Luxuray, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 19, 1940

27 N.L.R.B. 322 (N.L.R.B. 1940)

In the Matter of LUXURAY, INC. and INTERNATIONAL LADIES'
GARMENT WORKERS UNION
Case No. C-1000
ORDER
September 19, 1940
The National Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board, is-
.sued a Decision and Order 7 in the above-entitled case on October 17,
1939, and an amendment to the said Decision and Order on Decem-
ber 27, 1939.2 On August 26, 1940, the Board issued a Notice, copies
-of which were duly served upon the parties herein, to show cause on
or before September 3, 1940, why the Board should not modify its
Findings of Fact in the aforesaid Decision and Order in certain
specified respects. On September 3, 1940, counsel for Luxuray, Inc.
filed objections to the said modifications. The Board having con-
sidered the aforesaid objections and the entire record herein,
IT Is HEREBY ORDERED that the Findings of Fact be modified in the
-following respects :
1. So that the sixth sentence of the second paragraph of the see-
-tion of the • Findings headed " B. The Alleged Discharges" shall
read as follows :
On October 6, 1937, Weller was' warned by Hamilton, the pro-
duction manager, to cease union activities during working
hours.
2. So that the sixth paragraph of the section of the Findings
-headed " B. The Alleged Dicharges" shall read as follows :
When Weller came to work on February 4 she was told by
Hamilton that she was being laid off because there was no ap-
plique work nor any other work to which she could be trans-
ferred, and that the applique department would be shortly re-
duced to a personnel of four workers. When the reduction was
effected, however, the five workers who formed the permanent
1 16 N. L. R. B 37.
2 18 N. L. R. B. 945.
27 N. L. R. B., No. 69.
322
LUXURAY, INC. 323
applique staff were retained at, that work.5 Two employees,
only one of whom was described by the respondent as an expert,
were transferred to take care of the small amount of polo shirt
work still carried on by the respondent; 6 only Weller and one
other applique worker, Mabel Snyder, were laid off and not re-
called . °a Although between February 4 and the hearing no ad-
ditional employees were added to the applique department, the
respondent admitted that from time to time two or three other
employees were called upon to help with the applique work.
GA The record is not entirely clear as to what happened to Hazel Kretzer, the tenth
applique w orker Hamilton testified that only Weller and Mabel Snyder were laid off and
not recalled . We find , therefore , that Hazel Kretzer was either retained in respondent's
employ or was laid off and subsequently recalled.
The footnotes other than 6a which are referred to in the Findings as
thus modified shall remain as they appear in the present Findings.
D