Majestic Molded Products, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 26, 1963

143 N.L.R.B. 71 (N.L.R.B. 1963)

MAJESTIC MOLDED PRODUCTS, INC., ETC. 71
WE WILL offer to reinstate Jose Torres to the position he held with us on
October 25 , 1962 , and give him whatever pay he lost as a result of his discharge
on that date.
WILLOW MAINTENANCE CORP.,
Employer.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------(Representative ) ( Title)
NOTE.-We will notify Torres if he is presently serving in the Armed Forces of the
United States of his right to full reinstatement upon application in accordance with the
Selective Service Act, and the Universal Military Training and Service Act of 1948, as
amended, after discharge from the Armed Forces.
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting,
and must be not be altered , defaced, or covered by any other material.
Employees may communicate directly with the Board 's Regional Office, Fifth Floor,
Squibb Building, 745 Fifth Avenue, New York, New York, 10022, Telephone No.
Plaza 1-5500 , if they have any questions concerning this notice or compliance with
its provisions.
Majestic Molded Products , Inc., Lucky Wish Products , Inc., and
Plastics Consolidated Industries and Local 107, International
Ladies' Garment Workers ' Union, AFL-CIO
Metal , Plastics , Miscellaneous Sales , Novelty and Production
Workers, Local 222, International Production , Service and
Sales Employees Union and Local 107, International Ladies'
Garment Workers ' Union , AFL-CIO. Cases Nos. 3-CA-8775,
2-CA-8775-2, 2-CA-8858, and 2-CB-3516. June 26, 1963
DECISION AND ORDER
On February 21,1963, Trial Examiner C. W. Whittemore issued his
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that
the Respondent Employer and the Respondent Union had engaged
in and, were engaging in certain unfair labor practices and recommend-
ing that they cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative
action, as set forth in the attached Intermediate Report. He also
found that the Respondent Employer had not engaged in certain other
unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint, and recommended dis-
missal of such allegations. Thereafter, the General Counsel and both
Respondents filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report, and the
General Counsel and the Respondent Employer filed briefs in support
of their exceptions.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the Act, the Board
has delegated its powers in connection with these cases to a three-
member panel [Chairman McCulloch and Members Leedom 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 Inter-
mediate Report, the exceptions and briefs, and the entire record in
143 NLRB No. 22.
72 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
these cases, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recom-
mendations of the Trial Examiner with the following additions and
modifications :
1. The Trial Examiner found, inter alia, and we agree, that the
Respondent Employer 1 threatened and interrogated employees with
regard to their union activities, in violation of Section 8(a) (1) of the
Act, and laid off 13 employees in July 1962, in violation of Section
8(a) (3) of the Act. He also found that an unlawful motive for the
discharge of Beatrice Adams in June 1962, had not been established
because, in his view, it would be unreasonable to consider the open
hostility toward the Union displayed a month later as establishing
the existence of such union animus in June. While we cannot agree
that this evidence may not be considered in determining the Respon-
dent's motive for the discharge of Adams, we are not convinced, on
the record as a whole, that the General Counsel has in other respects
established that Adams was discharged because of her union activity z
2. The Trial Examiner found that the Respondent Employer did
not violate Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act by denying Local 107 election-
eering privileges in the plant equal to those accorded Local 222. We
find merit in the General Counsel's exceptions to this finding.
Between June 7, 1962, the date on which Local 107 filed its petition
for an election, and September 19, 1962, the date of the election, the
Respondent Employer permitted Local 222 to campaign for election
on company property and on company time. Upon learning of this
activity, Local 107 demanded equal rights to do so in letters to the
Respondent Employer dated August 28 and September 11, 1962.
The Respondent Employer did not reply. In dismissing this allega-
tion of the complaint, the Trial Examiner reasoned that, as he found
the chief electioneering engaged in by Local 222 to be coercive, in
violation of Section 8 (b) (1) (A) of the Act, and found further that the
Respondent Employer, by permitting such conduct, violated Sec-
tion 8(a) (1) of the Act, "surely General Counsel does not seek to
have Local 107 permitted to engage in like conduct." As noted, the
record clearly establishes that the Respondent Employer denied the
requests of Local 107 for electioneering privileges equal to those ac-
corded Local 222. Such disparate treatment of two unions compet-
ing for election can hardly be justified on the grounds that the favored
1 Member Leedom agrees with the Trial Examiner and his colleagues that Respondents
Majestic and Lucky wish constitute a single Employer . Although he dissented in Darling-
ton Manufacturing Company, 139 NLRB 241 , cited by the Trial Examiner in support of
this finding , this case is, in his opinion , clearly distinguishable on its facts from the
Darlington case.
2 Member Brown would find that the General Counsel made out a prima facie case by
showing ( 1) Employer knowledge of this employee 's union activity ; ( 2) Employer animus
toward such activity ; ( 3) the precipitous discharge ; and (4 ) the Employer has failed to
establish by corroborated evidence that the discharge was for unsatisfactory work as
asserted Member Brown , therefore , would find that the reason given was a pretext, and
that Adams was discharged in violation of Section 8(a) (3) as alleged.
MAJESTIC MOLDED PRODUCTS, INC., ETC. 73-
union abused its privilege and engaged in unfair labor practices, and
that the Respondent Employer condoned this conduct in violation
of the Act. Accordingly, we find that by such disparate treatment
the Respondent Employer violated Section 8(a) (1) and we shall
require it to cease and desist from permitting Local 222 to campaign
for election on its premises during working time while denying the-
requests for similar privileges by Local 107.3
ORDER
The Board adopts as its Order the Recommended Order of the Trial
Examiner with the following amendments :
1. Change the designation of paragraph A,1,(d) of the Recom-
mended Order to A,1,(e), and insert between it and A,1,(c) the-
following :
(d) Permitting Metal, Plastics, Miscellaneous Sales, Novelty
and Production Workers, Local 222, International Production
Service and Sales Employees Union to enter upon its premises
on company time to campaign for election while denying the
request for similar privileges by Local 107, International Ladies'-
Garment Workers Union, AFL-CIO.
2. Change paragraphs A2(a) and B2(b) of the Recommended
Order by inserting the words "and severally" after the word "jointly."
3. Change the notice attached to the Intermediate Report as Ap-
pendix A by inserting, after the paragraph beginning `WE WILL
NOT unlawfully interrogate," the following :
WE WILL NOT permit Metal, Plastics, Miscellaneous Sales,
Novelty and Production Workers, Local 222, International Pro-
duction Service and Sales Employees Union to enter upon our
premises on company time to campaign for election while deny-
ing the request for similar privileges by Local 107, International
Ladies Garment Workers Union, AFL-CIO.
4. Change the notice attached to the Intermediate Report as Ap-
pendix A by inserting, in the fourth indented paragraph, the words
"and severally" after the word "jointly."
5. Change the notices attached to the Intermediate Report as Ap-
pendixes A and B by adding the following immediately below the
signature line :
No E.-WVe will notify the above-named employees, if presently
serving in the Armed Forces of the United States, of their rights
to full reinstatement upon application in accordance with the
3 Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc., 132 NLRB 1502, 1517-1518; GEM'-
Internationa l Inc., 137 NLRB 1343.
74 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Selective Service Act and the Universal Military Training and
Service Act of 1948, as amended, after discharge from the Armed
Forces.
INTERMEDIATE REPORT AND RECOMMENDED ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Charges in each of the above-cited cases were filed by Local 107, International
Ladies' Garment Workers' Union, AFL-CIO. in 2-CB-3526 and 2-CA-8775 on
July 27, 1962; in 2-CA-8775-2 on August 6, 1962; and 2-CA-8858 on September
24, 1962 Consolidated complaints and notices of hearing were issued and served on
September 27 and October 25, 1962, by the General Counsel of the National Labor
Relations Board. Answers were duly received from the Respondents. The com-
plaints allege and the answers deny that the Respondent Employer and the Respond-
ent Union have engaged in unfair labor practices, the former in violation of Section
8 (a) (1) and (3) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, and the latter in
violation of Section 8(b)(1)(A) and (2) of the Act. Pursuant to notice a hearing
was held in New York, New York, on December 11, 12, and 13, 1962, before Trial
Examiner C. W. Whittemore.
At the hearing all parties were represented and were afforded full opportunity to
present evidence pertinent to the issues, to argue orally, and to file briefs. Briefs have
been received from General Counsel and the Respondent Employer.
Disposition of the motion to dismiss the complaint as to Majestic, upon which
ruling was reserved at the hearing, is made by the following findings, conclusions, and
recommendations.
Upon the record thus made, and from his observation of the witnesses, the Trial
Examiner makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT EMPLOYER
The last-mentioned complaint alleges and the several answers thereto deny that
the three companies named as Respondents in the CA cases "constitute a single in-
tegrated business enterprise" which is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the
Act. Facts set out below fully sustain the complaint in this respect.
Both Majestic and Lucky Wish are New York corporations. (Plastic Consoli-
dated is merely a trade name for Lucky Wish Products, Inc.) Both Majestic and
Lucky Wish have their principal office and place of business in the same plant in
Holbrook, Long Island, New York. Majestic manufactures, sell, and distributes
plastic parts and related products Lucky Wish assembles and jobs plastic finished
goods and parts. During the fiscal year ending March 31, 1962, each of these two
corporations made, sold, and distributed from the Holbrook plant, products valued
at more than $500,000, while products valued at more than $50,000 were shipped
from said plant in interstate commerce directly to States of the United States other
than New York. Both companies are engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the Act.
Other facts supporting the allegation of a single integrated enterprise include the
following:
(1) Henry Wish is president and treasurer of both Majestic and Lucky Wish; his
wife is secretary of both.
(2) Henry Wish and his wife own all stock of Majestic; Henry Wish, his wife, and
son own 85 percent of the stock of Lucky Wish.
(3) Only a wire partition separates the operations of the two corporations in the
same plant. Majestic engages mostly in what is termed "custom molding," articles
being molded according to specifications for various other factories. It molds about
$200,000 worth of articles, chiefly household goods, for Luck Wish. The selling of
all products, whether under the name of Majestic or Luck Wish, is done through
another Wish corporation, Henry Wish Industries, Inc., its office being in Manhattan.
(4) Majestic came into existence in 1944 In 1958 Wish purchased a going concern
in New Jersey, which he renamed Lucky Wish and later moved to the present loca-
tion. Lucky Wish packs the household articles molded by Majestic, assembling
them if necessary
(5) Although employees of the two corporations are carried on separate payrolls,
they share a single timeclock, one lunchroom, one entrance, one set of laboratories,
MAJESTIC MOLDED PRODUCTS, INC., ETC. 75
one shipping dock, and one parking lot. One telephone switchboard and number
are shared by the two companies.
(6) Until the late summer of 1962, when they expired, employees of both Majestic
and Lucky Wish were required to be members of the same labor organization,
Local 222, by terms of separate but substantially identical contracts signed by
Wish.'
(7) Despite Henry Wish's claim, as a witness, that he does not "know" of any
"interchange" of employees between the two areas of the same plant, company records
and the credible testimony of employees establish that while interchange is not of
daily occurrence, it has not been unusual. The point will be discussed more fully
in a later section of this report.2
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
Local 107, International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union , AFL-CIO, and Metal,
Plastics, Miscellaneous Sales, Novelty and Production Workers , Local 222, Inter-
national Production , Service and Sales Employees Union, are labor organizations
admitting to membership employees of the Respondent Employer.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Setting and major issues
Conduct of the Respondents, alleged to have been violative of the Act, began in
the early summer of 1962, shortly after a number of employees, particularly in the
Lucky Wish area of the plant, became dissatisfied with their bargaining representative,
Local 222. Such dissatisfaction was demonstrated and became known to the Re-
spondents especially upon the filing, on June 7, of a representation petition by Local
107, ILGWU, and the participation, on behalf of this union, by certain employees at a
Board hearing held on July 5, 1962. The petition asked for a single bargaining unit
covering the whole plant.
There is no dispute that both Henry Wish and Benjamin Ladmer, head of Local
222, vigorously opposed both the single unit proposal and the intrusion of Local 107
into the plant. The chief issues posed by the complaint arise from this opposition of
Wish and Ladmer. It is claimed that Wish engaged in conduct violative of the Act
in attempting to discourage membership in and activity on behalf of Local 107, such
alleged conduct including threats of reprisals, the outright discharge of one employee
on the Majestic payroll (Beatrice Adams), and the layoff of several Lucky Wish em-
ployees. It is further claimed, in the complaint, that the Respondent Local 222
violated Section 8(b) (1) (A) and (2) of the Act by causing the Respondent Employer
to lay off employees in violation of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
B. The layoffs
So far as the record shows, the first instance of open opposition expressed by
Henry Wish to his employees being represented by a labor organization other than
Local 222 occurred early in July, before the Fourth of July. It is undisputed that
Wish called Pearl Karangis, on the Lucky Wish payroll, into his office, asked her if
she knew of any cards being passed out in the shop, asked her if the girls were
"going to go along with him," and told her that (1) employees Houlihan and Good-
man were "troublemakers"; (2) he believed employee Lytle was "a plant put in
there by" Local 107; and (3) he was going to fire them. Karangis told him that she
did not believe these girls were "troublemakers," but suggested that the fault lay with
Ladmer (head of Local 222) because he did not come to the plant often enough to
"talk to the girls."
As noted above, a Board hearing was held on July 5 on the representation petition.
Present at the hearing with a representative of Local 107 were employees Karangis,
Goodman, Houlihan, Johanesen, and Fazio, all on Lucky Wish payroll. Goodman
and Karangis testified. Local 222 was represented by Ladmer and an attorney.
On July 9, in the morning, Ladmer came to the plant, and informed employee
Goodman that he had told Wish of her presence at the hearing. Ladmer then told
'The only notable differences in the two documents , in evidence , are the expiration
dates ( being 1 month apart ) and a schedule of wage rates for "plastic machine operators"
in the Majestic contract which does not appear in that covering Lucky Wish employees
2 Supporting the conclusion of a single employer status are Darlington Manufacturing
Company, 139 NLRB 241 ; Cone Brothers Contracting Company, 135 NLRB 108; and
Technical Tape Corporation , 111 NLRB 845, cases cited by General Counsel in his brief.
76 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Lucky Wish employees that there was to be a meeting in the lunchroom that noon
for the election of a shop steward and a negotiating committee .3
As announced, Ladmer conducted a meeting of Lucky Wish employees that noon,
in the plant. No employee responded to his request for candidate volunteers. He
then warned them that the shop could not be run with two unions representing the
employees.
Shortly after lunch, credible evidence establishes, Henry Wish called employees,
Karangis, Houlihan, and Goodman to his office. He asked what the girls in Lucky
Wish were going to do-"stick by Local 222" or go with another union. Houlihan
said she could not speak for the others. Wish asked them to go back and meet
with the others in that department and find out; he would be out later in the afternoon
to learn what they had decided. He emphasized that the factory could not run with
two unions in it, and he must know what the girls intended to do about union
representation, because he had "other plans" in mind .4 Later that afternoon Wish
came into the shop and asked Goodman if they had met with the other girls as he had
asked them to. She replied that they had not. Wish then insisted that she take the
job as steward of Local 222. She declined.5
Some 15 minutes before closing time the same afternoon, July 9, Ladmer called a
meeting of Lucky Wish employees. Work stopped. Ladmer declared that he
wanted them to elect a steward and a negotiating committee for Local 222, and
that he wanted them to "sign a paper" for submission to Wish, so he would know
who was for or against him. When none of the girls responded to his requests Ladmer
declared that he would advise Wish to close down the Lucky Wish shop and that he,
himself, would not "help" them from then on. He further declared that Majestic
could do the work they were doing.6
The next day, without previous notice or warning, 8 employees of the entire work-
ing force of Lucky Wish totaling some 14 or 16 were called into the office of Man-
ager Manuelo who told them they were laid off because of lack of work These
eight were Lorraine and Wilhelmina Meyers, Patricia Goodman, Mary Houlihan,
Dorothy Tsarcomas, Edna Johanesen, Mary Fazio, and Elizabeth Fussner. Two
days later, on July 12, five more were laid off: Pearl Karangis, Genevieve Chrzanow-
ski, Louise Kitchell, Florence Townson, and Rose Richards. Since that date some
of the laid off employees have been called back for varying periods. Shortly before
the hearing only seven employees remained on the payroll.
It is General Counsel's position that the reduction in force of Lucky Wish em-
ployees was unlawful in that it was effected for the purpose of discouraging activity
on behalf of Local 10 and encouraging membership in Local 222. It is the conten-
tion of the Respondent Employer that the layoff was made necessary by economic
conditions.
The Trial Examiner is convinced, and finds, that the weight of credible evidence
sustains General Counsel's position, and that the Respondent failed to produce
credible evidence to support its claim of economic necessity.7
As to the employer's claim, the testimony of Henry Wish and Manager Manuelo is
significantly inconsistent as to when and under what conditions decision was made to
effectuate the sudden layoffs of July 10 and 12. While both Wish and Manuelo
claimed that determination to cut the staff by half was made as early as April or
May, Manuelo said that this was the only consultation on the matter, while Wish
said there were several discussions about it thereafter.
Militating severely against the claim of economic necessity is the fact shown by
company records to the effect that during the same week when the Lucky Wish
assembly force was being cut in half, there was an increase of from 15 to 27 em-
ployees in the assembly force on the Majestic side of the wire fence in the same
plant. Overtime was also worked out by Majestic employees that week. Similar
3 Ladmer's denial that he was in the plant before noon on July 9 is not credited
The findings as to this interview are based upon the credible testimony of employees
Goodman and Karangis Their account is fully consistent with the undisputed fact of the
employer's earlier warning to Karangis and the sudden layoff of Lucky Wish employees
the next day, July 10 The version of this meeting given by Wish is not credited
5 Goodman's testimony on this point is undisputed The fact adds further support to
the finding as to the incident in the office earlier the same afternoon.
6 The findings as to this meeting rest upon the credible testimony of employees Goodman
and Karangis. Ladmer's denials are not credited. In substance his threats were carried
out within 24 hours.
7 Since the purpose of the layoff was unlawful, it was unnecessary for General Counsel
to prove that each employee laid off was an active adherent of Local 107. See Arnoidware,
-Inc., 129 NLRB 228, 229.
MAJESTIC MOLDED PRODUCTS, INC., ETC. 77
evidence from the company records show that from July 10 through August 1962,
.assembly employees continued to be added to the Majestic force.
The Respondent Employer offered no credible evidence that Lucky Wish assembly
workers could not have performed the assembly work on the Majestic side, for
which new employees during this period were hired. On the contrary, General
Counsel established by credible testimony and company records that at least five
assembly employees had worked in both Majestic and Lucky Wish departments, and
that is was customary for Majestic employees, when their machines broke down,
to be brought over into the Lucky Wish side for work.
In summary, as to the Respondent Employer the Trial Examiner concludes and
finds that the layoff of the above-named employees, for the unlawful purpose found,
constituted interference, restraint, and coercion of employees in the exercise of
rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act.
As to the role played by Ladmer and Local 222 in causing or attempting to cause
Henry Wish to bring about the unlawful layoffs credible evidence makes it clear
that he was at least a collaborator if not the cause. Having observed both individuals
during the course of the 3-day hearing, the Trial Examiner has some doubt that
Ladmer could persuade Henry Wish to do anything he had not already made up his
mind to do. As the record shows in a number of instances Wish made vocal efforts
to direct even the examination of himself as a witness, whether being questioned by
General Counsel or his own attorney.
It has been noted above that Ladmer, at the meeting of July 9, candidly threatened
employees who failed to follow his instructions with economic reprisals which were
within the next day brought about.
A later incident, occurring on August 14, adds further support to a conclusion that
Ladmer's part in the layoffs was at least collusion, if not causation. Credible testi-
mony establishes that during working hours that day he assembled some of the
Lucky Wish employees then working and took them into Wish's office to tell him
they "were going along with him." Upon going into the office Wish was asked by
one of the girls about further layoffs. Ladmer broke in to say that he had authorized
the previous layoffs. In reply to one girl's caustic comment Ladmer said: "When
I get kicked I kick back." Wish then ordered Ladmer to "shut up." 8
In short, the Trial Examiner is persuaded by the preponderance of credible evi-
dence that the Respondent Local 222, through Ladmer, attempted to and did cause
the Respondent Employer to violate Section 8(a)(3) of the Act in laying off the
employees on July 10, 12, and thereafter, and that by such conduct the Respondent
Union itself violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) and (2) of the Act.. Furthermore, Lad-
mer's threat on July 9 that he would advise Wish to shutdown constituted restraint
and coercion of employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the
Act.
Finally, it is concluded that Wish coerced employees in their exercise of Section 7
rights by unlawful interrogation as to union intent, by urging employees to ascertain
for him the intent of other employees concerning their union adherence, by the
threat that "troublemakers" would be discharged, by his demand that employee
Goodman serve as steward for Local 222, by his permitting or condoning the con-
duct of Ladmer in assembling employees during working hours and threatening them
with reprisals on July 9, and by his failure on August 14 to disavow Ladmer's claim,
made in his presence, that he had been instrumental in bringing about the unlawful
layoffs. (That Wish "permitted" Ladmer to threaten reprisals on July 9 is reasonably
inferred from the fact that earlier the same day Wish himself had made similar
veiled threats to employees Karangis, Houlihan, and Goodman.)
C. Unlawful denial of vacation pay
The complaint alleges that the Respondent Employer withheld vacation pay from
employee Patricia Goodman because of her support of Local 107 and to discourage
membership in that organization.
In summary, the relevant facts are as follows: When summarily laid off on July
10, 1962, Goodman had been employed precisely 1 year except for an absence of
about 3 weeks in the spring of 1962-an absence which, her undisputed testimony
shows, was an effective leave of absence, since Manager Manuelo told her her job
fl The findings as to this incident are based upon the credible testimony of employees
Karangis and Johansen, despite the denials of Wish and Ladmer-denials which had
the plainly reluctant support of three employees who either had not been laid off or had
been recalled and who, as witnesses for the Respondent Employer, said they had not heard
the remarks.
78 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
would be held open and she could come back as soon as the personal reasons for her
absence peimitted return. It is also undisputed that when Manuelo returned from
his vacation the morning of July 9 he noted her at work and inquired why she was
not on her vacation. She replied that she planned to start the following Wednes-
day. Manuelo the.i told her that her vacation check was waiting and ready for
her in the office.
When she was summarily and with others laid off the next day, however, she
did not receive her vacation check. Upon inquiry as to the reason, Manuelo told
her that the matter had been rechecked and that she was not entitled to vacation
pay
It is the Respondent Employer's claim that under its contract with Local 222, still
effective at the time, Goodman had lost her right to vacation pay as a result of
her 3 weeks' absence in April and May. (The contract provided for 1 week's paid
vacation for a year or more of service, 3 days for 6 months.)
The Trial Examiner considers it unnecessary to analyze the merit of the contract
defense It is plain from the undisputed testimony that Manager Manuelo be-
lieved that her vacation pay had been fully earned, that her check had already been
made out, and that he had so informed her the morning of July 9.
As found above, Wish came to Goodman in the afternoon of the same day,
asked if she had done as he had instructed in interviewing other girls and demanded
that she serve as steward for Local 222-and Goodman replied in the negative to
both the inquiry and the demand.
The Trial Examiner concludes and finds that the Respondent's motive in with-
holding Goodman's vacation pay was a mere extension of its unlawful purpose
in terminating her employment and that of others on July 10, and therefore was
violative of Section 8(a) (3) and (1) of the Act.
D. The discharge of Beatrice Adams
The Trial Examiner is not convinced that General Counsel has sustained his
burden of proving the allegation that this employee was unlawfully discharged
The only Majestic employee here involved, Adams had been employed only
some 4 months when discharged by her foreman, Otero, on June 11, being told
by him that her work was unsatisfactory.
While it appears that Adams had, during her brief employment, tried to arouse
the interest of fellow employees in first one union and then another, instead of
Local 222, and had openly told Otero of her belief that Local 222 was not ade-
quately serving as a bargaining representative, nothing in her testimony indicates
that Otero was disturbed by or objected to her opinions and activity. On the con-
trary, it appears that Otero in effect agreed with her, but said it would be difficult
to oust Local 222 because it was a "company" union.
It is also true that she was discharged only 3 days after Local 107 had filed its
representation petition.
Such paucity of facts, however, from which reasonable inferences may be di awn,
fail to warrant the finding that she was discharged to discourage membership in one
union and encourage it in another. It would be an affront to reason and logic to
"throw the light" of events of a month later, when Wish vigorously and without
restraint displayed his hostility toward Local 107 adherents, backward into June
and infer that it must have then existed The record does not indicate that it was
the way of Wish to act obliquely. He demanded vigorously and then acted in
accordance with threats already made.
It will be recommended that the complaint be dismissed as to this emplot'ee.9
IV THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
Certain of the activities of the Respondent, set forth in section III above, oc-
curring in connection with the operations of the Respondent Employer described in
The complaint alleges that the Respondent Employer also violated Section 8(a) (1) of
the Act by denying Local 107 equal electioneering privileges in the plant with tho-e ac-
corded I•. 'al 222. It appears unnecessarv to review this point at lenZth in this reoort.
So far as the record shows the chief "electioneering" Latimer engaged in was of a coercive
nature found to be violative of Section 8(b) (1) (A) of the Act Surely General Counsel
does not seek to have Local 107 permitted to engage in like conduct. And it has also
been found that by permitting Ladmer to voice threats to employees the Respondent vio-
lated Section 8(a) (1) of the Act.
MAJESTIC MOLDED PRODUCTS, INC., ETC. 79
section 1, above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic,
and commerce among the several States and tend to lead to labor disputes burden-
ing and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record the
Trial Examiner makes the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Local 107, International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union, AFL-CIO, and
Metal, Plastics, Miscellaneous Sales, Novelty and Production Workers, Local 222,
International Production, Service and Sales Employees Union are labor organiza-
tions within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
2. By laying off employees and by withholding vacation pay from an employee
to discourage membership in and activity on behalf of Local 107 or to encourage
adherence to Local 222, the Respondent Employer has engaged in and is engaging
in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act.
3. ray interfering with, restraining, and coercing employees in the exercise of rights
guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act, the Respondent Employer has engaged in and is
engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.
4. By attempting to cause and causing the Respondent Employer to violate Sec-
tion 8(a)(3) of the Act, the Respondent Union, Local 222, has engaged in unfair
labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(b) (2) of the Act.
5. By restraining and coercing employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed by the
Act, the Respondent Union has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices
within the meaning of Section 8 (b) (1) (A) of the Act.
6. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondents have engaged in certain unfair labor practices
it will be recommended that they cease and desist therefrom and take affirmative
action to effectuate the policies of the Act.
It has been found that 13 employees, named herein, were unlawfully laid off on
July 10 and 12, 1962, and that some of them have been recalled for varying periods
since those dates. It will be recommended that the Respondent Employer offer im-
mediate and full reinstatement to all said employees who have not been reinstated
to their former or substantially equivalent positions, without prejudice to their
seniority and other rights and privileges, and that all said employees be made whole
for any loss of pay they may have suffered by reason of the discrimination against
them by payment to each of them of a sum of money equal to that which she would
have earned as wages absent such discrimination. In the case of Patricia Goodman,
such backpay shall include the vacation pay which was unlawfully withheld from her
as described herein. The responsibility of making whole all employees unlawfully
laid off shall be equally shared by the Respondent Employer and the Respondent
Local 222. Backpay shall be computed in accordance with Board policy set out in
F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289. The backpay obligations of the Re-
spondents shall include the payment of interest at the rate of 6 percent to be computed
in the manner set forth in Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., Inc., 138 NLRB 716.
The continued unlawful activities of the Respondents' indicate a purpose to defeat
the free self-organizational rights of employees. The Trial Examiner is convinced
that they are potentially related to other unfair labor practices proscribed by the Act.
The preventive purposes of the Act will be thwarted unless the remedy is coextensive
with the threat. Accordingly, in order to make effective the independent guarantees
of Section 7 and thus effectuate the policies of the Act, it will be recommended that
the Respondents cease and desist from in any manner infringing upon the rights of
employees guaranteed by the Act.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and conclusions of law, and upon
the entire record in the case, it is recommended that:
A. The Respondent Employer, Majestic Molded Products, Inc., and Lucky Wish
Products, Inc.,10 their officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
10 For reasons noted herein "Plastics Consolidated Industries," being merely a trade
name, is omitted from this Recommended Order.
11
80 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Discouraging membership in and activity on behalf of Local 107, Interna-
tional Ladies' Garment Workers' Union, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization
by discharging, laying off, refusing to reinstate or in any other manner discriminating
against employees in regard to wages, hours, hire or tenure of employment, or any
term or condition of employment.
(b) Interrogating employees concerning their union adherence and activities in a
manner violative of Section 8(a)( I) of the Act.
(c) Directly or by implication threatening employees with economic reprisals to dis-
courage or encourage union membership and activity.
(d) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees in
the exercise of the right to self-organization, to form labor organizations, to join or
assist any labor organization, to bargain collectively through representatives of their
own choosing, and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collec-
tive bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any or all such
activities, except to the extent that such right may be affected by an agreemert re-
quiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of employm cnt, as
authorized by Section 8(a)(3) of the Act, as modified by the Labor-Management
Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959.
2. Take the following affirmative action, which will effectuate the policies of the
Act:
(a) Offer to each of the 13 employees named herein (who have not already been
fully reinstated) immediate and full reinstatement to her former or substantially
equivalent position, without prejudice to her seniority and other rights and privileges,
and jointly with the Respondent Local 222 make each of such employees whole for
any loss of pay she may have suffered by reason of the discrimination against her in
the manner set forth in the section entitled "The Remedy."
(b) Preserve and make available to the Board or its agents, upon request, for
examination and copying, all records necessary to analyze the amounts of backpay
due and the right of reinstatement under these recommendations.
(c) Post at its plant in Holbrook, Long Island, New York, copies of the attached
notice as "Appendix A." 11 Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional
Director for the Second Region, shall, after being duly signed by the Respondent
Employer's authorized representative, be posted by the Respondent immediately upon
receipt thereof, in conspicuous places, and maintained for a period of 60 consecutive
days. Reasonable steps shall be taken to insure that said notices are not altered, de-
faced, or covered by any other material.
(d) Upon receipt of such notices from the Regional Director, post copies of
Appendix B in its plant under provisions required in the paragraph immediately
above.
(e) Deliver to said Regional Director signed copies of "Appendix A" for posting
by the Respondent Union.
(f) Notify the Regional Director for the Second Region , in writing, within 20
days from the receipt of this Intermediate Report and Recommended Order, what
steps the Respondent Employer has taken to comply therewith.12
B. The Respondent Union, Metal, Plastics, Miscellaneous Sales, Novelty and
Production Workers, Local 222, International Production, Service and Sales Em-
ployees Union, its officers, representatives , agents, successors , and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Causing or attempting to cause the Respondent Employer, Majestic Molded
Products, Inc., and Lucky Wish Products, Inc., to discriminate against any employee
because of her nonmembership in Local 222 or because of her membership in Local
107 or any other labor organization , except as authorized by Section 8 (a) (3) of the
Act.
"In the event that this Recommended Order be adopted by the Board, the words "A
Decision and Order" shall be substituted for the words "The Recommended Order of a
Trial Examiner" in the notice. In the further event that the Board 's Order be enforced
by a decree of a United States Circuit 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."
12 In the event that 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 steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith."
MAJESTIC MOLDED PRODUCTS, INC., ETC. 81
(b) Threatening employees with loss of employment in order to encourage mem-
bership in Local 222 or to discourage membership in Local 107 or any other
organization.
(c) In any manner restraining or coercing employees in the exercise of their
rights under Section 7 of the Act, except to the extent that such rights may be
validly affected by an agreement entered into in accordance with Section 8(a)(3)
of the Act.
(2) Take the following affirmative action, which will effectuate the policies
of the Act:
(a) Notify the above-named Respondent Employer that it has no objection
to the reinstatement of the 13 employees named herein as unlawfully laid off in
July 1962, and thereafter.
(b) Jointly with the Respondent Employer make whole such employees in
the manner set forth herein in the section entitled "The Remedy."
(c) Post in conspicuous places where notices to members are customarily posted
in its office and meeting hall, copies of the attached notice as "Appendix B." 13 Copies
of such notices, to be furnished by the Regional Director for the Second Region,
shall, after being duly signed by the Respondent's representative, be posted im-
mediately upon receipt thereof and be maintained for 60 consecutive days thereafter.
Reasonable steps shall be taken to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced,
or covered by any other material.
(d) Post at the same places and under the same conditions as set forth in (3)
above, and as soon as they are forwarded by the aforesaid Regional Director, copies
of "Appendix A."
(e) Deliver to the said Regional Director signed copies of "Appendix B" for post-
ing by the Respondent Employer.
(f) Notify the Regional Director for the Second Region, in writing, within 20 days
from the date of service of this Intermediate Report and Recommended Order, what
steps it has taken to comply therewith.14
13 In the event that this Recommended Order be adopted by the Board, the words "A
Decision and Order" shall be substituted for the words "The 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 Deci-
sion and Order"
14 In the event that these recommendations 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 A
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
Relations Act, as amended, we hereby notify you that:
WE WILL NOT discourage or encourage membership in or activity on behalf of
any labor organization by discharging, laying off, refusing to reinstate, with-
holding vacation pay, or by otherwise discriminating against employees in regard
to hire, tenure, or any term or condition of employment, except to the extent
authorized by Section 8(a)(3) of the Act, as modified.
WE WILL NOT unlawfully interrogate employees concerning their union mem-
bership or activities, and will not threaten them with economic reprisals to
discourage or encourage their adherence to any labor organization.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce em-
ployees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist
labor organizations, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own
choosing, and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective
bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any or all such
activities, except to the extent that such rights may be affected by an agreement
requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of employment, as
authorized by Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
WE WILL offer immediate and full reinstatement to their former or substan-
tially equivalent positions, without perjudice to their seniority or other rights
82 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
and privileges, to all the following-named employees who may not already have
been fully reinstated, and jointly with Local 222 make them whole for any
loss of pay they may have suffered by reason of our discrimination against
them.
Lorraine Meyers Wilhelmina Meyers
Patricia Goodman Mary Houlihan
Dorothy Tsarcomas Edna Johanesen
Mary Fazio Elizabeth Fussner
Pearl Karangis Genevieve Chrzanowski
Louise Kitchell Florence Townson
Rose Richards
MAJESTIC MOLDED PRODUCTS, INC.
LUCKY WISH PRODUCTS, INC.,
Employer.
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, 745 Fifth
Avenue, New York, New York, 10022, Telephone Number Plaza 1-5500, if they
have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions.
APPENDIX B
NOTICE TO ALL MEMBERS OF METAL, PLASTICS, MISCELLANEOUS SALES, NOVELTY AND
PRODUCTION WORKERS LOCAL 222, INTERNATIONAL PRODUCTION, SERVICE AND SALES
EMPLOYEES UNION, AND TO ALL EMPLOYEES OF MAJESTIC MOLDED PRODUCTS,
INC., AND LUCKY WISH PRODUCTS INC.
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
Relations Act, as amended, we hereby notify you that:
WE WILL NOT cause or attempt to cause the above-named employer to
discriminate in any manner against employees in regard to their hire or tenure
of employment or any term or condition of employment.
WE WILL NOT threaten employees with economic reprisals, or in any other
manner restrain or coerce employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed by Sec-
tion 7 of the Act.
Jointly and severally with the above-named employer WE WILL make whole
the following-named employees for any loss of pay suffered by them as a result
of their unlawful layoff.
Lorraine Meyers Wilhelmina Meyers
Patricia Goodman Mary Houlihan
Dorothy Tsarcomas Edna Johanesen
Mary Fazio Elizabeth Fussner
Pearl Karangis Genevieve Chrzanowski
Louise Kitchell Florence Townson
Rose Richards
METAL, PLASTICS, MISCELLANEOUS SALES,
NOVELTY AND PRODUCTION WORKERS,
LOCAL 222, INTERNATIONAL PRODUCTION
SERVICE AND SALES EMPLOYEES UNION,
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, 745 Fifth
Avenue, New York, New York, 10022, Telephone Number Plaza 1-5500, if they have
any question concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions.