Dressmaker Joint Council, Etc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 1, 1964

146 N.L.R.B. 559 (N.L.R.B. 1964)

DRESSMAKERS JOINT COUNCIL, ETC. 559
in one State to another location of the same employer in another
State constituted direct outflow, even though no sale was involved.ll
There is good reason why the Siemons Mailing decision did not estab-
lish sales as a necessary criterion for application of the direct outflow
standard ; a strike by the Employer's employees exerts the same im-
pact on commerce by obstructing the interstate movement of the
jewelry worked on and shipped by them, as would be the case if the
Employer owned the jewelry and sold it to its customers. It is, of
course, the impact on commerce of labor disputes at an Employer's
operations, which our standards are designed to measure.
Just recently the Board asserted jurisdiction over an employer's
operations on the- basis of its purchases of spent grain, a waste prod-
uct from a brewery's brewing operations, because the brewery had
purchased whole grain from another State.12 Jurisdiction was
asserted even though the original article of commerce was hardly
identifiable in the waste product purchased by the Employer, and
notwithstanding that a labor displilte at his operation which would
prevent him from picking up the spent grain, would have little if any
effect upon the brewery's purchases of interstate grain. The refusal
to assert jurisdiction over the interstate operations involved in this
case cannot be reconciled with assertion of jurisdiction over the largely
intrastate operations involved in the Sehuwirth case, unless it is on
some theory of bulk rates.
I believe that the refusal to assert jurisdiction herein is contrary
to the intent and spirit of our direct outflow standard for nonretail
enterprises, and to the dictates of Section 14(c) (1). I would assert
jurisdiction.
"Frank H. Smith et al d/b/a Frank Smith & Sons, 111 NLRB 241; Greenberg Mer-
cantile Corp ., 112 NLRB 710.
12 George Schnwirth, 146 NLRB 459.
Dressmakers Joint Council , International Ladies' Garment
Workers Union, AFL-CIO and Susan Evans, Inc. Cases Nos.
2-CB-3438 and 2-CB-3688. April 1, 1964
DECISION AND ORDER
On November 14, 1963, Trial Examiner William Seagle issued his
Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respond-
ent had engaged in certain unfair labor practices and recommending
that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action,
as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Decision. Thereafter,
146 NLRB No. 70.
744-670-65-vol. 146-37
560 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the Respondent and the General Counsel filed exceptions to .the Trial,
Examiner's Decision, and the Respondent filed a supporting brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with
this proceeding to a three-member panel [Chairman McCulloch and
Members Leedom and Jenkins].
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made-
at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed-
The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial
Examiner's Decision and the entire record in this proceeding,' includ-
ing the exceptions and brief, and hereby adopts the findings, con-
clusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner to the, extent
they are consistent with our decision herein.
Pursuant ton charge filed on April 16, 1962, by Susan Evans in
Case No. 2-CB-3438, the Regional Director on May 31, 1962, issued
a complaint against the Respondent alleging that, by certain conduct,
the Respondent had violated Section 8(b) (1) (A) of the Act. On
October 23, 1962, the Respondent entered into a settlement agreement,,
approved by the Regional Director on October 30, 1962, under which
the Respondent, although not admitting the commission of the alleged
unfair labor practice, agreed to cease and desist therefrom and to post
appropriate notices. On January 23, 1963, the Regional Director
notified the Union that the case had been closed upon proof of com-
pliance with the settlement agreement.
On April 4, 1963, Susan Evans filed a charge against the Respond-
ent in Case No. 2-CB-3688, alleging further violations of Section,
8(b) (1) (A) of the Act. The Regional Director, upon investigation,.
revoked his approval of the settlement agreement on May 31, 1963,2
and issued a consolidated complaint against the Respondent, based on
both charges.
In our opinion, the Trial Examiner's failure to follow the Board's
established policy respecting settlement agreements 3 does not impair
his conclusion that the Respondent violated Section 8(b) (1) (A) of
the Act. As the record shows, the General Counsel established by a
1 We find without merit the contention of the Respondent that the Trial Examiner was
biased or prejudiced against it. A consideration of the entire record shows no basis for
the contention.
2 The Respondent contends that it was "deprived of due process of law and of its con-
stitutional rights and guarantees" because the Regional Director did not grant Respondent
prior notice and a hearing before he revoked the settlement agreement. For the reasons
given by the Trial Examiner in his Decision , we find no merit in the Respondent's,
contention.
$ As stated in Larrance Tank Corporation , 94 NLRB 352, 353:
It Is the Board 's established practice not to consider as evidence of unfair labor
practices conduct of a Respondent antedating a settlement agreement , unless the
Respondent has failed to comply with the settlement agreement or has engaged in
independent unfair labor practices since the settlement.
See also The Wallace Corporation v. N.L.R.B ., 323 U.S. 248; Tompkins Motor Linea, Inc.,
142 NLRB 1.
DRESSMAKERS JOINT COUNCIL, ETC. 561
preponderance of the evidence that the Respondent violated Section
8(b) (1) (A) after the settlement agreement of October 1962. Thus,
at all times since the settlement agreement and continuing up to the
date of the hearing in this proceeding, the Respondent had been picket-
ing the freight entrance to the building where Susan Evans is located.
On March 25, 1963, one Irwin Kessler (hereinafter referred to as
Irwin), a delivery boy employed by Susan Evans, was about to go up
the ramp leading to the freight entrance when two pickets, one of
whom was James McMikel, admittedly a paid organizer for the Re-
spondent, blocked his way and told him to wait. Irwin refused and
started up the ramp, but the other picket pushed his box truck back.
Irwin tried to go up the ramp twice more. The same picket pushed
his truck back each time and, during the last attempt, stamped Irwin's
foot. A scuffle ensued, in which this picket threw Irwin to the ground
and twice banged his head on the sidewalk. McMikel then came over
and pulled his fellow picket away from Irwin. As they departed
McMikel said: "Let him go this time. He is pushing his luck."
The Trial Examiner found, and we agree, that the remark by
McMikel "Let him go this time. He is pushing his luck" was a threat
and in and of itself a violation of Section 8(b) (1) (A) : Its intent was
that if Irwin continued to cross the picket line to go to work for the
nonunion Susan Evans, he could expect to be assaulted again in the
future.
We also agree that the assault was committed by a picket, and that
fellow picket McMikel, as an admitted paid organizer of the Respond-
ent, not only did nothing to repudiate it but in fact appeared to ratify
and adopt it by this threat. Accordingly, we find that the Respond-
ent was responsible for the assault on Irwin. Not only was this un-
lawful conduct committed against an employee of Susan Evans, but
it was of such a nature that other employees of Susan Evans were
likely to find out about it; and it was intended to coerce Irwin and
other employees of Susan Evans to join in the concerted activities of
the Respondent. Therefore, we find that the threat and assault were
violations of Section 8 (b) (1) (A).
On April 2, 1963, Irwin was again assaulted by a picket of the Re-
spondent. We are convinced that this conduct was of the same type
as the prior conduct chargeable to the Respondent on March 25, and
was part of the same effort by the Respondent to coerce the employees
of Susan Evans. Accordingly, we find that the Respondent is also
responsible for the April 2 assault on Irwin, and thereby violated Sec-
tion8(b) (1) (A).
As stated, it is the well-established policy of the Board that a settle-
ment agreement will be set aside where a respondent has engaged in
independent unfair labor practices since the settlement 4> Since we
4 Tompkins Motor Lines, Inc., supra.
562 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
have found such independent unfair labor practices here, we shall give
no effect . to the settlement agreement . Accordingly , we further find,
as did the Trial Examiner , that the Respondent by raiding the premises
of Susan Evans on January 27, 1962, engaged in conduct calculated
to coerce the employees into joining the Respondent and thereby also
violated Section 8 (b) (1) (A).
ORDER
The Board adopts the Recommended Order of the Trial Examiner
with the modifications noted below.'
6 The Recommended Order is hereby amended by:
(a)^ Substituting for the first paragraph therein the following:
Upon the entire record in this proceeding , and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended , the National Labor Relations Board
hereby orders that the Respondent , Dressmakers Joint Council , International Ladies'
Garment Workers Union, AFL-CIO.'its officers , agents. and representatives , shall:
(b) Substituting for paragraph 1(b) and the corresponding part of the notice, the
following:
Committing or threatening to commit assaults upon any of the employees of Susan
Evans , Inc., in order to induce them to join in any of the Respondent 's concerted
activities.
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon a charge filed on April 16, 1962, the Regional Director issued a complaint
against the Respondent dated May 31, 1962 , charging violations of Section 8(b)
(1)(A) of the Act ( Case No . 2-CB-3438). Under date of October 23, 1963, the
Respondent entered into a settlement agreement approved by the Regional Director
on October 30, 1962, under the terms of which it agreed to cease and desist from
the practices with which it was charged and to post notices to such effect at its
business offices in New York, New York.
After another charge was filed against the Respondent under date of April 4, 1963,
alleging further violations of Section 8(b) (1) (A) of the Act, the Regional Director
found that the Respondent had breached the terms of the settlement agreement
approved October 30, 1962. He therefore revoked the terms of the settlement agree-
ment under date of May 31, 1963, and issued under the same date a consolidated
complaint against the Respondent , charging it with violations of Section 8(b) (1) (A)
of the Act ( Case No . 2-CB-3688).
Issue having been joined on the said consolidated complaint by the Respondent's
answer, Trial Examiner William Seagle held a hearing at New York, New York, on
September 9, 10, 11 , and 12, 1963. Counsel on both sides presented oral argument
at the conclusion of the hearing and subsequently counsel for the Respondent filed
a brief which has been duly considered.
Upon the record so made , and based on my observation of the witnesses , I hereby
make the following findings of fact:
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER
Susan Evans , Inc. (hereinafter referred to as Susan Evans ) is a New York cor-
poration which at all material times has maintained its principal office and place of
business at 1359 Broadway in the city and State of New York and which has been
engaged in the manufacture , sale, and distribution of ladies' dresses and related
items.
During the past year , which is a representative period , Susan Evans manufactured,
sold, and distributed products valued in excess of $50 ,000, and at least $50,000
worth of these products were shipped to points outside the State - of New York.
During the same representative period, Susan Evans, in the course and conduct
of its operations , purchased and caused to be transported and delivered to its place
of business various fabrics , supplies , and other goods and material valued in ex-
DRESSMAKERS JOINT COUNCIL, ETC. 563
cess of $50,000, and these purchases were shipped to it from States of the United
States other than the State of New York. -
H. THE RESPONDENT - '
Dressmakers Joint Council , International Ladies' Garment Workers Union, AFL-
CIO (hereinafter referred to as the ILGWU or as the Union ), is a labor organiza-
tion within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Background
The record shows that the ILGWU has had some members among the employees
of Susan Evans but that it has -never succeeded in organizing this shop , although it
has intermittently picketed the premises for many years.
Susan Evans is located at 1359 Broadway but it is a corner building and the freight
entrance where the picketing has taken place is on 36th Street . A ramp along the
side of the building leads up to this freight ' entrance . Susan Evans is located on
the 15th floor of the building but it shares the floor , apparently, with another firm
or firms.
In November 1961 , Julius Kessler , the production manager of Susan Evans, who
was second in command to Daniel Eisenstein , the owner of the firm , but who,
nevertheless , also did its cutting, received a visit from three organizers of the
ILGWU, who appeared at the freight entrance door to the premises . Two of them
identified themselves as Peter Italiano and Frank Androsiglio , but the third re-
mained in the dimlit background , and Kessler did not learn who he was. The
organizers did not actually gain entrance to the premises at any time during their
visit , for the freight entrance door was only an outer door, and anyone wishing
to enter had to pass through a wire mesh gate that could only be opened from the
inside with an electric buzzer. Thus, whatever conversation there was on this
occasion occurred with Kessler on the inside and the organizers on the outside
of the wire mesh gate . The organizers asked Kessler who did the cutting for the
firm but Kessler told them immediately that "they" (referring to himself and his
associates ) were not interested in the union , and the organizers just left.
Three or four weeks later , Italino, Androsiglio , and a third organizer who re-
mains unidentified paid another visit to Susan Evans. They were again met by
Kessler at the wire mesh gate , and he again conversed with them through this gate.
The conversation was simply a repetition of that occurring during the first visit,
and again the organizers left.
B. The raid of January 27, 1962
Having twice failed to gain entry to the Susan Evans premises because of the
locked wire mesh gate , the Union 's organizers resolved upon Trojan horse tactics.
On January 27 , 1962, which was a Saturday, they hid themselves in the dark hall-
way of the 15th floor of 1359 Broadway , and waited for someone on the inside of
the Susan Evans premises to emerge. About noon, one of the employees of Susan
Evans , a Spanish -speaking lady by the name of Emma Contreras, who made sample
dresses for the firm , came out in order to go to the ladies' room which was in the
hallway. As she was returning to the shop and approaching the wire mesh gate,
she found that there was a group of men behind her. They ordered her to ring the
buzzer that would open the gate . At first she refused but, being afraid because
she was alone , she finally complied with the order . When the buzzer sounded,
Joseph Broccoli , one of the cutters, not seeing the raiders who had hidden them-
selves, pushed the button that opened the gate . Thereupon the party of raiders,
variously estimated -as consisting of 15 to 25 men, pushed Emma Contreras aside-
she fell to the floor-and piled into the shop.
There were present in the shop at that time, in addition to Emma Contreras and
Joseph Broccoli , Julius Kessler , the production manager , who was working at the
cutting table; two employees, Charles Camhi, another cutter, and Leroy Norris,
an apprentice cutter; and one Abe Greese, an employee of T.P. Industries-also
known, apparently , as Tina Paige-for which Susan Evans did the cutting and in
which Daniel Eisenstein , the owner of Susan Evans , had an interest.
There ensued a wild melee. The raiders ran in screaming and yelling, "This
place is on strike, everybody out. This place is closed," or "Now we have you,
everybody out." As Julius Kessler heard the commotion and turned around from
the cutting table at which he was working , he found himself surrounded by a group
564 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
of men among whom were Peter Italiano and Frank Androsiglio, two of the paid
organizers for the ILGWU. Kessler ordered them out, pointing out to them that
they had no right to be on the premises , and when they refused to leave, he yelled
to Abe Greese who was near a telephone to call the police but Greece was forcibly
prevented from doing so. Italiano and Androsiglio started to push Kessler around
and punched him in the chest. Kessler asked the employees who were present
whether they wanted to leave, and they replied in the negative. Kessler then again
told the raiders to leave the premises but they not only refused again to do so but
resorted to more violence. When Kessler attempted to break away, and to rush
toward the dress stock area where a telephone was located, he was prevented from
doing so , and two others of the raiders, James McMikel and Cornelius Fuller, also
paid organizers of the ILGWU, commenced punching him with their fists, and he
landed on the, floor. While he was on the floor, Noel Isaacs, also a paid union
organizer, kicked him in the leg. When Joseph Broccoli, who was also attempting
to reach a telephone, noticed that Kessler was on the floor, he helped to pick the
latter up, whereupon he was pushed by Noel Isaacs, who offered to fight him.
However, Broccoli declined the offer. Leroy Norris also made a futile attempt to
get to a telephone and call the police but this only led to more scuffling . Andro-
siglio brandished a Coke bottle in his hand over Kessler 's head , and threatened to
crack him over the head with it. Kessler finally was convinced that further resist-
ance to the raiders would be useless and told Broccoli, Camhi, and Norris that
they had better leave to avoid getting hurt. These three employees then put on
their street clothes, and the raiders forcibly escorted them to the ILGWU office at
218 West 40th Street , each raider holding one employee by the arm. Precisely who
the escorts were is not established except that it was James McMikel, who walked
Leroy Norris to the union office. In addition to those already mentioned, another
paid ILGWU organizer known as Rudy Jeter i was identified by Charles Camhi
as a participant in the raid.
When the kidnapped Susan Evans employees reached the union headquarters on
40th Street they were taken into the inner office of Herbert Gershon, the manager
of the organizational department of the Joint Dress Council of the ILGWU, and
they were interviewed by him in the presence of Italiano and Androsiglio. The
three employees were asked for their names and addresses, and their union books.
Since they had none, their names and addresses were taken. They were then told
by Gershon that Susan Evans was now on strike and that it would be closed down
as of Monday. They were also told that if they cooperated'the union would see
what could be done to get jobs for them but that if they did not cooperate they
would never be able to work in the garment center again . According to Broccoli,
Gershon told the three employees: "Wherever you are, we will come and get you
and pull you out of the place wherever you are working." The cooperation that
Gershon had in mind was that they should agree to picket Susan Evans on Monday.
When Gershon suggested this, however, Charles Cambi spoke up and said that
they did not wish to picket. Gershon then told them: "You don't have to picket.
Just report to the office Monday." At this point, apparently, James McMikel came
into the inner office, and Gershon asked the latter to take Norris to the outer office
and explain to him how he could get a union card on the seventh floor of the
building, and shortly thereafter Gershon ushered the other two employees into the
outer office where they encountered some more of the raiders including Noel Isaacs.
These reported that they had gone to Tina Paige but that they had been unable to
find anyone there.
In his conversation with James McMikel in the outer office, Norris promised to
join the strike on Monday morning but he had no intention of doing so, and, as soon
as he and the other two employees were permitted to leave, they headed back to
Susan Evans, after telephoning to Kessler, and resumed their work. Charles Camhi
was in such a state, however, that he was unable to work immediately. His hands
were shaking so that Kessler told him that he had better not try to handle a cutting
machine. Camhi resumed work later after he had calmed down.
After the raiders had left, Kessler had contacted the police, and several police
officers came up to Susan Evans, including two detectives. Kessler told the detec-
tives what had happened, and they suggested that they wait until Monday to see
whether the raiders could be identified. On Monday, Kessler, in the company of
the detectives, toured the neighborhood, looking for the raiders but could not find
any of them. They finally went to the union headquarters on 40th Street, where
Kessler found and identified Cornelius Fuller, Peter Italiano, and Frank Androsiglio
1 Jeter, when be was called as a witness , gave his full name as Ruddle Victor Jeter.
DRESSMAKERS JOINT COUNCIL, ETC . 565
:Subsequently, Kessler also identified James McMikel and Noel Isaacs. After identify-
ing these ILGWU organizers, Kessler signed a complaint against them, and they
were arrested. Italiano, Androsiglio, McMikel, and Fuller were charged with un-
lawfully entering a building, unlawful intrusion on real property, and assault in the
.third degree on Julius Kessler and Joseph Broccoli. They were tried and convicted
of these offenses on December 21, 1962. Noel Isaacs was charged in a separate in-
formation with the crimes of unlawfully entering a building, and of assault in the third
.degree on Julius Kessler, and Isaacs was also tried and convicted on December 21,
1962.
Shortly after the raid of January 27, 1962, the ILGWU commenced to picket the
freight entrance to the building where Susan Evans was located. None of the
;pickets were, however, Susan Evans employees. Anywhere from one to eight or
nine pickets were engaged in picketing the premises at various times, carrying signs
,on which were listed not only Susan Evans but other firms. At the time of the
hearing the picketing was still in progress.
C. The assaults on Irwin Kessler
A familiar sight in the garment district of Manhattan is a delivery boy pushing a
.handtruck of dresses. Susan Evans also employed, of course, one of these delivery
boys, whose name was Irwin Kessler. That his surname was Kessler was not mere
coincidence, for he was actually a nephew of Julius Kessler, the production manager
,of Susan Evans, who was instrumental in getting him the job. Indeed, another uncle
of Irwin Kessler, whose name was Bernard Kessler, also worked for Susan Evans .2
Irwin was employed by Susan Evans as a delivery boy in the latter part of Octo-
ber 1962, and it is easy to perceive why he was ready to take the job, despite the
raid on the firm, the picketing by the union, and his own inadequacy to repel any
attackers, for he was a slight youth of 22, who, although he was 5 feet, 9 inches in
'height, weighed not more than 140 pounds. His education had ended with grammar
school and before coming to Susan Evans, he had been "shaping up" as a delivery
boy at the New York Daily News, which meant that he was employed only inter-
mittently-when called. He therefore needed a steady job. Being a person, more-
over, of very limited education 3 and imagination, and possessing a very phlegmatic
disposition, he was wholly unable to appreciate the perils that faced him. When he
was hired, his uncle, Julius Kessler, explained to Irwin that there might be trouble
but he had also told Irwin that if anyone tried to stop him "from going up" or
asked him any questions, he was just to go about his business. Irwin accepted
this advice implicitly, and proved to be the ideal delivery boy for a picketed firm.
He went about his duties with an absolute imperturbability and with a single-
minded concentration that made him oblivious to anything but his duties .4 Thus,
without being either a person of impressive mold, or surpassing courage, he turned
,out to be something of an unconscious hero.
On the very first day of Irwin's employment, something which counsel came to
denominate as "unusual" happened to him. On that day, he was instructed to pick
up some dresses, and after he had done so and was standing in line at the freight
entrance of Susan Evans on 36th Street, waiting his turn to go up the ramp that led
to the entrance, a white man approached him and asked him whether he worked
'for Susan Evans. When Irwin answered the question in the affirmative, the white
man told him: "Well, whoever got you the job didn't do right by you, that if I was
you, I wouldn't work for Susan Evans. I will call the party that got you the job
and tell them that you don't want to work for Susan Evans." The white man also
warned Irwin that something could happen to him away from the shop, that he might
get hurt, and that his handtruck could be turned over. The white man who issued
these threats and warnings to Irwin was carrying an ILGWU picket sign on which
the Susan Evans firm was listed. However, neither the threats nor the warnings
seem to have had the slightest effect on Irwin who went about his business as usual.
2 To distinguish him from his uncles, I shall usually refer to Irwin Kessler simply as
Irwin.
8Irwin's testimony shows that he had no conception of what was meant by "a person
in authority," or what was involved in applying for union membership; and that he also
did not know the difference between east and west.
* At one point in his testimony, when Irwin was pressed about some detail of the ramp
-leading up to the freight entrance on 36th Street, he explained: "Yes, but I don't take
notice of every little thing I am just hired to do my job I can't take care of every
little thing" At another joint, he declared- "My job is just to bring up goods. I don't
look at the building."
566 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
1. The assault of March 25, 1963
On March 25, 1963, there again occurred something "unusual." About 3 p.m. that
day, Irwin was directed to pick up dresses with a boxtruck from a firm that was
located a block away from Susan Evans. On his way back from this errand, he
saw two pickets sitting on a stoop next to the freight entrance on 36th street. He
knew that they were pickets because he had seen them on many prior occasions, and
a few feet from them there was an ILGWU picket sign on which Susan Evans was
listed.
There were no other delivery boys waiting, at this time, to go up the ramp leading
to the freight entrance. As Irwin was about to go up the ramp, the pickets stood
up, blocking his way, and told him to wait on the side "until a cop comes." There
was, in fact, no police officer present at this time. Irwin refused to comply with
this suggestion of the pickets, however, and started up the ramp. Thereupon, one
of the pickets, a tall, light-skinned Negro, pushed his boxtruck back. Irwin tried
a second and a third time to go up the ramp but again this picket pushed his box-
truck back, and stamped on his foot. Irwin then attempted to push this picket off
but the picket took a swing at him, and Irwin swung back but, apparently, missed.
The picket then seized Irwin around the waist, threw him to the ground, and banged
his head on the sidewalk twice. At this point, the other picket came over and told
the picket who was assailing Irwin to let him up. In fact, he pulled the other picket
off Irwin, and the latter started up the ramp. As he did so, he heard the picket
who had intervened saying to the tall, light-skinned Negro: "Let him go this time.
He is pushing his luck." [Emphasis supplied.]
After the assault, Irwin went upstairs to the Susan Evans premises and told his
uncle, Julius, what had happened. Julius Kessler accompanied Irwin downstairs,
and as Irwin testified, he "showed him the fellow that did it." It is not clear from
Irwin's testimony whether by "the fellow that did it," he meant his actual assailant
or the other picket, since he regarded both of them as having participated in the
incident. It is also not clear whether there was only one picket then present.
Irwin Kessler subsequently identified, however, the picket who had intervened as
James McMikel, a short, stocky Negro who was on the payroll of the ILGWU as
an organizer, and who had been involved in the raid on the Susan Evans premises
on January 27, 1962. Irwin was unable, however, to identify the taller, light-
skinned Negro who had actually attacked him, for March 25 was the last time that
he ever saw this picket.
Irwin's testimony concerning the assault of March 25, 1963, was fully corrobo-
rated by Anthony lovino, a fabric salesman, who happened to be passing by at that
time. Like Irwin, Iovino identified James McMikel as one of the pickets involved
in the incident but was unable to identify Irwin's actual assailant whom he had never
seen again . However, about 20 minutes before the assault on Irwin occurred,
Iovino, who had then been walking westward toward Seventh Avenue, had seen
Irwin 's assailant in conversation with McMikel.
2. The assault of April 2, 1963
It was demonstrated that Irwin was indeed "pushing his luck." Eight days later
he was subjected to a second and even more grievous assault as a result of which his
right arm was broken.
During the morning of April 2, 1963, Susan Evans was informed over the
telephone that a delivery boy from another firm who had been attempting to
deliver two cartons of goods had been prevented from doing so by the pickets
downstairs, who had turned him back. Julius Kessler thereupon instructed Irwin
to go over there and pick up the merchandise. Irwin took a handtruck, and went
over there. By about 10 a.m. he had returned to 1359 Broadway with the hand-
truck on which the merchandise was placed. He found, however, that there was
a big line of delivery boys at the freight entrance, who were all waiting to go up the
ramp. Irwin took his place on the line and, as on March 25, no policeman was
around at the time. As he was standing in line, a picket, a tall, light-skinned
colored man, whom he had seen picketing on several previous occasions, and who
was then carrying an ILGWU picket sign around his neck, and wearing a hat,
approached Irwin and remarked to him: "I will give you a little tip, watch your
step." Irwin refrained from giving the picket any answer. But a few minutes later,
when it was Irwin's turn to go up the ramp, the picket told Irwin to wait on the side.
Irwin replied: "No, I am not going to wait on the side," and he started up the
ramp. As he was halfway up the ramp, the picket hit Irwin in the eye with his
fist, and he fell to the ground. As he was lying on the ground, the picket kicked
him in the side of the head. Irwin's right arm was, apparently, broken by his
DRESSMAKERS JOINT COUNCIL, ETC . 567
handtruck when he fell and the handtruck spun around and hit his arm. As his
assailant saw that Irwin was getting up from the ground , he dropped his picket
sign , and ran off toward Seventh Avenue. After Irwin got up off the ground, he
picked up the handtruck but found that he had no feeling in his arm . Even after
he found that his arm was broken Irwin did not call for help . Someone came over,
however, and helped him to get up the ramp. He then went up to the Susan Evans
premises , and delivered the packages which he had brought.
As Irwin was lying on the ground with blood on his forehead , he was noticed by
one Ramon Vaquez , a food deliveryman for a neighborhood coffeeshop who was
making some deliveries at the time at 1359 Broadway . Vaquez was in time to
notice also Irwin's assailant as he was running away toward Seventh Avenue. After
completing the delivery of his sandwiches and coffee, Vaquez notified someone in
the Susan Evans office that a young man whom he subsequently identified as Irwin
was "lying on the ground with blood spilling out of his forehead ." Julius Kessler,
Irwin 's uncle, must have surmised that it must be his nephew . Engaged at the time
in cutting, he put on a shirt and was hastening down to the front elevator when he
encountered Irwin who had just reached the 15th floor . Irwin related to his uncle
what had happened , and his uncle told him to go to the hospital and have an X-ray
taken of his broken arm. Accompanied by another Susan Evans employee, Irwin
first went to the Compensation Building but not finding the doctor there he went to
the French Hospital at 330 West 30th Street, where he appeared by 11 : 10 a.m.
The doctor determined that his right arm was broken and put it in splints , in addition
to treating his lacerations and contusions . Thereupon Irwin returned to Susan
Evans.
After Irwin had left to get medical treatment , his uncle , Julius, encountered the
policeman who was supposed to have been on duty at the building and asked the
latter where he had been . The policeman explained that he had followed one of
the pickets into the building, and that the assault on Irwin had taken place while
he was doing so. Apparently , Julius Kessler, who was rather excited at the time,
did not believe the officer 's explanation , for he remarked to the latter: "You had
no business leaving here unless you had another officer here to relieve you, even
if you go for a smoke."
As in the case of the March 25 assault , Irwin was unable to identify his assailant
by name. But he was able to identify him as an ILGWU picket whom he had seen
several times in the week preceding April 2, engaged in picketing Susan Evans in the
company of Rudy Jeter , one of the ILGWU organizers who had been involved in the
raid of January 27, 1962. Moreover , when Vaquez, the coffeeshop deliveryman,
returned a second time to 1359 Broadway about 10 minutes after the assault on
Irwin, he saw not only Rudy Jeter but Cornelius Fuller , another ILGWU organizer
engaged in picketing the premises . Vaquez had also seen Jeter and Fuller engaged
in picketing Susan Evans on previous occasions.
D. Concluding findings
Counsel for the Respondent introduced no evidence with reference to the raid
of January 27 , 1962 , and the evidence of the General Counsel 's witnesses thus stands
wholly uncontradicted . Indeed, it is difficult to perceive how this evidence could
be successfully controverted in view of the subsequent criminal convictions of the
chief participants in the raid.
Counsel for the Respondent do attempt to disclaim responsibility for the assaults
on Irwin Kessler on March 25 and April 2, 1963. But to accept this disclaimer it
is necessary to credit the testimony of McMikel , Jeter, and Gershon , all three of
whom were involved , directly or indirectly , in the high-handed and brazen conduct
of January 27, 1963, and one of whom , McMikel , was convicted of several crimes
because of his participation in the events of that day. The testimony of this three-
some could hardly be credited unless it were highly persuasive. Actually, it is
wholly unbelievable . McMikel did not deny, of course , that he was present at the
Susan Evans premises on March 25 during the assault on Irwin Kessler but he at-
tempted to blame the assault on a mythological vehicular truckman who used a hand-
truck to make his deliveries after he arrived at his destination and who resisted an
attempt by Irwin to get ahead of him in the line at the freight entrance . But McMikel
failed utterly to explain how he could distinguish the handtruck of a delivery boy
from that of a vehicular truckman. The best he could do was to ascribe a "look"
to the truckman 's handtruck which could not be correlated to any particular charac-
teristic of the handtruck itself, such as any element of its structure or color. This,
of course , was sheer obscurantism . McMikel had never spoken , of course, to the
vehicular truckman , and he had not actually observed his truck. McMikel was no
less hopelessly confused about just how and where on the ramp to the freight entrance
568 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the alleged fight between Irwin and the truckman began . Actually, one has to do,
no more than to take a look at Irwin Kessler to be convinced that he would not be
likely to start a fight with a truckman, vehicular or otherwise. It was natural, how-
ever, for McMikel to invent such a tale, since he was no stranger to fighting and.
violence. Needless to say, McMikel had never seen the truckman again after
March 25, although he conceded that he had seen him once in awhile on prior oc-
casions when the latter was engaged in making deliveries at 1359 Broadway, or-
in the vicinity.
As for the assault on Irwin Kessler on April 2, if the Respondent's three witnesses.
are to be believed, the Union had no pickets at all at 1359 Broadway that morning,
although the premises were being regularly picketed. McMikel testified that he
was ill with a fever on April 1 and 2, and spent the whole of April 2 at home, after
reporting his illness on April 1 . Jeter testified that he was indeed assigned to picket
at 1359 Broadway on April 2, and that he arrived there between 10:30 and 11:00
a.m. According to Jeter, however, he found that his picket sign, which he had left
behind the radiator, had been torn up, and, after talking to the policeman on duty
and the elevator man, he went to the union office at 218 West 40th Street, to obtain:
a fresh picket sign, and then returned to 1359 Broadway . According to Jeter, he-
did see Irwin Kessler on April 2 , but this was at about 2 : 30 or 3 p.m., when he saw
Irwin walking up and down the street with someone whom he described as "a.
Spanish boy."
Gershon sought to come to the aid of both McMikel and Jeter but he only suc-
ceeded in discrediting them, as well as himself . He testified that McMikel "called.
in sick" on April 2 , reporting the fact of his illness to Gershon 's secretary , and that,,
although Jeter was assigned to picket duty at 1359 Broadway on April 2 , he was not
there at all during the morning of that day. But Gershon did not produce the secre-
tary who, supposedly, took McMikel 's telephone call, nor did he produce any pay-
roll record, or other record, that would establish that McMikel was actually on sick
leave on April 2. There was also no doctor to corroborate the fact that McMikel was.
sick on April 2, since McMikel was not sick enough to require medical attendance.
It is also strange that when Jeter was talking to the policeman the morning of April 2,
about the torn-up picket sign, and the policeman asked him who was supposed to,
work there that morning, he replied, that'so far as he knew, "Jimmy McMikel is sup--
posed to be working here," although McMikel had actually taken ill the previous day
while he was in the Union's office, as he himself testified. Apparently, nobody
bothered to tell Jeter that McMikel might not show up the following day. As for-
Gershon 's testimony that Jeter was not at 1359 Broadway , at all during the morning
of April 2, this is directly contrary to Jeter's own testimony that he was there between
10:30 to 11 a.m . Gershon pretended , indeed , to know positively who had been,
picketing on April 2 , although he had no picket assignment sheets or other records,
and he could not, when pressed, state who was picketing on any other day during
this period. Perhaps even more incredible testimony was given by Jeter when he
asserted that when he saw Irwin Kessler with the Spanish boy in the afternoon of
April 2, Irwin's arm was not in a cast.
But even if it could be accepted as a fact that McMikel 's illness was not diplomatic
but real, and also that Jeter spent the whole of the morning of April 2 in hunting for
a usable picket sign, it would establish only that neither of them was the picket who
beat up Irwin Kessler. It would not establish that the Respondent was not respon-
sible for the beating. If Irwin was not beaten by McMikel or Jeter, he was beaten
by another one of the Respondent 's pickets , as Irwin indeed testified . There are no,
uncaused events either in nature or human society. Who else would have any motive
for an assault on a delivery boy of a nonunion employer than a picket of the finion
that was engaged in picketing him, especially when that union had already once
before engaged in major violence , and only 8 days earlier had been responsible for
a similar assault ? To ask this question is to answer it, for it is rhetorical . Since the-
Union's connection with the assault on Irwin Kessler on March 25 is, moreover, clear-
ly established by virtue of the presence of McMikel on the scene, it hardly.takes much
in the way of affirmative evidence to show the Union's responsibility for the assault
8 days later. It is hardly necessary to expose the flaws in the argument that since
Irwin Kessler testified that he only saw one picket on the scene on April 2. and since
Julius Kessler testified that the policeman on duty told him that he had followed a
picket into the building, and whom, moreover , he did not believe , there could have
been no pickets at all at 1359 Broadway that day.
The attempt is made , to be sure, to represent McMikel , despite his criminal record,
as something of a knight in shining armor who came to the rescue of the beset and-
hard-pressed Irwin Kessler on March 25. Actually McMikel first helped block
Irwin's way to the ramp , and did nothing to interfere while he was actually being
DRESSMAKERS JOINT COUNCIL, ETC. 569
beaten. It was only when he was fearful that the beating was going too far that
he intervened at all, and then his words could hardly be pronounced reassuring. In
saying "Let him go this time. He is pushing his luck," he was making a menacing
remark which was in itself a violation of Section 8(b) (1) (A) of the Act. McMikel
certainly participated in the assault even if he did not himself commit it.
I am also unconvinced by the attempts to represent Irwin as an unreliable witness.
It is true that Irwin would not commit himself with respect to many details of the
assaults. But, despite his limitations , he made a remarkably good witness. He
stuck to the basic facts which he clearly remembered, and almost invariably refused
to guess -about the unimportant details. He did commit himself to the detail that
at the time of his assault on March 25 he was the only delivery boy on the line to
the freight entrance and this may not have been so because there was almost always
a long line at the freight entrance. But it is not necessarily true that there was no
line in the late afternoon and even if Irwin was mistaken about this it does not
follow that the whole story of the assault was a fabrication. I am even less im-
pressed by the argument that Irwin could not possibly have been assaulted in broad
daylight at a busy freight entrance where many other people would be present.
Assaults have occurred many times in broad daylight and before witnesses. There
is no need, moreover, to search through the voluminous annals of crime. Julius
Kessler was assaulted in this very case by union organizers in broad daylight in his
own shop, and in the presence of quite a number of witnesses. Furthermore, it is
no mere coincidence that both of the assaults on Irwin should have occurred when
the policeman on duty was away from his post, and that his assailants should never
have returned to the scene of their crimes.
Since those"who commit assaults rarely leave their calling cards, it is true, to be
sure, that apart from McMikel, the assailants of Irwin Kessler haver not been
identified by name .5 Such a failure of identification would be fatal to a criminal
prosecution. But it is not fatal in a Board proceeding under Section 8(b)(l()(A)
of the Act, where the issue is not precisely who committed an assault on an em-
ployee but whether an assault has been committed for which the respondent union
is responsible The Board has found violations of Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the
Act on circumstantial evidence, and despite the lack of identifications, when it was
clear from the whole pattern of conduct revealed by the record that the respondent
was responsible for the violations .6 The circumstantial evidence against the Re-
spondent in this case is indeed very strong.
It hardly requires the citation of authority to demonstrate that the raid of
January 27, 1963, and the assaults on Irwin Kessler on March 25 and April 2 were
violations of Section 8(b) (1) (A) of the Act. Obviously, the conduct of the union
organizers restrained and coerced the Susan Evans employees in general and Irwin
Kessler in particular in the exercise of the rights guaranteed to them by Section 7
of the Act, for these rights include not only the right to work 7 but also the right
to refrain from concerted activity .8 The reliance of counsel for the Respondent on
N.L.R.B. v. Furriers Joint Council, etc., 224 F. 2d 78 (C.A. 2), as establishing
contrary propositions is. entirely misplaced. It is true that the court in this case
refused to enforce the Board's Order in 108 NLRB 1506, but the assault in this
case was committed on an employee because he had worked on a holiday in viola-
tion of a valid collective-bargaining contract between the union and the employer,
and the court reasoned that his conduct, which was contrary to a provision of a
labor-management contract, must be deemed to have lost the protection of Section 7
of the Act. In N.L.R.B. v. Local 140, United Furniture Workers of America, et al.
(Brooklyn Spring Corp.), 233 F. 2d 539 (C.A. 2), moreover, the court itself dis-
tinguished its decision in the Furriers case when presented with a situation that
5 There is no basis for the assertion of counsel for the Respondent that McMilcel is the
only organizer charged with the commission of the assaults on Irwin Kessler both on
March 25 and April 2. It is only alleged that he is included among them.
6 Highway Truekdrivers it Helpers, Local 107 et al. (Horn it Hardart Baking Company),
115 NLRB 1184, 1186; International Woodworkers of America, etc, Local S-426 et al.
(W. T. Smith Lumber Company), 116 NLRB 507, 509, enfd. 243 F. 2d 745 (C A. 5) ;
Local No 3887, United Steelworkers of America , AFL-CIO ( Stephenson Brick it Tile Co ),
129 NLRB 6, 9-10, enfd 290 F 2d 5S7 (C A. 5) ; Highway Truckdrivers it Helpers,
Local 107 etc. (Russ and Company, Inc.), 130 NLRB 943, 945, enfd. 300 F. 2d 317
(C.A. 3) ; International Hod Carriers' etc., Local Union No 1140, AFL-CIO (Platte
Valley Pipeline Construction Company), 134 NLRB 722, 734-736
7lnternational Woodworkers of America, etc ., Local S-426 et al. ( W. T. Smith Lumber
Company ), supra, at page 508
8 Gimbel Brothers Inc, 100 NLRB 870, 870
570 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
bears marked resemblances to those in the present one, for they included the
carrying off of employees to the union hall to be signed up, and an assault on the
president of the employing firm and his son. Furthermore, in the Local 140 case,
the court also offered some appropriate comment upon another contention of counsel
for the respondents that the incidents in the present case should be regarded as
sporadic and isolated acts not worthy of notice. Said the court:
As far as we can discern the only reason advanced for a refusal to enforce
the order with respect to the picketing is that it was an isolated incident, too
trivial for notice by the Board or by us. But it was well planned and executed
with all the precision of a military operation, and the illegal procedure adopted
was so completely successful that attempts to do the same thing again were
quite unnecessary. It would be a sorry state of affairs if such improper conduct
should be condoned and encouraged by a ruling that only unsuccessful and
repeated mass picketing, attended by physical exclusion of employees from
their place of work, should be considered sufficiently substantial to warrant an
adjudication that a union had restrained and coerced the employees in the
exercise of their right not to join a union, guaranteed them in Section 7 of
the Act, in violation of Section 8(b) (1) (A) thereof.9
It remains only to consider a number of procedural or evidentiary contentions of
counsel for the Respondent. None of them appears to have any merit.
Counsel for .the Respondent insist that the Regional Director could not revoke
the settlement agreement without affording to the Respondent a hearing on the
question whether the settlement agreement had been breached. Actually, the Re-
spondent received such a hearing in the present proceeding in which the breach
of the settlement agreement was one of the issues. Counsel for the General Counsel
was required to establish at least a prima facie case of the violation of the settle-
ment agreement before he was permitted to adduce evidence concerning the pre-
settlement conduct. What -counsel for the Respondent are really demanding is
two hearings on the same issues rather than one. It is, of course, well settled,
and on the highest authority, that the Board may go behind a settlement agreement
when the purpose of the agreement was failed of accomplishment, or when an un-
fair labor practice had subsequently been committed.lo
The contention that it is a denial of due process for a Regional Director to set
aside a settlement agreement without affording the respondent a hearing was rejected
in J. E. Hamilton & Sons, Inc., 120 NLRB 1468, 1479-1480. It is true that the
settlement agreement in that case appears to have been entered into before a com-
plaint was issued , and that counsel for the Respondent in the present case base
their demand for a prerevocation hearing upon the fact that a complaint had issued
on the original charges. This seems to be a distinction without a difference. It
constitutes, indeed, a purely mechanical argument. The mere issuance of a com-
plaint does not remedy an unfair labor practice, and if, in fact, an agreement
designed to remedy such a practice fails of its purpose, no reason is perceived why
the procedural incidents of setting aside the agreement should depend upon whether
a complaint has been issued. While a charge is filed by a union or by a private
party, and a complaint is issued by the Regional Director on behalf of the Board,
both a charge and a complaint merely contain allegations of violations. While the
charge is followed by an investigation, the issuance of a complaint does not neces-
sarily imply that the investigation will not continue. As pointed out in the Hamil-
ton case, the respondent might with equal logic demand that to satisfy the require-
ments of due process the Regional Director had to hold a hearing even before
issuing a complaint.. Furthermore, it was expressly provided in paragraph 4 of the
settlement agreement that the complaint should be considered withdrawn upon the
approval of the agreement by the Regional Director. Thus, there is only one com-
plaint in the present proceeding on which any hearing needs to be held.
The first of the evidentiary points advanced by counsel for the Respondent is
that the evidence concerning the October 1962 incident in which Irwin Kessler
was warned by an ILGWU picket against working any longer for Susan Evans is
inadmissible . Counsel rely upon a dictum of the Board in Larrance Tank Corpora-
9 For similar holdings, see Local 22e, International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union,
AFT-CIO (Valley Knsttcng Mills, Inc.), 126 NLRB 441, and Highway Traelcdrivers and
Helpers, Local 107 etc. (Virgintia-Carolina Freight Lines,, Inc ), 123 NLRB 551, enfd.
273 F. 2d 815 (C.A D.C.), in which the court said: "We cannot agree that a threat of
physical violence should be disregarded because the evidence does not show that it was
repeated " (P. 818 )
21 See The Wallace Corporation v. N.L.R B., 323 U.S. 248, 254-255 (1944).
DRESSMAKERS JOINT COUNCIL, ETC. 571
tion, 94 NLRB 352 , 353, that in determining whether independent unfair labor
practices had occurred after a settlement , it would not "appraise a respondent's
post-settlement conduct in the light of its conduct prior to the settlement ." In this
case the respondent was charged with failing to meet the requirements of good-
faith bargaining, and the Board found no evidence of any violation atfer the execu-
tion of the settlement agreement . What the Board declared in this case was simply
that since there was no independent evidence of a postsettlement violation, evidence
of presettlement conduct could not be used as background evidence to color the
postsettlement evidence . This does not mean , however , that where there is clear
and convincing evidence of postsettlement violations , as in the present case, back-
ground evidence to a presettlement violation is inadmissible.
Counsel for the Respondent also complain of the method employed at the hearing
in attempting to identify the perpetrators of the assaults on the employees of Susan
Evans. Counsel for the General Counsel had subpenaed nine of the organizers of
the ILGWU whom he intended to call as witnesses to establish their connections
with the Union, and two of them were actually called for this purpose toward the
close of the General Counsel 's case.il From time to time , as necessary, these
nine witnesses were brought into the hearing room and lined up , so that the witness
then on the stand might have an opportunity to identify any of them as among the
assailants of Julius or Irwin Kessler . This procedure was continuously denounced
by counsel for the Respondent in melodramatic terms as "a police lineup ." Police
do, to be sure , line up suspects in efforts to identify them . But it is no less a com-
mon practice in courts of justice, in both civil and criminal cases, to ask any person
who is present to stand up, so that the witness on the stand may attempt to identify
him. Such a procedure does not violate the privilege against self-incrimination,
which is limited, basically, to testimonial utterances. Certainly, there was no
reason why the witnesses who were in attendance at the hearing in response to the
subpenas should not be confronted with witnesses on the stand because the sequestra-
tion of witnesses had been directed at the very beginning of the hearing before the
problem of identification even arose.
IV. THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices in
violation of Section 8(b) (1) (A) of the Act, I shall recommend that it cease and
desist from such practices , and from restraining or coercing any of the employees
of Susan Evans in the exercise of any of the rights guaranteed to them in Section 7
of the Act. By way of affirmative action, I shall also recommend the posting of
appropriate notices to this effect.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW -
1. Susan Evans, Inc., is +an employer engaged in commerce'or in activities affecting
commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. Dressmakers Joint Council , International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union,
AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within the meaning of-Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. By engaging in the activities described in section III 'of this decision, the
Respondent has restrained and coerced the employees of Susan Evans , Inc., in the
exercise of the rights -guaranteed to them in Section 7 of the Act, and has thereby
committed unfair labor practices affecting commerce in violation of Section
8(b)(1)(A) of the Act.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Upon the record as a whole, it is recommended that the Respondent , Dressmakers
Joint Council , International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union, AFL-CIO, its officers,
representatives , agents , successors , and assigns , shall be required to:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Raiding the premises of Susan Evans, Inc., in order to compel its employees
to join or assist the Respondent in any of its concerted activities , or from threaten-
ing any of them with loss of employment if they fail to join or assist the Respondent.
(b) Committing assaults upon any of the employees of Susan Evans , Inc., in
order to prevent them from working for Susan Evans , Inc., or to induce them to
join in any of the Respondent 's concerted activities. _
"There is no basis in the record for the assertion of counsel for the Respondent that
counsel for the General ;Counsel has subpenaed all its organizers.
572 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
(c) In any like or related manner, restraining or coercing the employees of
Susan Evans, Inc., in the exercise of the rights guaranteed to them in Section 7
of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action in order to effectuate the policies of the
Act:
(a) Post in conspicuous places in its business offices in New York, New York,
and in other places where notices to members are customarily posted, copies; of the
attached notice marked "Appendix." 12 Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the
Regional Director for the Second Region, shall, after being duly signed by an official
representative of the Respondent, be posted by the Respondent immediately upon
receipt thereof and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter. Reason-
able steps shall be taken by the Respondent to insure that said notices are not
altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
(b) Mail to the Regional Director for the Second Region signed copies of the
aforementioned notice for posting by Susan Evans, Inc., if it be willing, in places
where notices to employees are customarily posted. Copies of said notice, to be
furnished by the Regional Director for the Second Region, shall, after being signed
by the Respondent, as indicated, be forthwith returned to the Regional Director for
disposition by him.
(c) Notify the Regional Director for the Second Region, in writing, within 20
days from the date of receipt of this Decision, what steps the Respondent has taken
to comply herewith.13
12 If this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board , the words "A Decision and
Order" shall be substituted for the words "The Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner "
If the Board's Order is enforced by a decree of a United States Court of Appeals, this
notice shall be further amended by substituting for the words "A Decision and Order" the
words "A Decree of the United States Court of Appeals, Enforcing an Order."
13 If this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board, this provision shall be modified
to read • "Notify said Regional Director, in writing, within 10 days from the date of this
Order, what steps. the Respondent has taken to comply herewith."
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL OUR OFFICERS AND AGENTS AND TO ALL MEMBERS UNDER THE
JURISDICTION OF THE DRESSMAKERS JOINT COUNCIL, INTERNATIONAL LADIES'
GARMENT WORKERS' UNION, AFL-CIO, AND To ALL EMPLOYEES OF SUSAN
EvANs, INC.
Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor
Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, we hereby notify you that:
WE WILL NOT raid the premises of Susan Evans, Inc., in order to compel its
employees to join or assist us in any of our concerted activities , or threaten any
of its employees with loss of employment if they fail to join or assist us in our
concerted activities.
WE WILL NOT commit assaults upon any of the employees of Susan Evans,
Inc., in order to prevent them from working for it , or to induce them to join
in any of our concerted activities.
WE WILL NOT, in any like or related manner, restrain or coerce any of the
employees of Susan Evans, Inc., in the exercise of the rights guaranteed to them
by Section 7 of the Act, as amended, including the right to refrain from any
and all concerted activities.
DRESSMAKERS JOINT COUNCIL , INTERNATIONAL LADIES'
GARMENT WORKERS' UNION, AFL-CIO,
Labor Organization.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------
(Representative) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting,
and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
Employees may communicate directly with the Board 's Regional Office, Fifth
Floor, Squibb Building, 745 Fifth Avenue, New York, New York, Telephone No.
751-5500 , if they have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its
provisions.