Kaplan Bros.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 27, 1942

45 N.L.R.B. 799 (N.L.R.B. 1942)

In the Matter of MAx KAPLAN AND JACOB KAPLAN, CO-PARTNERS, DOING
BUSINESS UNDER THE FIRM NAME AND STYLE OF KAPLAN BROS. and
TE%TILE WORKERS UNION OF AMERICA, GREATER NEW YORK JOINT
BOARD, C. 1. 0.
Case No. C-2297.-Decided,, November 27, 1942 , ,
Jurisdiction :* artificial flower manufacturing industry.
Unfair Labor Practices .
Interference, 'Restraint, and Coercion-Discrimination: threatening remarks
with respect to union activity ; unusual shifting of an employee's work station
to permit observation of her activities, followed by discharge of that employee
on the next day.
Remedial Orders: cease and desist unfair labor practices; reinstatement and
back pay awarded ; discharged employee whose probationary period at new
employment had expired prior to issuance of decision and who testified that
she would accept reinstatement only if she failed to pass probationary period,
awarded back pay (1) between date of discharge and date of reinstatement if
,he should so accept, less interim net earnings, or (2) between date of dis-
charge and date when new position had been obtained, less interim net earn-
ings, if she should decline reinstatement.
111r. Cyril W. O'Gorman, for the Board.
Wasserman and Erensto f t, of New York City, by Mr. Herbert L.
Wasserman, for the respondents.
Mr. James Lipsig, of New York City, for the Union.
Mr. Oscar Geltman, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon an amended charge duly filed by, Textile Workers Union of
America, Greater New York Joint Board, C. I. 0., herein called the
Union, the National Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board,
by the Regional Director for the Second Region (New York City),
issued its complaint dated July 9, 1942, against Max Kaplan and
Jacob Kaplan, co-partners, doing business under the_ firm name and
style of Kaplan Bros., herein called the respondents, alleging' that
the respondents had engaged in and were engaging in unfair labor
45 N.L.R B, No 121.
799
800 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
practices affecting commerce, within the meaning of Section 8 (1) and
(3) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of'the National Labor Relations Act,
49 Stat. 449, herein called the Act. Copies,of the complaint, accom-
panied by notice of hearing thereon, were duly served upon the re-
spondents and the Union.
With respect to the unfair labor practices, the complaint alleged in
substance (1) that since on or about July 1941, the respondents vili-
fied, disparaged, and expressed disapproval of unions; interrogated
their employees concerning their union affiliations, activities, and
sympathies; and urged, persuaded, threatened, and warned their em-
ployees to refrain from assisting, remaining or becoming members of,
any union;, and (2 ) that on or about May 6; 1942, the respondents dis-
charged and refused to reinstate Louise Doran for the reason that she
joined or assisted the Union or engaged in other concerted activities.
On July 22, 1942, the respondents filed their answer, denying the
alleged unfair labor practices and the interstate character of their
business.,
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held at New York City on July
27, 28, and 29, 1942, before George Bokat, the Trial Examiner duly
designated by the Chief Trial Examiner. The respondents, the
Union, and the Board were represented by counsel. All parties par-
ticipated in the hearing. Full opportunity to be heard, to examine
and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing on the
issues was afforded all parties.
. At the close of the Board's case, counsel for the respondents moved
to dismiss the complaint. The motion was denied.' At the conclusion
of the hearing, counsel for the respondents again' moved to dismiss
the complaint. The Trial Examiner reserved ruling on this motion,
but subsequently denied it in his Intermediate Report. At the con-
clusion of the hearing, counsel for the Board moved to conform the
pleadings to the proof with respect to minor inaccuracies and formal
matters such as the spelling of names and dates. This motion was
granted without objection. During the course of the hearing, the
Trial Examiner made a number of rulings,on other motions and on
objections to the admission of evidence. The Board has reviewed
the rulings of the- Trial Examiner and finds that no prejudicial error
was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The parties were
afforded an opportunity to argue orally before, and to file briefs with,
the Trial Examiner. None of the parties argued orally, but the re-
spondents filed a brief with the Trial Examiner.
I At the hearing , the respondents admitted, by stipulation , that they are engaged in
commeice within the meaning of the Act.
KAPLAN BROS. 801
On August 21, 1942, the Trial Examiner filed his Intermediate Re-
port, copies of which were duly served upon the parties . The Trial'
Examiner found that the respondents had engaged in and were en-
gaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce, within the mean-
ing of Section 8 (1) and ( 3) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
He recommended that the respondents cease and desist from said
unfair labor practices and that they take certain affirmative action
designed to effectuate the policies of the Act , including the reinstate-
ment, under certain conditions , of Louise Doran, and the payment to
her of wages lost. The respondents thereafter filed exceptions to the
Intermediate Report and a supporting brief. The Union also filed
a brief.
Pursuant to notice , a hearing for the purpose of oral argument was'
held before the Board in Washington, D. C., on September 29, 1942.
The respondents were represented by counsel and participated in the
bearing. The Union did not appear. The Board has considered the
exceptions filed by the respondents and the briefs filed by the respond-
ents and the Union, and , insofar as the exceptions are inconsistent
with the findings , conclusions , and order set forth below, finds them
to be without merit.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENTS
Max Kaplan and Jacob Kaplan constitute a partnership doing busi-
ness'under the name of Kaplan Bros., with their principal place of
business and factory in New York City. They are engaged in the
manufacture, sale, and distribution of artificial flowers and related
products. The principal raw materials used by the respondelitssin
the manufacture of their products are paper, glue, chemicals, textiles,
and wire. In the first 6 months of 1942, approximately 75 percent
of these raw materials was purchased and shipped to-the respondents
from points outside the State, of New York. The value of such raw
materials was in excess of $150,000. During the aforementioned
period of time, the respondents shipped approximately 75 percent of
their finished products to points located outside of the State of New
York. The value of such finished products was in excess of $600,000.
II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Textile Workers Union of America, Greater New York Joint
Board, C. I.,O., is a labor organization admitting to membership
employees of the respondents.
493508-43-vol. 45-51
802 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
The discriminatory discharge of Louise Doran
1. Background
Sometime during June 1941, the International Ladies Garment
Workers Union picketed the respondents' plant with` the apparent
objective of organizing their, employees. Within a day or two there-
after, Frances Lombardi, forelady in complete charge of all of the
approximately 500 female employees in the decorative flouter depart-
ment, had a conversation with floor girls Louise Doran and Norma
DeFilippi.2 Concerning this conversation, Doran testified as follows:
Mrs. Lombardi asked if I had heard of any of lny girls signing
up for the union and I told her, "No, I didn't." She says to
Norma and I if you saw any of -the girls interested to sort of
try and get around and try to talk them out of it because if a
union got in Kaplan Bros. would close down. r I told her I
would listen but I never bothered.
DeFilippi was not questioned with respect to the above conversation
with Lombardi. Lombardi, although not interrogated concerning
this conversation, generally denied having ever discussed unions or
union activity with Doran. We credit Doran's testimony, as did the
Trial Examiner, and find -that Lombardi made the statements attrib-
uted to her by Doran. We find further that such statements con-
stituted interference, restraint, and coercion, within the meaning of
Section 8 (1) of the Act.
During April 1942, the Union initiated an organizational drive
at the respondents' plant. The girls who worked under Doran and
DeFilippi discussed the possible benefits of joining the Union and
requested Doran and DeFilippi to attend a meeting of the Union
to be leld on Friday evening, April 24, at the union office, and to
report back their reactions. They attended the meeting. On -the
morning of April 27, the next working day, in the course of a con-
versation, . Lombardi told DeFilippi that she had heard that the
latter attended the union meeting. This much of the conversation
was admitted by both Lombardi and DeFilippi, but there is a dis-
pute in the testimony as to whether or not Lombardi stated to
DeFilippi that she knew that Doran had also attended the meeting,
'The female employees are divided into groups of about 30 girls each, who work at,
tables where they make several varieties of artificial flowers To each group is assigned
a floor girl . The floor girls are more experienced employees, who are paid about a dollar
a week more than the employees actually malting the flowers, and their duties are to keep
the girls in their respective groups supplied with materials,-and to 'collect the finished
work Since each group generally performs only one opeiatiu in the process of making
the completed flower , each floor giil sees to it that, when her group finishes its assigned
task , the product is then turned over to the group performing the ,net operation
KAPLAN BROS. 803,
and whether other remarks were made by Lombardi concerning the
Union. Lombardi admitted only telling DeFilippi that she knew
the latter had attended the union meeting.3 Doran testified that she
observed DeFilippi talking to Lombardi for about 2 hours that morn-
ing; that, immediately thereafter, DeFilippi told her that Lombardi
had stated that she knew that the two floor girls had, attended
the union meeting; and.that Lombardi also had stated that if Max
Kaplan, one of the ' respondents, found out that either of -them had
"signed for the union we would be fired right there and then.",
DeFilippi admitted having had a conversation with Doran. How-
ever, she could not recall whether she told Doran that Lombardi
had stated that the two floor girls had attended 'the meeting; she
denied that Lombardi had made such a statement to her. James,
Lipsig, general counsel for the Union, testified that on the night _of
May 6, the day of Doran's discharge, at the of ice of the Union, he was
told by DeFilippi that during her conversation with Lombardi, the
latter had said that she knew everyone who attended the meeting
of April 24, and that if Max Kaplan knew of the union- affiliation of
the floor girls, they would be discharged. In a signed statement
made to a representative of the Board on May 29, 1942, DeFilippi
asserted that' she had told Doran that Lombardi knew that both,
floor girls had attended the union meeting of April 24. At the,
hearing, she admitted signing this statement, but explained the con-
flict by testifying that Lombardi knew that she and Doran were
together a great deal and therefore she had inferred that Lombardi
knew that Doran had attended the meeting with her. , ,
DeFilippi, in the employ of the respondents at the time of the
hearing, testified under subpoena by the Board. Her expressed lack
of memory and her demeanor and attitude on the witness stand con-
vinced the Trial Examiner, and we find, that she was a reluctant,
hostile witness. On the other hand, Doran impressed` the Trial
Examiner as being a trustworthy witness; he found that her testi-
rnony was explicit, plausible, and consistent and that her demeanor
was that of an 'honest and, frank witness., We credit her testimony,
as did the Trial Examiner, and find that Lombardi's conversation.
with DeFilippi occurred substantially as testified to by Doran.,
2. The discharge
At the time Doran was, discharged, on May 6, 1942, she had been
employed by the respondents for more than 5 years. During the
a She testified that, while in the washroom , she overheard one employee tell another
that DeFilippi had attended the union meeting, but no more
The Trial Examiner was unfavouably nmin•essed'by both the demeanor and tetunlony
of Lombardi He found her testimony to be confused, vague, and inconsistent, and
at times, implausible Upon the basis of the entire record, we do not credit her testimonv.
804 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
last 3 years she had been a floor girl, a slightly better paying and
more responsible- position than that of the ordinary employee .4 Slfe
was admittedly a capable employee.
Sometime in April 1942, after the union meeting of April 24,
Doran joined the Union. On the morning of April 27, during work-
ing hours, Doran openly solicited some of the girls in her group to
join the Union, and during the luncheon period, she secured about
10 signed application cards.
Prior to May 5, 1942, Doran's department was next to DeFilippi's;
and the tables of Doran and her girls were more than 10 tables re-
moved from, and out of sight of, Lombardi's desk. On May 5, Lom-
bardi changed the locations of 4 groups of girls, moving Doran and
her group, DeFilippi and her girls, and 2 other departments. At
that time the respondent's business was entering its slow season, and
personnel was decreased, leaving several empty tables. It appears'
to have been customary to close such gaps by moving each group of
girls down about 1 or 2 tables. On this occasion, however, Doran
was moved approximately 10 tables, to the table next to the working
station of Louise Panarella, the senior floor girl, and only one table
removed from Lombardi's desk. In their new locations, the de-
partments of Doran and DeFilippi were some 6 to 8 tables apart.
Doran testified that in her'more than 5 years of employment with
the respondents no similar move, that is, a move of more than 1 or 2
tables, had been made; and Marie Rubino, a witness for the respond-
ents, who had been employed by them for 31/2 years, testified to the
same effect. This testimony was not contradicted.
Doran testified that at the time she was moved she overheard Lom-
bardi say to Panarella, "I have them up here and keep an eye on
them," and Caramico testified that she overheard, the same remark.
Both Lombardi and Panarella denied that any such remark was
made.
Lombardi denied that she was aware of Doran's union member-
ship or activity, and testified as-follows concerning her reasons for
moving Doran :
So-just happened that in front of me, say about three tables
away, there was two empty tables doing nothing. So I figured,
being that was, let's get the people closer together, which Louise
was around the dressing room where I had to go purposely down
there to see and examine my work, and I thought being her girls
were doing the same similar work that the girls up front were
doing where the empty space was, I placed Louise there and I
4 See Footnote 2, supra.
KAPLAN BROS. 805
thought it was more simple to move her than the whole factory
put together.,
In view of our findings made above, and in view of the unusual na-
ture of the move, we credit the testimony of Doran and Caramico,
as did the Trial Examiner, and we do not credit Lombardi's denials
or her testimony as to her reasons for moving Doran. We find, as did
the Trial Examiner, that Doran was moved for the purpose of separat-
ing her from DeFilippi, and to permit closer observation of her
activities.
On the horning of May 6, while Doran was sorting the completed
work of her girls, as was the custom, preparatory to giving it to
floor girl Marie Rubino, the latter approached Doran and asked for
some work for her girls, who performed the next operation on the
work completed by Doran's group. Doran told Rubino that she
was busy. It was admittedly common practice, under the circum-
stances, for a floor girl to take the necessary materials herself, after
being told what to take. On occasions in the past, Doran had told
Rubino to take the materials herself.
Doran testified that, about 10 minutes after the above 'conversation
with Rubino, Lombardi, in a loud voice, called to her saying,."Who are
you to say you have no time to give out work?"; that Doran answered,
"It isn't I have, no time. I am collecting work."; and that Lombardi
replied, "Yes . . . You weren't too busy when you held a meeting
before." 5
Lombardi testified concerning the incident : "So I called out to
Louise." . . . "I said, `Louise, why don't you give work to Marie?'
So she says `I have no time, and I have you understand I have no
time.' " s
Shortly thereafter, Doran went back to her old station to get some
material. While there, Lombardi approached her, and, according to
Doran's testimony, the following conversation ensued :
Well, Mrs. Lombardi came over and says, "Just to whom do you
think you are talking to that way?"
I says, "I didn't talk to you fresh'or anything."
She says, "I don't mean about that; about work, you are too busy
doing work."
So I says, "Well, at the time I was busy . I was counting out
my work for Marie."
5Doian inteipreted this remark to refer to a conversation she had that morning with
a floor gnl named Phyllis, who asked Doran for some material. DeFilippi was present
on this occasion . Lombardi admitted on cross-examination that she saw the three girls
standing together and that this was the incident alluded to by her.
Lombardi testified that she was "dumbfounded" by Doran's remark , but made no reply
because she was then interrupted by the approach of Harold Kaplan , apparently a super-
visory employee of the respondents . Rubino testified that she heard Doran say to Lom-
bardi, "I'll have you understand I have no time right now."
0
806 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Well, she says to me, she says, "You are very fresh."
And I says, "I am not fresh. I am just telling you what had
happened." '
So with that' Frances more or less brought out that I was fresh
because I had answered her back on saying that I was too
busy..."
She said that it was my duty to give Marie work.
"Yes," I says, "I know it is my duty but at one time you told me
and other floor girls we have to collect our work on the hour."
Frances says, "That is no excuse." . . . Frances turned
around to me, and said, "Do you think you are smart? Don't you
thing I know you and Norma-stabbed me behind my back?"
I says to Frances, "I didn't stab you behind your back."
I says, "You did the stabbing. It seems like ever since a certain
thing happened I have been watched or you have known every-
thing that I do because it has always been brought back to me that
I am always being watched down there."
So with that Frances said, "Are you mad because I separated
you from your friend?"
So I says, "No. I am not mad about that," but I says, "I am
mad," I says, "because of the fact you know everything I did and
you have been watching me since I attended something."
So Frances turned around to me, she says, "The trouble with
you is that you think you have somebody back of you. That is
why you are shouting like that." She says "I am not scared of
you or anyone else that is in back of you." I says "I have nobody
in back of me."
Well, she says, "You are fired," with that she turned around to
me and says, "I have gotten rid of you and the next one I -will get
rid of is Norma and everybody connected with this." 7 -
Lombardi denied this testimony. Her version of what occurred is
as follows :
I said to her, "Louise, isn't there any difference in positions
between the two of us ?"
She says, "No, nothing at all. There is no difference of any
kind."
I said, "Oh no ? I rather-if you feel that way about it, I rather
you didn 't work for me."
So she said, "Then I'm considered fired."
7 Caramleo testified that at the conclusion of the argument between Lombardi and
Doran, she overheard the former say, "I have got rid of her and I will get rid of the
others , one by one."
KAPLAN -BROS. 807;
I said, "-What-are-you trying-to do, threaten me?"
So she said, "`Well," she said, "I'm fired, ain't I VI
I said to her, "Well, 'if, you feel that way and you think I can't
do it, I certainly can." -
So she said, "Well, get my pay."
And after, I says, "Louise, before 1 'go for your pay, are you
sorry?"
She said "No, I'm not." So that's all, and I went for the money.
For reasons already indicated, we credit Doran's testimony, as did
the Trial Examiner, and find that her version is substantially in accord
with the facts.
In their answer, the respondents allege that Doran was discharged
"because she deliberately and unlawfully failed to perform and carry
out her proper and legal duties as an employee, and neglected to effi-
ciently and properly perform her duties and obligations as an em-
ployee; said discharge of the afore-mentioned employee was 'not
ascribable to union membership or union actii ities." Lombadi, how-
ever, testified in substance, that she was compelled to discharge Doran
in order to preserve employee morale and respect for her position. We
find these contentions to be without merit. It is clear from the tes-
timony already considered, and we find, that Lombardi did not dis-
charge Doran for failing to hand work to Rubino. Nor does the
testimony, which we believe, show that Doran was disrespectful to her:'
superior, `Lombardi.
As found above, Lombardi, prior to the time that she became aware
of Doran's union membership and activities, had manifested her op-
position to unionism. Thereafter, when Lombardi ascertained that
DeFilippi and Doran had attended a union meeting, she threatened
them with discharge. if they joined the Union. Despite this threat,
Doran joinedthe Union and became outstandingly active in attempting'
to organize the girls. Consistent with Lombardi's expressed antipathy'
toward the Union, was'Lombardi's action on May 5 in moving Doran
to a place where her ' activities could be more easily observed. That
thereafter Lombardi did keep a close watch on Doran is clear from;
Lombardi's admission that she accused Doran of holding a "meeting"
on the morning of May 6. Moreover, Lombardi's statement that Doran
stabbed her "behind my back," clearly discloses Lombardi's real motive
in discharging Doran. This expression'could only have reference to'
Doran's union 'activities. Significantly; Lombardi also threatened to
"get rid of" any other employee engaged in similar activities." We
• r
The respondents in their brief point to the fact that , after Doran 's discharge, Lom-
bardi promoted Eleanor Caramico , who attended a union meeting on May 6, to Doran's
position as floor girl , as indicating that Lombardi was not motivated by anti -union bias in
discharging Doran However, the record is devoid of any indication that the respondents
808 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR . RELATIONS BOARD
find, as did the Trial Examiner, that Doran was discharged because of
her union membership and activities and not because she was insub-
ordinate or for the other reasons asserted by the respondents.
Upon- the basis. of the entire record, we find, as did the Trial
Examiner, that the respondents, by discharging Louise Doran, dis-
criminated in regard to her hire and tenure of employment, thereby
discouraging membership in the Union and interfering with, re-
straining, and coercing their employees in the exercise of the rights
guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the respondents set forth in Section III above,
occurring in connection with the operations of the respondents de-
scribed in Section I above, have a close, intimate, and substantial
relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States and
tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce
and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that the respondents have engaged in certain unfair
labor practices, we shall order them to cease and desist therefrom
and to take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the
policies of the Act.
We have found that the respondents discharged Louise Doran
because of her'membership in, and activities on behalf of, the Union.
Subsequent to the discharge, Doran obtained other employment, in
which she was engaged at the time of the hearing; she testified that
she would accept reinstatement by the respondents only if she failed
to pass her probationary period in her new employment, such period
having expired on August 4, 1942. We shall consequently order
alternative remedies as follows : (1) In the event that Doran ap-
plies for reinstatement with the respondents within five (5) days
after issuance of this Order, we shall order the respondents (a) to
offer her immediate and full reinstatement to her former position or
,to a substantially equivalent position, without prejudice to her sen-
iority and other rights and privileges, and (b) to make her. whole for
any loss of pay she may have suffered by reason of the respondents'
discrimination against her, by payment to her, of a sum of money
knew, at the time of the promotion , that Caramico had attended the meeting of May 6
While the record indicates that Lombardi knew who had attended the meeting of April 24,
the testimony clearly shows that Caramico did not attend that meeting.
KAPLAN BROS. 809
equal to the amount which she normally would have earned as wages
from the date of the respondents' discrimination against her to the
date of the offer of reinstatement, less her net earnings 9 during said
period; (2) in the event that Doran does not apply for reinstate-
ment within five (5) days after issuance of this Order, we shall order
that the respondents make her whole for any loss of pay she may
have suffered by reason of her discharge, by payment to her of a sum
of money equal to the amount which she normally would have earned
as wages from the date of her discharge to the date upon which she
.obtained the `position she held at the time of the hearing, less her
net earnings 10 during said period.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the
entire record in the case, the Board makes the following:
CoNCLusIONs OF LAW
1. Textile Workers Union of America, Greater New York Joint
Board, C. I. 0., is a labor organization, within the meaning of Section
2 (5) of the Act.
2. By discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of employ-
ment of Louise Doran, thereby discouraging membership in the
Union, the respondents have engaged in and are engaging in unfair
labor practices, within the meaning of Section 8 (3) of the Act.,
3. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing their employees
in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the
respondents have engaged in and are engaging in unfair labor prac-
tices, within the meaning of Section 8 (1) of the Act.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices
affecting commerce, within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of
the Act.
ORDER
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and conclusions of law,
and pursuant to Section 10 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act,
the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the respond-
ents, Max Kaplan and Jacob Kaplan, co-partners doing business
6 By "net earnings" is meant earnings less expenses , such as for transportation, room,
and board , incurred by an employee in connection with obtaining work and working else-
where than for the respondent , which would not have been incurred but for his unlawful
discharge and the consequent necessity of his seeking employment elsewhere.
See Matter of Crossett Lumber Company and United Brotherhood of Carpenters and
Joiners of America, Lumber and Sawmill Workers' Union, Local 2590, 8 N. L. R B 440
Monies received for work performed upon Federal , State, county , municipal or other work-
relief projects shall be considered as earnings See Republic Steel Corporation v. N. L
R.B,311U.S.7.
10 See footnote 9, supra.
810 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
under the firm name and style of Kaplan Bros., New York City,- their
officers, agents, successors, and assigns shall :
1. Cease and desist from : 4a
(a) Discouraging membership in Textile Workers Union of Amer-
ica, Greater New York Joint Board, C. I. 0., or any other labor organ-
ization of their employees, by discrimination in regard to the hire or
tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment of their
employees;,
(b) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing
their employees in the exercise of the right to self-organization, to
form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through
representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted
activities for the purposes of collective bargaining or other mutual aid
or protection, as guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) In the event that Louise Doran makes application for reinstate-
ment within five (5) days after the date of issuance of this Order,
reinstate Louise Doran to her former position or to a substantially
equivalent position, without prejudice to her seniority or other rights
and privileges, and make her whole for any loss of pay she may have
suffered by reason of her discharge, by payment to her of a sum of
money equal to that which she would normally have earned as wages
from the date of her discharge to the date of her reinstatement, less
her net earnings during such period ;
(b) In the event that Louise Doran does not make application for
reinstatement as set forth above, make her whole for any loss 'of pay
she may have suffered by reason of her discharge by payment to her
of a sum of money equal to that which she would normally have earned
as wages from the date of her discharge to the date when she obtained
the employment which she held at the time of the hearing, less her
net earnings during.such period;
(c) Post immediately in conspicuous places throughout their plant
at New York City, and maintain for a period of at least sixty (60)
consecutive days from the date of posting, notices to their employees
stating: (1) that the respondents will not engage in the conduct from
which they are ordered to cease and desist in paragraphs 1 (a) and
(b) of this Order; (2) that the respondents will take the affirmative
action set forth in paragraphs 2 (a) and (b) of this Order; and (3)
that the respondents' employees are free to become or remain members
KAPLAN BROS. 811
of Textile Workers Union of America, Greater New York Joint
Board, C. I. O. or any other labor organization of their choice, and
that the respondents will not discriminate against any employee be-
cause of membership in or activity on behalf of such organizations;
(d) Notify the Regional Director for the Second Region, in writing,
within ten ( 10) days from the receipt of this Order what steps the
respondents have taken to comply herewith.
MR. GERARD D. REmLY took no part in the consideration of the above
Decision and Order.