to their old jobs without prejudice.
Your jobs are here-plenty of work for you, barring unforeseen-
circumstances , and if you are willing to go back on the basis of
my word, which is the most sacred thing I possess , the doors will
be open to you Wednesday morning. Therefore , give me your
answer tomorrow afternoon.
During the lock-out some of the employees asked help from the
T. W. O. C ., and an organizing campaign was initiated.
474 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
It was obviously unnecessary for the respondent to close its plant
in order to enable its employees to choose bargaining representatives.
The only reasonable conclusion from the evidence is that the re-
spondent closed the plant from March 27 to 30, 1937, both days in-
clusive, for the purpose of discouraging its employees in their first
efforts toward collective bargaining, and we so find.
B. The formation of the Association
Shortly after Mooney's speech, two papers were circulated among
the employees in the Ballston Spa hosiery mill during working
hours and in the presence of foremen, one advocating an open shop,
the other an inside union. Signatures were solicited and conversa-
tions were carried on at some length without objection by the fore-
men, although such activities were against the rules. One girl who
was reluctant to sign was told by the woman who sometimes took the
forelady's place : "When this goes down to the office and Mr. Mooney
sees it, what do you think he will think; that you are against him.
That is all it is for, just so he knows who is with him and who isn't."
Similar papers were circulated in the Stillwater plant by super-
visory employees, including Sam Jones, Charles Baker, Cordelia
Pitney, and others, who gave some of the employees, at least, to un-
derstand that they had better sign if they wanted to keep their jobs.
We have concluded that Jones, Baker, Pitney, and others were su-
pervisory employees even though the respondent contends no one in
the Stillwater plant but the superintendent, Frank Hathorn, and the
assistant superintendent in charge at night, Frank Hathorn, Jr., had
supervisory authority. Several witnesses testified that these persons
were foremen, and there is no doubt but that they transmitted orders
from the superintendent to the employees and reported back to him
concerning their work and behavior. Moreover, it is incredible that
in a plant in which about 250 persons were employed no one but the
day and night superintendents had any supervisory duties. At times
when these papers were circulated during working hours either
Hathorn, Sr., or Hathorn, Jr., was present and did nothing to indi-
cate disapproval.
Employees soliciting signatures left their machines and conversed
at length, in violation of the respondent's rules, without reprimand,
but members of the C. I. O. were constantly watched and made to
feel that they could not break the rules with impunity. In fact at
both hosiery plants the discrimination against persons favoring the
T. W. O. C. became so noticeable and the pressure to sign up for
the inside union so great that some of the girls cried out of nervous-
ness. Even Hathorn, Sr., as well as others in positions of authority,
asked some of the employees point-blank whether they belonged to
the C. I. O.
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 475
On April 9, 1937, a notice of a meeting to be held in a garage that
afternoon during working hours was posted in the plant ; and Pitney
and Baker urged some of the employees to go. The respondent con-
tends that it had no connection with this meeting, and in support of
this contention Pitney testified that she was not a supervisory` em-
ployee and that she had arranged to have the meeting during working
hours without asking permission from anyone. Both she and
Hathorn, Sr., testified that she had not mentioned the meeting to
him, although she had had lunch with him in his office immediately
beforehand. Hathorn, Sr. further testified that he noticed the em-
ployees were not at their machines during part of that afternoon
but that he did nothing about it because he knew there was "labor
trouble" and "surmised" the employees were having a meeting. He
suspected labor unions were involved because he had "read through
the papers and heard over the radio there were several labor organi-
zations throughout the country" and because recently a whole shift
working on stock numbers 703 and 705 had come to him with griev-
ances. But he had no idea what unions they were. He thought if he
was liberal and did not interfere with meetings the trouble would
blow over.
Busses which ran to and from the plant changed their schedule and
transported employees to and from the meeting free of charge. No
one was docked for attending, but many employees lost wages because
they were paid on a piece-work basis.
Pitney opened the meeting; Bud Deuel, an employee with intermit-
tent supervisory duties, nominated Jones as chairman ; and Jones
introduced the speaker. The speaker, Sidney Hewitt, a justice of the
peace who had been invited to speak by Pitney, advocated inside
unions and said outside unions were rackets. Jones concluded the
meeting by urging the employees to form an inside union and offering
"to resign" any members of the C. I. O. who wished to discontinue
their memberships.
Jones' offer "to resign" members of the C. 1. O. was put into effect
immediately by the circulation by supervisory employees and others
in the Stillwater and Ballston Spa hosiery plants of prepared resigna-
tions, which the employees were urged to sign, and which, when signed,
were sent by registered mail, return receipt requested, to the C. I. O.
The receipts were returned to a post office box rented by Pitney's
brother and used, on this occasion, by Jones.
On April 10, 1937, an advertisement addressed to the employees of
the-respondent appeared in a local paper. It advocated a local union
and implied that the plant would close down and the respondent move
south if the employees joined the C. I. O. It closely resembled
Mooney's speech of March 29, 1937. It was signed by six employees
of the respondent, four of whom became active proponents of the
476 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Association. Those of the signers who testified stated that they had
paid for the advertisement themselves and denied that the respondent
had anything to do with it.
From the April 9 meeting on, employees were urged by supervisory
employees and others to sign application cards of the Association.
Under the guiding hands of Pitney and Jones, Association repre-
sentatives were elected in the various departments of the Stillwater
plant, and on April 15, 1937, Jones, as "chairman" of the Association,
wrote a' letter to Mooney requesting a conference the next day. Pur-
suant to this request, Mooney, on April 16, 1937, came to Stillwater
and read the same speech he had delivered at the Ballston Spa plant
on March 29, 1937.
On May 9, 1937, a formal organization meeting of the Association
was held in the Ballston Spa High School. The agenda and a con-
stitution had been prepared beforehand by an attorney. Jones acted
as chairman, and the constitution was read. Deuel was elected presi-
dent by the executive committee of the Association. The executive
committee was composed of one half of the Association representa-
tives previously elected in both hosiery plants, but how and by whom
the selection was made does not clearly appear. Free busses were
also provided for this meeting.
The testimony of Association witnesses concerning how and why
the Association was organized is contradictory and evasive. For
instance, two of the organizers said that they wanted an inside union
because it would strike for better wages, but upon further examina-
tion said they.were opposed to the C. I. O. because it conducted
strikes. One said that they had copied the wording on the Associa-
tion cards from the paper; another said that they had not. They all
agreed on two things, however: that one of the main reasons for
organizing the Association was to keep. out the C. I. O. and that the
respondent had no hand in establishing 'the Association.
After the May 9 meeting the workers were pressed by supervisory
employees to join the Association. Pitney even went so far as to
advance initiation fees; and Baker, to convince at least one girt that
she would be "sorry" if she did not join.
On May 10, 1937, officers of the Association notified the respondent
that the Association represented a majority of the employees, and,
as evidence of the majority, left on file in the respondent's office all
of the Association's original application cards. The Association
retained for itself only a list taken from those cards.
On June 2, 1937, the Association asked for a 10-per cent increase.
On June 4 the requested increase was granted, and in addition the
minimum rate per hour was raised, but no agreement, oral or writ-
ten, was entered into concerning the duration of the increases.
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 477
The complaint alleges and the Trial Examiner found that the re-
spondent had made financial contributions to the Association. This
is denied by the respondent, and several employee organizers of the
Association testified that they had paid all expenses out of their own
pockets, or with money contributed by the employees to a flower fund.
Their testimony is not entirely convincing, but we find that the evi-
dence does not establish financial contributions by the respondent. We
therefore hereby dismiss that allegation of the complaint and overrule
the Trial Examiner in this respect.
We find that the respondent dominated and interfered with the for-
mation of the Association in April and May 1937, that the respondent
at all times thereafter dominated and interfered with its administra-
tion, and that, by the activities above set forth, the respondent has
interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise
of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
C. The lay-off of employees working on number 703 at the Stillwater
plant
On April 9, 1937, Mary Mareno, Helen Lefco, and Mazie de Cres-
cenzo ; on April 16, 1937, Josephine Simyele, Mary La Vigne (married
name, Mary Canard), and Antoinette Zullo; and on April 26, 1937,
Anna Forte; all of whom worked on stock number 703 at the Still-
water plant, were told they were laid off. All were members of the
T. W. O. C.; three were very active ; and one was a committee
member.
Mooney testified that the lay-offs were due to the discontinuance on
April 5, 1937, of the lines 703 and 705 and the dismantling of some of
the machines. These lines had been discontinued, he said, because the
respondent had a large stock on hand and had been unable to obtain
a profitable new contract with its only customer, J. C. Penny Co. Inc.
J. C. Penny Co. Inc., he thought, had taken advantage of the fact that
the respondent had a large stock on hand and had offered a less-than-
cost price. The record shows, however, that although the machines
were dismantled in April, negotiations with J. C. Penny Co. Inc. were
still going on in June, and that up until that time no final prices had
been quoted. In fact, Mooney testified that the respondent had been
negotiating with J. C. Penny Co. Inc. since February but had been
unable to "get a peep" out of that company before June. It seems
extremely unlikely that the respondent would dismantle its machines
for failure to get an order before it was clear that that order would
not be forthcoming. Casting further doubt upon the reason given by
Mooney is his previous testimony to the effect that the respondent
made up stock numbers 703 and 705 without orders.
478 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Q. Mr. Mooney, some of your stock numbers like 703 and
705 you make up without orders, do you not?
A. Absolutely.
Q. So that there are some products you make without having
orders to fulfill at the time they are made?
A. Well, that 703 and 705 is a cotton number, the only cotton
number we make. We gambled on that.
That the respondent, just prior to the hearing, at least, did make
up stock numbers 703 and 705 without orders, and did not limit its
production to orders from J. C. Penny Co. Inc. is indicated also by
a letter from Hathorn, Sr. to a worker on August 9, 1937, in which
he said:
We are sending out salesmen about the first of September and
are calling girls back to work. We are going to try to get some
business on 703 and 705 but first we must know the price we
are going to pay for knitting and the other operations in order
to arrive at a selling price.
If you are not employed now or for any reason you wish to
work here, we will be glad to have you report for work at once.
Along the same line is a remark made by Pitney when some of the
girls in her department were unwilling to sign the open-shop paper.
She said, according to one employee's testimony, "You know that
this work was never stopped before. I really think that it is all
because of this union business that is going on now that this work
had to be. stopped like that-many times we have had even more
stock on hand than we have now, and we never had to have the
machines removed before."
Other testimony indicates that the real purpose of the lay-off
was to discourage union organization and collective bargaining.
Hathorn, Sr., testified that the labor trouble had started on number
703 and that a whole shift had come to him for an increase in wages
in March. Several other witnesses testified that this line had an
exceptionally high percentage of T. W. O. C. members. One of the
girls who was laid off complained to Hatborn, Sr., that he was
violating the Act by failing to observe seniority. He replied, ac-
cording to her story, that he would "take the Wagner Act by the
whiskers." At the hearing he denied that he had said this, but
admitted that he had referred to "the whiskers" of the Act, explaining
that he meant he would comply closely with the Act. He admitted
also that he had told some of the girls that he had a secret reason for
laying them off. One of them accused him of laying them off be-
cause they belonged to the T. W. O. C., saying that that was his
secret reason. To this he did not reply, but on the witness stand
he said the secret reason was that he was planning to invent a way
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 479
of converting old machines into automatic machines for a new line,
that is, a trade secret. Shortly after they were laid off some of the
girls heard that workers were being transferred to line 703 from
other operations and asked Hathorn, Sr ., for reinstatement. He said,
according to their testimony , that he had lost confidence in them,
that he thought they were with him, but that he had "found differ-
ent." He also asked one of them whether she belonged to the
C. I. O. and who else did . She replied she was "no stooge."
Another was requested to write her union affiliation on her social
security card, although she had not been asked to make any such
disclosure when she originally filled out the card.
De Crescenzo and Forte have had no employment since they were
laid off. When they were working for the respondent they each
averaged about $14 a week. Zullo has worked about 2 weeks and
has earned about $12. She averaged about $15 a week when work-
ing for the respondent . La Vigne has worked a few days in a soap
factory and has earned about $12. Before the lay-off she earned
about $15 a week. Lefco has worked as a waitress for about a week
and has earned about $7.50. Her average earnings were about $14
a week when she was working for the respondent . Mareno has had
two jobs, the first paying about $8 a week and the second about $6.50.
When she was laid off she was averaging about $13 a week.
Under all the circumstances we find that the respondent did not
lay off the persons named in the first paragraph of this section because
of slackness of work but rather because of their union affiliation, and
that the respondent by discriminating in regard to tenure of employ-
ment has discouraged membership in the T. W. O. C. and has inter-
fered with, restrained , and coerced its employees in the exercise of
the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
D. The day-off of Irving Hurd
On Friday, April 16, 1937, Hathorn, Sr., notified Irving Hurd, a
drier in the Stillwater plant, that he was laid off. No reason was
given except that the last shift was being laid off for a short time;
and Hurd was asked whether , in the meantime , he would take outside
work. He said he would, but he did not hear from Hathorn again.
About a week later the only other man who was laid off at the same
time, and who was first in seniority, was reemployed. The Monday
after Hurd was laid off an employee with less seniority was trans-
ferred from another operation to take Hurd's place. All three men
were members of the T. W. O. C., but Hurd's membership was the
most conspicuous because he was on a committee and had been active
in organizing the respondent 's employees.
480 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
In its answer to the complaint, the respondent contended that
Hurd had been laid off solely because he argued with the other em-
ployees. For this reason he had previously been required to' use; a
separate entrance and had been forbidden to come to work early.
No particular instance of argument immediately preceding the lay-off
is shown, but Hathorn, Sr., testified that when he laid Hurd off he
intended to reemploy him on outside work only. The respondent also
states in the answer that Hurd had been discharged twice before for
the same reason. The record shows that after having worked for
the respondent about 7 years he was discharged in 1930, but the
reason for the discharge does not appear. He was reemployed in
1933 or 1934 and worked continuously until the spring of 1937.
Since the lay-off Hurd has received no regular employment.
Whether or not Hurd was argumentative, laying him off for this
reason was discriminatory. As has been pointed out above, the re-
spondent permitted employees favoring the Association to solicit
signatures during working hours for papers advocating an open shop
and papers advocating an inside union and to argue in favor of these
papers with employees who were working. The respondent also per-
mitted employees to go to Association meetings on company time. To
deny similar privileges to an employee who was an organizer for the
T. W. O. C. and to lay him off for breaking a rule which at the time
of his lay-off was generally being broken with impunity by employees
favoring the inside union constitutes an interference with the rights
guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act and discrimination in regard to
tenure of employment to discourage membership in a labor organiza-
tion.
E. The discharge of Dorothy Dandereau and Agnes Coon
On May 2, 1937, Dorothy Dandereau, and on May 3, 1937, Agnes
Coon were laid off, along with seven other bundlers at the Ballston
Spa hosiery plant. Neither Dandereau nor Coon has been reinstated.
The reason given by the respondent for failing to reemploy Coon is
that she had the least seniority of those laid off and no new employee
has been hired to take her place. Dandereau; the respondent contends,
was recalled to work about June 1, 1937, in accordance with her sen-
iority rights, but failed to appear. Both of these girls had worked
two or more years for the respondent and were members of the griev-
ance committee for the finishing department. As such, they had
urged Mooney to adopt the seniority rule and to grant other benefits
to the employees. Both had refused to sign inside-union papers. Coon
was active in the T. W. O. C., and Dandereau was a member of a
T. W. O. C. organizing committee. After Dandereau's membership
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 481
became'known she was constantly watched by the forelady, Keene,
and a paper urging her removal as representative of the bundlers
was circulated during working hours, with the knowledge of and in
the presence of Keene. Keene said they were being laid off according
to seniority and "according to law" because of slack work. Mooney
testified that 25 per cent of the workers in that department were laid
off because those who remained wanted a 40 - rather than a 30- or 32-
hour week ; but in his March 29, 1937, speech he said that there was
plenty of work and that all spring and summer production was cov-
ered by existing contracts . Very shortly after the lay-off , work was
piled up on the floor, and girls from other operations were doing'
bundling.
On May 28, 1937, Keene sent word through working employees,
as was her custom, to the other 'girls who had been laid off to report
back on June 1; 1937. She testified that she was unable to send word
in a similar way to Dandereau because none of the bundlers then
working lived near her. She finally admitted, however, that girls
working in a neighboring department at the time did live near
Dandereau. She explained that she had tried to send word through
them but that they had all left work early that day. When asked
whether it was not against the rules for the employees to leave early,
she said they were permitted to oil their machines 10 or 15 minutes
before closing time. Why the girls were not in the plant if they
were oiling their machines she did not explain. According to her
testimony , she thereupon went to the treasurer of the respondent,
not the superintendent of the plant, and asked him to write a letter
to Dandereau . The treasurer testified that he did write a letter
and instructed his secretary to mail it. The respondent introduced
what it claimed to be a copy.of the letter, which said that, according
to her seniority rights, Dandereau would be reemployed June 1. The
person who had been -instructed to mail the letter was not put on
the stand , and Dandereau said she never received it. Counsel for
the respondent said the respondent would be glad to reinstate Dan-
dereau, but when counsel for the Board offered to strike her name
from the complaint if the respondent would agree to reinstate her,
the matter was dropped without an answer.
Upon the basis of all the testimony we find that these lay-offs
were not due to lack of work but were for the purpose of discriminat-
ing against the respondent's active T. W. O. C. employees, and, as
such, were but a part of the respondent's general campaign to keep
outside unions away from its plants. We find that the respondent,
in so doing , interfered with the rights of its employees guaranteed
by Section 7 of the Act, and by discrimination in.tenure of employ-
ment discouraged membership in the T. W. O. C.
482 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
G. The discharge of Florence Ippoliti
On May 4, 1937, Florence Ippoliti, a looper who had worked in the
Ballston hosiery plant for about 11 years, was discharged. The fore-
lady, Keene, testified that Ippoliti had been discharged because her
work was "messy." Keene also testified, however, that Ippoliti's work
at the time of her discharge was no worse than it had been during the
rest of the 11 years, and that in the last 20 years only two people had,
to her knowledge, been dropped for unsatisfactory work. Her con-
tention was that Ippoliti's work had always been poor.
Ippoliti testified that on the occasion of her discharge Keene had
reprimanded her for putting more than an even dozen in a bundle of
socks, in violation of the respondent's rules, and had told her that
she had been watching her and that she "was through." Up until
this time this rule had not been enforced and the other loopers, like
Ippoliti, customarily put more than an even dozen in the last bundle
collected by the turners if necessary to avoid keeping the turners
waiting. There is some evidence to the effect that this rule had
recently been posted on the bulletin board, but the evidence does not
show that the workers had been notified that the rule would be
enforced. -
The T. W. 0. C., on the other hand, contends that Ippoliti was dis-
charged because of her outside-union sympathies. She had refused to
sign the inside-union papers while Keene, who was friendly and lenient
toward the proponents of the Association, was in the room, and had,
instead, joined the T. W. 0. C. After Ippoliti joined the T. W. 0. C.,
Keene began to watch her constantly, and, on one occasion, without
explaining the reason, told her she was being watched.
Since her discharge, Ippoliti has received no employment.
We find the testimony that Ippoliti was discharged for poor work
not persuasive, and we conclude that the real reason was her rejection
of the Association and her affiliation with the T. W. 0. C.
H. The strike
From the beginning, the T. W. 0. C. met with discrimination in the
community as well as in the plants, but the evidence does not estab-
lish direct participation by the respondent in this discrimination.
The T. W. 0. C. was refused meeting places, among them, at one
time, a local high school. The respondent's treasurer was on the
school board, but apparently, did not vote upon the request for the
use of the school. A citizens' committee rally was held, at which the
C. I. 0. was condemned and its officers called racketeers, but there is
no evidence connecting the respondent with this meeting.
The respondent's discriminatory practices at its plants, however,
had become so severe that, since the May 9, 1937, meeting, the
DECISIONS ANp ORDERS 483
T. W. O. C. had had difficulty in keeping its members from striking.
Finally on June 12,1937, some of the employees, without consulting the
T. W. O. C., decided to strike. The night before, Walter Sweet, a
T. W. O. C. committeeman, while working at his machine, had been
provoked into an argument and assaulted by Association men, who
were not working at the time and whose presence in the work room
was a violation of the respondent's rules. A fight ensued, which was
broken up by the foreman, who ordered the assaulters to leave. As
the word of the assault went around, a group of employees conferred
and decided the time had come to strike against the respondent's
discriminatory practices. Once the strike had begun, the T. W. O. C.
supported it.
At the time of the hearing the strike was still in progress.
We find that the strike was caused by the respondent's discrimina-
tory practices in regard to tenure of employment which discouraged
membership in the T. W. O. C., by its domination of the formation
and administration of the Association, and by its other interference
with the rights of its employees guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the respondent set forth in Section III above,
occurring in connection with the operations of the respondent de-
scribed in Section I above, have a close, intimate, and substantial rela-
tion to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States, and
have led and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing
commerce and the free flow of commerce.
THE REMEDY
We have found that the respondent closed its Ballston Spa hosiery
mill from March 27 to 30, 1937, both days inclusive, for the purpose of
discouraging its employees in their efforts toward collective bargain-
ing. In so doing, the respondent engaged in an unfair labor practice.
We shall, therefore, order the respondent to pay to each of its em-
ployees on the plant pay roll on March 27, 1937, the amount which
he or she normally would have earned during the time the plant was
closed had the plant continued operations.
We have found that the respondent has dominated and interfered
with the formation and administration of the Association. By such
domination and interference the respondent has prevented the free
exercise by its employees of their right to self-organization and col-
lective bargaining. In order to restore to the employees the full
measure of their rights guaranteed under the Act, we shall order the
respondent to withdraw all recognition from the Association and
484 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
disestablish it as representative of its employees for the purpose of
dealing with the respondent concerning grievances , labor disputes,
rates of pay , wages, hours of employment , or other conditions of
employment. .
We have found that on April 9, 1937, the respondent laid off Mary
Mareno, Helen Lefco, and Mazie de Crescenzo ; on April 16, 1937,
Josephine Simyele, Mary La Vigne (married name, Mary Canard),
Antoinette Zullo, and Irving Hurd; and on April 26, 1937, Anna
Forte, from its Stillwater plant because of their affiliation with the
T. W. O. C., which lay-offs constituted unfair labor practices on the
part of the respondent . We have also found that on May 2, 1937,
the respondent laid off Dorothy Dandereau , and on May 3, 1937,
Agnes Coon , and on May 4, 1937, discharged Florence Ippoliti from
its Ballston Spa hosiery plant for the same reason , which lay-offs and
discharge likewise constituted unfair labor practices on the part of
the respondent . We will , therefore , order the respondent to offer rein-
statement to all of these persons , with back pay to each of them
equivalent to the amount which he or she would normally have earned
from the date of lay-off or discharge to the date of offer of reinstate-
ment, less any amount actually earned during that period.
We have found that on or about June 12, 1937, a strike occurred
at both of the respondent's hosiery mills, and that the strike was'
caused by the respondent 's unfair labor practices in discriminating
against its employees who joined the T. W. O. C., in dominating
and interfering with the establishment and administration of the
Association, and in interfering with the right of its employees guar-
anteed in Section 7 of the Act . We will , therefore , order the re-
spondent to offer , upon application , reinstatement to their former
positions to all of its employees who participated ' in the strike and
who have not since been employed by the respondent, dismissing, if
necessary , new employees hired since June 11, 1937. We will also
order that any employee whose application for reinstatement is re-
fused by the respondent in violation of the order herein shall be
entitled to back pay accruing from the date of the refusal of the
application to the date of reinstatement , less any amount earned
during that period.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the
entire record in the proceeding , the Board makes the following :
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Textile Workers Organizing Committee and Employees Wel-
fare and Protective Association of the Ballston-Stillwater Knitting
Mill are labor organizations , within the meaning of Section 2 (5)
of the Act.
DECISIONS AND ORDERS' 485
2. By its domination of and interference with the formation and
administration of Employees Welfare and Protective Association
of the Ballston-Stillwater Knitting Mill the respondent has engaged
and is engaging in unfair labor practices, within the meaning of
Section 8 (2) of the Act.
3. By discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of employ-
ment of Mary Mareno, Helen Lefco, Mazie de Crescenzo, Josephine
Simyele, Mary La Vigne (married name, Mary Canard), Antoinette
Zullo, Anna Forte, Irving Hurd, Dorothy Dandereau, Agnes Coon,
and Florence Ippoliti, the respondent has engaged in and is engag-
ing in unfair labor practices, within the meaning of Section 8 (3)
of the Act.
4. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in
the exercise of the rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the National
Labor Relations Act, the respondent has engaged in and is engaging
in unfair labor practices, within the meaning of Section 8 (1) of the
National Labor Relations Act.
5. The afore-mentioned unfair labor practices are unfair labor
practices affecting commerce, within the meaning of Section 2 (6)
and (7) of the Act.
ORDER
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and conclusions of
law, and pursuant to Section 10 (c) of the National Labor Relations
Act, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the
respondent, Ballston-Stillwater Knitting Co., Inc., and its officers,
successors, and assigns, shall :
1. Cease and desist:
(a) From in any manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing
its employees at its Ballston Spa or Stillwater, New York, hosiery
plants, in the exercise of the rights to self-organization, to form,
join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through rep-
resentatives of their own choosing, or to engage in concerted activities
for the purpose of collective bargaining and other mutual aid or
protection, as guaranteed in Section 7 of the National Labor Relations
Act
(b) From discouraging membership in Textile Workers Organiz-
ing Committee or any other labor organization of its employees at
its Ballston Spa or Stillwater hosiery plants, by discharging, refusing
to reinstate, or otherwise discriminating against its employees in
regard to hire or tenure of employment, or any term or condition of
employment ;
(c) From dominating or interfering with the administration of
Employees Welfare and Protective Association of the Ballston-
Stillwater Knitting Mill, and from dominating or interfering with
486 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the formation or administration of any other labor organization, and
from contributing support thereto.
2. Take the following affirmative action, which the Board finds
will effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Offer immediate and full reinstatement to their former posi-
tions, without prejudice to their seniority and other rights and privi-
leges, to Mary Mareno, Helen Lefco, Mazie de Crescenzo, Josephine
Simyele, Mary La Vigne (married name, Mary Canard), Antoinette
Zullo, Anna Forte, Irving Hurd, Dorothy Dandereau, Agnes Coon,
and Florence Ippoliti;
(b) Make whole said Mary Mareno, Helen Lefco, Mazie de Cres-
cenzo, Josephine Simyele, Mary La Vigne (married name, Mary
Canard), Antoinette Zullo, Anna Forte, Irving Hurd, Dorothy Dan-
dereau, Agnes Coon, and Florence Ippoliti for any losses of pay they
have suffered by reason of their lay-off or discharge, by payment to
each of them of a sum of money equal to that which he or she would
normally have earned as wages from the date of his or her discharge or
lay-off to the date of such offer of reinstatement, less any amount actu-
ally earned during that period;
(c) Make whole all of its employees who were on the pay roll on
March 27, 1937, for any loss they have suffered by reason of the clos-
ing down of the respondent's hosiery plant at Ballston Spa, New
York, from March 27, 1937, until March 30, 1937, both days inclusive,
by payment to each of them of a sum equal to that which he or she
would normally have earned as wages during that period, less any
amount actually earned during that period;
(d) Upon application, offer to those of its employees who were on
the pay roll on June 11, 1937, and who subsequently went out on strike
immediate and full reinstatement to their former positions, without
prejudice to their seniority or other rights or privileges, dismissing,
if necessary, all persons hired since June 11, 1937, to perform the work
of such employees;
(e) Make whole all employees who were on the pay roll on June 11,
1937, and who subsequently went out on strike for any loss they may
suffer by reason of any refusal of their application for reinstatement
in accordance with paragraph 2 (d) herein, by payment to each of
them, respectively, a sum equal to that which each of them would
normally have earned as wages during the period from the date of
any such refusal of their application to the date of reinstatement, less
the amount, if any, which each, respectively, earned during said
period;
(f) Withdraw all recognition from -Employees Welfare and Pro-
tective Association of the Ballston-Stillwater,Knitting Mill as repre-
sentative of its employees at the Ballston Spa and Stillwater, New
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 487
York, hosiery plants, for the purpose of dealing with the respond-
ent concerning grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours
of employment, or other conditions of employment, and completely
disestablish Employees Welfare and Protective Association of the
Ballston-Stillwater Knitting Mill as such representative;
(g) Immediately post notices in conspicuous places throughout
its Ballston Spa and Stillwater, New York, hosiery plants, and main-
tain such notices for a period of thirty (30) consecutive days, stat-
ing (1) that the respondent will cease and desist as aforesaid, and
(2) that the respondent will withdraw all recognition from Em-
ployees Welfare and Protective Association of the Ballston-Still-
water Knitting Mill as the representative of any of its employees
in its Ballston Spa and Stillwater, New York, hosiery plants for
the purpose of dealing with the respondent concerning grievances,
labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, or other
conditions of employment, and that Employees Welfare and Protec-
tive Association of the Ballston-Stillwater Knitting Mill is disestab-
lished as such representative;
(h) Notify the Regional Director for the Second Region, New
York, New York, in writing :within ten (10) days from the date of
this order what steps the respondent has taken to comply therewith.
80618-38-VOL vi--32