Int'l Ladies' Garment Workers Union, AFL-CIO

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 18, 1963

145 N.L.R.B. 10 (N.L.R.B. 1963)

10 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Substantial evidence herein does not disclose that Kindle's activity was concerted
activity. There is a scintilla of evidence here to support the position of the
General Counsel that Kindle was fired because of the filing of grievances. However,
substantial evidence is more than a mere scintilla. To me, it means such relevant
evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.
Consolidated Edison Co. of New York, Inc. v. N.L.R.B., 305 U.S. 197, 229; and "it
must be enough to justify ... the conclusion sought to be drawn." Cf. N.L.R.B. v.
Columbian Enameling & Stamping Co., Inc., 306 U.S. 292, 300.
Therefore I find, on the basis of the whole record, and the testimony adduced,
that the activities of Kindle were individual activities and not in pursuance of con-
certed activities of other employees, either by themselves or under the provisions
of the agreement between the Association and the Union.
There are no substantial questions of credibility to be decided in this case. The
facts on the whole record are not greatly in dispute.
I find that the Respondent has not and is not now engaging in unfair labor prac-
tices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1), (2), and (3) or Section 2(6) and
2(7) of the Act; that the General Counsel has failed to sustain the burden of proof
in these respects. Therefore, the complaint should be dismissed in its entirety.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and on the record as a whole,
I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Farmers Union Cooperative Marketing Ass'n., the Respondent herein, is en-
gaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. American Federation of Grain Millers, Local No. 16, AFL-CIO, is, and at
all times material herein has been, a labor organization within the meaning of
Section 2(5) of the Act, and D. W. Kindle, an individual, is a member in good
standing of that labor organization.
3. The Respondent has not engaged in unfair labor practices as alleged in the
complaint.
4. The General Counsel has failed by the preponderance of evidence to support
the allegations of the complaint.
5. The complaint herein should be dismissed.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
I recommend that an order be entered herein dismissing the complaint in its
entirety.
International Ladies' Garment Workers Union , AFL-CIO and
F.R. Knitting Mills, Inc. Case No. 1-CB-830. November 18,
1963
DECISION AND ORDER
On August 8, 1963, Trial Examiner C. W. Whittemore issued his
Intermediate 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 and a supporting brief, and the, General Counsel
filed an answering brief.
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
145 NLRB No. 4.
INT'L LADIES' GARMENT WORKERS UNION, AFL-CIO 11
rulings are hereby affirmed.' The Board has considered the Inter-
mediate Report and the entire record in this case, including the excep-
tions and briefs,2 and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and
recommendations of the Trial Examiner, with the following additions
and modifications.
As found by the Trial Examiner, it is undisputed that Respondent
picketed various entrances to company premises on February 1, 4, 5,
and 6, 1963; that such picketing was under the overall direction and
control of Ralph A. Roberts, manager of Local 178 of the Respondent,
and he was present on the picket line every morning of the strike;
that A. J. Scibetta, another Respondent's representative, was in direct
charge of the picketing, and he was at the picket line most of the time;
and that Armitage and Pereira, other Respondent's officials, were there
at various times. As further found by the Trial Examiner, during
this period there were picketing strikers and sympathizers numbering
at times as many as 120 who massed and milled in front of the main
entrance to the plant, thereby blocking passage of nonstriking em-
ployees to the plant until police forced an opening; on the morning
of February 1, Roberts and McCarthy, assistant manager of Local 178,
themselves participated in an attempt by pickets physically to prevent
a nonstriking employee from entering the plant ; on the same morning
pickets barred many other nonstriking employees from entering the
plant; on the morning of February 4 pickets hit the cars of two non-
strikers with rocks; and on the morning of February 5 pickets barred
the entrance to the plant of another nonstriker.
The Trial Examiner concluded, and we ,agree, that such conduct,
-which included mass picketing, barring entry of nonstrikers to the
plant, rock throwing, and physically pushing and shoving, all con-
stituted restraint and coercion of employees in the exercise of their
right under Section 7 not to join in the strike. The Trial Examiner
held Respondent accountable for such unlawful conduct on the ground
that, whether engaged in by union officials or not, such conduct was en-
gaged in while union officials were in charge of and responsible for the
picket lines at the plant.
Respondent's principal defense appears to be that it cannot be held
accountable for the conduct in question on two grounds : (1) While
denying Respondent's motion to strike the testimony of Respondent
Officials Franco, Jeffreys, Sakell, and Brodeur as to their participation
in the conduct even though they were not identified prior to the hear-
ing, the Trial Examiner stated that he would make no finding as to
their participation in any such conduct for that reason, but neverthe-
' For the reasons indicated below, we find that the Trial Examiner's denial of the
Respondent 's motion to strike certain testimony did not constitute prejudicial error.
2 As the record , exceptions , and briefs in our opinion adequately present the issues and
the positions of the parties , the Respondent 's request for oral argument is hereby denied.
12 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
less he did make such findings; and (2) the other participants were
in large part unidentified.
Contrary to his expressed intention, it does appear that the Trial
Examiner based some findings of unlawful conduct in part on the
participation of Franco, Jeffreys, Sakell, and Brodeur. It also ap-
pears that the other participants ,are in large part unidentified other
than being picketing strikers. However, as indicated above, the union
official in overall charge of the strike himself participated in some of
the unlawful conduct. It also appears that he or other union officials
were present at all times and witnessed the other unlawful conduct
but did not repudiate any of it. Accordingly, Respondent Union
must be held responsible not only for the unlawful conduct engaged
in by Local Manager Roberts, but also for the remaining unlawful
conduct engaged in by the striking pickets which could not have failed
to come to the attention of, but was not repudiated by, union officials 3
We find, therefore, in agreement with the Trial Examiner, that Re-
spondent Union thus violated Section 8(b) (1) (A).
ORDER
The Board adopts the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order as its
Order, with the amendment noted below 4
8 See Central Massachusetts Joint Board, Textile Workers Union of America , AFL-CIO
(Chas. Weinstein Company, Inc ), 123 NLRB 590; United Steelworkers of America, AFL-
CIO, and Local No. 2772, etc. (Vulcan- Cincinnati, Inc ), 137 NLRB 95.
4 The Recommended Order is hereby amended by substituting for the first paragraph
therein , the following paragraph:
Upon the entire record in this case , and,pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National
Lalbor Relations Act, as amended , the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders
that Respondent , International Ladies ' Garment Workers Union , AFL-CIO, its
officers, agents , representatives , successors , and assigns, shall
INTERMEDIATE REPORT AND RECOMMENDED ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
An original , an amended , and a second amended charge were filed, respectively,
on March 4 and 21 and April 8 , 1963, by F.R . Knitting Mills, Inc. , herein called the
Company. Upon said charges the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations
Board on April 17, 1963, issued his complaint and notice of hearing thereon.
Thereafter, International Ladies' Garment Workers Union, AFL-CIO, herein called
the Respondent Union, filed an answer dated May 22, 1963. The complaint alleges
and the answer denies that the Respondent, during a strike in February 1963, en-
gaged in unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the National
Labor Relations Act, as amended. Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held in Fall
River, Massachusetts, on June 12, 1963, before Trial Examiner C. W. Whittemore.
At the hearing all parties were represented by counsel and were afforded full
opportunity to present evidence pertinent to the issues, to argue orally, and to file
briefs Briefs have been received from all parties.
After the close of the hearing the Trial Examiner received from the Respondent
Union a motion to strike certain testimony from the record or, in the alternative,
to strike from the record the names of certain individuals Written opposition to said
motion was received from General Counsel. In substance, the motion urges the
striking of "all testimony . . concerning incidents and naming certain individuals
as having participated in conduct allegedly violative of Section 8(b)(1) (A) . .
where such individuals were not named in the complaint or the bill of particulars
thereafter furnished by General Counsel " Specific individuals cited are: G Affonso
INT'L LADIES' GARMENT WORKERS UNION, AFL-CIO 13
[Alfonso], G. Brodeur, F. Fata, M. Franco, R. Jeffreys, J. Lansilli, D. Nolin, D.
Pare, P. Saskell [Sakell], R. Tarares, and A. Welchman. In its motion for particulars
before the hearing the Respondent had asked, among other matters, for the names
of individuals who "performed" acts allegedly violative of the Act for which the
Union was to be held accountable. In response General Counsel made this comment
in the bill of particulars he did furnish: "General Counsel respectfully submits that
such motion has been answered as specifically as possible, consistent with the re-
sponsibility not to divulge evidence, or identity of employee witnesses, except at the
proper time and place." The motion and the bill were thereafter referred to another
Trial Examiner for ruling. That Trial Examiner ruled that the Respondent's motion,
other than as already complied with "must fail because it seeks discovery." It does
not appear that the Respondent filed with the Board special permission to appeal
this ruling. Nor did the Respondent renew his motion for such particulars before
this Trial Examiner. The question did not again arise until late in the presentation of
General Counsel's case, when counsel for the Respondent protested that for the
first time, and from the testimony itself, he was discovering the names of individuals
who were being accused of misconduct for which General Counsel claimed the
Union must be held responsible. He pointed out that the whereabouts of some of
those named was unknown to him and that he had been given no opportunity
to investigate their participation in such conduct, if any. Some of them, it there-
after appeared, were working at the plant, and General Counsel and counsel for
the Charging Company made them available. Counsel for the Respondent thereafter
called Franco, Jeffreys, Sakell, and Brodeur as his witnesses, and their testimony
appears in the record While the Trial Examiner is of the opinion that fair procedure
requires that the name of one accused of unlawful conduct, even if responsibility
for such conduct is to be held against another-whether it be an employer or a
union, and if the identity is known to General Counsel prior to the hearing, should
be revealed to the Respondent in order that said accused may face his accuser during
the latter's testimony, it appears that as to the four individuals just named their
rebuttal testimony was finally made possible. The motion to strike as to them is
denied, and for that reason. And while the Trial Examiner indicated to the parties
at the conclusion of the hearing that he would, upon reveiwing the record, consider
as stricken testimony concerning an individual's act of misconduct where the identity
of that individual had not been made known in the bill of particulars or who had not
been made available at the hearing, upon review of the record and upon reconsidera-
tion the Trial Examiner now denies the entire motion to strike. He here states,
however, that he will make no finding as to the participation of any individual in any
act of alleged unlawful misconduct where the identity of that individual was not
revealed to the Respondent prior to the hearing.'
Upon the record thus made, and from his observation of the witnesses, the Trial
Examiner makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE CHARGING COMPANY
F.R. Knitting Mills, Inc., is a Massachusetts corporation, with principal office
and plant in Fall River, Massachusetts, where it is engaged in the manufacture, sale,
and distribution of knitted outerwear and related products.
It annually causes such products valued at more than $50,000 to be shipped
from its plant to points outside the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
The Charging Company is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act.
II. THE RESPONDENT UNION
International Ladies' Garment Workers Union , AFL-CIO , is a labor organiza-
tion admitting to membership employees of the Charging Company.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Setting and major issues
All of the alleged events raised as issues by the complaint, and herein considered,
occurred between February 1 and 6, 1963, during a strike of the Charging Company's
employees admittedly conducted by the Respondent Union. Unlawful misconduct
i This Trial Examiner does not consider it to be improper "discovery" for a Respondent
to seek, before a bearing, to ascertain the identity of the doer, as well as the nature of
the deed, of unlawful conduct for which the Respondent is to be held accountable.
14 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
alleged as attributable to the Union's responsibility includes mass picketing, attempts
physically to prevent entry to the plant, rock throwing, threatening nonstrikers with
reprisals by statements, and recording auto registration numbers.
B. Events in issue
There is no dispute that the Respondent Union picketed various entrances to com-
pany premises on February 1, 4, 5, and 6, 1963, and that such picketing was under
the direction and control of Ralph A.Roberts, manager of Local 178, ILGWU.
Roberts, as a witness, admitted that he had "overall direction" of the strike activities
and that he was present on the picket line "every morning of the strike." It is also
undisputed that A. J. Scibetta, a union representative, was at all times in direct
charge of the picketing According to Scibetta he was at the picket line "most of the
time" and that Union Officials Armitage, Roberts, and Pereira were there at various
times.
Based mainly upon the credible and not seriously disputed testimony of Sergeant
Drewniak of the Fall River Police Department, who was in charge of the police
detail at the premises during this period, it is at once found that from early on
February 1 and until February 6 picketing strikers and sympathizers (Roberts boasted
that "we have 5000 members, a large and wonderful union here"), numbering at
times as many as 120, massed and milled in front of the main entryway to plant
premises on Alden Street. Passage of nonstriking employees to the plant was
repeatedly blocked by such massing until police forced an opening.
Both Roberts and the assistant manager of the local, Daniel McCarthy, on the
morning of February 1, participated in an attempt by pickets physically to prevent
entrance through a rear door of the plant of nonstriking employee Edna Lawrence.
She had arrived at the plant in an automobile driven by Joseph Chauvin, also a
nonstriking employee but not scheduled to work that day. She was barred and
shoved as she tried to go up the steps, and called out to Chauvin below. He started
toward her and was met by pickets who shoved him back with their elbows and
who told him to "get out of there." Sidney Reitzas, manager of the plant, observed
the commotion and the group surrounding Chauvin, approached them, and ordered
them off the plant property. Not until the police sergeant came up did the pickets
and union officials leave the property.
Early the morning of February 1, before the police detail arrived, employee
Robert Medeiros was barred from the employees' entrance by some half dozen
strikers, including Robert Jeffreys, who repeatedly pushed and shoved him away
from the entry until police arrived and ordered the strikers from company property.2
Nonstriking employee John Dugan was also barred by strikers and sympathizers
from going through the employees' entrance early the same morning, and until police
ordered them away. Dugan retreated from the massed strikers on the steps and
awaited arrival of the police. Among the group barring his entry were Union
Committeemen Brodeur and Sakell.3
Entry through the same door of employee E. Campbell was barred by strikers
and others the same morning. As she tried to go by the group of men massed in
the doorway her arm was grasped by one of them. Her husband, who had driven
his car to a point near the steps, got out and demanded that the pickets leave her
alone and instructed her to get back into the car. As she did so one picket told
another to make note of his license plate number. Later the same morning Campbell
tried to drive through the Quarry Street gate but was barred by pickets. Finally
Mrs. Campbell succeeded in entering the plant through the Alden Street gateway,
when police opened the way.
Before arrival of the police the same morning, passage through the Alden Street
gateway was barred by pickets of the car in which her husband was bringing em-
ployee Mary Corriveau to work. One of the pickets, or sympathizers, opened the
car door and ordered her out. Her husband then drove around to the other gateway,
where entry was also blocked. Eventually, after police arrival, she was able to get
into the plant.
Employees James Robinson and Joyce Modda were prevented by pickets, who
blocked entry of the car, from entering the Quarry Street gate the same morning.
The same Quarry Street entry was blocked when the car in which Floorlady
D. Oliviero was riding attempted to come onto the premises. Some 10 pickets
blocked the entry, 3 of them pushing against the front of the car. One picket
2 As a witness , Jeffreys admitted being present and being ordered away , but denied
pushing Medeiros . His denial is not credited.
3 Both Brodeur and Sakell were witnesses for the Respondent , and admitted the occasion.
INT'L LADIES' GARMENT WORKERS UNION, AFL-CIO 15
identified was Committeeman Franco .4 The floorlady's husband, driving the car,
backed away from this gate and proceeded to the Alden Street entry, where police
opened passageway.
On the morning of February 4, as police opened way through the pickets at the
Alden Street entrance, a rock hit the hood of the car in which nonstriking employee
B. LaTessa was coming to work. On the same morning, while proceeding through
the picket line at the same gateway, the car in which employee R. V. Emond was
riding was also hit by a rock.
Early in the morning of February 5 passage of nonstriking employee M. Cordeiro
through the employees' entrance was barred by a group of strikers including Jeffreys
and Armitage, the latter a union official. Cordeiro was told that he could not go
in, that the plant was on strike. About half an hour later police arrived and he was
permitted to enter.
C. Conclusions
The Trial Examiner concludes and finds that the conduct above described, in-
cluding mass picketing, barring entry to the plant of nonstriking employees, rock
throwing, and physically pushing and shoving, all constituted restraint and coercion
of employees in the exercise of their statutory right under Section 7 of the Act
not to join in the strike.5 Whether the specific acts were engaged in by union officials,
strikers, or nonemployee strike sympathizers, they were performed while union
officials were in charge of and responsible for the picket lines at the plant. The
Union must be held accountable for such unlawful conduct.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent Union set forth in section III, above, occurring
in connection with the operations of the Charging Company described in section I,
above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce
among the several States, and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing
commerce and the free flow of commerce.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record in
the case, the Trial Examiner makes the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. International Ladies' Garment Workers Union, AFL-CIO, is a labor organiza-
tion within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
2. By engaging in the conduct above described the Respondent restrained and
coerced employees within the meaning of Section 8(b) (1) (A) of the Act.
3. 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 the Respondent, International
Ladies' Garment Workers Union , AFL-CIO, its officers , agents, representatives,
successors , and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Blocking or interfering with the ingress and egress of employees at the
premises of F.R. Knitting Mills, Inc., located at Fall River , Massachusetts.
(b) In any like or related manner restraining or coercing employees at those
premises in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action to effectuate the policies of the Act:
'Franco was a witness for the Respondent and admitted that he was present on this
occasion. His denial, in effect, that entry of the car through this gate was prevented is
not credited. On direct examination he claimed that car "drove on through" ; on cross-
examination he admitted that it backed away and was driven through another gate.
6 There Is in the record the claim of Plant Manager Reitzas to the effect that he saw
Union Official Frank Pereira noting down the license numbers of cars entering the
premises on February 4 Pereira denied the accusation. His explanation for carrying a
pad and pencil openly finds credible corroboration in the testimony of the police sergeant-
for several days he was unable to speak aloud because of laryngitis. Under the circum-
stances the Trial Examiner cannot find the evidence to be sufficient to sustain General
Counsel's allegations concerning Pereira's conduct in this respect.
16 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
(a) Post at the offices and meeting halls of the Respondent in Fall River,
Massachusetts, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix." 6 Copies of said
notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for the First Region, shall, after being
duly signed by an official representative of the Respondent, be posted by it immedi-
ately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter,
in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to its members are customar-
ily 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) Mail signed copies of the said notice to the Regional Director for the First
Region for posting by the Charging Company, said company willing, at all locations
where notices to its employees are customarily posted.
(c) Notify the said Regional Director, in writing, within 20 days from the receipt
of this Intermediate Report and Recommended Order, what steps the Respondent has
taken to comply herewith.?
0If this Recommended Order should be adopted by the Board, the words "As Ordered
by" shall be substituted for "As Recommended by a Trial Examiner" in the notice. In
the further event that the Board's Order be enforced by a United States Court of Appeals,
the words "A Decree of the United States Court of Appeals, Enforcing an Order" shall be
inserted immediately following "As Ordered by."
I If this Recommended Order should 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 steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith."
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
As Recommended By 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 block or interfere with the ingress and egress of employees at
the premises of F.R. Knitting Mills, Inc., located at Fall River, Massachusetts.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner restrain or coerce employees at
these premises in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the
Act.
INTERNATIONAL LADIES' GARMENT WORKERS UNIONS 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, 24 School
Street, Boston, Massachusetts , Telephone No. 523-8100 , if they have any question
concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions.
Packers Hide Association , Inc. and United Packinghouse, Food
& Allied Workers , AFL-CIO . Cases Nos. 17-CA-2130 and
17-CA-2149. November 18, 1963
DECISION AND ORDER
On August 1, 1963, Trial Examiner Harold X. Summers issued his
Intermediate 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-
145 NLRB No. 7.