Demi

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 19, 1953

104 N.L.R.B. 1048 (N.L.R.B. 1953)

1048 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
9 (a) of the Act, as amended, the said organization is the
exclusive representative of all the employees in such unit for
the purposes of collective bargaining with respect to rates
of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other conditions of
employment.
Chairman Herzog and Member Murdock took no part in the
consideration of the above Second Supplemental Decision and
Certification of Representatives.
ALFRED B. CLEFF AND JOHN SPEAR, d/b/a DEMI and
LOS ANGELES DRESS JOINT BOARD, INTERNATIONAL
LADIES GARMENT WORKERS UNION. Case No. 21-CA-1532.
May 19, 1953
DECISION AND ORDER
On March 9, 1953, Trial Examiner Wallace E. Royster
issued his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled pro-
ceeding, finding that the Respondents had engaged in and
were engaging in certain unfair labor practices, and re-
commending that they cease and desist therefrom and take
certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the
Intermediate Report attached hereto. The Trial Examiner
also found that the Respondents had not engaged in certain
other unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint, and
recommended dismissal as to them. Thereafter, the Respond-
ent and the General Counsel filed exceptions to the Inter-
mediate Report and supporting briefs.
The Board' has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial
Examiner at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error
was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board
has considered the Intermediate Report, the exceptions and
briefs, and the entire record in the case , and hereby
adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of
the Trial Examiner, with the following additions and modifi-
cations:'
1. The Trial Examiner found that Respondents discharged
Ullo in violation of Section 8 (a) (1) and (3) of the Act, be-
cause they believed that she was engaged in union activity.
The Respondents deny that they suspected Ullo of any activi-
ties on behalf of the Union and assert that she was discharged
I Pursuant to Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with
this case to a three-member panel [Members Houston, Styles, and Peterson].
2 In their exceptions , Respondents assert the Trial Examiner was incorrect in stating that
Cleff's expression of neutrality had been made to at least one employee who had expressed
concern that she might lose her job if the plant became unionized. According to the record,
one of the employees addressed by Cleff did feel such concern, but the record does not
indicate that she communicated her concern to him. However, such inadvertence by the
Trial Examiner does not alter our concurrence in his ultimate findings and conclusions.
104 NLRB No. 136.
DEMI 1049
because she violated Respondents' no-solicitation rule. We
find no merit in the Respondents' contentions.
Based on the testimony as credited by the Trial Examiner
and as more fully set forth in the Intermediate Report, the
pertinent facts are as follows: Ullo was first employed by
Respondent for a few days in the summer of 1950. On the
occasion of her first employment in 1950, she was questioned
by Respondent Cleff as to her union sympathies and was told
she would be discharged immediately if she engaged in any
organizing activities, on behalf of a union.4 In August 1952
Respondents, who were short of help, requested Ullo to return
to work for them. Ullo did so on August 25, 1952.
On September 5 Ullo asked and obtained Forelady Alonzo's
permission to raffle off a doll among her fellow employees
for the purpose of raising money for the City of Hope Hos-
pital.' She was not informed then or at any other time that
Respondents had in effect a rule prohibiting such activity
on-company property.' When Respondent Cleff observed Ullo
selling raffle tickets during the morning rest period, he
immediately discharged her, tore up the raffle slips, and
would not pay any attention to Ullo's explanation that she
had received Alonzo' s permission and was conducting the
raffle for charity. Significantly, before September 5, Cleff
had told Alonzo to watch out for union members when hiring
new employees and also to watch out for anything that might
lead to an outside union and had discussed with her the
possibility of a union's attempting to obtain employees' names
and addresses by means of a raffle. Immediately after Ullo's
discharge, Cleff reprimanded Alonzo for permitting "this
sort of thing" to go on and shortly thereafter employees
Mendez and Eron overheard Cleff say that this was the way
unions got in and Eron, whom the Trial Examiner found to be
a credible witness, further heard Cleff remark that this was
why he did not wish Ullo to sell raffle tickets. Within the
next few weeks, Cleff told employee Thierry that the purpose
of the raffle had been to help the Union obtain her name and
address.'
Under all these circumstances, including Cleff's remarks
to Ullo in 1950, the fact that Ullo was a satisfactory worker
3 The Respondents except to the Trial Examiner 's credibility findings . As the Trial Ex-
aminer's resolutions of credibility are not contrary to the clear preponderance of all the
relevant evidence, we accept his credibility findings . Jay Company, 103 NLRB 1645, and
cases cited therein.
4Cleffs statement to Ulb in 1950 is considered as background only and no unfair labor
practice finding is based thereon.
6UAo admitted that she was conducting the raffle on her own initiative and that it did not
have the official sanction of the City of Hope Hospital.
'Respondents ' rule forbade any kind of charitable solicitation , allegedly to avoid exit
barrassing their employees , but permitted commercial solicitation on nonworking time by
such individuals as the Fuller Brush man and a silver salesman.
TThe Trial Examiner found that Cleff had also asked Thierry , the day after Ullo's dis-
charge, whether she did not know why Ulto wanted her name and address . In their brief.
Respondents insist that this finding was caused by the Trial Examiner 's misinterpretation
of Thierry's testimony at the hearing. They support their contention by an affidavit of
1050 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
and Respondents were short of help at the time of her dis-
charge, and the other incidents referred to above, we find
that Respondents ' discharge of Ullo was motivated by a desire
to nip in the bud what they believed to be an incipient union
campaign. This action clearly constituted interference with
and coercion and restraint of the employees in their exercise
of their right to self-organization in violation of Section 8
(a) (1) of the Act . We also find , as did the Trial Examiner,
that Respondents by such conduct discouraged union member-
ship in violation of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
Whether the discharge of Ullo be regarded as a violation of
Section 8 (a) (1) or Section 8 (a) (3), we shall , in order to ef-
fectuate the policies of the Act , order that Ullo be reinstated
and made whole for loss of earnings from the date of her
discharge to the date of Respondents ' offer of reinstate-
ment.
2. As previously mentioned Cleff had told Alonzo prior to
September 5, 1952 , to watch out for union members when
hiring new employees . Alonzo admitted to striking employees
Hamilton and Eron that she was being criticized and blamed
for the strike by Cleff because she had not inquired of ap-
plicants whether they were union members and had hired
union members . We find , as did the Trial Examiner, that
Cleff's statement to Alonzo to "watch out " for union members
when hiring, particularly in the light of Alonzo ' s statements
to the strikers , interfered with the employees ' right to self-
organization in violation of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.
3. The Trial Examiner found that the Respondents did not
violate Section 8 (a) (1) by other activities alleged in the
complaint . As no exceptions were filed to these findings, they
are hereby affirmed and the complaint will be dismissed in
so far as it alleges violations not found by the Trial Ex-
aminer.8
4. The General Counsel excepted to the failure of the
Trial Examiner to include the name of John L. Sonners, a
former partner of Respondents ,` iff the caption of his In-
termediate Report and to recommend that Sonners be held
liable , jointly and severally , with his former partners for
the back pay due to Ullo . Sonners was named as a respondent
in the complaint and it was stipulated at the hearing that, at
the time of the filing of the charge and 6 months prior thereto,
he had been a partner in Respondent ' s partnership . However,
the record shows that the complaint was served on the partner-
Thierry to the effect that she had meant to indicate this conversation took place after she
had told Cleff about a visit by union organizers , several weeks after Ullo 's discharge.
Thierry also moved that the record be corrected to conform with the affidavit . The General
Counsel opposed this motion. We find the date of this conversation between Cleff and Thierry
to be of no material significance and therefore deny Thierry 's motion to correct the record.
8 To this limited extent only, the Respondents ' renewal of their motion to dismiss, made
in their brief, is granted.
DEMI 10 51
ship after Sonners had ceased to be a partner. Sonners does
not appear to have been served personally and he did not
appear at the hearing either in person or by counsel. Under
these circumstances we find that Sonners was not properly
served with process.' We shall, therefore, overrule the Gen-
eral Counsel's exception and dismiss the complaint as to
Sonners.
ORDER
Upon the entire record in this case and pursuant to Section
10 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that Respond-
ents, Alfred B. Cleff and John Spear, d/b/a Demi, LoF
Angeles, California, their agents, successors, and assigns,
shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Discouraging membership in Los Angeles Dress Joint
Board, International Ladies Garment Workers Union, or in
any other labor organization of their employees, by discharg-
ing employees or by discriminating in any other manner in
regard to hire or tenure of employment or any term or condi-
tion of employment.
(b) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or
coercing employees in the exercise of the right to self-
organization, to form labor organizations , to join or assist
the above-named or any other labor organization, to bargain
collectively through representatives of their own choosing,
and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of
collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to
refrain from any or all of such activities, except to the extent
that such right may be affected by an agreement requiring
membership in a labor organization as a cundition of employ-
ment in conformity with Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which we find will
effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Offer Antoinette Ullo immediate and full reinstatement
to her former or substantially equivalent position, without
prejudice to her seniority or other rights and privileges and
make her whole for any loss of pay suffered, in the manner
set forth in the section entitled "The Remedy" in the Inter-
mediate Report attached hereto.
(b) Post at its Los Angeles plant copies of the notices
attached hereto. 10 Copies of said notice, to be furnished by
9See Hall, et al. v. Leaning , et al., 91 U. S . 160 (1875).
to In the event that this Order is enforced by a decree of a United States Court of Appeals,
there shall be substituted for the words "Pursuant to a Decision and Order " the words
"Pursuant to a Decree of the United States Court of Appeals, Enforcing an Order."
1052 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the Regional Director for the Twenty-first Region, shall,
after being duly signed by the Respondents, be posted by
them immediately upon receipt thereof and be maintained
by them for a period of sixty (60) consecutive days thereafter
in conspicuous places where notices to employees are custo-
marily posted.
(c) Upon reasonable request make available to the Board
or its agents , for examination and copying, all payroll records,
social-security payment records, timecards, personnel re-
cords, and all other data necessary or convenient for the
computation of the amount of back pay due.
(d) Notify the Regional Director for the Twenty-first Region,
in writing, within ten (10) days from the date of this Decision
and Order what steps have been taken to comply therewith.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint, insofar as
it alleges Respondents engaged in other unfair labor practices
violative of Section 8 (a) (1), be, and it hereby is, dismissed.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint, insofar as
it relates to John L. Sonners, be, and it hereby is, dis-
missed.
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to a Decision and Order of the National Labor
Relations Board , and in order to effectuate the policies of
the National Labor Relations Act, we hereby notify our em-
ployees that:
WE WILL NOT discourage membership of our em-
ployees in Los Angeles Dress Joint Board, International
Ladies Garment Workers Union, or in any other labor
organization , by means of discharge or by discriminating
in any other manner in regard to hire , tenure of em-
ployment , or any term or condition of employment.
WE WILL offer to Antoinette Ullo immediate and full
reinstatement to her former or substantially equivalent
position , without prejudice to any seniority or other
rights and privileges previously enjoyed , and make her
whole for any loss of pay suffered as a result of the dis-
crimination against her.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with,
restrain , or coerce employees in the exercise of the
right to self - organization , to form labor organizations,
to join or assist the above -named or any other labor
organization , to bargain collectively through represen-
tatives of their own choosing , and to engage in other
concerted activities for the purpose of collective bar-
gaining or other mutual aid or protection , or to refrain
from any or all such activities , except to the extent
that such right may be affected by an agreement re-
DEMI 1053
quiring membership in a labor organization as a con-
dition of employment in conformity with Section 8 (a)
(3) of the Act.
DEMI,
Employer.
ALFRED B. CLEFFDated ........................ By ............................................
(Partner)
JOHN SPEARBy ................. . ............ . .............
(Partner)
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date
hereof, and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by other
material.
Intermediate Report and Recommended Order
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
A charge having been filed by Los Angeles Dress Joint Board, International Ladies Gar-
ment Workers Union, herein called the Union, against Alfred B. Cleff and John Spear, a
partnership doing business as Demi, herein called Respondents , the General Counsel of the
National Labor Relations Board issued his complaint , dated January 6, 1953, alleging that
Respondents had engaged in and were engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce
within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) and (3) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, 61 Stat 136. In respect to unfair labor practices , the complaint,
as amended at the hearing , alleges that within the 6-month period preceding its issuance,
Respondents questioned employees and applicants for employment as to union membership
and activity, instructed supervisors to watch for indications of union organization and to
question employees in that connection , conducted a poll among employees in respect to union
preference , induced strikers to abandon a strike to return to work, and announced that it
would not recognize the Union or sign a contract with it Additionally, it is alleged that
on or about September 5, 1952, Respondents discriminatorily discharged Antoinette Ullo.
Respondents ' answer denies the commission of unfair labor practices.
Pursuant to notice a hearing was held in Los Angeles, California, before the undersigned
on February 2 and 3, 1953 All parties were represented and were permitted to examine
and cross - examine witnesses and to introduce evidence pertinent to the issues.
Upon the entire record in the case and from my observation of the witnesses, I make
the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENTS
Respondents are engaged in Los Angeles, California , in the business of manufacturing
women 's apparel During the year preceding October 20, 1952 , Respondents shipped products
and furnished services totaling more than $ 25,000 in value to or for purchasers located
outside the State of California . Respondents admit and I find that they are engaged in com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
1054 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Los Aneles Dress Joint Board , International Ladies Garment Workers Union, is a labor
organization admitting to membership employees of the Respondents.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
Antoinette Ullo in the summer of 1950 worked a few days for the Respondents and then
quit . In response to invitations to return to the Respondents ' employ , she applied for work
and, about August 25, 1952, was hired by Betty Alonzo, Respondents' forelady. On September
5, Ullo came to the plant with a doll and asked Alonzo if she might raffle it. Alonzo gave
her permission to do so and purchased the first chance.1 Ullo sold other chances before
starting time and during the recess period at about 10 o'clock that morning continued the
project. While soliciting employees in that connection, one of the Respondents, Alfred Cleff,
stopped her, seized and discarded the raffle slips, brushed aside Ullo's attempted explanation,
and told Alonzo to assign no more work to her. Ullo completed the work on which she was
engaged and about noon again attempted to explain her conduct to Cleff. Cleff told her that
she was through.
Carmen Mendez testified that she observed Cleff seize the raffle slips and heard him say
then that such a device was used by unions to "get in." Another employee, Tillie Eron,
testified that she too witnessed it and that sometime later that morning she heard Cleff
say that someone had told him that unions used the raffle device as an aid to organization.
A third employee, Mae Hamilton, testified that after the raffle incident she overheard
Cleff remark to Alonzo, "How many times have I told you not to let this go on? " and a
little later in that morning to two other employees, "I have been warned about this. This
is the way they get in."
Alonzo evidenced a substantial failure of recollection at the hearing, but did admit that
Cleff had instructed her at sometime to "watch out" for applicants who were members of
the Union. She denied that she had carried this instruction into effect Alonzo was questioned
about a statement given to an agent of the General Counsel on November 6 covering some
of the matters in dispute. She testified that the statement at the time it was given constituted
her last recollection of the events. Accepting the statement as past recollection recorded,
it constitutes evidence that immediately after seizing the raffle slips Cleff said to Alonzo,
"Didn't I tell you to watch out for this sort of thing"; that Cleff and Alonzo had before
September 52 discussed the devices sometimes used by unions to secure the names and
addresses of employees; and that Cleff had instructed her to watch out for anything that
might lead to the intrusion of an "outside" union.
Cleff testified that raffles were not permitted in the plant and that he had refused per-
mission even to representatives of the Community Chest to solicit from employees Cleff
explained in his testimony that his position in this matter was taken as a means of protecting
employees from harassment which might result in the making of contributions beyond their
financial means. Cleff mentioned an incident occurring a few weeks before September 5
when he ejected two deaf mutes who were begging from the employees and warned Alonzo
not to permit such things in the plant. This constituted, according to Cleff, instruction to
the employees to avoid any sort of solicitation without his permission. Cleff denied that he
suspected the raffle to be connected with any union activity or that he made any remarks
on September 5 concerning the tactics used by unions to facilitate organization and ex-
plained that sometime after the strike had begun, upon learning that some of the employees
who remained at work had been visited at their homes by union representatives, he.suggested
that their addresses may have been obtained by means of the raffle slips.
I am convinced, however, that Mendez, Eron, and Hamilton testified truthfully that on the
morning of September 5 after seizing the raffle slips, Cleff said that this was one way unions
iCredited testimony of Ullo and employees Eron and Hamilton. Alonzo testified that she
did not recall whether she had granted the permission or bought the chance.
21 do not credit Alonzo's somewhat uncertain testimony on the stand that these discussions
occurred after the beginning of the strike.
DEMI 1055
had to "get in." I believe that Mendez was mistaken when she said that Cleff so expressed
himself at or about the time he seized the slips and that what she heard took place a short
time later . I also credit the testimony of Hamilton and the past recollection of Alonzo that
Cleff remarked to the latter, "How many times have I told you not to let this go on. " "This"
I find is a reference by Cleff to strategems used by unions to secure employee names and
addresses . The testimony of one of Respondents ' witnesses , Katie Thierry , that on September
6 Cleff asked her if she did not know the purpose of the raffle and a few weeks later said
that it was a scheme to get her home address, is credited and constitutes further evidence
as to Cleff' s belief concerning the purpose of the raffle.
Cleff's conduct when he saw Ullo selling raffle slips during the rest period (bis angry
refusal to listen to her explanation , his abrupt instruction that Ullo be given no further
work, and his irate criticism of Alonzo for permitting the raffle to be held) is inconsistent
with any reasonable concern about solicitation for charitable institutions or about begging.
The plant was busy at the time, because of an increased workload, a number of new em-
ployees had been hired , thus one would expect an employer in these circumstances at least
to listen to the explanation of an employee who from all that appears was satisfactory
and who if violating a rule was doing so innocently and with the permission of her supervisor.
Ullo testified that when in the summer of 1950 on the occasion of her first employment she
was hired by Cleff, he subjected her to considerable questioning regarding any possible
union affiliation and told her that if she began any move to organize the employees she would
be discharged immediately Cleff characterized this testimony as a he, but I believe it to be
truthful. I am convinced that Cleff continued to be concerned lest his employees select a
union to represent them and that he believed his fears to be realized when he saw Ullo
conducting the raffle. That the raffle in fact was innocent of any sinister purpose is im-
material I find that Cleff's wrathful reaction to Ullo's conduct is rationally to be explained
only by his fear that a union was working toward the organization of his employees and that
Ullo's discharge was motivated by this belief. I find therefore that by discharging Ullo
because of a belief she was engaged in some sort of union activity, Respondents discouraged
membership and activity in behalf of the Union and thereby violated Section 8 (a) (3) of the
Act.
On Monday, September 8,? two representatives of the Union called upon John Spear, one
of the Respondents, and told him they wished to discuss union recognition. Spear answered
that he was too busy to accommodate them. On the next morning some of the employees
engaged in a strike and for some time thereafter a picket line was maintained before the
plant. Tillie Eton testified that during the first week of the strike she overheard Alonzo
tell two of the pickets that Respondents would never have a "union shop" and that they had
best go to work. When Eron asked Alonzo not to interfere, Alonzo said that Cleff blamed
her for the strike in that she had hired union members. Mae Hamilton testified that during
the same week Alonzo said that Cleff was being critical of her because she had not inquired
of applicants if they belonged to a union. Still, according to Hamilton, Cleff talked to the
pickets on many occasions , arguing with them over the merits of union representation.
According to Hamilton, Cleff said that the strikers would not win and that he would not
sign an agreement with the Union. Hamilton told him that the pickets would stay there
until he did. Ullo testified that while she was on the picket line Alonzo complained that Cleff
blamed her for the strike , attributing it to Alonzo ' s failure to ask applicants if they be=
longed to a union. Alonzo said, according to Ullo, that the latter need not waste time on the
picket line as she could get a good job elsewhere.
Alonzo denied talking to pickets on any occasion. Her testimony on the stand was, however,
given in such a fashion as to convince me that she was determined to admit nothing that
might in any fashion reflect upon her Employer . I do not regard her as a reliable witness.
Cleff denied that he had ever said he would not sign an agreement with the Union. According
to Cleff he would do so if his employees desired it Some of the nonstrikers testified that
while the strike was in progress Cleff told them that any decision concerning a union was
theirs; that he was indifferent. I credit this testimony and find that Cleff did so express
himself to the employees who remained at work during the strike, but I do not consider this
as persuasive evidence that Cleff was in fact unconcerned with the development of a union
organization among his employees These expressions of neutrality were made to those who
already had chosen not to support the Union and to one at least who had expressed some
fear that if the Union was recognized her job would become less secure . By telling em-
9Cleff said it was September 5; Spear placed it on the 8th; Bolsky , one of the union repre-
sentatives, recalled it to be a week or two before the latter date. Spear 's recollection is
supported sufficiently by circumstantial detail as to convince me that it is the most reliable.
1056 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ployees who already had indicated they would not support the Union that he had no objection
to their doing so, Cleff was taking little chance that they would act contrary to his desires.
The complaint alleges that Respondents interfered with, restrained , and coerced em-
ployees by inviting them to return to work during the strike and .by assserting that the
Respondents would never sign an agreement with the Union. Spear admitted that he in con-
versations with pickets had asked them to return to work, but explained that he did so
facetiously knowing well that they would not cross the picket line. The Board has found
that an invitation to strikers to return to work may constitute an interference with their
rights under the Act, even in the absence of a designated bargaining representative where
such invitations constitute an integral part of a pattern of illegal opposition to the purposes
of the Act. In the factual situation presented here , however, I am not convined that there
was any real attempt on the part of the Respondents to persuade the strikers to return to
work . The disposition of the Respondents in this particular is rather , I believe , that they
preferred to replace the strikers and thus have fewer union adherents in their employ.
Although I recognize that one who abandons a strike may also by the same act abandon the
principles which led him to take strike action. I do not consider the finding justified that
the solicitation evidenced by the admission of Spear and the testimony of Eron constituted
an "integral part" of Respondents illegal opposition to the purposes of the Act.4
I credit the testimony of Hamilton and Eron that Cleff and Alonzo said that Respondents
would not enter into an agreement with the Union. Of course Respondents were under no
obligation to do so as the Union does not appear to have been a majority representative.
But again, it has frequently been held that such an assertion on the part of an employer
amounts to unlawful interference because employees are thus advised that an attempt to
be represented by a bargaining agency will be futile . The flavor of the evidence is that
Cleff' s assertions to this point were made in discussions with the pickets concerning the
possible benefits of unionization Cleff said he would never sign with their organization and
the pickets said they would stay on the line until he did I am not convinced that Cleff intended
to convey by what he said or that those to whom he spoke reasonably interpreted his remarks
to mean any more than that he would not recognize the Union. I do not find this to be such
an anticipatory refusal to bargain as to amount to interference with rights guaranteed by the
Act.
I find , based upon Alonzo's statement and the admissions she made to U110. Eron, and
Hamilton, 5 that Cleff instructed her to "watch out" for applicants who were members of a
union . I also find that Alonzo did not give effect to this instruction . I find that the instruction
alone was one reasonably calculated to interfere with the right of applicants for employment
to join or assist labor organizations and that it thereby constitutes a violation of the Act.
I find that by discharging Ullo and by instructing Alonzo to "watch out" for applicants
for employment who were members of the Union, Respondents interfered with, restrained,
and coerced employees in the exerciseof rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act and thereby
violated Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.
N. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondents set forth in section III, above , occurring in connection
with their operations 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 Respondents have engaged in certain unfair labor practices, I will
recommend that they cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action designed
to effectuate the policies of the Act.
Having found that Respondents have discriminated in regard to the hire and tenure of em-
ployment of Antoinette Ullo, it will be recommended that they offer her immediate and full
reinstatement to her former or substantially equivalent position without prejudice to her
seniority and other rights and privileges and make her whole for any loss of pay she may
have suffered as a result of discrimination against her by payment to her of the sum of
41 would equate soliciting strikers to abandon a strike to any noncoercive attempt by an
employer to persuade employees to forego or abandon their right to representation. General
Shoe Corporation , 100 NLRB 774.
5 The testimony of Ullo, Eron , and Hamilton in this connection is credited.
ACTIVE SPORTSWEAR CO., INC. 1057
money equal to the amount she would normally have earned as wages from September 5,
1952, to the date of offer of reinstatement, less her net earnings during that period. Back
pay shall be computed on a quarterly basis in the manner established by the Board in F. W.
Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289. It will also be recommended that Respondents upon
reasonable request make all pertinent records available to the Board or its agents for the
computation of the amount of back pay due.
Because of Respondents' demonstration of their willingness to resort to unlawful methods
to counteract a supposed attempt by employees to achieve self-organization , it will be recom-
mended that Respondents cease and desist from infringing in any manner upon rights guaran-
teed employees in Section 7 of the Act.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record in the case, I
make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Los Angeles Dress Joint Board, International Ladies Garment Workers Union, is a
labor organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
2. By discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of Antoinette Ullo because of her
supposed activities in behalf of the Union, the Respondents have engaged in and are engaging
in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
3. By such discrimination and by instructing its forelady to be on the alert for applicants
for employment who are members of the Union, Respondents have engaged in and are en-
gaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a). (1) of the Act.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce
within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
(Recommendations omitted from publication.]
ACTIVE SPORTSWEAR CO., INC. and MARY LYONS, Peti-
tioner and LOCAL 75, INTERNATIONAL LADIES' GARMENT
WORKERS' UNION, AFL. Case No. 1 -RD-123. May 19, 1953
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION, ORDER, AND SECOND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
On March 3, 1953, under the direction and supervision of
the Regional Director for the First Region, an election by
secret ballot was conducted pursuant to a Decision and Direc-
tion of Election issued in this matter on February 13, 1953. t
The Direction of Election defined the eligibility period as
"the payroll period immediately preceding the date of this
Direction of Election," and the official election notice defined
it as "the payroll period immediately preceding February 13,
1953." However, on the day of the election the Regional Di-
rector 's agent erroneously advised that the payroll of Feb-
ruary 13, 1953, should be used to determine the eligible voters.
As a result of this change in payrolls an employee, ineligible
to vote under the criteria established by the Board, became
eligible and was permitted to vote. The tally of ballots
furnished the parties at the conclusion of the election shows
that of approximately 49 eligible voters, 22 voted for the
Union, 22 against the Union, 3 cast void ballots, and 1 ballot
was challenged . No party filed objections to the conduct of
the election or conduct affecting the results of the election
1102 NLRB 1396.
104 NLRB No. 138.