Leybro Manufacturing Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 17, 1940

24 N.L.R.B. 786 (N.L.R.B. 1940)

In the Matter of JOSEPH LEVY, JACK LEVY, AND ISAAC LEVY, DOING
BUSIN•ESS""UNDER THE NAME 'AND STYLE OF LEYBRO MANUFACTURING
COMPANY AND LEYBRO MANUFACTURING CO. OF NEW JERSEY, INC.
and CHILDREN'S DRESS, INFANTS WEAR,. HOUSEDRESS AND BATHROBE
WORKERS UNION; LOCAL #91, INTERNATIONAL LADIES GARMENT'
WORKERS UNION
Case No. C-1481.-Decided June 17, 1940
Pajama and Nightgown Manufacturing Industry-Interference , Restraints and
Coercion: statements of officials and supervisors disparaging Union and discourag-
ing membership therein ; advising that the employer would refuse to deal with
Union; threatening to remove operations should Union succeed in its organiza-
tion drive-Strike. called by Union to organize employees ; manufacturing opera-
tions ceased as a result of-Company-Dominated Union`: direct sponsorship by-
employer ; employees selected by forelady , leaders of ; since manufacturing opera-'
tions ceased as a result of strike, no longer in active existence ; employer ordered
to withhold -recognition of as agency for collective bargaining-Collective bar-
gaining: demands by Union and counterproposals thereto by employer formed
subject of various negotiations and conferences ; offer by employer of a com-
promise plan for the settlement of contested matters rejected by Union ; refusal
by employer to agree on Union's demand for closed shop and immediate reem-
ployment of all workers on strike caused an impasse in negotiations ; allegations
_of refusal to bargain, dismissed-Unit Appropriate- for Collective Bargaining:
under circumstances not necessary to make a finding as to (Smith, dissenting)-
Representatives: under circumstances not necessary to make' a finding as to
(Smith, dissenting )-Discrimination : charges of , not sustained-Remedial Order:
corporation, formed after. commission of certain unfair labor practices by co-
partners, found to be business successor and alter ego of copartners ; to effectu-
ate policies of the Act, Order directed to corporation as well as to copartners.
Mr. William J. Avrutis, for the Board.
Mr. A. J. Halprin,. of New. York. City, for the respondents.
Mr. Elias Lieberman, by Mr. Nathaniel H. Janes, of New ' York
City, for Local #91.
Mr. Sidney L. Fishkin and Mr. Herbert M. Levy, both of New
York City, for the Committee.
Mr. Leonard Lindquist, of counsel to the Board.
24 N. L: R. B., No. 82.
786
JOSEPH LEVY ET AL.
DECISION
AND
ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
787
Upon charges and amended charges' duly filed by Children's Dress,
Infants Wear, Housedress and Bathrobe Workers Union, Local #91,
International Ladies Garment Workers Union, herein called Local
#91, the National Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board,
by the Regional Director for the Second Region .(New York City)
issued a complaint dated June 16, 1939, against Joseph Levy, ' Jack
Levy, and Isaac Levy, doing business under the name and style of
Leybro 'Manufacturing Company, herein called the Co-partners, al-
leging that the Co-partners had engaged in and were engaging in
unfair labor practices affecting commerce, within the meaning of
Section 8 (1), (2), (3),. and (5) and Section 2 (6) and (7). of the
National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein called the 'Act. '
The complaint alleged in substance that the Co-partners, person-
ally and through their officers and agents at their New York City
plant, (1) on and after November 1, 1938, urged, persuaded, and,
warned their employees to refrain from becoming or remaining mem-
bers of Local #91 and threatened to remove their operations from
New York City to Keansburg, New Jersey, if the employees beiiame
or remained members thereof; (2) on about February 1, 1939, dom-
inated and interfered with the formation and administration of, and
contributed support to, a labor organization of their employees ; (3)
on and after February 20, 1939,1 refused to bargain with Local #91
although' a majority of the production and maintenance employees
comprising an appropriate unit had designated Local #91 as. their
bargaining representative; (4) on or about about March 23, 1939,
discriminated in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of 75
named employees by refusing at all times to reinstate them to their
employment following a strike ; (5) on or about March 25, 1939,
removed their operations from New York City to Keansburg, New
Jersey, for the purpose of locking out their employees and to evade
and defeat their obligations under the Act; and (6) by the foregoing
and other acts, interfered with, restrained, and coerced their em-
ployees in the, exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the
Act. Copies of the complaint, accompanied by notice of hearing,
were duly served upon the-Co-partners, Local #91, and Independent
Employees Committee of Leybro Manufacturing Company, herein
called the Committee. On June 26, 1939, the Co-partners filed their
1 The complaint was amended at the hearing of July 31, 1939 , to substitute the date
"February 20, 1939" at this point in place of "February 16, 1939."
788 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
answer, admitting that prior to February 1939 they were engaged
in manufacturing operations in New, York City, as alleged in the
complaint, but denying that since that date they had engaged in such
operations, and further denying that they had engaged in the unfair
labor practices alleged in the complaint.
Pursuant to notice a hearing was held at Brooklyn, New York,
from July 31 through August 4, 1939, before Herbert Wenzel, the
Trial Examiner duly designated by the Board. , At the commencement
of the hearing, the Trial Examiner, granted certain parts of a request
for a bill of particulars by the Co-partners. He also granted. a
motion by the Committee to intervene. During the hearing, the Co-
partners moved that the complaint be dismissed on the ground that
they had ceased manufacturing operations at their New York plant
in February 1939, and filed a brief in support of their motion. The
'Trial Examiner reserved ruling on this motion. By 'agreement of
all the parties, the hearing was indefinitely adjourned- on August
4, 1939.
Upon amended charges duly filed by Local #91, the Board by its
Regional Director issued its amended complaint dated August 31,
1939, against the Co-partners and Leybro Manufacturing Co. of New
Jersey, Inc., herein called the Corporation. The amended complaint
included the Corporation as a party respondent to the unfair labor
practices alleged in the original complaint, and added allegations
stating. in substance that the Co-partners about March 20, 1939, dis-
continued their manufacturing operations at New York City and
created the Corporation for the purpose of evading their obligations
under the Act; that the Corporation succeeded to the operations, busi-
ness, assets, and certain property of the Co-partners and was then
engaged in said business and operations at Keansburg, New Jersey,
.and Williamsport, Pennsylvania; and that the Co-partners owned,
managed, directed, supervised, and controlled all the operations, busi-
ness, and policies of the Corporation. Copies of the amended com-
plaint, accompanied by notice of continuance of hearing, were duly
served upon the Co-partners, the Corporation, Local .#91, and the
Committee.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held at New York City from
September 11 through 20, 1939, before Guy Van Schaick, the Trial
Examiner duly designated by the Board. At.the commencement of
the hearing, the Corporation appeared specially by counsel and moved
that the amended complaint be dismissed as to the Corporation on the
ground that it was not engaged in business at the time the alleged
unfair labor practices were committed, and that the Board's Second
Region had no jurisdiction of a controversy involving the Corporation's
Williamsport, Pennsylvania, plant. This motion was denied by the
JOSEPH LEVY ET AL. 789
Trial Examiner. The Trial Examiner also denied the Co-partner's
motion that the amended complaint be dismissed as against them on
the ground that there had-'been no ruling of 'their motion to dismiss
made at the hearing of August 4, and that the Co-partners were no
longer engaged in any manufacturing business. The Co-partners
and the Corporation, herein referred to as the respondents, then filed
separate answers. The Corporation moved at the hearing that it be
served with a bill of particulars. This notion was denied by the
Trial Examiner.
During the hearing, counsel for the Board moved to withdraw all
testimony and exhibits presented in evidence during the hearing of
July 31 through August 4 and to proceed anew under the amended
complaint. The Trial Examiner granted this motion. Thereafter
the parties stipulated that certain testimony adduced at the hearing
of July 31 through August 4, be considered part of the record of the
hearing of September 11 through 20, and,the Trial Examiner granted