Granada Mills, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 31, 1963

143 N.L.R.B. 957 (N.L.R.B. 1963)

GRANADA MILLS, INC. 957
The control exercised by the Company over the work of owners and
drivers is for the purpose of complying with the rules and regulations
of the Interstate Commerce Commission and is not inconsistent with
the independent contractor relationship. That the owners retain
substantial independence in their operations is clearly revealed by
their virtual freedom in deciding when or whether they will take an
assignment, in selecting routes of travel, in fixing the time of delivery
and return, in determining whether they or others will drive their
vehicles, and by their freedom to select their own maintenance
facilities.
Moreover, the parties herein expressly indicated their intent that
the owners and drivers of leased tractors were not to be employees
of the Company. Thus, the Company does not withhold income or
social security taxes, or pay for workman's compensation for the
drivers of the leased tractors, or provide the employment benefits of
its own employees to the owners and their drivers, nor are its rules
and regulations given to or applied to the over-the-road drivers. If
bonds are required to be posted, the owners usually must furnish them
as they must furnish the license plates of their home State.
In view of the foregoing and the entire record as a whole we find
that the owner-drivers of the leased tractors are independent con-
tractors rather than employees and that the nonowner-drivers are
employees of the independent contractors and not the Company. Ac-
cordingly, as there are no employees of the Employer in the unit
requested, we shall grant the Employer's motion and dismiss the peti-
tion herein.
[The Board dismissed the petition].
Granada Mills, Inc. and International Ladies Garment Workers
Union , Local 600, AFL-CIO. Case No. 924-CA-1712. July 31,
1963
DECISION AND ORDER
On May 16, 1963, Trial Examiner Lee J. Best issued his Inter-
mediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the
Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor
practices, and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and
take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Inter-
mediate Report. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to the
Intermediate Report.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board has
delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member
panel [Chairman McCulloch and Members Rodgers and Fanning].
143 NLRB No. 102.
958 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
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 entire
record in this case, including the Intermediate Report and exceptions,
and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of
the Trial Examiner.'
ORDER
The Board adopts as its Order the Recommended Order of the Trial
Examiner.
1 Respondent excepts to the Trial Examiner 's finding that its promise of air conditioning
and a cafeteria violated Section 8(a)(1) because it was not alleged as a violation in the
complaint Under the Board 's rule enunciated in Monroe Feed Store, 112 NLRB 1336,
it is established that "when an issue relating to the subject matter of a complaint is fully
litigated at a hearing the Trial Examiner and the Board are expected to pass upon it
even though it is not specifically alleged in the complaint."
Here, the reasons for the promise of the air-conditioning system and cafeteria were gone
into, all of the relevant testimony was introduced , and witnesses were examined and cross-
examined without objection from the Respondent The issue was, therefore , fully litigated,
and, as we agree with the Trial Examiner's resolution of the Issue , and as the Respond-
ent's conduct in this regard was part of his general campaign to restrain employees in
their exercise of Section 7 rights which was in other respects alleged to violate Section
8(a) (1), we find no merit In the exception.
INTERMEDIATE REPORT AND RECOMMENDED ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This proceeding brought under Section 10(b) of the National Labor Relations Act
(29 U.S.C., Sec. 151 et seq.), herein called the Act , was heard before Trial Examiner
Lee J. Best in Santurce , Puerto Rico , on April 15 to 16, 1963, pursuant to notice and
with all parties represented at the hearing.
Based upon a charge filed on January 18, 1963, by International Ladies Garment
Workers Union . Local 600, AFL-CIO, herein called the Union , the General Counsel
of the National Labor Relations Board on March 5, 1963, issued a complaint alleging
in substance that Granada Mills, Inc., herein called the Respondent , has engaged in
and is engaging in unfair labor practices proscribed by Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act
by interfering with, restraining , and coercing its employees in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. The Respondent on March 8 , 1963, filed
an answer admitting jurisdictional allegations of the complaint , and denying all
allegations of unfair labor practices.
All parties were afforded full opportunity to be heard , to introduce evidence per-
tinent to the issues involved , to examine and cross-examine witnesses , and to argue
orally upon the record . The filing of formal written briefs with the Trial Examiner
was waived by all parties , but were authorized to submit by May 1, 1963 , memoranda
of law bearing upon issues of law involved. Counsel for the General Counsel sub-
mitted such memoranda , and mailed a copy thereof to counsel for the Respondent
on April 29, 1963.
From my observation of the witnesses , and upon the entire record in the case, I
make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
Granada Mills, Inc ., is a corporation organized under and existing by virtue of
the laws of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico , having its principal office and place
of business in Caguas , Puerto Rico , where it operates a plant or factory engaged in
the manufacture of undergarments for women . During the past 12 months, which
period is representative of all times material herein, the Respondent purchased out-
side the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico , and caused to be shipped directly to its plant
in Caguas , Puerto Rico , raw materials valued in excess of $50 ,000; and during the
same period shipped its manufactured products valued in excess of $50 ,000 to points
located outside the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico . I find , therefore, that Respondent
is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2 ( 6) and (7) of the Act.
GRANADA MILLS, INC. 959
Supervisors of Respondent within the meaning of the Act include Mayer Hafets
( plant manager ), Carmen Garcia, Margarita Alejandro, and Luis Aponte.
II. LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
International Ladies Garment Workers Union, Local 600, AFL-CIO, is a labor
organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act, existing in whole or part
for the purpose of representing employees in dealing with employers concerning
grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, and conditions
of work.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The organizational campaign
The Union launched an organizational campaign among employees of Granada
Mills, Inc., in the early part of January 1963. Gregoria Cartagena (president and
business agent of Local 600) was assigned to this project. Her chief assistant was
Maria Antonio Martinez, a volunteer worker and member of the Union from the
nearby Paula brassiere plant, which had already been organized prior to that time.
Other organizers including Felicita Cruz, Emilio Rodriguez, and Regino Martinez
participated in the organizational effort. All solicitation of prospective members
occurred outside the Granada plant on the streets and at a nearby bus-diner to which
the employees customarily resorted during their lunch period. Representatives of
the Union also interviewed employees at their homes after work hours at night. No
solicitation or interviewing was attempted by the Union on the premises of the Em-
ployer. Certain witnesses called by the Respondent, including Clemencia Rodriguez
and Teresa de Jesus admittedly reported these activities to Plant Manager Mayer
Hafets, and asserted that they were being harassed and molested. Consequently, the
plant manager called a meeting of all employees in the plant at approximately 9:30
a.m. about the middle of January 1963. At this meeting he made a speech discussing
various subjects including the Union. Next day after this general meeting, he called
a select group of five or six employees into his office to make further inquiries with
respect to their participation in the union activities. Thereafter, the charge in this
case was filed with the Board on January 18, 1963.
B. Interference, restraint, and coercion
The substantive testimony of witnesses bearing upon the conduct of Respondent
appears in the record, as follows:
Clemencia Rodriguez (employee), as a witness for the Respondent, testified that,
when Gregoria Cartagena and Maria Antonio Martinez came to her home trying to
organize a union, she refused to sign a card, told them that she was not interested
because there were no problems-that she would let someone else take the initiative-
that within the next day or two following this interview she was insulted at the bus-
diner by being called a rat, snitcher, and apple polisher-that she went to her boss
(Hafets) and told him that she was nervous and would not be able to continue work-
ing-that Hafets then called in two or three others to inquire if the same things were
happening to them. Thereafter, she attended a meeting of all employees at which
Hafets talked about the longshoremen's strike then in progress and about in-
stalling an air-conditioning system in the plant at a cost of forty or fifty thousand
dollars-that she did not hear everything he said, becaues she was too far away,
walking back and forth and eating, and she did not hear him say anything about
closing the factory, but did hear him inquiring whether anyone had been bothering
them.
Teresa de Jesus (employee), as a witness for the Respondent, testified that Gregoria
Cartagena (also known as Lolita) and Maria Antonio Martinez visited her home on
January 5, 1963, gave her a card and said they were trying to organize a union in
the plant-that she refused to sign until they had obtained a majority-that she
stopped going to lunch at the bus-diner, because they were having trouble out there-
and she reported these incidents to Hafets as soon as they happened-and told him
that if things kept going like they were, and people kept talking so much, that she
would have to resign from her job-that she voluntarily went to see Hafets several
times about it, and everybody thought she was making reports to the factory. During
the month of January 1963, she attended a meeting of all employees in the plant
about 9:30 a.m. at which Hafets talked about the longshoremen's strike and
other problems, about a proposed air-conditioning system and cafeteria, but did
not hear him say anything about closing the factory. After this big meeting, Super-
visor Carmen Garcia asked her "were you visited by the Union? Are you also one
of those that are being molested outside?" After that Hafets called in those who had
960 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
complained to him, and inquired what was the matter. After explaining what had
happened to her, Hafets repeated that they could do absolutely nothing to us-not
to be afraid.
Gertrudis Rojas (employee), as a witness for the Respondent, testified that about
the middle of January 1963, she was approached during her lunch period at the bus-
diner by Gregoria Cartagena and Maria Antonio Martinez, who inquired whether
she would like for the factory to be organized, but she made no reply because she did
not know anything about it. Thereafter, she attended a meeting in the plant at which
approximately 75 employees were present. Hafets talked about installing an air-
conditioning system at a cost of about $50,000. He also talked about the longshore-
men's strike and a proposed cafeteria, but did not say anything about closing the
plant. He said that some of the girls were being bothered, and inquired of the group
if any of them had been molested. Clemencia Rodriguez (nicknamed "Tuti") and
Teresa de Jesus reported to him that they had been molested. After this meeting of
all employees, Supervisor Carmen Garcia told me to go into the office of Hafets along
with Teresa de Jesus, Carmen Aponte, Esperanza Nieves, and Julia Maria Perez.
Supervisors Carmen Garcia and Luis Aponte were also present. There, Hafets asked
me if she was being molested, and she told him "No." He asked each of the other
girls the same thing. Thereupon, Hafets told them not to worry-that it was noth-
ing. Before going to his office, she had told Hafets that she had been visited at her
home, and that she did not sign a union card.
Jose Abreu (employee), as a witness for the Respondent, testified that he had
served 1 year as assistant treasurer (since resigned) and bookkeeper of a cooperative
credit union in the plant, which was sponsored and supervised by the Commonwealth
of Puerto Rico. All officers and directors thereof were elected by employees of
the Respondent. Supervisor Carmen Garcia was president and Supervisor Margarita
Alejandro was a member of the credit committee. He attended the meeting of em-
ployees about the middle of January 1963, when Hafets talked about installing an
air-conditioning system at an estimated cost of forty or fifty thousand dollars, the
proposed cafeteria, and the shipping strike of longshoremen on the docks through-
out Puerto Rico. Hafets said that the strike would not affect us in any way, because
our raw materials come from the island and our products would be sold at cost
on the island-that everything possible was being done to install an air-conditioning
system in the plant, and to acquire a lot behind the plant as a site for the cafeteria.
Hafets specifically said that he did not intend to close the factory because of the strike,
and I did not hear him make any threat to close the plant because of a union trying
to come in-that he had heard nothing about any union activity to organize the
plant.
Carmen Aponte (employee), as a witness for the General Counsel, testified that
Maria Antonio talked to her about the Union during lunch periods at the bus-diner.
Thereafter, Hafets called a meeting of all employees in the plant about 9:30 a.m.
one morning in January 1963, and made a speech to them about the shipping strike
and the Union. With respect to the strike, he said that his plant would continue
operations because he was selling most of his products locally, and there would be
work for them to do. Then he started talking about the Union, and said that he would
close the factory if it got into the plant-that 25 or 30 employees had signed union
cards, and he would find out who they were. Next day after this meeting, he called
several of the girls into his office, including herself, Julia Maria Perez, Esperanza
Nieves, Teresa de Jesus, Gertrudis Rojas, and the supervisors (Carmen Garcia and
Luis Aponte). Supervisor Carmen Garcia reported that she (Carmen Aponte) had
been visited at her home by union representatives. Hafets asked her and each of
the others why they signed the union papers, and she denied having signed anything or
that she had been visited at her home. About 1 week later in January 1963, Gregoria
Cartagena came to her home in company with Harry Martin field examiner for the
N.L.R.B.), and she signed a written statement for him. Next day after signing such
statement, Supervisor Margarita Alejandro came to her at work in the plant and in-
quired whether she had been visited by the Union at her home. Thereupon, she
admitted that they had been to her home on the preceding night.
Julia Maria Perez (employee), as a witness for the General Counsel, testified that
she was approached by representatives of the Union during the early part of January
1963. Maria Antonio Martinez talked to her at the bus-diner during lunch periods,
and inquired whether she would like to have the Union come into the plant. At
that time she gave no definite answer, because she did not understand much about it,
but at a later date signed a union card when they visited her home to explain more
about it. About the middle of January, thereafter, a meeting of all employees was
called in the plant about 9:30 a m. At this meeting Hafets spoke about the shipping
GRANADA MILLS, INC. 961
strike, saying that some factories had very little work to do, but that his plant was
working along smoothly. Then he said that he could not allow the Union to come in
because it would be the downfall of the plant-that 30 or 35 employees had signed
union cards , and that he knew who they were-that if the Union came in he would
have to pay it about $ 50,000, and would be forced to close the factory. He also pro-
posed to install an air-conditioning system in the plant , saying that it would cost him
some money , but that he was going to put it in. He was speaking to the entire group
of about 100 employees , some of whom were sitting on boxes, and others were
standing around. She was standing near the packing tables about 35 or 40 feet from
Hafets, and he was talking loud enough for all to hear what he said. He did not
directly threaten to do so, but she concluded from what was said that he was against
the Union and might even suspend from work those who had signed union cards.
Shortly after this meeting five or six of the female employees , including herself,
Carmen Aponte, Gertrudis Rojas, Esperanza Nieves, and Teresa de Jesus were
called to the office of Plant Manager Hafets in the presence of Supervisors Carmen
Garcia and Luis Aponte . At that time Hafets inquired of each of them why they had
signed up with the Union . She specifically denied having signed anything . There-
after, on or about January 25, 1963, she signed a written statement when a representa-
tive of the National Labor Relations Board came to her home . After the signing
of this statement, one of the supervisors either Carmen Garcia or Margarita
Alejandro ) inquired of her whether someone had visited her home.
Esperanza Nieves (employee ), as a witness for the General Counsel testified that
she signed a union card when representatives of the Union (Gregoria Cartagena and
Maria Antonio Martinez ) came to her home in January 1963 . Thereafter , Supervisor
Carmen Garcia inquired of her whether she had signed up with the Union , and about
2 hours later instructed her to go to the office of Plant Manager Hafets. Others
present in the office included Gertrudis Rojas, Julia Maria Perez, Carmen Aponte, and
two supervisors (Carmen Garcia and Luis Aponte ). Hafets asked Julia Maria Perez
why she had signed for the Union , and she denied having done so, but asked him to
explain things to her about the Union . Hafets explained what a union was, and told
her that if a union came into the plant he would be forced to close the factory if he
could not pay the workers more wages-that if the bosses were not in agreement,
they would be forced to close the plant, but that would not be his reason for doing so.
He said that he had called us in to see how many signed the union paper-that he was
not doing it to threaten us, but was doing so just to find out . He was addressing the
entire group , and I told him that I had signed the card without knowing what a
union was . After receiving a subpena to come here ( to the hearing), I went to see
Hafets and asked him whether or not it would be beneficial for me to come-that
I had nothing against him and nothing against the Union either. He just said that it
was up to me.
Concluding Findings
It is entirely clear from all the evidence in this case that certain employees of the
Respondent , including Clemencia Rodriguez, Teresa de Jesus, and Gertrudis Rojas
were not in sympathy with efforts of union representatives to form a labor organiza-
tion at Granada Mills, Inc. Consequently, they kept Plant Manager Mayer Hafets
informed concerning the activities outside his plant. To combat such activities,
Hafets called a meeting of all employees and made promises to install air conditioning
and a cafeteria , which promises have not yet been fulfilled . He also assured them that
the plant would continue operations despite a longshoremen 's strike that had stopped
all shipments from the ports of Puerto Rico. Then he talked about the union activities
being engaged in by his own employees , and inquired if any of them were being
molested by the organizers of the International Ladies Garment Workers Union.
In that respect , the testimony of those opposed to the Union is singularly lacking in
substance, but I credit the straightforward and credible testimony of Carmen Aponte,
Julia Maria Perez, and Esperanza Nieves as to what the plant manager said in his
speech concerning their organizational campaign . From a preponderance of the
evidence , I find that Plant Manager Hafets asserted that 30 or 35 of his employees
had signed up with the Union, and that he either knew or would find out who they
were-that he would not allow a union to come in , because it would be the downfall
of the plant , and would force him to close the factory.
Following the meeting with all employees , Supervisor Carmen Garcia interrogated
Teresa de Jesus as to whether she had been visited or molested by the union rep-
resentatives . She also interrogated Esperanza Nieves as to whether she had signed up
for the Union . Next day after the meeting , Carmen Aponte , Julia Maria Perez,
Gertrudis Rojas, Esperanza Nieves, and Teresa de Jesus were summoned along with
962 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Supervisors Carmen Garica and Luis Aponte , to a conference with Plant Manager
Hafets in his private office . At this interview , Hafets specifically queried each of
these employees as to why they had signed the union papers. Some of them denied
having signed anything. Later during the month of January 1963, Carmen Aponte
and Julia Maria Perez signed written statements for a field examiner of the Board
(Harry Martin ) as a part of the investigation of the charges filed herein. Im-
mediately thereafter, each of these employees was again interrogated by Supervisor
Margarita Alejandro or Carmen Garcia as to whether they had again been visited
by representatives of the Union.
By the aforesaid conduct of Plant Manager Mayer Hafets and Supervisors Carmen
Garcia and Margarita Alejandro , I find that the Respondent created the impression
that the union activities of employees were being kept under surveillance , and that
the plant would be closed if the Union was designated as bargaining representative
for its employees . By such interrogation creating the impression of surveillance by
the Respondent , by promising the installation of an air-conditioning system and
cafeteria in the plant to persuade employees to refrain from organizational activities,
and by threatening to close the factory if the Union came in , I find that the Respond-
ent interfered with , restrained , and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights
guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act; thereby engaging in unfair labor practices pro-
scribed by Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The conduct and activities of the Respondent , set forth in section III , above, oc-
curring in connection with the operations of the Respondent , set forth in section I,
above, have a close , intimate , and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce
among the several States, including the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and tend to
lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of
commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in certain unfair
labor practices, burdening and obstructing commerce, I shall recommend that it
cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate
the policies of the Act . In view of Respondent 's efforts to impede the organizational
activities of its employees , it will be further recommended that the cease -and-desist
order of the Board shall prohibit the Respondent from engaging in any like or re-
lated unlawful conduct.
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and the entire record in the case, I
make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. International Ladies Garment Workers Union , Local 600, AFL-CIO, is a labor
organization with the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
2. Respondent is an employer within the meaning of Sections 2(2) and 8(a) of
the Act.
3. By (1 ) interrogating its employees individually and collectively with respect to
their concerted activities on behalf of a labor organization , thereby creating an im-
pression of surveillance of their organizational activities ; and (2 ) by promising the
installation of an air-conditioning system and cafeteria in its plant to discourage
membership and support of a labor organization ; and (3 ) by threatening to close
its plant and engage in other economic reprisals against employees if they formed
a labor organization , the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging 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 com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact , conclusions of law, and upon
the entire record in the case , it is recommended that Granada Mills, Inc ., its officers,
agents, supervisors , successors , and assigns , shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Unlawfully interrogating its employees individually or collectively concerning
their union membership , activities , or affiliations.
(b) Engaging in or creating the impression that it is engaging in the surveillance
of the organizational activities of its employees.
GRANADA MILLS, INC. 963
(c) Threatening its employees with loss of employment by closing its factory
or other economic reprisals if they designate the Union or any other labor organiza-
tion as their bargaining representative.
(d) Promising its employees to install an air-conditioning system, cafeteria, or
any other inducement tending to cause them to withdraw their support of the Union
or any other labor organization.
(e) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its
employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to form labor organiza-
tions, to join or assist International Ladies Garment Workers Union, Local 600,
AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively through repre-
sentatives of their own choosing, to engage in other concerted activities for their
mutual aid and 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 condition of employment, as authorized in Section
8(a) (3) of the Act, as amended by the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure
Act of 1959.
2. Take the following affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the
Act:
(a) Post in its office and factory at Caguas, Puerto Rico, copies of the attached
notice marked "Appendix." 1 Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional
Director for the Twenty-fourth Region, shall, after being duly signed by Respond-
ent's representative, be posted by it immediately upon receipt thereof, and maintained
by it for a period of 60 consecutive days thereafter in conspicuous places, including
all places where notices to its employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps
shall be taken by the Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced,
or covered by any other material.
(b) Notify the Regional Director for the Twenty-fourth Region, in writing, within
20 days from receipt of this Intermediate Report and Recommended Order, what
steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith.2
It is further recommended that unless the Respondent shall, within the prescribed
period notify the said Regional Director that it will comply, the Board shall issue
an order requiring Respondent to take action as aforesaid.
1 In the event this Recommended Order be adopted by the Board, the words "A Decision
and Order" shall be substituted for the words "A Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner"
in the notice. In the further event that the Board's Order be enforced by a decree of the
United States Court of Appeals, the words "A Decree of the United States Court of
Appeals, Enforcing an Order" shall be substituted for the words "A Decision and Order."
2 If this Recommended Order be 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 step's Respondent has taken to comply herewith "
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
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 Rela-
tions Act, as amended, we hereby notify our employees that:
WE WILL NOT unlawfully interrogate our employees individually or collectively
concerning their union membership , activities , or affiliations.
WE WILL NOT threaten our employees with loss of employment by closing our
factory or other economic reprisals if they designate International Ladies Gar-
ment Workers Union, Local 600, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization, as
their representative for the purpose of collective bargaining.
WE WILL NOT promise our employees to install an air-conditioning system,
cafeteria, or offer any other inducement to persuade them to refrain from desig-
nating a bargaining representative of their own choosing.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce
our employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the
National Labor Relations Act.
All of our employees are free to become, remain, or refrain from becoming mem-
bers of International Ladies Garment Workers Union, Local 600, AFL-CIO, or any
other labor organization, except to the extent that such right may be affected by
agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of employ-
717-672--64-vol. 143-62
964 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ment, as authorized in Section 8(a)(3) of the Act, as amended by the Labor-
Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959.
GRANADA MILLS, INC.,
Employer.
Dated------------------- By------------------------------------------_
(Representative) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from 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, 1506
Ponce de Leon, Stop 221/2, Santurce, Puerto Rico, 00910, Telephone No. 723-3200,
if they have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions.
The Bin-Dicator Company and Floyd Hanger
The Bin-Dicator Company and John Masinick. Cases Nos. 7-CA-
3918 and 7-CJ-3918(2). July 31, 1963
DECISION AND ORDER
On May 3, 1963, Trial Examiner James F. Foley issued his Inter-
mediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Re-
spondent had engaged in certain unfair labor practices, and recom-
mending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative
action as set forth in the attached Intermediate Report. Thereafter,
the General Counsel and the Respondent filed exceptions and support-
ing briefs.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the Act, the Board
has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-
member panel [Members Leedom, Fanning, and Brown].
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 Interme-
diate Report, the exceptions and briefs, and the entire record in this
case, and hereby adopts the findings,' conclusions, and recommenda-
tions of the Trial Examiner except as modified herein.2
We affirm the Trial Examiner's finding that Floyd Hanger was dis-
criminatorily discharged on September 12, 1962, because of his known
activity on behalf of, and membership in, the Union. The Trial Ex-
aminer recommended that Hanger be denied reinstatement and back-
'In the absence of exceptions thereto, we adopt pro forma the Trial Examiner's state-
ment that the conversation between Foreman Hoenicke and employee Stone, which oc-
curred in a bar 2 or 3 weeks after the election, was noncoercive In character. We note
and hereby correct the Trial Examiner's Inadvertent error in referring to the veiled threat
by Grostick on September 12, 1962, as made to Cahoon rather than to Stone.
'The General Counsel excepted to the Trial Examiner's apparently inadvertent failure
to recommend specifically that John Masinick be awarded the general wage increase which
the Trial Examiner found had been discriminatorily withheld from him on September 12,
1962. We find merit in the General Counsel's exception. Accordingly, we shall modify
the Trial Examiner's recommendations by ordering the Respondent to grant to Masinick
the wage increase.
143 NLRB No. 94.