David Karron, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 16, 1940

25 N.L.R.B. 506 (N.L.R.B. 1940)

In the Matter of DAVID KARRON , INC. and LOCAL #1224, UNITED
ELECTRICAL , RADIO & MACHINE WORKERS OF AMERICA, C. I. 0., AND
METAL PRODUCTION AND NOVELTY WORKERS' UNION, LOCAL 28A,
PARTY TO THE CONTRACT, FORMERLY AFFILIATED WITH THE METAL
POLISHERS , BUFFERS, PLATERS & HELPERS INTERNATIONAL, A. F. OF L.,
AND PRESENTLY AFFILIATED WITH INTERNATIONAL LADIES' HANDBAG,
POCKETBOOK & NOVELTY WORKERS UNION, A. F. of L.
Case No. C-153.9-Decided July 16, 1940
Jurisdiction : ladies' handbag frames and ornaments manufacturing industry:
Unfair labor practices
Interference, Restraint, and Coercion • anti-union statements; interference in
the formation of an inside union.
Discrimination: charges of refusal to reemploy, dismissed
Mr. Millard L. Midonick, for the Board.
Mr. Murry E. Marston, of New York City, for the respondent.
?I1r. Frank Scheiner, of New York City, for the United.
Mr. William Karlin and Mr. Leo Greenfield, of New York City, for
the Metal Workers.
Mr. John Green, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon charges and amended charges duly filed by Local #1224,
United Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers of America, C. I. 0.,1
herein called the United, the National Labor Relations Board, herein
called the Board, by the Regional Director for the Second Region
(New York City), issued its complaint dated August 30, 1939,
against David Karron, Inc., Brooklyn, New York, herein called the
respondent, alleging that the respondent had engaged in and was
engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce, within the
meaning of Section 8 (1), (3), and (5) and Section 2 (6) and (7)
i The caption of the case was amended at the hewing to designate the union as It now
appears.
25 N. L. R. B., No. 63.
506
DAVID KARRO\, t C , 507
of the National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein called the
Act. Copies of the complaint, accompanied by notice of hearing, were
duly served upon the respondent, upon the United, and upon Metal
-Production and Novelty Workers' Union, Local 28A, affiliated with
International Ladies' Handbag, Pocketbook & Novelty Workers
Union, A. F. of L., herein called the Metal Workers. -
In respect to the unfair labor practices, the complaint, as amended
during the course of the hearing, alleged' in substance: (1) that the
respondent, on or about June 1937, and at all times thereafter, urged,
persuaded, and warned its employees to refrain from becoming or
remaining members of a labor organization now known as the United
and formerly known as Metal Novelty Lodge #1548, International
Association of Machinists; (2) that on or about April 23, 1938, the
respondent discharged Michael Conte, Peter Mammana, Nicholas
Mammana, Salvatore Martocchia, George Metzger, and Anthony
DeSimone, and on or about April 23, 1938, refused and has con-
tinued to refuse to reinstate the said persons because they joined and
assisted the United; (3) that about July 1938, and at all times there-
after, the respondent refused to bargain collectively in good faith
with the United as the exclusive representative of the employees in
an appropriate unit, although the United had been designated by
a majority of such employees as their representative for the purposes
of collective bargaining,.. and that on or about November 21, 1938,
the respondent entered into a closed-shop contract, providing for the
check-off of union dues, with the Metal -Workers at a time when the
Metal Workers did not represent a majority of employees in the
alleged appropriate unit; and (4) that by the foregoing acts, by
threats of discharge, and transfer of its operations outside the State
of New York, and by other acts, the respondent interfered with,'
restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights
guaranteed in the Act.
On September 11, 1939; the respondent filed its answer admitting
the allegations of the complaint concerning the nature and scope of
its business but denying the allegations of the complaint in respect
to the unfair labor practices.
Pursuant to the notice of `hearing and notices of postponement
thereof, a hearing was held in New York City on November 6, 7, 8,
and 9, and December 11, 12, 13, 14, and 15, 1939, before Madison Hill,
the Trial Examiner duly designated by the Board. The Board, the
respondent, the United, and the Metal Workers were represented by
counsel and participated in the hearing. 'Full opportunity to be heard,
to examine, and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence
bearing on the issues was afforded all parties. During the course of
'508 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the hearing the Metal Workers withdrew from the proceeding.2 On
motions made by counsel for the United and counsel for the Board,
the Trial Examiner dismissed the allegations of the complaint that
the respondent had engaged in unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 8 (5) of the Act. At the close of the Board's'
case and at the close of the hearing the respondent moved to dismiss
The complaint on the ground of insufficient proof and on the ground
that the individual complainants had failed to show that they were
employed by the respondent at the time of making the alleged requests
for reemployment. The motions were denied. The Trial Examiner
granted a motion by counsel for the Board to amend the complaint
to conform to the proof adduced at the hearing. During the course
of the hearing the Trial Examiner made several rulings on other
motions and on objections to the admission of evidence. The Board
,has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner and finds that no
prejudicial errors were committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed.
Thereafter, the Trial Examiner filed his Intermediate Report, dated
April 10, 1940, copies of which were duly served upon the parties. .
The Trial Examiner found that the respondent had not engaged in
,unfair labor practices, within the meaning of Section 8 (1) and (3)
of the Act, and accordingly- recommended that the complaint be
dismissed.
On May 20, 1940, the United filed exceptions to the Intermediate
Report and on June 3, 1940, a brief in support of its exceptions.
.Pursuant to notice, 'a hearing for the purpose of oral argument on
;the exceptions was held before the Board in Washington, D. C., on
June 6, 1940. The United and the respondent were represented by
counsel and participated in the argument. At the close of the argu-
ment, counsel for the respondent filed a brief with the Board. The
,Board has considered the briefs of the respondent and of the United
and the exceptions of the United to the Intermediate Report and,
,in so far as the exceptions are inconsistent with the findings; conclu-
sions, and order set forth below, finds them to be without merit.
Upon, the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
David Karron, Inc., a New York corporation with its principal
office and place of business in Brooklyn, New York, is engaged, in the
2 On September 8, 1939, the Metal workers filed an answer , in which it denied certain
allegations of the complaint in respect to unfair labor practices , and adding , by way of
,affirmative defense, that on or about November 21, 1938, it had entered into a valid
collective agreement with the respondent and that prior to the making of this agreement
a substantial majority of the employees covered by the agreement designated the Metal
workers as their sole collective bargaining agency.
DAVID KARRO\, -2\C., 509
manufacture, sale, and distribution of metal-plated frames and orna-
ments for ladies' handbags and related products.
The principal materials used by the respondent in its manufac-
turing operations are steel and brass, and chemicals used in plating
solutions. During the first 6 months of 1939 the total value of such
materials purchased by the respondent amounted to approximately
$45,000, of which approximately 60 per cent were received from points
outside the State of New York. During the same period the respond-
ent manufactured finished products 'having a value of approximately
$125,000, of which approximately 40 per cent were shipped to points
outside the State of New York.
H. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Local #1224, United Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers of
America, is a labor organization affiliated with the Congress of
Industrial Organizations. It admits to membership employees of
the respondent and other employees in the same industry located iii
and about Metropolitan New York.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICLS ,
A. Background
Prior to May 1937 the respondent's employees did not belong to
any labor organization. In the early part of that month Michael
'Conte, employed by the respondent as a polisher, asked his fellow
employees whether they wanted to join an outside union. At the
same time, International Association of Machinists, affiliated with the
American Federation of Labor, herein called the I. A. M., began an
organizational campaign among the respondent's employees and on
or about May 13, 1937, the I. A. M. and the respondent entered into
a closed-shop contract expiring on August 15, 1937.3 The contract
provided, inter alia, for (1) recognition of the union or its successor
as the bargaining agent of the respondent's employees; (2) hiring
of new employees through the union; (3) equal division of work in
each department' during the slack season as long as practical, and
(4) recognition of seniority rights in lay-offs. By resolution dated
May 28, 1937, the respondent's employees severed their membership
with the I. A. M. and joined the United,4 which the respondent
recognized as the successor to the closed-shop contract of the I. A. M.
Upon the expiration of this contract, the United and the respondent
9 The contract « as entered into in the name of Metal Novelty Lodge , # 1548, of the
International Association of Machinists.
* Then known as Metal Novelty Local 1224, United Radio & Electrical Workers of
America, affiliated with the Committee for Industrial Organization.
510 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
entered into a similar closed-shop contract expiring on February 15,
1938. 't'his latter contract was extended to April 23, 1938, for the
purpose of affording the United an opportunity to negotiate a uni-
form collective agreement with the respondent and three of its com-
petitors. On April 23, 1938, the United and these four employers
signed a memorandum agreement, providing, inter alia, for minimum
hourly rates, and the negotiation of a written contract at a future
date. On April 27, 1938, an addendum to the memorandum agree-
ment was executed, providing, inter alia, for preferential rehiring
on a seniority basis of all employees laid off, and for the expiration
of the memorandum agreement on August 1, 1938. These documents
did not incorporate the complete oral understanding of the parties
and no formal contract was ever signed. The United and the re-
spondent continued, however, to act under an oral understanding
which incorporated many of the provisions of the previous union
contracts, such as the provisions relating to the overtime rate and
the closed shop.
Upon the expiration of the memorandum agreement on August 1,
1938, the bargaining relations between the respondent and the United
were not continued. Instead, about November 21, 1938, the respond-
ent entered into a closed-shop contract expiring on November 20,
1939, with the Metal Workers.5
The United alleged, as set forth in the complaint, that the respond-
ent and the Metal Workers entered into the afore-mentioned contract
at a time when the Metal Workers did not represent a majority of
the employees in the alleged appropriate unit. During the course
of the hearing, the Metal Workers withdrew from the proceeding,
and the respondent and the United entered into another closed-shop
contract. As noted above, upon motions, made by counsel for the
United and counsel for the Board, the Trial -Examiner dismissed the
allegations of the complaint that the respondent had engaged in un-
fair labor practices, within the meaning of Section 8 (5) of the Act.
B. Interference, restraint, and coercion
In early May 1937 Conte, as noted above, inquired of a few of
his fellow employees whether they desired to join a union. Several
days thereafter, Charles Marron, the respondent's vice president, told
Conte that a meeting of employees would be held that day at a place
on Bristol Street, explained that "some of them want an organization
in the shop," and suggested that Conte attend the meeting and
"come back and tell me what it was all about." Conte attended this
meeting and, according to his testimony, Paul Dimambro, press-room
At that time affiliated, as Local 28, with the Metal Polishers, Buffers, Platers & Helpers
International of the A. F. of L.
DAVID KARRON, INC., 511
foreman, and Robert Prahar, an employee, extolled the virtues of an
inside union and observed that "an outside organization for all they
knew were communists and racketeers."
Karron testified that at of about the time above mentioned, "a
couple of the boys came down to see me, and they asked me about
forming their own union"; that he told them that they could do
whatever they desired, and that thereafter he asked Conte and "a
couple of other boys to go down and see what it was all about."
When Karron subsequently learned from an attorney that a "com-
pany union" was "ill-advised," Karron testified, "we dropped the
whole matter . . ., [and] called in the American Federation of
Labor and signed an agreement."
Shortly upon the first efforts to form an inside union, described
above, the I. A. M. distributed leaflets in front of the respondent's
plant. Upon observing this activity, Jack Levin, the respondent's
salesman and production manager, accused Conte of complicity in
respect to the distribution' of leaflets, - and said, "I don't want that
bunch of communists hanging around my shop." During the same
day Conte, at the suggestion of the polishers in his department, left
the shop to speak to the I. A. M. organizers. Conte told them that'
the shop "was ripe for organization," and the I. A. M. organizers
advised him that one of their representatives would be present at the
Premier Palace that afternoon for the purpose of organizing the
respondent's employees. When Conte returned to the plant after
this conversation, he was summoned to the respondent's office where
he met Karron and Levin. There they inquired about the identity
of the men outside the shop. Conte said that they represented a
labor organization. Thereupon Karron stated, "What do you want
an outside organization for . . . Why can't we get together and
have a company union of our own . . . if you want more money,
I will give you more money." Conte replied, in substance, that the
men wanted a labor organization and not a company union. Karron
then offered to hire a lawyer "to draw a contract up" but Conte re-
affirmed his purpose to have an outside union. Karron then re-
marked, "Let him go. He is bull-headed." Conte's testimony as to
this entire incident is uncontroverted.
That afternoon, pursuant to, arrangements made between Conte
and the I. A. M. representative, an organizational meeting was held
among the respondent's employees at the Premier Palace, and shortly
'thereafter, about May 13, 1937, as noted above, the I. A. M. and
the respondent entered into a closed-shop contract.
Several weeks later, in June 1937, Levin asked the polishers,
among others, to accept a reduction in the piecework price of cer-
512 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
tain kinds of frames, which Levin asserted was necessary to en-
able the respondent to obtain a large order. If the men refused,
Levin indicated, the respondent's plant would have to be shut down.
Conte, who was on the shop committee of the United, told Levin
that he would first have to consult the shop chairman, and that on
the following day he would give Levin a definite answer. On the
following morning Conte told Levin that the wage cut was "out of
the question," and that noon, despite the anti-lockout provision
in the union contract, the respondent turned off the power and dis-
missed the polishers. Several polishers, however, were individually
requested to return on the following day. These polishers then in-
quired of Conte whether they should report for work, to, which
Conte replied that all the polishers were to' gather in front of the
respondent's plant on the following morning, but were not to go into,
the plant unless so instructed by the shop committee. The following
morning the men gathered as planned. Shortly thereafter, Karron
drove by and requested 8 polishers. Conte told Karron that he could
have as many polishers as needed, but berated Karron for shutting
off the power on the previous day and for ignoring the union shop
committee. According to the testimony of Conte and Mammana,
Karron then remarked, "Well, it is my shop and I am the boss there
and nobody will tell me how to run my shop. Listen you chumps,
I know who the ring leaders are here, and if you listen to them
you will all wind up without a job." Later in the day the respondent
agreed to allow the shop committee to select 8 polishers to report for
work. Conte and 7 other polishers chosen by the shop committee re--
ported for work. Upon seeing Conte, Karron remarked, "Where
are you going? I don't need you. I have got all the men I want.",
When the night employees came off their shift, however, they suc-
cessfully exerted pressure upon Karron to rehire Conte. Conte's,
testimony as to this entire incident is uncontroverted except insofar
as Karron denied making the afore-mentioned statement in respect to
the "ring-leaders."
In his Intermediate Report the Trial Examiner stated that he
was "not impressed" by Conte's testimony and gave it "no credit."
We do not believe, in the light of the record, that Conte's testimony
should be discredited. His testimony in the main was uncontro-
verted and unimpeached and, except as noted above, was undenied.•
In addition, Conte's testimony with; respect to Karron and Levin'
was corroborated, in part, by the testimony of Peter Mammana. We
find that, as admitted by Karron, the respondent sought to encourage
and dominate the formation of an inside union, that Karron and
Levin made the statements attributed to them by Conte, and that
DAVID KARRON, INC., 513
the respondent thereby interfered with, restrained, and coerced its
employees in the exercise of, the rights guaranteed by Section 7 of
the Act.
C. Alleged discrinzinatory discharges and refusals to reinstate
During the slack season commencing in June 1937, the polishers
'shared all available work, pursuant to the provision in the contract
noted above.6 The union shop committee allocated the distribution
of the work with the consent of the respondent. On January 7,
1938, when the amount of available work was so reduced that the
polishers were working only 1 or 2 days a week, the respondent's
polishers, totaling approximately 24, agreed at a union meeting
to a so-called "stagger arrangement"; that is, approximately half of
the polishers would remain at work while the other half drew
unemployment insurance benefits as totally unemployed persons
under the New York State unemployment insurance act;7 upon
the expiration of these payments the two groups were to change
places. Thereafter, Abraham Burdick, business agent of the United,
telephoned Kai'ron, informed him of the stagger arrangement, and
asked for the respondent's approval. Burdick testified that Karron
assented to the stagger plan, remarking that "all he was interested
in was getting the work out." Accordingly, on January 10, 1938,
approximately 10 polishers reported for work at the respondent's
plant.
Karron denied that he consented to this arrangement or that he
knew about it until April 25, 1938, when a group of polishers asked
to be rehired. Upon cross-examination, however, Karron admitted
that he knew of the stagger plan in January 1938 but made no pro-
test at this time as "the work was being gotten out." While it is
plain that the respondent was aware of and made no protest with
respect to the plan of the United, there is no showing that the re-
spondent expressly agreed to the stagger arrangement as a modifica-
tion of the "share-the-work" and seniority provisions of its
contract with the United.,,
On April 25, 1938, Conte, accompanied by Anthony DeSimone,
Peter Mammana, Nicholas Mammana, Tony Rocco, Joseph DeAmico,
Salvatore Martocchia, Joseph Medwick, and George Metzger, were
See Section III A. supra
New York Labor Law,-Art 18, §§ 502-503
The respondent , argues in its brief that the arrangement proposed by the United was
in violation of the unemployment insurance law without passing upon the merit of the
respondent ' s argument , we recognize that its opinion with respect to the legality of the
arrangement may well explain the absence of an express agreement thereon between the
respondent and the United. .
514 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR, RELATIONS BOARD'
sent by the United to replace those polishers who had remained- at
work during the period from January to April pursuant to the stag-
ger arrangement. Karron asked them what they wanted, and Conte,
who was the spokesman, replied that they had been sent down by
Burdick. According to the testimony of Conte, Karron then re-
marked, "Who the hell is Burdick . . . Well, to hell with Burdick
and the Union. It is my shop. I have been hiring and firing and
right now I don't need any men, and if I do, I know where to find
them, and as far as you fellows are concerned, come back in about 2
years from now and maybe I will have something for you." Conte
testified that he then referred to the stagger arrangement to which
the respondent had agreed in January. According to Conte, Karron
replied,-"To hell with the agreement, you fellows are such good union
members, the union should not have any trouble getting jobs for you."
Karron denied making these statements,, and testified that he replied
"I don't know when I will need them. It may be in a day, tomorrow,
a week, two weeks, a year, or two years. I don't know when I will
need you." The Trial Examiner discredited the testimony of Conte
which was corroborated, in part, by Peter Mammana.
Thereafter, the various polishers who had remained at work and
who had apparently refused to relinquish their jobs for those who
had exhausted their unemployment insurance benefits were expelled
or suspended from the United.
On or about May 25, 1938, according to the testimony of Conte, the
same group of nine polishers again applied at the respondent's plant
for reinstatement, on which occasion Conte allegedly placed the blame
on Karron for persuading the polishers in the shop to repudiate
the stagger agreement. Karron denied that this meeting had ever
occurred. Peter Mammana corroborated Conte's testimony.
In June'1938 a meeting was held at which George L. Beaumont,
United representative; James Largay, representative of the New York
State Board of Mediation; and Murry E. Harston, attorney for the
respondent, were present. At this -time, according to the uncontro-
verted testimony of Beaumont, Harston informed him that the
respondent would take back six polishers the following Moiiday and
the balance a week or two later.
'Relying upon this announcement, six polishers, consisting of Conte,
the two Mammana brothers, Rocco, Martocchia, and Metzger, called
on Karron at the respondent's plant. Four of the men waited outside
while Conte and Rocco went in to see Karron. According to Conte's
testimony, Conte stated, "Well, Charles, the six men are out here who
came down to work." - Karron asked him what six men he was talking
about, to which Conte answered, "You mean to tell me you don't know
DAVID KARRON, INC., 515
what we are 'up here for?" Upon Karron's reply in the negative,
Conte then stated, "I was given to understand that Mr. Harston, your
attorney, had a conference with Mr. Beaumont and a decision was
made whereby six of us were to report to work immediately, and you
were to put the balance of the unemployed to work in a week or ten
days. Now I am up here and you say `Which six men?"' Karron
then was said to have remarked, "Listen, I don't know anything about
it. I will put on who I want to, and if I want to, and if I want any-
body 'I know just who to put on. And right now all I want to put
on is Tony Rocco and Joe DeAmico." Conte then replied that this
offer was contrary to his instructions from the United. Karron testi-
fied that he told Conte that no polishers were needed and, after some
discussion, remarked that "as long as you are down here I think I
can use two men." According to Karron, Conte then conferred with
the four polishers waiting outside and upon returning, Conte sub-
mitted to him a list of polishers eligible for rehiring, from which
Karron chose Rocco and DeAmico. On direct examination, Rocco,
called as a witness by the respondent, substantiated Karron's version
of the interview but did not mention that Conte offered Karron-a list
of polishers from which to make his choice. On cross-examination,
however, Rocco admitted that the four polishers waiting outside were
firm in their decision that "all six should go in or none"; that Conte
was of the same opinion after Karron had chosen Rocco; and that
Karron chose only Rocco, after which he, Rocco, told Karron that
"Joe DeAmico would come in because these guys didn't feel like
coming in."
On July 11, 1938, Karron telephoned the United headquarters for
polishers. . According to the testimony of Beaumont, the respondent
had asked for three polishers and therefore Beaumont sent telegrams
to Conte and the two Mammana brothers to report at the respondent's
plant the following day. Karron ,testified that he had asked for two
polishers, so that when two polishers, Jack Weissberg and Leo
Buragino, reported to Karron on the same day and told him that
they had "come from the Union," they were immediately, employed.
The record discloses that Buragino and Weissberg were at the United
headquarters where they overheard the respondent's telephone call
for polishers and they forthwith applied for and received employ-
ment. Consequently, when Conte and the two Mammana brothers
reported at the respondent's plant on the following day, they were
informed that the vacancies, had ,been filled.
The United contends that in violation of the oral understanding
reached, with the United on April 23 and 27, 1938, by which the shop
° See Section III A, supra.
516 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
chairman was accorded top seniority, the respondent refused to
rehire Conte, although the latter had continuously been shop chair-
man during the period of his absence from the respondent's plant.
The record discloses that Charles Cook, an employee of the respond-
ent, had been appointed acting shop chairman during this period.
In his Intermediate Report the Trial Examiner found that Conte
was not shop chairman during the period from January to July
1938. Assuming that Conte in fact remained shop chairman, it is
clear that the United had modified the seniority provisions of its
agreement with the respondent to the extent that the stagger system
had been adopted.
In support of its contention that the respondent was impelled by
anti-union considerations in its refusal to rehire the six polishers
mentioned in the complaint, `the United alleged that non-union pol-
ishers, were hired by the respondent subsequent to the times that the
six polishers herein' involved were refused reinstatement. The re-
spondent, at the hearing, denied hiring any new polishers during the
period 'in question;; - Two former employees of the respondent testi-
fied as' to the hiring of new employees by the respondent. There is
no convincing evidence, however, that the respondent hired non-union
polishers during the period when the aforementioned union polishers
applied for ° reinstatement. Moreover, the record discloses that the
respondent hired two union polishers in February 1938, and in July
1938, as noted above, the respondent called the United headquarters
when in need of polishers.
The Trial Examiner discredited the testimony of Burdick, as well,'
as that of Conte, and found, as noted above, that the respondent
had not consented to the stagger arrangement and that the respondent
had not discriminated in regard to the hire and tenure of employ-
ment of the aforementioned polishers. While in the light of the
entire record we do not agree with the Trial Examiner's findings
with respect to the 'credibility of the foregoing witnesses, the testi-
mony of whom in large measure was uncontradicted by the respond-
ent and mutually corroborative, nevertheless we do not believe that
even accepting such testimony, there is sufficient evidence to support
a finding that the respondent refused to reemploy the above-mentioned
polishers on any of the occasions described above, because of their
union membership or activity.
We find that the evidence adduced at the hearing is insufficient to
sustain the allegations of the complaint that the respondent discrim-
inated in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of Michael
Conte, Peter Mammana, Nicholas Mammana, Salvatore Martocchia,
George Metzger, and Anthony DeSimone.
DAVID KARRON, INC., 517"
IV. TIIE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
We'find that the activities of the respondent set forth in Section_
III, B, above, occurring in connection with the operations of the
respondent described 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
Having found that the respondent has engaged in unfair labor
practices, we shall order it to cease and desist therefrom and to take
certain affirmative action which we find necessary to effectuate the
policies of the Act.
We have found that the respondent has not engaged in unfair
labor practices, within the meaning of Section 8 (3) of the Act. Our
order will provide that the complaint be dismissed in this respect.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire
record. in the;gease,,,the Board,makes the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Local #1224, United Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers of
America, C. I. 0., Is a labor organization, within the meaning of
Section 2 (5) of the Act.
-2. 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 practices,-
within the meaning of Section 8 (1) of the Act.
3. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices
affecting commerce, within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of
the Act.
4. The respondent has not discriminated in regard to the hire and
tenure of employment of Michael Conte, Peter Mammana, Nicholas.
Mammana, Salvatore Martocchia, Georgi Metzger, and Anthony
DeSimone, thereby discouraging membership in a labor organization,
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, David Karron, Inc., Brooklyn, N. Y., and its officers,
agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
283036-42-vol. 25-34
518 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
1. Cease and desist from in any manner interfering with, restrain-
ing, 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 concerted activities for the purposes of collective bargaining
and other mutual aid or protection, as guaranteed in Section, 7 of
the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds
will effectuate the purposes of the Act:
(a) Immediately post notices in conspicuous places throughout
its plant, and maintain such notices for a period of at least sixty
(60) consecutive . days, stating that the respond ont will not engage
in the conduct from which it.has been ordered to cease and desist
in paragraph 1 of this Order;
(b) Notify the Regional Director for the Second Region in
writing within ten (10) days from the date of this Order' what steps
the respondent has taken to comply herewith.
AND IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint be, and it hereby
is, dismissed 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.
MR. WILLIAM M. LEISERSON, dissenting in part :
I would not find that the respondent, by the statements of Karron
and Levin, had interfered with, restrained, or coerced its employees
in the exercise cf the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. The
evidence upon which the majority of the Board relied for the finding
that the respondent had engaged in such unlawful conduct was pri-
marily the testimony of Michael Conte. I would be guided by the
finding of the Trial Examiner who had the opportunity to observe
the demeanor of the witnesses and who refused to credit Conte's
testimony. Moreover, since the respondent is now, operating' under
a closed-shop contract with the United, I am unable to perceive in
what respects the alleged anti-union statements of Karron and Levin,
even assuming they were made, had the effect of such unlawful
interference as the Act proscribes.
For the foregoing reasons, I would adopt the recommendations of
the Trial Examiner and dismiss the entire complaint.