Blossom Products Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 10, 1940

20 N.L.R.B. 335 (N.L.R.B. 1940)

In the. Matter of BLOSSOM PRODUCTS CORPORATION and INTERNATIONAL
LADIES' GARMENT WORKERS' UNION
Case No. C-1088.-Decided February 10, 1940
Garment Manufacturing Industry/-Interference , Restraint, and Coercion:
anti-union statements of executives and supervisory employees ; distribution of
anti-union literature to employees ; ordered to cease and desist from such
practices-Company -Donvinated Union : coincident with organization of union
respondent sponsored formation of grievance committee ; select group , including
anti-union statements by supervisory employees-Compau .y-Dominated Union:
shut-down threatened in event of union success , and preference for "inside"
organization expressed ; anti-union employees permitted to shut off power dur-
ing working hours and summon employees to organizational meetings held outside
plant ; employees paid for time spent at organizational meetings ; recognition as
exclusive bargaining agency and check-off granted without verification of mem-
bership claim; withdrawal of recognition and disestablishment , ordered-Con-
tract: abrogation of, ordered-Check-off : respondent ordered to reimburse em-
plbyees ` for' dices checked off-Discrimination : discharge and refusal to reinstate
two employees , allegations of, dismissed.
Mr. Weldon P. Monson and Mr. Samuel G. Zack, for the Board.
Mr. David Getz, of Allentown, Pa., and Groman d Rapaport, by
Mr. Julius M. Rapaport, of Allentown, Pa., for the respondent.
Mr. Elias Lieberman, of New York City, for the Union.
Mr. William B. Butz, of Allentown, Pa., for the B. W. O.
Mr. Harold M. Weston, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon charges and amended charges duly filed by the International
Ladies' Garment Workers' Union, herein called the Union, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board, by the
Regional Director for the. Fourth Region (Philadelphia, Pennsyl-
vania ), issued its complaint, dated September 22, 1938, against Blos-
som Products Corporation, Allentown, Pennsylvania, herein called the
respondent, alleging that the respondent had engaged in and was
engaging in unfair labor practices, affecting commerce, within the
20 N. L. R. B., No. 35.
335
336 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
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, accompanied by a notice of hearing,
were duly served upon the respondent and upon the Union.
Regarding the unfair labor practices, the complaint alleged, in
substance, that the respondent dominated, interfered with, and con-
tributed support to the formation and administration of a labor
organization of its employees known as the Blossom Workers' Organ-
ization, hereinafter referred to as the B. W. 0.; that the respondent
discharged and refused to reinstate James Ftiscar and Mary Donchez
for the reason that they joined or assisted the Union and engaged in
concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining and
other mutual aid and protection; that the respondent disparaged to
its employees the aims, purposes, and character of the Union and
the members or organizers thereof; and that by the aforesaid acts
and by other acts the respondent interfered with, restrained, and
coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in
Section 7 of the Act. The time for filing an answer having .been
extended by the Regional Director, the respondent filed its answer
admitting the allegations of the complaint with respect to the nature
of its business, but denying the averments of unfair labor practices
and alleging affirmatively that Ftiscar and Donchez were laid off
because of lack of work and were not reinstated because they.were
inefficient and incapable employees.'
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held in Allentown, Pennsylvania,
on October 6, 7, 14, and 11, 1938, before I. L. Broadwin, the Trial
Examiner duly designated_by . the Board. The Board and the. re-
spondent were represented by counsel, and were afforded full oppor-
tunity to be heard, to examine and cross:examine witnesses, and to
introduce evidence bearing upon the issues. At the opening of the
hearing, and again at the close of the Board's case, the B. W. O.
applied for leave to intervene. Both applications were denied by
the Trial Examiner. At the close of the Board's case and at the
close of the hearing, counsel for the respondent moved to dismiss
the complaint, on the ground that.the evidence failed to substantiate
the allegations of the complaint. The Trial Examiner reserved
ruling on .the,,,motions ..to dismiss ,. and,, except in so, far as said
motions related to the allegedly discriminatory discharge of Sf iry
Donchez, denied them. in his Intermediate Report. During the course
of the hearing the Trial Examiner made several rulings on other
'At the hearing , the respondent ' s answer was amended to Include a further affirmative
allegation that Donchez ' was not reinstated for the reason that while she was in the
respondent 's employ she "frequently and habitually used profane language."
BLOSSOM PRODUOTS. CORPORATION , 337
motions and on objections to the admission of evidence. We have
reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner and find that no preju-
dicial errors were committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed.
On or about December' 10, 1938, the Trial Examiner issued his
Intermediate Report, copies of which were duly served upon the
respondent and the Union. The Trial Examiner found that the
respolident.had engaged Jii and. was egging in unfair labor prac-
tices affecting commerce, within the meaning of Section 8 (1), (2),
and (3) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. He recommended
that the respondent cease and desist from the unfair labor practices,
that it offer to James Ftiscar immediate and full reinstatement to
his former position with back pay, that it withdraw all recognition
from the B. W. O. as representative of its employees, and that it
take certain other appropriate. action to remedy the situation brought
about by its unfair labor practices. The Trial Examiner found that
the respondent had not engaged in unfair labor practices within
the meaning of the Act by discharging and refusing to employ Mary
Donchez. and, accordingly, recommended that. the complaint he - dis-
missed with respect to' her. A
. ...
On December 27, 1938, the respondent filed its exceptions to the
Intermediate Report, and on January 10, 1939, requested oral argu-
ment. On October 5, 1939, the Union filed a brief in support of
the Intermediate Report, and on October 12, 1939, the respondent
filed a brief in support of its exceptions.
Purstiant to notice, a hearing was held before the Board on October
12, 1939, in Washington, D. C., for the purpose of oral argument.
The respondent was represented by counsel and participated in the
argument. At the argument, counsel for the B. W. O. appeared and
filed a motion that the proceedings be remanded to the Trial Ex-
aminer in order that testimony of the B. W. O. be taken and made a
part of the record. The motion is .2
The Board has considered. the exceptions, to the Intermediate Re=
port- and- the-briefs filed by the parties: For the reasons. set forth
below, we sustain the exceptions to the findings of the Trial Ex-
aminer that the respondent engaged in an unfair labor practice within
the meaning of Section 8 (3) of the Act with respect to James
Ftiscar. We find that all the other exceptions are without merit in
so far as they are inconsistent with the findings, conclusions, and
order set forth below.
2 We note that while counsel for the B. W. 0. appears to have been present throughout
the hearing before the Trial Examiner, he did not in his statement before the Board
specify any evidence which the B. W. 0. might wish to offer in the event that the record
were reopened, and the motion filed at the oral argument likewise contains no specification.
338 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
Blossom Products Corporati.oii, a Pennsylvania corporation with
its principal office and place of business located in the city of Allen-
town, Pennsylvania, is engaged in the manufacture of undergarments
and outer wear.
The raw materials used by the respondent in manufacturing its,
products consist of rayon yarn, cotton yarn, cotton-wool yarn, rayon
cloth, cotton cloth, elastic, lace, buttons, thread, labels, cellophane,
dyes, and other chemicals. In 1937 such raw materials used
amounted to approximately $601,540, of which approximately 92
per cent were shipped to the respondent's plant from States other
than the State of Pennsylvania. During the same period the re-
spondent manufactured approximately 683,613 dozen garments,. hav-
ing a value of approximately $1;231,14125,, in excess of„88. per cent of
which were shipped by the respondent to points outside the State
of Pennsylvania.s
At the time of the hearing the respondent employed 418 persons.4
H. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union is a labor organi-
zation; admitting to its membership employees of the respondent, who
do not have the power to hire or discharge.
Blossom Workers' Organization is a labor organization, admitting
to membership employees of the respondent'5
]IT. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Interference, restraint , and coercion; interference with, domina-
tion of, and support given to the B. V. 0.
1. Chronological statement
Early in September 1937 the Union began a campaign to organize
the respondent's employees. Union organizers distributed litera-
ture and solicited employees in front of the plant and several organi-
zational meetings were held. The first of these meetings was held on
8 Counsel for the respondent , in describing its business , stated at the oral argument,
"They serve the entire country as well as European markets" ; and In its brief, the
respondent further stated that it "serves several large chain store organizations."
The number of persons employed, however, varies considerably . See Section III B,
infra.
5Irma Moyer , vice president , and later president , of the B. W. 0., testified that no
foremen or "bosses of any kind " are admitted to membership in the B. W. O.
BLOSSOM PRODUCTS CORPORATION 339
September 20, 1937.° I. Lawrence Lesavoy, the respondent's presi-
dent, testified that at about this date he became aware of the Union's
activities; that he immediately consulted David Getz, the respond-
ent's attorney; and that the latter "suggested that a notice be sent
to the entire plant that we were not taking one position or the
other." -
On September 21, 1937, the respondent distributed a notice to
employees that the Act "gives you EMPLOYEES the following
right :
1. To. be free from joining any union whatsoever.
2. To organize your own independent union, free of any inter-
ference by us or any other organization.
3. To organize or affiliate yourselves with the recognized in-
dustrial unions such as the C. I. O. and A. F. of L."
The notice also declared that the respondent stood "ready to pro-
tect every employee who chooses his right under the law not to join
a unionlj and assured them that the respondent would.. "at no, time
permit any union to force us [the respondent] to discharge employees
who have not joined a union." The notice further stated that the
State of Pennsylvania had recently enacted a law "whereby the
employees of [sic] the State are protected in regards to working
hours," and that under the statute a 44-hour week would be inaugu-
rated by the respondent on December 1, 1937.7
We are unable to credit the respondent's explanation for the
distribution of the notice. The Union was the only labor organiza-
tion seeking to organize the respondent's employees, and there is no
evidence that employees at that time desired to form or join any
other labor organization or that the respondent believed that they
had any such wish. Under these circumstances, the respondent.
obviously had no occasion to notify employees that it was "not
taking one position or the other." Moreover, by the notice the
respondent took a "position." The reference to the Pennsylvania
statutes could be understood by the respondent's employees only as
it declaration that the respondent would in no event agree to shorter
working hours than the maximum hours provided by law, or that it
was unnecessary to join the Union in order to obtain better hours,
or both." Whether, and to what extent, such changes as hours and
wages shall be demanded by a labor organization is, of course, a
° About six meetings were held in September and October.
' The notice concluded with the statement that as soon as they were obtained, copies of"
the Act "describing your [the employees '] rights will be issued to you." The respondent
did not offer any evidence that copies of the Act were ever distributed.
8 The 44-hour statute referred to in the notice as "recently passed" was enacted on July
2, 1934 . The respondent offered no explanation for referring to it in a notice issued 21/.
months later and dealing with labor organizations. .
340 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
matter for it to determine upon a consideration of the probable,
effects of such demands and the likelihood of success in winning
them. While an employer is not required by the Act to agree thereto;
his declaration, in advance of any demands, that he will not, or that
organization is unnecessary to secure them, is plainly obstructive of
the exercise of the right guaranteed by the Act. Particularly is
such action by an employer disruptive of self-organization where,
as in the instant case, it occurs in the. early stages of an orgaii, izli
tional campaign.9 Moreover, as we have recently pointed out, such
statements are not only counsels of futility but, where issued by an
employer to persons who are dependent upon it for their continued
employment and livelihood, are unmistakably declarations of hostility
toward self-organization.10
We find that the notice was intended to and had the effect of
restraining and coercing the respondent's employees from affiliating
with or continuing their membership in the Union and from other-
wise exercising their rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
We have referred above to the fact that when the notice was.
distributed the Union was the only labor organization seeking- to
organize the respondent's employees and that there is no evidence
that at that time any employees desired to form or join any other
labor organization. Nevertheless, by the end of the month or, 'at
the latest, early iu October, the B. W. O. had been organized .and
had held its first organizational meeting. Whether the organization
of the B. W. O. is to be explained in part by the notice issued by
the respondent to its employees that they had the right "To organize
[their] own independent union free of interference by us or any
other organization," we need not decide, although succeeding events
indicate that the notice had been intended to suggest the formation
of such an organization. The record discloses other and more direct
evidence of participation by the respondent in the formation of
the B. W. O.
Within a day or two' after the first meeting of the Union,- held. on
September 21, 1937, and again about 4 days later, meetings were
held in Lesavoy's office between the respondent and several employees.
The evidence is in dispute as to the origin of the meetings, the reason
for the participation of the particular employees, and what occurred
at the meetings.
B What we have said above with respect to the reference in the notice to the 44-hour
week is applicable also to the anticipatory statement therein that the respondent would
not sign a closed -shop agreement . This statement was plainly calculated to hinder the
Union . Cf. Adam s Brothers Mani fold Printing Company, doing business as Adams
Brothers galeebook Com,pa'ny and Topeka Typographical Union , No. 121, affiliated with the
American Federation of Labor, 17 N. L. R. B. 974.
10 Matter of Yale & Towne Mfg. Co. and Amalgamated Ass'n of Iron , Steel and Tin
Workers of North America, Lodge No. 1647, Through the Steel Workers Organizing Commit-
tee, affiliated with the Committee for Industrial Organization, 17 N. L . R. B. 666.
BLOSSOM 'PRODUCTS CO•RPOIIATIOIc 341
Lester Breisch, a member of the Union, testified that the first meet-
ing came about in the following malmer : A few minutes before the
lunch hour on September 21, 1937, Harry Rosen, the plant superin-
tendent, approached Breisch, who had been very friendly with
Lesavoy,]' and suggested that lie "get a committee" of employees to
present any wage and hour grievances to Lesavoy before going ahead
with. an `outside union." Breisch then spoke to Daubenspeck, an-
other member of the Union, whose testimony corroborated Breisch's
account. Both discussed Rosen's suggestion with some of the
"boys" 12 at noon, and it was decided to "lay off it couple of days .. .
and go up to see Mr. Lesavoy." When Daubenspeck and Breisch in-
formed Rosen that they were willing to meet with Lesavoy, Rosen sug-
gested that they "get some girls" as members of the committee.
Breisch and Daubenspeck then approached Mary Donchez. While
they were discussingr the matter with Donchez, the foreman- asked
"what it was all about," and, when told, suggested that Dorothy Bentz
be included in the committee. The suggestion was accepted, and
Breisch informed Rosen that the committee was ready to see Lesavoy.
The committee which met with Rosen and Lesavoy in the latter's
office consisted of Breisch, Daubenspeck, Bentz, and Neva Saffieri.
According to Breisch and Daubenspeck, Lesavoy made some wage
adjustments, which he explained ^; ere temporary, and stated that
further adjustments would be made later when the 44-hour week
was introduced. Breisch and Da.ubenspeck testified that when they
reported the results of the conference to the employees in the cutting
room, the men were dissatisfied and drew up demands for a 44-hour
week, instead of it 54-hour week, with no reduction in pay, stating that
they would produce as much in the shorter period; that the demands
were. submitted to Rosen ; that when they heard that the demands
had been rejected by Lesavoy, they requested a conference with
Lesavoy; and that on or about September 24, 1937, they went to
Lesavoy's office for a statement as to why the demands had been
refused. According to Daubenspeck, when Breisch and Daubenspeck
entered Lesavoy's office on the second visit, they found Bentz and
two other women employees, Irma Moyer and Rose Brown, already
present. Also present at this meeting were Lesavoy, Harry Rosen,
Getz, Frank Tiso, the cutting-room foreman, and Herman Rosen,
the respondent's accountant. Breisch and Daubenspeck testified that
at this second meeting Lesavoy stated that he could not grant any
further raises at this time since the respondent might have to deal
11 It appears from Rreisch ' s uneontroverted testimony that Lesavoy and he were "good
friends up until the time . .', that this union was started ," and that when Lesavoy first
came to Allentown he used lireisch 's automobile and both "went out " together.
12 Elsewhere identified as a `group of boys in the cutting department." As late as
October 1937 there were approximately 27 employees in that department.
11 The foreman was not identified by name.
283031-41-23
342 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
with a union in the future and find itself in the position where addi-
tional raises would be demanded which it would not be able to afford.
Daubenspeck testified that Breisch and he urged that the men in the
cutting room probably would not join the Union if their demands
were granted , but that Lesavoy adhered to his refusal.
Breisch testified that at the first conference Lesavoy declared:: that
"it would be no trouble at all" for the employees to have their own
committee to adjust grievances with him "without having an outsider
there to do it" for them. Daubenspeck stated that on this occasion
Lesavoy said , " it would be nice if we formed our own union."
Breisch and Daubenspeck also testified to other anti -union state-
ments by Lesavoy which they alleged were made during discussion
in which David Getz, the respondent's attorney , participated. While
it clearly appears from Daubenspeck 's testimony that Getz was
present at the second meeting,14 neither he nor Breisch was positive
that Getz attended both meetings . In any event, according to
Daubenspeck,
When we first come in Mr. Getz [the respondent 's attorney]
was talking to Mr. Lesavoy and they were discussing his rights
as to what he would have to do to recognize unions and so forth,
talking about the Wagner Labor Act. Well, then, after we
talked to Mr. Lesavoy , why, Mr. Getz suggested that it would
be a good thing instead of forming an outside union , why didn't
we form our own union and in general things was said about
the Union , that it was a bunch of bums and loafers, that we
couldn't never get no more out of them than-ourselves, out of
our own union , that we would save money and general things
like that . Mr. Lesavoy said that he was thinking out loud
and didn't want to, didn 't really mean to say these things but
he was thinking out loud, but he too thought it was a good
idea . . . to form (your ) own union.
Daubenspeck testified that the reference to the union organizers
as "bums and loafers" was made by either Lesavoy or Getz. Breisch
testified that Getz referred to the organizers as "hoodlums and things
like that." According to Breisch , Getz also stated that since the
local silk -mill workers had been organized by the C. I. 0. they had
no work ; that the same thing might happen to the respondent's
employees if they had an "outside union"; and that the money paid
to the C. I. 0. "only goes to the big shots ," who "have big cars."
Daubenspeck further testified that during the second meeting Her-
man Rosen explained how "a ' union of their own " could be ,formed,
x+ As we point out below, the respondent concedes that Getz was present at the second
conference.
BLOSSOM PRODUCTS 'CORPORATION 343
and. Breisch testified . thata.t this meeting Lesavoy and Herman Rosen
as well as Harry Rosen, suggested the formation of an "inside
union." :_:Breisch also testified that following this discussion Lesavoy
declared, "Well now, boys, it is up to you just which one. If you
wanted to have an outside union you would have it and if you don't
avant to have it, it is all up to us."
Both Da.ubenspeck and Breisch testified that the women employees
participated in the discussion of an inside union at the meeting on
September 24. According to Daubenspeck, the women asked Getz.
if he would represent them "if they would form a union," but Getz:
replied that he could not do so because of his relation to the respond-
ent, and "told them they would have to see, another lawyer."'
Daubenspeck also testified that the women declared that if the men
"wanted to form an outside union" and went on strike, the women
"would come down and take (their) jobs," 15 and that at this point
he and Breisch left the meeting.
Harry Rosen testified that the demand for a 44-hour week had
been presented to him ; he did not deny that he had previously
approached Breisch and suggested that the latter form a committee
to see Lesavoy, about grievances.;- nor did he offer any account of
what occurred during the two conferences in Lesavoy's office. He
denied that he had ever proposed the formation of an "inside union"
or that he had heard Lesavoy, Getz, or. Herman Rosen make such a
proposal. Similar general denials were also made by Bentz, who
was present at both meetings, and Herman Rosen and Tiso, who
were present at the second meeting; none of them, however, gave
any testimony as to what did occur in the meetings. Moyer, who
was present at the second meeting, professed to be entirely unable
to recall what occurred other than that there was "a commotion."
Getz was not called as a witness," nor was the foreman, who, accord-
"That such a threat was made was not disputed . Brown, who was called as a witness
by the respondent, testified that she made such a statement after Breisch had said "the
boys wanted to go on strike."
16 At the hearing before the Trial Examiner , the respondent was represented by Julius
M. Rapaport , then Getz 's law partner . Getz stated , at the oral argument before the Board,
on October 12, 1939 , that he had attended the hearing for a short period but asserted that
he "was engaged in another trial at the time and was unable to appear ," and orally re-
quested that the record be reopened in order that he might deny the testimony of Breisclr
and Daubenspeck with respect to the incidents in Lesavoy' s office in September 1937. Na
such application had been previously made, although the Trial Examiner had found in his
Intermediate Report , issued on or about December 1.0, 1938, that the facts were as
testified by Breisch and Daubenspeck . Moreover , no application was made to the Trial
Examiner for an adjournment in order that Getz's testimony might be introduced . Further-
more, not only was the hearing closed on October 11, 1938 , after a session lasting little
more than an hour , but on October 10, 1938 , when the respondent began its proof, an
evening session was held from 7 until 10 p . in. After due consideration , the request to,
reopen the record is hereby denied.
344 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ing to Breisch, suggested the inclusion of Bentz in the committee
which attended the first meeting.
Lesavoy testified that the first meeting was held in his office after
he was informed by Harry Rosen that a committee wished to see
him, and that Breisch opened the meeting with the statement that he
and Daubenspeck "represented a group of boys in the Cutting De-
partment.... and they wanted to organize a union of their own
or that they wanted to join the C. I. O. Union 17 and that if I would
give them a general increase they would not do anything." Lesavoy
also testified that a discussion ensued between Breisch arid Dauben-
speck and the women employees "as to whether they were to join
one union or the other," that he listened to the discussion for a time
and then left the room with the statement that his attorney had told
him that he "wasn't to be one way or the other," and that he would
return when they had "finished their discussion about the union."
According to Lesavoy, when he returned to his office, Breisch and
Daubenspeck had gone. Lesavoy testified that at the second meeting
a demand was made "to increase salaries of the boys and girls in
the plant"; that he stated he would take the matter up with Harry
Rosen ; and that he then left the meeting. With respect to both
meetings, Lesavoy denied that he, or any other representative of the
respondent, had made the anti-union statements attributed to them
by Breisch and Daubenspeck. He did not, however, offer any expla-
nation for the presence of Getz, who, he admitted, attended the
second meeting, nor did he state what part, if any, Getz had taken in
the meeting.
Although Lesavoy testified that a dispute arose among the em-
ployees at the first meeting "as to whether they were to join one
union or the other," it is clear that he was in error. Lesavoy also
testified that Moyer was then present, and it is clear that she did not
attend the first meeting in Lesavoy's office. Moreover, Moyer testi-
fied that "the commotion" at the second meeting was the result of
our organization and the C. I. 0. organization" being present.
Moyer also testified that prior to the second meeting she and Bentz
had decided to oppose the Union, and Brown, who was also present
at the second meeting, testified that she together with Moyer and
Bentz composed a group which was determined to "buck" the Union.
Brown further testified that it was at the second meeting that she
declared that the girls "don't want to have anything to do with the
C. I. 0." and that they would take over the men's jobs if the latter'
went on strike.18
17 At this time the Union was affiliated with the Committee for Industrial Organization
(now the Congress of Industrial Organizations).
18 Brown also contradicted Lesavoy by her testimony that at this meeting the demand
was made for a 44-hour week and was rejected . According to her, Breisch then stated tli, at
the men in the cutting room might strike if their demands were not granted.
BLOSSOM PRODUCTS CORPORATTON 345
Bentz gave no explanation for her attendance at the meetings in
Lesavoy's office. While Brown and Moyer testified that they attended
the second meeting as members of the committee together with
Breisch and Daubenspeck , Moyer, in an earlier appearance as a wit-
ness, stated that she did not recall how she had happened to be pres-
ent, and neither she nor Brown testified that they had in any way
supported Breisch or Daubenspeck at the meeting.
We find that the testimony of Breisch and Daubenspeck with re-
spect to the meetings in Lesavoy 's office on September 21 and 24, 1937,
is substantially correct. Their account as to the origin of the meet-
ings and what occurred therein is complete and persuasive; it is,
moreover , consonant with the anti -union notice distributed by the
respondent on September 21, and with the respondent 's conduct with
respect to the B . W. O. which came into existence shortly thereafter:
We are also impressed by the fact that many of the circumstantial
details of the testimony of Breisch and Daubenspeck are undenied,
and that the respondent 's account of the meetings is on its face in-
complete and is in many. respects self-contradictory. We conclude
that the respondent suggested the formation of a, grievance commit
tee 19 rather than resort to an "outside h pion," indicated its preference
for an "inside union;" disparaged the organizers and officials of the
Union , and declared that the organization of the Union would result
in the loss of work. Despite the fact that the respondent also de-
clared that it was for the employees to determine their , own course
of action , it is manifest that the respondent 's hostility to the Union
and its wishes as to the form and extent of self -organization of its
employees 'were unequivocally expressed . Thereby, the respondent
interfered with, restrained , and coerced its employees in the right
guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act.
As to have stated above, we do not credit the respondent 's claim
that Bentz, Brown, and Moyer attended the meeting in Lesavoy's
office on September 24, 1937 , as fellow members of a committee which
included Breisch and Daubenspeck , and we find that they were pres-
ent when the latter came to the office. In the absence of any plausible
explanation for their presence , the inference might well be drawn
that Bentz, Brown, and Moyer were asked to attend because of their
opposition to the - Union. In any event , according to Moyer, prior
to September 24, the question of forniiiig another labor organization
had not gone beyond the, state of "talk.". On the other hand, by the
conclusion of the meeting Bentz, Brown, and Moyer had made clear
to the respondent their antagonism to the Union and their willing-
ness and, perhaps , intention to form another union.
19 As we have seen, the respondent not only requested Breisch to form such a committee,
but also secured the inclusion of Bentz as a member. o
346 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Within approximately a week after the second conference in
Lesavoy's office, the first of three meetings that were held to organize
the B. W. O. took place; 20 the second was held late in October, and
the third on or about November 4, 1937. At the second meeting
members were signed up, and at the third meeting officers were
elected.21 Before each meeting Moyer turned off the power operat-
ing the machines and told the girls in the sewing room to go to the
particular hall where the meeting was to be held. On at least one
of these occasions Bentz and Brown assisted Moyer in shutting off
the power. The meetings were held during working houi s acid lasted
2 or 3 hours.
The respondent raised no objection to the shutting off of the power
on these occasions, although it previously had never been shut off
before the close of the working day except in the event of an
emergency. Nor did the respondent object to the employees leaving
their work, although as many as 200 to 250 walked out of the plant
to attend the meetings. On the contrary, the respondent paid the
employees for the time spent at the meetings. Lesavoy testified that
he knew of only the first B. W. O. meeting, that he thought it was
held by the C. I. 0., that he was advised by Getz to pay everyone so
that there would be no "repercussion," and that he "left the matter
to the superintendent of the plant." Harry Rosen, the superintend.-
ent, did not testify as to the B. W. O. meetings, nor did David
Lesavoy and Charles Lesavoy, who were the foremen in Moyer's
department and were, Moyer admitted, and we find, always present
in the room.22
Lesavoy testified that on the occasion of the first B. W. O. meet-
ing, David Lesavoy made a "complaint" to him "that some of the
girls in the plant shut off the power and walked out of the plant."
He asserted that he was not present at the plant when the latter two
meetings occurred. However, as appears from his testimony,. which
we have quoted above, he left "the matter" to Harry Roseil, and. we
have no doubt, and find, that the latter, who was, at least in
Lesavoy's- absence, in complete charge of the plant, was informed as
to the second and third meetings.
Lesavoy admitted that David Lesavoy reported to him that Moyer
had shut off the power for a meeting. He claimed, however, that
David Lesavoy did not inform him of Moyer's part "until a later
date," ,and that David Lesavoy then gave him the "impression"
20 Lesavoy placed the date of the first meeting as during the latter part of September
or the early part of October.
21 Moyer, elected vice president at this meeting , had been elected president of the B. W. O.
at the time of the hearing.
22 Indeed , Moyer asserted that on the occasion of the third meeting David Lesavoy asked
her if there was a strike when she shut off the power.
BLOSSOM 'PRODUCTS CO'RPORAT'ION 347
that Moyer "was doing it for the C. I. 0." Lesavoy's testimony is
plainly not entitled to credence. By his own admission he knew
of the first shut-down and walk-out not later than the following pay
day, and the record fails to disclose any occasion for David Lesavoy
.advising him at "a later date" of the fact that Moyer had played a
leading part in the incident. Lesavoy did not explain in what
'manner David Lesavoy gave him the "impression" that Moyer was
acting on behalf of the C. I. O.
We find that the respondent knew of Moyer's leading part in the
B. W. O. meetings, and in view of our findings that at the meeting
in Lesavoy's office on September 24, both Lesavoy and Harry Rosen
had suggested the formation of an "inside union" and had found
Moyer, Bentz, and Brown in favor of such an organization and
opposed to the Union, we conclude that the respondent was well
aware of the purpose of the B. W. O. meetings.22
At some time between November 4 and 15, 1937, Lesavoy and Getz
attended a conference with the representatives of the B. W. O. in the
office of William Butz, the B. W. O. attorney. 24 Lesavoy testified
that while in Philadelphia he received a long-distance call from
Harry Rosen, advising him that Butz, whom Lesavoy had allegedly
never met before, wanted to see him in Butz's office. Lesavoy tes-
tified that he thereupon left Philadelphia and went to Butz's office
in Allentown. Lesavoy testified that at this conference Butz stated
that he was representing the B. W. O. and submitted a list of what
purported to be the signatures of 85 per cent of the respondent's
employees. While Lesavoy testified that he showed this list of
signatures to Rosen, it does not appear that Rosen attended this
meeting, and there is no testimony that the respondent made any
effort to verify the signatures on the list. Nevertheless, at this
conference Lesavoy agreed to recognize the B. W. O. as collective
bargaining agent and to check off B. W. O. dues. Following this
meeting, mimeographed slips authorizing the check-off of B. W. O.
dues ' by the respondent were supplied by Harry Rosen and were
distributed to the employees during working hours. On November
16, 1937, the respondent began to deduct dues from the pay of
B. W. O. members and to turn over money so deducted to the secre-
tary of the B. W. O.
- In the latter part of October or early in November 1937, Lesavoy
called Breisch and Daubenspeck to his office. According to Breisch
23 In its brief the respondent seeks to attach some significance to the testimony of
Datibenspeck that at the second B. W . O. meeting he spoke against an "inside union." The
respondent , however, makes no claim , and there is no evidence that Daubenspeck's action
came to its attention.
24 The record does not disclose whether any other officers of the B. W. O . besides Ken-
ueth Brey, who had been elected president at the November 4 meeting , were present.
348 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
and Daubenspeck, Lesavoy told them that he hoped that they would
"play ball" with him and that lie thought that the company union
had gained momentum, and that the "union trouble was over."'
Although Lesavoy denied making any statement to any employee
in regard to an "inside" union, he did not, deny calling Breisch and
Daubenspeck to his office at this time, or state what had occurred
at the meeting. In the light of the entire record, we find Lesavoy's
general denial unconvincing.
2. Conclusions
As we have stated above, the respondent, by distributing certain
notices to its employees on September 21, 1937, interfered with, re-
strained, and coerced them in the exercise of their rights guaranteed
by Section 7 of the Act. As we have further stated above, the
respondent again interfered with, restrained, and coerced its em-
ployees by its action leading up to and during the conferences in
Lesavoy's office in September 1937. On the latter occasion the
respondent not only sought to obstruct the organization of the
Union by disparaging its organizers and officials and by threatening
that affiliation of employees therewith would result in the loss of
jobs, but affirmatively suggested and proposed the formation of an
"inside union." As the respondent knew, the appeal, in the case of
Bentz, Brown, and Moyer, fell upon receptive ears. Whether or
not those employees might, in any event, have decided to form an
"inside union," the respondent by its statements clearly gave impetus
to and encouraged them to take such a step. Indeed, the - record
offers no other plausible explanation for the action of Bentz, Brown,
and Moyer in shutting off the power during working hours arid
calling the employees from the plant to attend the organizational
meetings of the B. W. O. Certainly the respondent's conduct with
respect to these incidents-its failure even to demur, and its pay-
ment for the time spent at the meetings-clearly confirmed to the
leaders of the "inside union" the respondent's approval of, and
willingness to support, their actions. And to other employees the
respondent's conduct was a patent sponsorship of the "inside union."
That the respondent thereby contributed financial and other support
to the B. W. 0., and interfered with its formation , is clear.
In according recognition to the B. W. O. and agreeing to the
check-off of dues, the respondent made no effort to verify the mem-
bership claims of the B. W. 0., or to inquire as to overlapping mem-
bership in the Union which it knew had been organizing its
employees for 2 months. Even apart from Lesavoy's statement to
Breisch and Daubenspeck about this time, it is clear that in granting
recognition and agreeing to the check-off, the respondent acted to
BLOSSOM PRODUCTS CORPORATION 349
end "union trouble" by placing upon a stable basis the B. W. O. which
it had caused to be organized.25 By granting recognition and agree-
ing to the check-off, both of which were continued until the time of
the hearing, the respondent lent prestige to its creature, assisted the
B. W. O. financially, and interfered with and supported the adminis-
tration thereof.
We find that the respondent has interfered with and dominated
the formation and achninistration of the 13. W. O. and has contributed
financial and other support to it. We find also that the respondent
has thereby interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees
in the rights guaranteed to them by Section 7 of the Act.
B. The d iseharges
Maey Donchez. As we have stated above, the Trial Examiner
found that the respondent had not engaged in unfair labor practices
within the meaning of Section 8 (3) of the Act by discharging and
refusing to reemploy Donchez, and, accordingly, recourinended that
the complaint be dismissed with respect to Donchez. We have re-
viewed the record and we conclude that the finding is correct, but
deem it unnecessary to set forth the evidence since the Union filed
no exceptions to the Trial Examiner's findings as to Donchez. Ac-
cordingly, we shall dismiss the allegations of the complaint with
respect to Donchez.
James Ft,seai' was einplpyed by the respondent as a spreader in
the cutting department from January 1934 until June 1936, when lie
was advanced to stock clerk, which position he held until he was laid
off on November 16, 1937. In January 1937 the respondent inaugu-
rated a perpetual.-inventory system and placed Ftiscar in charge of
it. Ftiscar admitted that in March 1937 and again in August 1937,
Nathan Miller, the respondent's office manager, called his attention
to his failure to record items received, and that in October 1937,
Herman Rosen complained of a similar error.
I erman Rosen testified that mistakes occurred monthly in the per-
petual inventory from the time the system was instituted until Ftiscar
was- laid off. He testified that the records were inaccurate, revealed
mistakes in addition and substraction, and were not up to date.
Rosen also testified that he tried to help Ftiscar and called his at-
tention to his errors upon four different occasions between January
and-October 1937. Miller testified that Rosen complained to him six
or seven times about Ftiscar's mistakes in maintaining the perpetual
inventory and. pursuant to Rosen's advice, Miller inspected the rec-
ords and explained Ftiscar's errors to him upon an equal number of
26 By this statement the respondent also expressed its opposition to the Union and thereby
interfered with, -restrained , and coerced its employees in the right of self-organization.
350 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
occasions. According to Miller, Ftiscar admitted that he was not
good at figures and that he sometimes failed to include items
received in the inventory.
Lesavoy testified that in March 1937, Herman Rosen complained
that the figures in the perpetual inventory were never correct, that he
had repeatedly spoken to Ftiscar without success, and that Herman
Rosen insisted that another person must be assigned to the inventory
if the system were to be retained. Lesavoy testified that he thereupon
called Ftiscar into his office and explained that he had just talked with
Herman Rosen, that Ftiscar then cried and pleaded for another chance,
and that he decided to give him an opportunity to improve his work.
Lesavoy further testified that in August 1937 he received a complaint
from Harry Rosen, the plant superintendent, that Ftiscar was not
capable of adding a column of figures and that Rosen therefore felt
that it was a mistake to continue him in that position; that he told
Harry Rosen that it was up to him to do as he wished ; and that Rosen
replied that he would "talk to him [Ftiscar] and tolerate him a little
longer and then he would see what lie would do with him,"" Both
Lesavoy and Harry Rosen testified that the latter made the ,fi"nalr
decision to lay off Ftiscar.26
Late in October, 3 or 4 weeks before Ftiscar was laid off, David
Rosen was employed by the respondent and assigned to assist Ftiscar in
his work, and, when Ftiscar was laid off, was assigned his job. Lesavoy
testified that David Rosen had been employed because his cousin,
Herman Rosen, the respondent's accountant, had recommended him
as accurate, skillful, and "very good at figures."
While, according to Ftiscar, his errors in keeping the perpetual
inventory were neither serious nor frequent, we are impressed by the
fact that the testimony of the respondent's witnesses was given in
persuasive detail, by the failure of Ftiscar to deny Lesavoy's testi-
mony that as early as March 1937 he had told Ftiscar that he had
been advised by Herman Rosen that Ftiscar was unable to handle the
work, and by the failure of Ftiscar to deny that he had admitted to
Miller that he was no good at figures. Under these circumstances we
find that the evidence does not support the conclusion that David
Rosen's employment, and his subsequent replacement of Ftiscar, were.
due to the fact that Ftiscar, who had joined the Union in September
1937, had thereafter solicited employees for membership in front of
the respondent's offices during the noon hour 27 and at the employees'
homes at night.
26 Harry Rosen also testified in considerable detail as to Ftiscar's unsatisfactory work.
27 On at least one occasion , Ftiscar was observed in these noontime activities by Fred
Rosen, the foreman of the trimming department , and Eli Lesavoy, a supervisory employee
in the cutting department.
BLOSSOM PRODUCTS OORPORATION 351
The respondent contends that Ftiscar was laid off as stock clerk
because he had proved to be inefficient in such employment, and further,
that he was not then retransferred to or later rehired in the cutting
department. because of lack of work. The record shows that a serious
depression occurred in the respondent's business, beginning in October
1937 and lasting up to the time of the hearing in October 1938. At the
beginning of this period the respondent employed 502 persons;, 101
were laid off in November, and another 204 in December 1937; and by
October 1938 employment had increased from this low point of 197
to only 351 employees. In the cutting department the number of
employees was reduced from 27 in October to 2 or 3 in December 1937,
and at the time of the hearing that department consisted of only 15
employees, _all of whom were capable of doing, two jobs, both cutting
and spreading. While in the past Ftiscar had been retransferred
temporarily to the cutting department as a spreader, when work was
slack in the stockroom, it does not appear that he was able to do cut-
ting.. Lesavoy testified that, in the interest of efficiency, only those
employees who could do both jobs had been recalled; no evidence to
the contrary was introduced ; and Ftiscar himself admitted that
Lesavoy told him that he was being laid off because work was slack,
but that he was a good spreader and he would be recalled as soon as
work was available.
We. find that the respondent has not engaged in an unfair labor
practice within the meaning of Section 8 (3) of the Act with respect
to James Ftiscar, and we will accordingly dismiss the complaint
as to -him.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
We find that the activities of the respondent set forth in- Section
III, occurring in connection with the operations of the respondent
set forth in Section I above, have a close, intimate, and substantial
relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States, and
tend 'to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce
and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
It is essential in order to effectuate the purposes and policies of
the Act that the respondent be ordered to cease and desist ' from
certain activities and practices in which we have found it to have
engaged and, in aid of such order and as a means for removing and
avoiding the consequences of such activities and practices, that it
be directed to take certain affirmative action, more particularly
described below.
352 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
We have found that the respondent has dominated and interfered
with the formation and administration of the B. W. 0. and con-
tributed support to it. The respondent must cease and desist from,
such practices. Moreover, the effects and consequences of the re-
spondent's domination, interference with, and support of the
B. W. 0., as well as continued recognition by the respondent of the
B. W. 0. as the bargaining representative of its employees, constitute
a continuing obstacle to the free exercise by its employees of their
right to self-organization and to bargain collectively through repre-
sentatives of their own choosing. The B. W. 0. has been utilized by
the respondent as an instrumentality to defeat the rights of its
employees under the Act. Because of the respondent's illegal conduct
with relation to it, the B. W. 0. is incapable of serving the respond-
ent's employees as their genuine collective bargaining agency.
Accordingly, we will order the respondent to disestablish and with-
draw all recognition from the B. W. 0. as the representative of its
employees for the purposes of dealing with it concerning grievances,
labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, and
conditions of employment.
We have found that in November 1937 the respondent entered into
an agreement with the B. W. 0. and that the contractual relationship
existing thereunder has been a means whereby the respondent utilized
an employer-dominated labor organization to frustrate self-organi-
zation among and defeat collective bargaining by its employees.
Under these circumstances, any continuation, renewal, or modifica-
tion of the agreement between the respondent and the B. W. 0. would
perpetuate the forces which have deprived employees of the rights
guaranteed to them by the Act and would render ineffectual other
portions of our remedial order. We shall therefore direct the re-
spondent to cease giving effect to any contract existing, or claimed
by it to exist, between it and the B. W. 0., or to any modifications
or extensions thereof.
We have further found that the check-off of dues from members'
wages was accorded the B. IN. 0. for the purposes of facilitating the
securing of membership therein and stabilizing the B. W. 0. It is
apparent that an authorization for the check-off of dues owed to an
organization dominated and supported by the respondent was not a
voluntary act of the employee signing such authorization, but repre-
sented a further aspect of the employee's compulsion to abandon his
rights under the Act and to support the organization which the re-
spondent had fostered for a purpose proscribed by the Act. Under
these circumstances we will restore the states quo by ordering the
BLOSSOM 'PRODUCTS CORPORATION 353
respondent to reimburse its employees for all amounts deducted from
their wages as dues for the B. W. O. since November 15, 1937.28
We have found that the respondent expressed hostility to the affili-
ation of its employees with any outside organization . We find that
the effects and consequences of that interference , restraint , and coer-
cion constitute a further continuing obstacle to the free exercise of
the right of employees to sell-organization and to bargain collec-
tively through representatives of their own choosing . Accordingly,
in order to effectuate the policies of the Act, we will order the re-
spondent to include in the notices to be posted in its plant a state-
ment that employees are free to become or remain members of the
International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union , or any other
organization.
By engaging in unfair labor practices , the respondent has made
serious incursions upon the rights guaranteed to its employees by the
Act. In order to insure the full freedom of the respondent's em-
ployees -to exercise those rights , it is essential that they be informed
that the respondent will no longer engage in its unfair labor prac-
tices and that it will act in conformity to the provisions of our Order.
We shall therefore direct the respondent to post notices stating that
it will cease and desist from certain conduct specified in our Order,
and that it will take the affirmative action therein required.
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and upon the entire
record in the case , the Board makes the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAw
1. International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union and Blossom
Workers' Organization are labor organizations within the meaning
of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
2. By dominating and interfering with the formation and adminis-
tration of Blossom Workers' Organization and by contributing sup-
port thereto, the respondent has engaged in and is engaging in
unfair labor practices, within the meaning of Section 8 (2) of the
Act.
3. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in
the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the
respondent has engaged in and is- engaging in unfair labor prac-
tices, within the meaning of Section 8 (1) of the Act.
Matter of The Western Union Telegraph Coo pony, .4 Corporation and Atnerican Com-
munications Association. 17 N. L. R. B. 34; Matter of Helier Brothers Company of
Newconaerstown and International Brotherhood of Blacksmiths, Drop Forgers and Helper,,
7 N. L. R. B. 646.
354 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor-practices
affecting commerce, within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of
the Act.
5. The respondent has not engaged in unfair labor practices,
within the meaning of Section 8 (3) of the Act. ,
ORDER
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions
of law, and pursuant to Section 10 (c) of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the
respondent, Blossom Products Corporation, Allentown, Pennsylvania,
and its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) In any manner dominating or interfering with the adminis-
tration of Blossom Workers' Organization or with the formation or
administration of any other labor organization of its employees, and
from contributing support to Blossom Workers' Organization or to
any other labor organization of its employees;
(b) Giving effect to its agreement with Blossom Workers' Or=
ganization or to any extension or renewal thereof, or to any successor
agreement with Blossom Workers' Organization which may now be
in effect;
(c) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing
its employees in the exercise of the rights to self-organization, to
form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively
through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in con-
certed activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other
mutual aid or protection.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Withdraw all recognition from Blossom Workers' Organiza-
tion as a representative of any 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, and completely disestablish Blossom Workers' Organi-
zation as such representative;
(b) Reimburse each of its employees whose dues to Blossom
Workers' Organization were checked off, for the amounts thus
deducted from their wages since November 15, 1937;
(c) Post notices immediately in conspicuous places in its plant
and maintain such notices for a period of at least sixty (60) con-
secutive days, stating that the respondent will cease and desist in the
manner set forth in 1 (a), (b), and (c) and that it will take the
BLOSSOM PRODUCTS OORPORATION 355
affirmative action set forth in 2 (a) and (b) of this Order, and that
the respondent's employees are free to remain or become members
of the International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union or any other
organization ;
(d) Notify the Regional Director for the Fourth Region in writ-
ing within ten (10) days from the date of this Order what steps the
respondent has taken to comply herewith.
IT Is FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint, in so far as it alleges that
the respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 8 (3) of the Act, be, and it hereby is, dismissed.