Max Silver & Son

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 16, 1959

123 N.L.R.B. 269 (N.L.R.B. 1959)

MAX SILVER & SON 269
4. The Respondents have not engaged in unfair labor practices with respect
.to the employees of DiDuca Brothers, Inc., General Electric Corporation, Allis-
^Chalmers Manufacturing Company, Spitzley Plumbing and Heating Company of
Detroit, Babcock and Wilcox, Clement Electric Company, and Crane Company,
nor by refusing to furnish or refer pipefitters for work on any of Edison 's projects.
[Recommendations omitted from publication.]
Max Silver, Irwin Silver and Edward Braude, Co-Partners,
d/b/a Max Silver & Son and International Ladies' Garment
Workers' Union , AFL-CIO. Case No. 4-CA-1719. March 16,
1959
DECISION AND ORDER
On December 24, 1958, Trial Examiner John C. Fischer issued his
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that
the Respondents had engaged in and were engaging in certain un-
fair labor practices, and recommending that they cease and desist
therefrom and take certain affirmative action, and further finding
that the Respondents had not engaged in other unfair labor practices,
as alleged in the complaint, and recommending that the complaint
be dismissed insofar as it alleged such violations, as set forth in the
copy of the Intermediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the
Respondents, the General Counsel, and the Charging Party filed
exceptions to the Intermediate Report, together with supporting
briefs.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the Board has delegated its powers in
connection with this case to a three-member panel [Chairman Lee-
dom and Members Bean and Fanning].
The Board has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner
at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed.
The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the
Intermediate Report, the exceptions and brief, and the entire record
in the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recom-
mendations of the Trial Examiner.-
ORDER
Upon the entire record in the case, and pursuant to Section 10(c)
of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board hereby orders that Max Silver, Irwin Silver and
Edward Braude, d/b/a Max Silver & Son, Philadelphia, Pennsyl-
vania, their agents, successors , and assigns shall:
I The Trial Examiner 's recommended order is modified in certain respects , to remedy
all of the specific violations found. As the extent of such violations does not warrant
the broad order recommended by the Trial Examiner , we have adopted a narrow order.
123 NLRB No. 33.
270 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Threatening to close down the plant if the Union came in,
promising and granting pay raises and other benefits in order to
influence employees at the time of any union-organizing campaign,
and interrogating employees in a manner constituting interference,
restraint, or coercion in violation of Section 8(a) (1) of the Act.
(b) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining,
or coercing their employees in the exercise of their right to self-
organization, to form labor organizations, to join or assist Inter-
national Ladies' Garment Workers' Union AFL-CIO, or any other
labor organization, 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 protec-
tion, or to refrain from any or all such activities except to the extent
that such right may be affected by an agreement requiring member-
ship in a labor organization as a condition of employment, as au-
thorized in Section 8(a)3 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds
will effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Post at their plant and office at Philadelphia, Pennsylvania,
the notice attached hereto marked "Appendix." 2 Copies of said
notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for the Fourth
Region, shall, after being duly signed by Respondents' representative,
be posted by it immediately upon receipt thereof, and maintained
for 60 consecutive days thereafter in conspicuous places, including
all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Rea-
sonable steps shall be taken by Respondents to insure that such notices
are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
(b) Notify the Regional Director for the Fourth Region (Phila-
delphia, Pennsylvania) in writing, within 10 days from the date
of this Order, what steps they have taken to comply therewith.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint be, and it hereby is, dis-
missed insofar as it alleges that the Respondents discharged and re-
fused to reinstate Grace Johnson in violation of Section 8(a) (3) and
(1) of the Act.
2In the event that this Order is enforced ' by a decree of a United States Court of
Appeals, there shall be substituted for the words "Pursuant 'to a Decision and Order" the
words "Pursuant to a Decree of the United States Court of Appeals , Enforcing an Order."
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to a Decision and Order of the National Labor, Rela-
tions Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National
Labor Relations Act, notice is hereby given that Max Silver, Irwin
Silver and Edward Braude, Co-Partners, d/b/a Max Silver & Son :
MAX SILVER & SON 271
WILL NOT interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the
exercise of their right to self-organization, to form labor or-
ganizations, to join or assist International Ladies' Garment
Workers' Union, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization by
threatening employees with economic reprisal by closing down
the plant if the union came in, promising or granting pay raises
or other benefits in order to influence employees at the time of
any union organizing campaign, or interrogating employees in
a manner constituting interference, restraint, or coercion in
violation of Section 8 (a) (1).
WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, re-
strain, or coerce employees in the exercise of the right to self-
organization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bar-
gain 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 of such activities, except to the extent
that such right may be affected by an agreement requiring mem-
bership in a labor organization as a condition of employment,
as authorized in Section 8(a) (3) of the Act.
All employees are free to become, remain, or to refrain from
becoming or remaining, members of International Ladies' Garment
Workers' Union, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization.
MAX SILVER & SON,
Employer.
Dated---------------- By-------------------------------------
(Representative ) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof,
and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
INTERMEDIATE REPORT
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
These proceedings, brought under Section 10(b) of the National Labor Relations
Act (61 Stat. 136), herein called the Act, were initiated by the filing of a charge
by International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union, AFL-CIO, dated May 21, 1958.
Based upon such charge, the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations
Board (separately designated as General Counsel and the Board) issued a com-
plaint against the Respondent, dated September 5, 1958, alleging that Respondent
had engaged in unfair labor practices affecting commerce, in violation of Section
9(a)(1) and (3) of the National Labor Relations Act by interfering with, re-
straining, and coercing employees, and by discriminatorily discharging an em-
ployee. More specifically, the complaint alleged that Respondent did on or about
May 2, 1958, discharge employee Grace Johnson and has, at all times since May 2,
1958, failed and refused to recall or reinstate said Grace Johnson to her former
or substantially equivalent position, all for the reason that she joined and/or
assisted the Union, and engaged in other concerted activities for the purpose of
collective bargaining and other mutual aid and protection. On motion by General
Counsel, the complaint was amended at commencement of the hearing by the
addition of an allegation charging that the Respondent promised and granted pay
272 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
raises and other benefits in order to influence employees at the time of the union's
organizational campaigns.
The Respondent filed its answer denying the commission of the alleged unfair
labor practices. Pursuant to notice , a hearing was conducted at Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania , on October 20 and 21 , 1958, by Trial Examiner John C. Fischer,
duly designated by the Chief Trial Examiner . All parties were present and
afforded full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross -examine witnesses, to
introduce evidence pertinent to the issues involved , to argue orally upon the
record, and to file written briefs and proposed findings and conclusions within a
fixed time from the close of the hearing . Concluding arguments were waived,
but comprehensive briefs were submitted on December 12, 1958, by the General
Counsel , the Respondent Company and the Union. These briefs have been care-
fully considered by the Trial Examiner . Motion to correct the official record by
.substituting the word "promising " for the typographical error "policing" on page
10, at line 23 was granted by the Trial Examiner, as was typographical error con-
cerning pagination.
Upon the entire record in the case, and from my observation of the witnesses,
I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER
Max Silver , Irwin Silver , and Edward Braude, hereinafter called the Respond-
ents, are copartners doing business as Max Silver & Son, with their principal
offices and place of manufacturing located in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania , herein-
after called the Company . They are engaged in the manufacture and sale of
inexpensive ladies' cotton dresses. During the 12-month period preceding the
date of the occurrence of the events alleged in the complaint , Respondents sold and
shipped in excess of $ 100,000 worth of such dresses from their plants to customers
located outside the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
It is found that Respondents ' operations affect interstate commerce within the
meaning of Section 2 ( 6) and (7) of the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union, AFL -CIO, is a labor organiza-
tion admitting to membership employees of Respondent Company.
IH. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
In addition to the charge that Respondents discharged Grace Johnson and have
failed to reinstate her because she engaged in concerted activities for the purpose
of collective bargaining and other mutual aid and protection , the complaint, as
amended , alleges that Respondents interfered with, restrained , and coerced em-
ployees by acts and statements , including threats to close the plant if the Union
came in, and promised and granted pay raises or other benefits in order to
influence employees at the time of the union's organizational campaign. The
allegations of illegal interference , restraint , and coercion , including threats, prom-
ising, and granting pay raises may first be considered and decided . However, a
fundamental factor to be borne in mind in the case is the time element of the
termination of employee Johnson-such termination occurring at the height of
the union organizing campaign.
The resolution of this case turns solely on the accreditation of the versions of
the various witnesses . The law applicable to the facts is simple-the problem is
whether to believe-or how much to believe-of the testimonies of the witnesses
of both the Union and the Company. Each side produced five witnesses during
the hearing . General Counsel offered Complainant Grace Johnson, James Mahoney
and Ethel Paul , union officials ; Aristo Morris and Ethel Sherrill , former employees
of the Company who had quit for personal reason not involved in this case. Re-
spondents relied on officials and employees of the Company including Max Silver,
president , Irwin Silver and Edward Braude, partners ; Mary Sandonato, supervisor,
and Catherine Opher, a long -time employee . All of the witnesses except Ethel
Sherrill and Aristo Morris are in the nature of interested parties-Sherrill and
Aristo being no longer employed or concerned with the case.
A welter of evidentiary conflicts are apparently produced and presented in the
comprehensive briefs submitted by parties ; largely occasioned , however, by the
MAX SILVER & SON 273
interpretations put on the testimonies of various witnesses by respective counsel.
These briefs constitute part of the official record and have been carefully studied
and considered by the Trial Examiner. Thus, it is incumbent upon the Trial
Examiner to make a recitation of his own evaluation of the conflicting contentions
and his own interpretations of testimonies, assign the proper credence and the
weight to be given conflicting versions, and to draw his own conclusions and
inferences based upon the record as a whole.
The evidence establishes that the Union began an organizing drive early in
April 1958, by means of its representatives passing out handbills, postal-card appli-
cations at the plant entrance, and by soliciting employee memberships in the
Union. The union leaflets were distributed indiscriminately to workers and
company officials alike. Obviously, Respondents were aware of these organiza-
tional efforts. The Union had attempted, unsuccessfully, on previous occasions to
unionize the plant.
The evidence bearing on the allegations in the complaint that Respondents
threatened to close the plant if the Union came in, and promised and granted pay
raises and other benefits to defeat the Union, was brought out in the testimony of
Aristo Morris. Aristo was employed as a shipping clerk-from November 1957
through July 1958-during the time of the alleged unfair labor practices involved
herein. It will be recalled that Aristo, like Ethel Sherrill, had severed their
employment with the Company for personal reasons prior to the commencement
of this case, and they represent the most objective and impartial witnesses offered
by either side. The other witnesses, as previously noted, have personal interests
in the outcome of this case. (Ethel Sherrill did not testify upon the pay raise, etc.,
issue.) The practice of granting raises immediately after the advent of a union
drive is generally viewed with suspicion and frowned upon by the Board-having
found to have been the motive behind unfair labor practices in cases too numerous
to mention.
As found by the Trial Examiner, Catherine "Kitty" Opher, spokesman for all
seamstresses, "along in February or March" went to Irwin Silver and talked about
a raise for "all the girls . Well, Irwin told me he would talk to his father
[Max Silver]. . Well, about, a month later, I went to Irwin again . . . and
he told me he had talked to his father about the raise ... and I told him that I
wanted a meeting held in front of the girls . . he told us that he would give
us a raise." The meeting was arranged and held at noon.
At this meeting-"sometime in April," actually on April 25, and during the
union campaign, the girls demanded a 5-percent raise. According to Kitty: "We
got a 3 percent instead of 5." Questioned by counsel as to why she acted as
spokesman for the girls, she replied: "Well, I guess I am about the biggest talker
there are. That's one reason." 1
All of the employees, including the male employees, attended the second
meeting. A third meeting was held with the "boys" only in attendance. The
accepted testimony of Aristo Morris was that the men, consisting of Aristo, ship-
ping clerk, Richard Maybley, bundleboy, Frank, a spreader, and Herman, a cutter
were not satisfied, and at the end of the meeting and in Aristo's words: "had
came to an understanding, and we wouldn't agree on anything so, he [Irwin]
said, "'We will talk to you individually, too."' Irwin then promised to talk with
his father about a raise. About a week later, Irwin called all of the boys in and
told them that his father had agreed to give them a raise of 10 cents per hour.
The raise became effective in the next pay period. Irwin also urged the boys to
join the company bonus plan which was an agreement wherein the Company
matched each dollar saved and contributed weekly by an employee who worked
3 days per week. Irwin also promised to see about getting them covered in the
Blue Cross insurance program. Nothing materialized from this promised insur-
ance protection except that their names were taken by Irwin. Irwin's explanation
was that a girl would have to be employed a year before being granted Blue
Cross benefits.
'To the Trial Examiner, it was apparent that Opher's diffused testimony should be
scrutinized most carefully. Her testimony that the Friday noon meeting was held tefore
the union campaign commenced is discredited. Although a witness for Respondent the
evidence shows that she had attended two union meetings. Opher was a "glib" but
unconvincing witness.
508889-60-vol. 123-19
274 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
• It is clear from the evidence of record that these raises given, the promises to
include employees in a bonus plan, and promise to cover the boys with health
insurance did not eventuate until after the union organizational campaign was
well advanced. The Trial Examiner concludes that the Company made these
concessions in order to influence the employer adversely to the Union during its
organizing drive. This is an unfair labor practice.
Aristo credibly testified that at his first meeting, April 25, Irwin Silver stated
that the Union had tried to get in the plant but "everybody stuck together and
they bought the Union off, and he was asking us to stick together again and not
to turn in the cards." Aristo's accepted testimony in this connection reads as fol-
lows: "And so, after that, he said the reason why he didn't want the Union to
come into the shop was because they would want too big a percentage of the
profit, and he couldn't afford to give it to them, that he was the last cheap cotton
factory in the North, and that if they came into the Company they wouldn't be
able to operate and he would have to close up and move down South."
There is testimony by Aristo that Irwin Silver said that he changed or concealed
dress prices from his father Max Silver, which assertions were denied by Irwin.
This issue is not material to the case and no credibility resolution need be drawn
by the Trial Examiner.
With reference to the question whether Grace Johnson was discharged on May
2 or quit voluntarily, there are as many different versions as there were witnesses
who testified on this phase of the case. The situation as found by the Trial
Examiner is that Grace Johnson was employed by the Company in January 1958,
to work as a sewing machine seamstress on an evening shift from 5:30 to 10:30.
She also worked a full 8-hour day at a laundry to supplement the family income
and assist her husband who was preparing to enter school. She had previously
(1954-56) been satisfactorily employed in similar garment work with Wentworth
Mfg. Company, in South Carolina. She was also a former union member.
As previously indicated, the union organizational campaign began early in
April. Johnson accepted leaflets passed out to employees, and mailed to the
Union the attached postal-card application for membership. She stated that the
girls discussed the Union and she "told a few girls around the shop" that she sent
her card in. Union officials contacted her home. She then visited the union
hall herself on Thursday May 1 and was driven to work at the company plant by
two union organizers. When she alighted from the auto she stated that she saw
Irwin Silver standing at the corner of Fourth and Arch streets and that he was
looking at her.2
Johnson stated that Max Silver came up to her machine later that night and
in presence of another girl told her that he had heard that she had signed a union
card. She denied that she had signed and credibly quoted him as saying . . .
"there wouldn't be no union in the shop, and if there was any union in the shop,
that he would close up the shop and he would retire, and that he would send his
son, one of his sons out as a cutter and one out as a salesman. He said he didn't
know whether we was stupid or not, but he knowed that if the Union came in the
shop, there wouldn't be no night work, and he also asked me did I plan to come
in to work in the daytime, and I told him yes. He told us, he said, "I just want
you to know there won't be no room for you." Max Silver denied this conversa-
tion but the Trial Examiner finds the events to have occurred as recited.
The denouement occurred the next night, Friday May 2. As Johnson came to
work this evening she was observed by Partner Braude being handed a leaflet by
one of the organizers. She immediately became involved in a series of disconcert-
ing happenings. The thread broke on the machine she was operating and Braude
transferred her to another machine upon which she worked until the first machine
was repaired. When she returned, mechanical difficulties again occurred and she
was retransferred to still another machine. During these untoward experiences
she was the subject of critical attention by both Floorlady Mary Sandanato and.
Max Silver. Floorlady Sandanato testified that she assigned Johnson her work
and set up the machine and when next observed she was standing idly by her
machine which was out of commission because of broken thread. Sandanato
stated that she got angry at Johnson and said: "After all these months, I said, you
don't even know how to thread the machine. . . . Well, then, I don't know what
a Irwin Silver denied that he was there at the time or that he saw Johnson . The Trial
Examiner, however, accepts her version.
MAX SILVER & SON 275
happened, and for 5 minutes later, Mr. Silver had her at another machine."
Sandanato then testified that the next time she observed Johnson, she was getting
up and asked when the reason stated: "She says to me, `I don't have to work,' "
and that was the end of that. She went back there. She got dressed, and after
that I heard they paid her off. She asked to be paid." The floorlady stated that
the only thing she heard Mr. Silver say was: "Now don't mess this machine up."
She stated that he went over and repeated this "again and again."
Johnson's version was that a few minutes after Braude talked with her at her
machine that Max Silver came over to her and asked to see the leaflet which had
been given her when she came in, stating: "I asked him why did he want to see it,
and he said he just wanted to see it and to show it to Irwin." She stated that she
gave it to him and he took it into his office and returned 20 or 30 minutes later.
She stated further that upon his return they engaged in a discussion about the
leaflets and he told her to finish the bundle and "you are fired." Johnson stated
that she went to the dressing room and when she returned Sandanato was standing
at her machine and Johnson told her she was fired.
Max Silver stated that when Grace Johnson first came to work and said she
would like to come back and learn operating he took an interest in her. The
Trial Examiner accepts his forthright testimony in that connection: "First, we
set her on pocket setting and I seen she cannot do it very right, so I said I may
try you on different small parts, which I did. All the time, I tried my best, all the
time for her, to support her as much as I can. I used to send her yet with work,
as the forelady mentioned, I did myself fix up work that the floorlady shouldn't see.
it, even, that she should stay there, and I did that for her. Why would I go to
work and want to fire that girl when she was standing and the machine was spoiled
and I gave her another machine."
Q. (By Respondent's counsel, Norris.) As far as you were concerned,
what occurred between you and Johnson?
A. When I told her, she say, "I am sick of that job." And she told me,
"You can take that job" she used a not nice expression, "I don't have to
work, you can take that stinking job." That's exactly what she said. And
she said, "I got a job in the daytime, and I don't need your job, because there
is messed up and here messed up, and I am sick and tired of doing them
things." She said, "I got a job and I am quitting."
Q. As a result of what did she make these statements?
A. As a result, because the double needle machine was messed up over six
dozen of work, and she knows that she would have to repair it.
With the class of transient and inept help that the Company had to put up with
to staff the evening shift-having a turnover of 4 to I according to personnel man,
Braude-it be only natural that Silver would try to help train and keep an operator
who had .2 years' previous experience. This logical version is accepted and relied
upon. No doubt Max Silver, Sandanato, and even Braude gave Johnson a hard
time by criticizing her-what with her known union activities and mechanical
difficulties she was encountering. Although Max Silver, as well as the floorlady,
denied interrogating her as to whether she had signed the union card, attended
meetings and was active in organizing, the Trial Examiner finds that they did-
and further finds that such conduct is violative of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
The fact that Max Silver is testimonially credited over Johnson as to the circum-
stances of her termination is a common judicial occurrence. It does not follow
that simply because a fact finder does not believe a particular thing to which a
witness testified that everything he says must then be rejected. Judge learned
Hand stated the rule in N.L.R.B. v. Universal Camera Corporation, 179 F. 2d 749
(C.A. 2) thus:
It is no reason for refusing to accept everything that a witness says because
you do not believe all of it; nothing is more common in all kinds of judicial
decisions than to believe some and not all.
The same rule applies to the testimony of Grace Johnson and the witnesses.
Ethel Sherrill who was only employed for 5 or 6 weeks and like Aristo Norris
should be classified as an impartial witness, was operating a machine adjacent to
Johnson on the night in question. Sherrill testified that around 6 o'clock Max
Silver came to Grace's machine and asked if Grace had received a leaflet from
outside. This leaflet was the one which advertised the meeting of the next Monday
276 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
night. Being informed that she had received a leaflet, Silver asked to see it and
Grace got up and brought the paper to Silver. Sherrill stated: "He looked at it,
and then he asked her if she was going to the meeting, and she told him `yes,' and
he told her she could go, `you can go now.' . . . Well, she got up from her machine
and then I didn't see her any more." Sherrill's testimony as to any other con-
versations or events was negative. However, Sherrill admitted that she attended
the advertised union meeting on the following Monday night, May 5, but did not
join. The Trial Examiner concluded that Sherrill's recollection was at least hazy-
in fact that she merely "parroted" Johnson's charge whom she followed on the
witness stand. The Trial Examiner finds from a close study of all of the versions
of conversations, interrogations, and criticisms occurring that night, that Grace
Johnson and Max Silver became engaged in an altercation and that she quit in a
huff as indicated by Silver. She had worked all day in a laundry, had been
criticized by supervisors for "messing up" work, and was confronted with having
to resew six dozen dresses. She impressed the Trial Examiner as an impetuous
person. It is significant that the Company did not affirmatively plead that Johnson
was fired for cause if she had been discharged. Accordingly, it will be recom-
mended by the Trial Examiner that the allegation of violation of Section 8(a)(3)
discriminatory discharge of Grace Johnson be dismissed.
James Mahoney, the union organizer who drove Grace Johnson down to the
plant from the union hall, and who was seen by Irwin Silver, testified that "after
we were in the process of handing out leaflets, we contacted the people of Max
Silver & Son Company, and Mr. Silver himself came down one evening, as was
the practice of he and his son and his son-in-law, to stand in front of the plant
during the time when the first shift was coming out and the second shift was
going in. He engaged in a conversation with myself and Ethel Paul, and the
crux of this conversation was that we were wasting our time in our organizational
efforts here, because he would not operate a union-organized shop in this area,
and that if we were to organize the shop, he would cease to run his business here."
Max Silver denied this and similar testimony attributed to him. The Trial
Examiner concluded nevertheless, that such was Silver's state of mind after oper-
ating 40 years, and having lost money as a result of labor and business conditions
then existing, and that he so informed the organizers. Since the Company was
not then represented by the Union as bargaining for his employees, and since he
was speaking to union officials and not, in this instance, threatening employees,
Silver was within his rights. Although not basis for a charge under Section
8(a)(1), this evidence documents and supports like threats made to employees.
Ethel T. Paul, associated with the Union as an organizer testified in support of
organizer Mahoney that Catherine "Kitty" Opher was present at union meetings
which she, Paul, attended.
Accordingly recommendations to the Board, with appropriate suggested remedies,
will be made in light of the facts found and conclusions reached herein by the
Trial Examiner.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record in
the case, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Respondents Max Silver, Irwin Silver and Edward Braude, co-partners, d/b/a
Max Silver & Son, is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6)
and (7) of the Act.
2. International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union, AFL-CIO, is a labor or-
ganization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. By threatening to close down the plant if the Union came in, and promising
and granting certain pay raises and other benefits, the Respondents interfered with,
restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in
Section 7 of the Act, and thereby engaged in unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
4. The Respondent has not engaged in unfair labor practices within the mean-
ing of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act.
5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
[Recommendations omitted from publication.]