Mr. Wicke Ltd. Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 22, 1968

172 N.L.R.B. 1680 (N.L.R.B. 1968)

1680 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Mr. Wicke Ltd. Co. and International Ladies'
Garment Workers Union , AFL-CIO and Local
443, International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Chauffeurs , Warehousemen and Helpers of Amer-
ica, Parties to the Contract
Local 443, International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Chauffeurs , Warehousemen and Helpers of Amer-
ica and International Ladies ' Garment Workers
Union , AFL-CIO and Mr. Wicke Ltd. Co.,
Parties to the Contract . Cases 1-CA-5715,
1-CA-5796, and 1-CB-1199
August 22, 1968
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS BROWN
AND JENKINS
On August 29, 1967, Trial Examiner Thomas S.
Wilson issued his Decision in the above-entitled
case,' finding that the Respondents had engaged in
and were engaged in certain unfair labor practices
within the meaning of the National Labor Relations
Act, as amended, and recommending that they
cease and desist therefrom and take certain affir-
mative action, as set forth in the attached Trial Ex-
aminer's Decision. Thereafter, the Respondents
jointly filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's
Decision and a supporting brief, and the General
Counsel filed a brief in support of the Trial Ex-
aminer 's Decision.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
Act, the National Labor Relations Board has
delegated its powers in connection with this case to
a three-member panel.
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
Trial Examiner's Decision, the exceptions and
briefs, and the entire record in the case, and hereby
adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommenda-
tions of the Trial Examiner only to the extent con-
sistent herewith.
Respondent Wicke, a ladies' garment contractor,
performs 99 percent of its work for John Meyer of
Norwich, Inc.; both firms are located in Connec-
ticut. In the spring of 1966,2 probably early March,
according to the testimony of Stanley Zwicker, pre-
sident of Wicke, John Meyer called to tell him that
the Teamsters was organizing the Meyer shop and
was going to organize his contractors as well. Ac-
cording to Zwicker, Meyer said that only if Wicke
were a Teamsters shop would it be able to get
work from Meyer, and added, "Stanley, I'm think-
ing of you because if my contract is with the Team-
sters , it won't be any different than an ILG con-
tract. I'll have to go with my work to places where I
will be allowed to go on in."
Shortly thereafter, Zwicker was telephoned by a
Teamsters official, whose name he could not recall.
The official said that the Teamsters had spoken to
several girls but wanted the names of a couple of
"older employees" whom the Teamsters could ask
to call upon the other workers. Zwicker says he
mentioned Ida Kabakoff (Mrs. K) and Erlia Mae
Dawson , both nonsupervisory employees. Soon
after this conversation, Zwicker told each of them
individually that he had given her name to a Team-
sters organizer and asked her not to get upset when
the official called, but to hear him out. At some
other time, about 10 days thereafter, Zwicker
"definitely" told each of the women the information
which John Meyer had given him; it is "very possi-
ble because it was true," said Zwicker, that he also
told them that Wicke 's organization by the Team-
sters was "inevitable" if Wicke were to stay in busi-
ness, and there is "a possibility" that he mentioned,
in addition, that he was not going to fight the Team,
sters.3
Clementine Lincoln, who was to be the third
Teamsters contact, testified that one morning in
mid-April, Rose D'Aniello, Wicke 's treasurer, com-
mented to her, while both were watching an Inter-
national Ladies' Garment Workers Union (ILG-
WU) informational picket line outside the building,
"That is supposed to be for us, but don't let it
bother you because sooner or later we will have to
be unionized and that way nobody will bother us no
more.... In order to get work, John Meyer wanted
us to have a union . ... That way, we would get
more work."" (D'Aniello did not testify.)
The timetable of events from this point on is not
clear. The most reasonable conclusion, given the
' On September 27, 1967, the Trial Examiner issued an Order revising
Appendix A of the Decision
2 Any unfair labor practices allegedly committed by Wicke before May
14, 1966, and by the Teamsters before June 14, 1966, are time-barred by
Sec 10 ( b), the respective charges against them having been filed and
served on November 14, 1966 , and December 14, 1966 However, such
events are properly considered as background evidence
' Mrs K did not testify, Dawson said only that Zwicker told her to expect
a contact from a Teamsters agent, she was not asked whether she and
Zwicker ever discussed Meyer
' Employee Carrion credibly testified that she heard D'Antello, in late
April or early May, say to Lincoln, in response to the latter 's statement that
the girls did not want the Teamsters Union, " We have to sign for the union
If we don't sign, we don't get work from John Meyer " It is impossible to
say whether Carrion overheard the above - noted conversation or some later
talk between the two Another employee , Ambrusco, whose testimony was
not mentioned by the Trial Examiner , said that she heard D'Aniello, in late
April or early May, tell Lincoln that the employees had to join the Team-
sters Union
172 NLRB No. 181
MR. WICKE LTD. CO.
record as a whole, is that approximately 2 weeks
thereafter, D'Aniello informed Lincoln that she was
one of the three employees whose names Zwicker
and D 'Aniello had given to a union agent whom
D'Aniello knew. The union was not identified. That
same evening Teamsters Business Agent Sansone
called and then visited Dawson, Mrs. K, and Lin-
coln, and successfully persuaded all but Lincoln to
solicit cards on behalf of the Teamsters Union. Lin-
coln's credited testimony is that Sansone discussed
union benefits, gave her a book with 25 blank
authorization cards, and also mentioned John
Meyer, stating, "I suppose you know your shop has
got to be unionized." The record shows that San-
sone also brought Meyer's name into his talk with
Dawson, saying, according to Dawson, that John
Meyer wanted a union in the Wicke shop. (On the
basis of this evidence , it seems reasonable to infer
that Sansone made a similar comment regarding
John Meyer to Mrs. K.)
Soliciting activities at the plant began the next
day and continued for 2 to 3 weeks, at least. They
took place only during breaks or lunchtime or be-
fore working hours. Dawson claims that she limited
her sales talk to a recitation of Teamsters benefits
and said nothing about John Meyer or the possibili-
ty of a work loss, but it is clear that Mrs. K in-
troduced one or both of these considerations into
her conversation with at least five employees, some
of whom later signed cards for Dawson.5
On May 26, Sansone presented Zwicker with a
stipulation for recognition which had previously
been signed by Sansone's chief. According to San-
sone,6 Zwicker challenged his claim to represent
the employees, and he offered to prove it by calling
a strike . Zwicker then signed the stipulation, con-
taining a 30-day, union -shop clause and a dues-
checkoff provision. Cards were never mentioned at
the meeting; indeed, Sansone admitted he had not
then seen any signed authorization cards (he first
saw them at the June 13 union meeting ) and was
basing his majority claim on reports he claims to
have received from his three employee contacts
about the number of cards obtained. It should be
5 Thus, employees Sobin , Jones , and Pavone each testified that Mrs K
stated, at an unidentified time, some variation of the theme that Wicke
would not get any work if the employees did not sign for the Union (Sobin
and Jones eventually signed cards for Dawson ) Another employee, Ol-
zack , testified that in May, Mrs K repeatedly and unsuccessfully solicited
her to sign a card On perhaps two occasions , Mrs. K told her that " Stanley
picked her and Erlie Dawson to get these signatures , and that if we don't
sign up, we wouldn 't get any work " Once Olzack replied , " How come they
never wanted a union before and all of a sudden we have to join one now')",
to which Mrs K responded by repeating , without elaboration, her "no
work" statement Employee Franklin , who ultimately signed a card for
Dawson, at some point queried Mrs K about the progress of the organizing
drive Mrs K replied that quite a few girls were signing and added, "they
seem to be afraid that the boss didn't want them to sign, but really the boss
wanted the girls to sign because it was necessary for them to sign because
1681
noted that the absence of evidence as to the size of
the unit in May 1966 makes it impossible to deter-
mine whether the Union had obtained cards from a
majority of the employees on the recognition date.7
The first union meeting was held at the Team-
sters hall on June 13. According to Lincoln's ap-
parently credited testimony, Sansone told the em-
ployees, when one of them inquired about
Zwicker's feelings concerning unionization, that
"Rose and Stanley want the Teamsters to organize
the shop as a union ... you know ... that John
Meyer wants this shop to be unionized ... and un-
less it 's unionized, we won't get any work." A
discussion ensued concerning contract proposals
about wages and benefits, and the girls were told
that the contract would be ready at the next meet-
ing. The Trial Examiner apparently credited San-
sone's claim that at some point he told the em-
ployees that Zwicker had signed a recognition
agreement. At the second meeting, about June 27,
Sansone read at least part of the contract, accord-
ing to Lincoln's apparently credited testimony, and
then called for a ratification vote. That the Union
viewed the vote as a meaningless procedure is
evident from the comment Lincoln attributed to
Sansone: "It doesn't matter, girls. It's a closed shop
anyhow."'
About June 30, Zwicker called a shopwide meet-
ing. He informed the employees that Wicke was
now a union shop and that he would bring around
dues-deduction cards, which he proceeded to ex-
plain. He did not tell the employees that they had a
choice as to signing ; on the contrary, later that day
he told Carrion, in reply to her inquiry, that she
would have to quit if she refused to sign. Carrion
signed, as did all other employees. Dues were first
checked off on July 14, and thereafter at monthly
intervals. Subsequently, dues were deducted from
the wages of employee Rosario, although she did
not sign a checkoff authorization card when she
was hired (probably in the fall of 1966) or at any
time thereafter.
The ILGWU conducted an organizing campaign
at the shop in the fall of 1966, the details of which
the jobber was going union and that our shop would have to be union in
order for us to receive work "
' The Trial Examiner was skeptical of Sansone 's description of the meet-
ing He decided to report it with that caveat because there was no other
recorded account of the event
r There is uncertainty about the number of cards solicited as of May 26
The 25 cards introduced into evidence either were undated or bore
patently incorrect March dates The most definite information to appear in
the record is Dawson's testimony , unreported by the Trial Examiner, that
she obtained 25 signed cards ( including her own) by May 19
8 Sansone claims to have collected 28 to 32 cards at the first meeting but
was unable to identify the person or persons who handed him the cards He
collected three to five additional cards at the second meeting Sansone says
he saw a couple of employees at each meeting sign cards , however, he
could not name the signatories
1682 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
are set forth in the Trial Examiner's Decision. On
November 16, having acquired cards from 25 em-
ployees out of a unit of 44, in large part through the
soliciting of employee Lincoln, two ILGWU
representatives visited Zwicker. They demanded
recognition and offered to prove their majority
status by a card check. Zwicker indicated that he
did not understand what they wanted because he al-
ready had a contract with the Teamsters, and was
told that the ILGWU considered the contract im-
proper and had filed charges to the effect with the
National Labor Relations Board. The union
representatives then handed him a letter repeating
their demand and card check offer, and, after they
left, confirmed their visit by telegram. Zwicker
never answered either communication. On January
4, the ILGWU then holding designations from 34
out of 43 employees in the unit, again demanded
recognition, by registered letter, and again received
no reply from Zwicker.9
We agree with the Trial Examiner that the
Respondents committed the following violations of
the Act: Respondent Company violated Section
8(a)(1) and (2) by recognizing Respondent Union,
which did not represent a valid majority of em-
ployees in the unit (if indeed it represented a nu-
merical majority at all), as the collective- bargaining
representative of its employees on May 26, and vio-
lated Section 8(a)(I ), (2), and (3) by executing,
with said Union, a recognition agreement on May
26, 1966, and a collective -bargaining agreement
dated June 20, 1966, containing union-security and
dues-checkoff provisions and thereafter by enforc-
ing these provisions. Respondent Union, for its
part, violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) and 8(b)(2) by
entering into and causing the Company to enforce
the aforesaid collective-bargaining agreement dated
June 20, 1966, at a time when it did not represent a
valid majority of the employees in an appropriate
unit and violated Section 8(b)(I)(A) by Sansone's
9 The Trial Examiner found, based on Lincoln's undemed testimony, that
shortly after the November visit by ILGWU representatives. Zwlcker asked
Lincoln if she knew anything about the matter , and if she knew which em-
ployees had signed ILGWU cards Lincoln pleaded ignorance on both is-
sues Zwicker then said , it "would be better for his business if we stayed
with the union we got and not to change it " The Trial Examiner also
found, that on March 23 1967, shortly before the hearing, D'Aniello asked
Lincoln if she could talk the employees " into forgetting the other cards so
that we could start all over because you know you are hurting us " Lin-
coln declared , " I have no intention of hurting you or Stanley You know we
are in the wrong union , and the girls don't like it They want their own "
When D ' Aniello tried to elicit the names of the union supporters , Lincoln
said that she did not know who they were and would not tell if she did
D'Aniello replied that some of the girls already regretted their action and
"they will back out anyhow, they always do " Lincoln walked away without
answering We find, in agreement with the Trial Examiner , that these re-
marks and queries by officials of Respondent Company would tend to in-
hibit employee advocacy of the ILGWU and thus violated Sec 8(a)(1)
1' We do not adopt the Trial Examiner 's apparent finding ( see par B, I,
(a) of his Recommended Order ) that the Union also violated Sec
conduct in informing employees at the second
union meeting that Respondent Cor-nany was a
"closed shop."ti'
It is clear that Zwicker determined early in the
spring of 1966 to have Respondent Union installed
as the collective-bargaining representative of his em-
ployees; to that end, he (and D'Aniello) invited
three employees to participate in the pending
Teamsters campaign. The two with whom Zwicker
personally spoke, Mrs. K and Dawson, accepted the
invitation, recruiting signatures on Teamsters
authorization cards which they were given by San-
sone, a Teamsters representative." The uncon-
troverted testimony of five employee witnesses,
above noted, attributed to Mrs. K's statements that
Wicke's ability to obtain work, and, inferentially,
the employees' job security as well, was dependent
upon the success of the Union's organizing effort
Only to Franklin did Mrs. K attempt to explain her
statement and even there the explanation offered
was not a detailed, factual account of the purported
situation from which Franklin might have drawn
her own conclusions, but was rather an emotional
plea that the "boss wanted the girls to sign," that
"it was necessary for them to sign" because the
"jobber was going union" and Wicke would not
receive his work if the shop were not unionized.
The other four girls were told no more than that a
relationship existed between work orders and the
Teamsters campaign, but, in speaking to Olzack,
Mrs. K additionally placed the weight of Zwicker's
authority behind her remark.12 Another manage-
ment representative who voiced forebodings of
doom was D'Aniello, who was heard by Carrion to
have remarked on the John Meyer situation to Lin-
coln in late April or early May.
The Trial Examiner, in finding that these various
remarks about the John Meyer situation violated
Section 8(a)( I ), overlooked the 6-month limitation
requirement of Section 10(b). Since Zwicker's and
8(b)( I )(A) by Sansone 's remark at the June 13 meeting to the effect that
John Meyer would withhold work from Wicke unless the latter were or-
ganized by the Teamsters As noted previously, all union conduct occurring
before June 14 , 1966, is time-barred under Sec 10(b)
" We agree with the Trial Examiner that , as alleged , Mrs K acted in the
capacity of a managerial agent during the organizing campaign Zwicker's
conduct in selecting her to be an employee contact for the Teamsters
Union, in informing her of this role, and in revealing to her that the John
Meyer work could only be assured if Wicke were organized by the Team-
sters , amounted to an "open invitation ," in the words of the Trial Ex-
aminer , for her to obtain signatures on authorization cards in any way
possible We note , as did the Trial Examiner, that on these same facts we
would also have found Dawson and, on similar facts , Lincoln to be agents
had the complaint so alleged We further note that Sansone 's comments to
his employee contacts could only serve to intensify the impact ofZwicker's
(and D'Aniello's) conduct
1' To further confuse matters , Mrs K misrepresented to 017ack that em-
ployees signing a card "weren 't joining It was Just a vote " to get the Team-
sters to "come in and talk with us"
MR. WICKE LTD. CO. 1683
D'Aniello 's comments were evidently made outside
the 10 ( b) period and none of Mrs. K 's remarks can
be definitely dated within it, we are precluded from
considering whether they might have constituted
unfair labor practices . 13 But since the recognition of
the Union falls on a date within the 10(b) period,
we consider it proper to assess this background
evidence in determining whether the cards on
which the Union rested its demand for recognition
were valid authorizations , obtained without duress,
misrepresentation , or other undue influence. Hav-
ing studied this evidence , we conclude that the
authorizations are not true expressions of employee
representation desires. While we appreciate the fact
that only six warnings of economic disaster appear
on the record, we think it reasonable to infer that
similar warnings accompanied other solicitations
and, given the subject matter of the remarks, that
the theme of the necessity for organizing had wide
currency throughout the plant. The summary,
peremptory , and unsubstantiated reports to em-
ployees as to the urgency of bringing in the Team-
sters Union to avoid losing virtually all of the
Respondent's business left little chance for em-
ployees to formulate an independent , uncoerced
judgment on the merits of unionism or of this
Union in particular . We therefore conclude that the
authorization cards relied upon by Respondent
Union on May 26 were invalid as they did not
represent a free expression of the desires of the
majority of Respondent Company's employees, and
that the recognition of the Union by the Company
constituted a violation of Section 8(a)(2).14
As for the 8(a)(5) allegation based upon Respon-
dent Company 's refusal to grant the ILGWU's de-
mand for recognition , we find , contrary to the Trial
Examiner , that no unfair labor practice was com-
mitted. While Zwicker did not raise the subject of
the ILGWU's asserted majority status directly, it
seems apparent that he intended to call it into
question by referring to the recently executed con-
tract . We also note that Respondent Union has not
been found to be a company -dominated union and
that Respondent Company , except for an isolated
incident , 15 engaged in no unfair labor practices
directed against the ILGWU concurrently with or
following the latter 's bargaining demand . In these
circumstances , we are not prepared to find that a
real question concerning representation did not
exist and that the Respondent Company could not
have doubted in good faith the ILGWU's claim of
majority status when it refused to honor the ILG-
WU's bargaining request. Moreover, given the en-
tire series of events herein, we do not think it would
effectuate the purposes of the Act to impose a bar-
gaining representative on Respondent Company's
employees until they have had an opportunity to
express their preference in a Board-conducted elec-
tion . Accordingly, we shall dismiss the 8(a)(5) al-
legation in the complaint.
THE REMEDY
To remedy the above unfair labor practices, we
shall order, as did the Trial Examiner, that Respon-
dent Company withdraw and withhold recognition
from Respondent Local 443 unless and until Local
443 is certified by the Board and that in the mean-
time Respondent Company cease giving any effect
to the illegal recognition agreement, dated May 26,
1966, and to the illegal collective-bargaining con-
tract dated June 20, 1966, containing union -securi-
ty and checkoff provisions, executed by both
Respondents. Provision shall be made to safeguard
any wage increase or other benefits which the em-
ployees received under the contract.
As part of the remedy, the Trial Examiner
recommended that the Respondent Company's em-
ployees be reimbursed for initiation fees, dues, and
other sums exacted from them pursuant to the
checkoff provisions of the unlawful collective-bar-
gaining agreement, containing a union-security
clause and checkoff provision dated June 20, 1966.
However, such reimbursement is appropriate only
for those employees whose payments are shown to
have been coerced by reason of the Respondents'
unfair labor practices as herein found. The record
in this case establishes such unlawful coercion as to
all employees who joined subsequent to the execu-
tion with a minority union of the May 26, 1966,
recognition agreement and from whom dues and
other moneys were exacted pursuant to that unlaw-
ful agreement as well as pursuant to the unlawful
union-security agreement , dated June 20, 1966.16
Respondent Company shall be solely liable for
reimbursing those former and present employees
who joined between May 26 and June 20, as it
alone has been found to have violated the Act by
executing the recognition agreement of May 26.
However, since both the Respondents have been
found to have violated the Act by entering into and
enforcing the union-security agreement dated June
'In this posture of the case , we do not reach the issue of whether
Zwicker would be privileged , under Sec 8(c), to tell his employees of ad-
verse economic consequences , outside his control , which he reasonably be-
lieved would result from the employees ' failure to become unionized
'" See International Ladies ' Garment Workers ' Union , AFL-CIO
[Bernhard-Altmann Texas Corp J v N L R B, 366 U.S 731
" See fn 9, supra
"Meyers Bros of Missouri, Inc , 151 NLRB 889, Kenrich Petrochemi-
cals, Inc , 149 NLRB 910
1684 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
20, both Respondent Company and Respondent
Union shall be held jointly and severally liable to
reimburse those former and present employees who
joined the Union after June 20.11 Reimbursement
shall include interest at 6 percent per annum.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Respondent Local 443, International Brother-
hood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen
and Helpers of America, and International Ladies'
Garment Workers Union, AFL-CIO, are labor or-
ganizations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of
the Act.
2. Respondent Company is an employer within
the meaning of Section 2(2) of the Act and is en-
gaged in commerce within the meaning of Section
2(6) and (7) of the Act.
3. By recognizing Respondent Local 443 at a
time when it did not represent a valid majority of its
employees as the exclusive collective- bargaining
representative of its employees, Respondent Com-
nany violated Section 8(a)(2) and (1).
4. By entering into a recognition and collective-
bargaining agreement containing union-security
and dues-checkoff provisions with Respondent
Local 443, at a time when Local 443 did not
represent a valid majority of its employees, and by
enforcing said provisions, Respondent Company
has violated Section 8(a)(1), (2), and (3) of the
Act.
5. By interrogating employees concerning their
union activities and interests, as well as those of
other employees, Respondent Company has vio-
lated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
6. By entering into an exclusive collective-bar-
gaining agreement with Respondent Company con-
taining - union-security and dues-checkoff provi-
sions , and by enforcing said agreement, at a time
when it did not represent a valid majority of the
employees in the appropriate unit , Respondent
Local 443 has violated Section 8(b)(I)(A) and
8(b)(2) of the Act.
7. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect
commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and
(7) of the Act.
8. The Respondents have not engaged in any
other unfair labor practices as alleged in the com-
plaint.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board hereby orders that:
"Our Order shall be interpreted to provide reimbursement for Lucy
Rosario, and any other employees who were hired after June 20, 1966, and
A. Respondent, Mr. Wicke Ltd. Co., New
Haven, Connecticut, its officers, agents, successors,
and assigns , shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Giving unlawful assistance or support to
Local 443, International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of Amer-
ica, o to any other labor organization, by recogniz-
ing of entering into a contract with it as an exclu-
sive bargaining agent at a time when it does not
represent a validly designated majority of its em-
ployees in an appropriate unit.
(b) Encouraging membership in Local 443, or in
any other labor organization, by entering into or
enforcing any union-security agreement made in
violation of the provisions of Section 8(a)(3) of the
Act.
(c) Recognizing Local 443, or any successor
thereto, as the representative of any of its em-
ployees for the purposes of collective bargaining,
unless and until said labor organization shall have
been certified by the National Labor Relations
Board as the exclusive bargaining representative of
such employees.
(d) Giving effect to, performing, or in any way
enforcing its contract entered into on June 20,
1966, or any modifications, extensions, or renewals
thereof, or any other contract, agreement, arrange-
ment, or understanding entered into with Local
443, or any successor, relating to grievances, labor
disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employment,
or other conditions of employment, unless and until
said labor organization shall have been certified by
the Board as the exclusive representative of its em-
ployees; provided, however, that nothing in this
Decision shall require the Respondent Company to
vary or abandon any wages, hours, seniority, or
other substantive feature of its relations with its em-
ployees which the Company has established in the
performance of this contract, or to prejudice the as-
sertion by employees of any rights they may have
thereunder.
(e) Threatening employees with loss,of employ-
ment or other economic reprisals for not signing
checkoff cards.
(f) Interrogating employees concerning their
union interests and activities or those of other em-
ployees.
(g) In any other manner interfering with,
restraining, or coercing its employees in the exer-
cise of the rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of
the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action, which is
necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Reimburse each of its former and present
from whose wages Respondent Company deducted union dues, despite the
absence of a checkoff authorization card signed by the employee
MR. WICKE LTD. CO. 1685
employees who joined the Union on or after May
26, 1966, for any and all initiation fees, dues, as-
sessments , or other moneys exacted from them
since May 26, 1966, under its unlawful recognition
agreement and collective-bargaining agreement
with Respondent Local 443, together with interest
at the rate of 6 percent per annum, the aforesaid
Respondent Company, as to its obligation to reim-
burse those employees who joined on or after June
20, 1966, to be jointly liable therefor with Local
443, in the manner set forth in the section of this
Decision entitled "The Remedy."
(b) Withdraw and withhold all recognition from
Local 443, or any successor labor organization, as
the representative of its employees for the purposes
of collective bargaining, unless and until said labor
organization shall have been certified by the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board as the exclusive
representative of such employees.
(c) Post at its place of business in New Haven,
Connecticut, copies of the attached notice marked
"Appendix A."18 Copies of said notice, on forms
provided by the Regional Director for Region 1,
after being duly signed by Respondent Employer's
authorized representative, shall be posted by it im-
mediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained
by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in con-
spicuous places, including all places where notices
to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable
steps shall be taken by Respondent Employer to in-
sure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or
covered by any other material.
(d) Notify the Regional Director for Region 1, in
writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order,
what steps have been taken to comply herewith.
B. Respondent, Local 443, International
Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen and Helpers of America, its of-
ficers, agents, and representatives, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Acting as the exclusive bargaining represen-
tative of any of Respondent Company's employees
for the purpose of dealing with said Respondent
Company concerning grievances, labor disputes,
wages , rates of pay, hours of employment, or other
conditions of employment, unless and until said
Respondent Union shall first have been certified by
the Board as the exclusive bargaining representa-
tive of said employees.
(b) Giving effect to the collective-bargaining
agreement dated June 20, 1966, between it and
Respondent Company, or to any extension,
renewal, or modification thereof.
2. Take the following affirmative action, which is
necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Reimburse each of Respondent Company's
former and present employees who joined the
Union on or after June 20, 1966, for any and all in-
itiation fees, dues, assessments, or other moneys
unlawfully exacted from them under its contract
with Respondent Company, dated June 20, 1966,
together with interest at the rate of 6 percent per
annum , the aforesaid Respondent Union to be
jointly and severally liable therefor with Respon-
dent Company, in the manner set forth in the sec-
tion of this Decision entitled "The Remedy."
(b) Notify Respondent Company not to give ef-
fect to the checkoff authorizations heretofore ob-
tained from any of Respondent Company's em-
ployees.
(c) Mail signed copies of the attached notice
marked "Appendix B" to the Regional Director for
Region 1 for posting by the Respondent, Mr. Wicke
Ltd. Co., in conspicuous places, at its place of busi-
ness in New Haven, Connecticut, including all
places where notices to employees are customarily
posted. Copies of said notice, on forms provided by
the Regional Director for Region 1, shall be
returned forthwith to said Regional Director, after
they have been signed by an official representative
of Local 443 for such postings.
(d) Post at its offices and meeting places in New
Haven, Connecticut, copies of the attached notice
marked "Appendix B."19 Copies of said notice, on
forms provided by the Regional Director for Region
1, after being duly signed by Respondent Local
443's authorized representative, shall be posted by
it immediately upon receipt thereof, and be main-
tained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in
conspicuous places, including all places where
notices to members are customarily posted.
Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent
Local 443 to insure that said notices are not al-
tered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
(e) Notify the Regional Director for Region 1, in
writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order,
what steps have been taken to comply herewith.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that in all other respects
the complaint be, and it hereby is, dismissed.
" IIn the event that this Order is enforced by a decree of a United States
Court of Appeals, there shall be substituted for the words " a Decision and
Order" the words "a Decree of the United States Court of Appeals Enforc-
ing an Order "
1' See fn 18, supra
APPENDIX A
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the Decision and Order of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board and in order to effec-
tuate the policies of the National Labor Relations
1686 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Act, as amended, we hereby notify our employees
that:
WE WILL NOT give unlawful assistance or
support to Local 443, International Brother-
hood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen and Helpers of America, or
any other labor organization, by recognizing or
entering into a contract with it as exclusive
bargaining agent at a time when it does not
represent a validly designated majority of the
employees in an appropriate unit
WE WILL NOT encourage membership in
Local 443, or any other labor organization, by
entering into or enforcing a union-security
agreement with said labor organization made
in violation of the provisions of Section
8(a)(3) of the Act.
WE WILL NOT enforce or give effect to our
collective-bargaining agreement with Local
443 dated June 20, 1966, or to any extension,
renewal, modification, or supplement thereof,
or to any superseding agreement, or give effect
to any dues-checkoff authorization heretofore
executed by our employees in favor of Local
443.
WE WILL NOT threaten employees with loss
of employment or other economic reprisals for
not signing checkoff cards for Local 443, or
any other labor organization.
WE WILL NOT interrogate our employees
concerning their union interests and activities
or those of other employees in violation of Sec-
tion 8 ( a)(1).
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere
with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the
exercise of the rights guaranteed them by Sec-
tion 7 of the Act.
WE WILL withdraw and withhold all recogni-
tion from Local 443 as the collective-bargain-
ing representative of our employees and we
will not deal with it concerning grievances,
labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of
employment, or other terms and conditions of
employment, unless and until such labor or-
ganization has been certified by the Board, fol-
lowing a Board-conducted election, as the ex-
clusive bargaining agent of our employees in
an appropriate unit.
WE WILL reimburse all present and former
employees who joined the Union on or after
May 26, 1966, for any and all initiation fees,
dues , assessments , or other moneys exacted
from them since May 26, 1966, under the
recognition agreement and collective-bargain-
ing agreement dated respectively May 26,
1966, and June 20, 1966, which was entered
into with Respondent Local 443, together with
interest thereon at 6 percent per annum, our
obligation hereunder being joint and several
with that of Respondent Local 443 as to all
employees who joined on or after June 20,
1966.
All our employees are free to become, remain, or
refrain from becoming or remaining members of
the above-named or any other labor organization.
MR. WICKE LTD. CO.
Employer)
Dated By
(Representative ) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecu-
tive days from the date of posting and must not be
altered, defaced, or covered by any other material
If employees have any question concerning this
notice or compliance with its provisions, they may
communicate directly with the Board's Regional
Office, 20th Floor, John F. Kennedy Federal Build-
ing, Cambridge and New Sudbury Streets, Boston,
Massachusettes 02203, Telephone 223-3300.
APPENDIX B
NOTICE TO ALL MEMBERS OF LOCAL 443,
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS,
CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN AND HELPERS OF
AMERICA
Pursuant to the Decision and Order of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board and in order to effec-
tuate the policies of the National Labor Relations
Act, as amended, we hereby notify you that:
WE WILL NOT act as the exclusive bargaining
representative of any of the employees of Mr.
Wicke Ltd. Co., New Haven, Connecticut, un-
less and until we shall have demonstrated our
majority status pursuant to a Board-conducted
election among the employees of said Com-
pany and have been certified by the Board as
the exclusive bargaining representative of said
employees.
WE WILL NOT give effect to the collective-
bargaining agreement dated June 20, 1966,
between Mr. Wicke Ltd. Co., and ourselves, or
to any extension, renewal, or modification
thereof.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner restrain
or coerce said employees in the exercise of the
MR. WICKE LTD . CO. 1687
rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the
Act.
WE WILL reimburse all present and former
employees of Mr. Wicke Ltd. Co., who joined
the Union on or after June 20, 1966, for initia-
tion fees , dues, assessments , and other moneys
unlawfully exacted under our collective-bar-
gaining contract dated June 20, 1966, with Mr.
Wicke Ltd. Co., together with interest thereon
at 6 percent per annum, our obligation
hereunder being joint and several with that of
the above-named Respondent Company.
LOCAL 443,
INTERNATIONAL
BROTHERHOOD OF
TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS,
WAREHOUSEMEN AND
HELPERS OF AMERICA
(Labor Organization)
Dated By
Ltd. Co., hereinafter referred to as the Respondent,
and Local 443, International Brotherhood of Team-
sters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of
America, hereinafter referred to as either the
Teamsters or Local 443.
The complaint alleged that Respondent and
Local 443 had engaged in and were engaging in un-
fair labor practices affecting commerce within the
meaning of Section 8(a)(1), (2), (3), and (5), and
Section 8(b)(l)(A)(2), and Section 2(6) and (7)
of the Labor Management Relations Act, 1947, as
amended, herein called the Act.
Respondent and Local 443 duly filed answers ad-
mitting certain allegations of the complaint but
denying the commission of any unfair labor prac-
tices.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing thereon was held in
New Haven, Connecticut, on April 4 to 7, 1967, in-
clusive, before Trial Examiner Thomas S. Wilson.
All parties appeared at the hearing, were
represented by counsel and afforded full opportuni-
ty to be heard, to produce, examine and cross-ex-
amine witnesses , and to introduce evidence materi-
al and pertinent to the issues. At the conclusion of
the hearing, oral argument was waived. Briefs were
(Representative) (Title) received from General Counsel, Respondent, and
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecu-
tive days from the date of posting and must not be
altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
If members have any question concerning this
notice or compliance with its provisions, they may
communicate directly with the Board's Regional
Office, 20th Floor, John F. Kennedy Federal Build-
ing, Cambridge and New Sudbury Streets, Boston,
Massachusetts 02203, Telephone 223-3300.
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
THOMAS S. WILSON, Trial Examiner: Upon
charges duly filed in Case 1-CA-5715 on
November 14, 1966, in Case 1-CA-5796 on Janua-
ry 20, 1967, and in Case 1-CB-1199 on December
14, 1966, with amendments thereto, by Interna-
tional Ladies' Garment Workers Union, AFL-CIO,
hereinafter referred to as the Charging Party or
ILG, the General Counsel of the National Labor
Relations Board, hereinafter called the General
Counsel' and the Board, respectively, by the Re-
gional Director for Region 1, Boston, Mas-
sachusetts, issued its consolidated amended com-
plaint dated February 21, 1967, against Mr. Wicke
Local 443 on May 31, 1967.
Upon the entire record in the case and from my
observation of the witnesses, I make the following
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT
The complaint alleged, the answers admitted, and
I find that Mr. Wicke Ltd Co. is a corporation duly
organized under and existing by virtue of the laws
of the State of Connecticut and is engaged in the
manufacture, sale, and distribution of women's
skirts with its principal office and place of business
located at 75 Daggett Street, in New Haven, Con-
necticut. Respondent Employer annually receives
at its place of business directly from points outside
the State of Connecticut cloths, machinery, and
other supplies and equipment having a value in ex-
cess of $50,000 and annually ships from its place of
business directly or indirectly to points located out-
side the State of Connecticut products having a
value in excess of $50,000
Accordingly, I find that Respondent Employer at
all times material herein was engaged in commerce
within the meaning of the Act.
II. THE UNIONS INVOLVED
Respondent Local 443, International Brother-
hood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen
and Helpers of America and Charging Party Inter-
' This term specifically includes the attorneys appearing for the General
Counsel at the hearing
1688 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
national Ladies ' Garment Workers Union,
AFL-CIO, are labor organizations admitting to
membership employees of Respondent Employer.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Inference and Assistance
1. The facts
Respondent's first thought about organizing its
employees into the Teamsters came in a telephone
call by John Meyer of John Meyer of Norwich, Inc.,
to Stanley Zwicker, president and plant manager of
Respondent Mr. Wicke Ltd. Co., in the spring or
"early March" 1966.2 In this conversation Meyer
informed Zwicker that Meyer's firm in Norwich
"was being organized by the Teamsters," that
Teamsters Union "was going to organize Meyer's
contractors," and that "if [Respondent] was a
Teamsters Union shop," it "would still be able to
get [Meyer's] work. If [Respondent] were not
[Meyers] would not be able to supply [Respon-
dent] with work." Meyer also stated in this same
conversation: "Stanley, I'm thinking of you because
if my contract is with the Teamsters, it won't be any
different than an ILG contract. I'll have to go with
my work to places where I will be allowed to go
in.
This conversation made a big impression on
Zwicker. This was naturally so as 99 percent of
Respondent's business was performed for and on
behalf of John Meyer. Zwicker testified, "And of
course that is where I got my basis of what was I
going to do without John. I've been with him four-
and-a-half years, and you'd want no better outfit to
work for. I, as a businessman, and my livelihood,
naturally it struck me. I mean naturally ever since
that time that is the main subject in the back of my
mind because I have worked hard at this business to
have it where it is; and certainly you don't like to lose
something that you have worked awfully hard for."
(Emphasis supplied.)
At some indefinite time thereafter Zwicker
received a telephone call from a Teamsters official
whose name Zwicker could not recall at the hearing
who requested that Zwicker give him the names of
"a couple of older employees" whom the Team-
sters would try to get to "call on the rest of the em-
ployees on behalf of the Teamsters' organizing
drive." Zwicker complied by giving this Teamsters
official the names of Respondent's employees Ida
Kabakoff, Erlia Mae Dawson, and Clementine Lin-
coln.
Promptly after supplying these names to the
Teamsters official, Zwicker spoke individually with
Kabakoff and Dawson telling each of them that he
9 Dates in the instant case are highly uncertain Zwicker and Teamsters
Business Agent Sansone were both more than delightfully vague on all but
one or two dates As will develop hereinafter even these dates as testified to
were frequently disproved by other events
had given her name to a Teamsters official, that
when each received a call from him not to be upset
or alarmed but "to bear up" and hear out the offi-
cial who would call on her. At this same time or
within a week or 10 days thereafter Zwicker also
informed each of them that Respondent "would be
jeopardized possibly in getting work from John
Meyer" unless Respondent's employees joined the
Teamsters and that, if Meyer's plant was a Team-
sters union shop and Respondent's was not,
Respondent would not get any work from John
Meyer. Zwicker added that he was "not going to
fight the Teamsters" and that, if Respondent was
going to stay in business , it was " inevitable" that
Respondent would have to be organized by the
Teamsters.
One morning in April3 Clementine Lincoln noted
ILG pickets in front of the building housing
Respondent's plant and mentioned this fact that
there must be a strike somewhere to Rose D'Aniel-
lo, Respondent 's treasurer , while standing in a win-
dow in the plant overlooking the pickets. D'Aniello
answered, "Oh . . . that is suppose to be for us but
. . . don't let it bother you . . . because sooner or
later we will have to get unionized ... and that way
nobody will bother us no more." D'Aniello then
added that "in order to get work, John Meyer
wanted us to have a union and that sooner or later
everybody is getting unionized and that John Meyer
wanted us to get unionized. That way we would get
more work. We would get work." Employee Ed-
wiges Carrion who overheard this conversation
testified that when Lincoln objected that the em-
ployees did not want the Teamsters, D'Aniello an-
swered, "We have to sign for the Union. If we don't
sign , we don't [get] work from John Meyer."
Sometime later, June 13 or 14 according to the
testimony of Lincoln, D'Aniello spoke to her again
privately telling Lincoln that she (D'Aniello) and
Zwicker had picked several girls and given their
names to a union agent who would call on them,
that she just had to listen, that she would like this
Union better but that all she had to do was to listen
to the man.
That same evening the man, Teamsters Business
Agent John Sansone, called upon Dawson,
Kabakoff, and Lincoln individually.
On the other side of the picture John Sansone
had been elected a business agent of Teamsters
Local 443 and began working with one John
Pizano, secretary -treasurer of Local 443 and its
operating head, in January 1966. Up to the time of
his election Sansone had been a driver but entered
upon his union duties inexperienced but with a tre-
mendous "ambition," as he put it, to get out "or-
ganizing " and to " get moving."
'Admittedly ILG picketed Respondent 's place of business in New Haven
sometime in the month of April 1966
MR. WICKE LTD. CO.
Finally in the latter part of March or April, ac-
cording to the testimony of Sansone, Pizano called
him into Pizano's office and told Sansone "to go by
Wicke's and find out how the people felt there
about organization with the Teamsters and report
back to him [Pizano]." Accordingly, Sansone went
by the building housing Respondent's plant and
talked to a couple of persons whom he "assumed"
to ne employees or Respondent who suggested that
he see Clementine Lincoln. Dutifully Sansone re-
proted this visit and name to Pizano. Pizano there-
upon told Sansone, "I'll let you know when you
have to -do anything else with_Wicke."
A week or so later Pizano called Sansone in again
and gave Sansone the names of Respondent's em-
ployees Kabakoff (Mrs. K), Erlia Mae Dawson, and
Clementine Lincoln and ordered him to call upon
each of them.
So on the evening of the day of the second
D'Aniello-Lincoln conversation in Respondent's
plant, Sansone telephoned Lincoln for an appoint-
ment and then called upon her personally at her
home about 10:30 p.m. Sansone apologized for
being so late explaining that he had already called
upon Mrs. K and Dawson. He then told Lincoln
about the benefits of being organized by the Team-
sters and the benefits the Teamsters could get for
the employees. He gave Lincoln a book full of
Teamsters authorization cards and asked her to get
the employees to sign them in order to show their
interest in a union . During the conversation San-
sone also brought up the name of John Meyer.'
The following morning Mrs. K and Dawson
began soliciting Respondent's employees to sign
Teamsters authorization cards in the plant to the
knowledge and acquiescence of both Zwicker and
D'Aniello. Zwicker did testify that he did not see
any such solicitation occurring on company time
but acknowledged that it did occur on company
property without any objection from Respondent. It
was well known among the employees that they had
to join the Teamsters Union in order for Respon-
dent to secure work from John Meyer. Zwicker and
D'Aniello so informed them. In addition a number
of the employees testified without contradiction
that Mrs. K and the other solicitors told them while
soliciting signatures for the Teamsters that Respon-
dent's plant had to be organized by the Teamsters
in order to secure work from Meyer. They also told
the employees that John Meyer, along with Zwicker
and D'Aniello, wanted the Teamsters to organize
the plant. After such explanations by Mrs. K and
the others, the employees signed the authorization
cards presented.
On one occasion Zwicker asked Respondent em-
ployee Grillo to have employee Josephine Colon,
' In his testimony Sansone specifically denied that he told anyone that
Zwicker or Meyer wanted Respondent 's employees organized by the
Teamsters Union In fact Sansone denied knowing anything at all about
John Meyer or its organization by the Teamsters until the June 20, 1966,
meeting of Respondent's employees to ratify the Teamsters -Respondent
contract at which time, according to Sansone 's testimony, Respondent's
1689
who spoke Spanish , tell the Puerto Rican em-
ployees in Spanish that "we are going to get in the
Teamsters Union ... it is a very good union. You
got to be protected by them ." Grillo did as in-
structed as did Colon.
Subsequently Zwicker instructed Grillo to sign a
Teamsters authorization card which she did against
her will.
On May 26, 1966 , Sansone telephoned Zwicker
and asked to see him in order to tell him "some-
thing" about his business . Zwicker invited Sansone
to his office . Upon arrival Sansone introduced
himself as a Teamsters official , that he was pres-
ently "representing the people who worked for
Wicke Ltd." and "was ready to sit down and nego-
tiate a contract with him." Zwicker , according to
Sansone 's testimony , answered , "Well, how do I
know who you are and whether you have these
people ?" Sansone replied that he "would be pre-
pared to pull the people out on the street and
Zwicker could count them there ." Simultaneously
Sansone handed Zwicker the following "Stipulation
for Recognition " which had already been executed
on behalf of Local 443 by Pizano:
STIPULATION FOR RECOGNITION
Whereas, Teamsters Local 443 of New Haven,
Conn. have demonstrated to the satisfaction of
Mr. Wickie [sic] Ltd, that they represent a
majority of its employees employed as material
spliters, underpressers, special machine opera-
tors, machine operators, operators, pressers
and cleaners at New Haven, Conn., and
Whereas, the parties desire to resolve peace-
fully all questions relating to the rights of Local
443 to represent the material spliters, un-
derpressers, special machine operators,
machine operators, operators, pressers and
cleaners of Mr. Wickie Ltd., without resort to
strikes or other concerted protected activities.
NOW, THEREFORE , IT IS MUTUALLY
AGREED:
1. Mr. Wicke Ltd, for itself and any subsidi-
ary corporations or operations owned or
operated by it or its officers directly or in-
directly, recognizes Teamsters' Local 443 as
the sole and exclusive bargaining agent for all
of its employees employed as material spliters,
underpressers, special machine operators,
machine operators, operators, pressers and
employees informed him that 90 percent of Respondent's work came from
John Meyer and inquired if their affiliation with the Teamsters would effect
their work or jobs In the light of all the circumstances of this case the
above testimony of Sansone is so inherently incredible as to be unbelieva-
ble Accordingly, I accept the testimony of Lincoln as found above
354-126 O-LT - 73 - pt. 2 - 35
1690 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
cleaners, whether on a full time or part-time
basis and whether regular, casual, temporary
or permanent, for purposes of representing
them with respect to wages, hours and other
conditions of employment.
2 All such employees now employed or
hereafter employed by Mr. Wickie Ltd, or any
of its subsidiary corporations or operations
(hereinafter collectively called the "Em-
ployer") shall become and remain members in
good standing of Teamsters Local 443 by the
payment of the required initiation fees and the
regular periodic monthly dues of such or-
ganizations commencing on the 31st day fol-
lowing the commencement of their employ-
ment or the execution of this stipulation,
whichever is the later.
Thereupon Zwicker called Rose D'Aniello whom
he introduced to Sansone . Then , as Sansone
described it, "both of them looked at it [Stipulation
for Recognition ] over and then he signed it." Ad-
mittedly Respondent asked for and received no
other proof of majority.' In fact Sansone had no
proof of majority at least until June 13, 1966.6
The first time Sansone saw any of Respondent's
employees besides Mrs. K , Dawson , and Lincoln
was on June 13,' when he presided over a meeting
of the Respondent's employees held at the Team-
sters hall. The purpose of this meeting was to
discover what contract terms the employees wanted
and to get some authorization cards signed. San-
sone answered a question by an employee as to
Respondent 's attitude toward their signing Team-
sters authorization cards by telling the employees
that "you know Rose and Stanley want the Team-
sters to organize the shop as a union .... You know
... that John Meyers wants this shop to be
unionized ... and unless it is unionized , we won't
get any work." Teamsters authorization cards ad-
mittedly were signed and handed to Sansone at this
and at a subsequent meeting held on or about June
26.8 At the June 13 meeting there was some con-
siderable discussion as to what benefits the em-
ployees desired in the contract. Sansone made
some notes as to these demands . In none of this
testimony is there one word of evidence that the
employees wanted either union security, union shop
or the checkoff. There was talk of a 15- to 20-cent-
per-hour wage increase. Sansone did tell the em-
ployees that he had a signed recognition statement
from Zwicker but said nothing to the employees
about the union-shop or checkoff provisions
thereof
At some unidentified day during the week follow-
ing June 13, Pizano had Sansone brought into a
meeting then already in progress with Zwicker and
his attorney. Sansone was shown a 10-page contract
already prepared and asked if that was what the
employees wanted. Sansone noted that the contract
referred to "piecework" in several places and
requested "the right" to delete such references
because he had "promised" the employees that
there would be no piecework in the contract due to
the vehement objection to piecework expressed by
the employees at the June 13 meeting. Such per-
mission was granted. Sansone initialed the deletions
but Zwicker did not.
By its terms the contract was for a period of 3
years and provided a 7-1/2-cent wage increase an-
nually with seven paid holidays plus a "birthday
holiday" for employees with 3 years' service. Clas-
sifications and wages were not mentioned. The con-
tract contained a grievance and arbitration provi-
sion eliminating any and all court actions against
Respondent. The Union secured the union shop
and the checkoff. Respondent secured one of the
broader management rights clauses and a no-strike
no-lockout clause. Otherwise the contract was filled
with mere statutory requirements.
On June 26 Sansone held another meeting with
the employees at the Teamsters hall. This meeting
had been advertised throughout the day by a writ-
ten notice posted by the timeclock in Respondent's
plant. Sansone began by reading the contract.
About the middle of the reading Lincoln asked him
to stop "mumbling" and to read the provisions of
the contract. Sansone answered that "that part of
the contract is no concern of yours." He then asked
the girls to vote to ratify the contract. According to
Sansone, the vote of ratification was "unanimous."
Referring to the ratification vote Sansone also
stated to the employees, "It doesn't matter. It's a
closed shop anyhow."
A few days thereafter Zwicker executed the con-
tract at which time Sansone handed Zwicker a
number of checkoff authorization cards, requested
him to have the employees sign them, and, accord-
ing to the testimony of Sansone, warned Zwicker
' The above is Sansone 's story, the only witness to testify on this subject
These facts, if true, prose Sansone to be a great poker player Admittedly
Sansone had no signed authorization cards or other proof of majority with
him at the time Sansone testified candidly that he went to this meeting on
the "assumption " that he had a majority of the employees , an assumption
he drew from telephone calls he testified he had had with the three em-
ployees nameu above wno nad been soliciting sigiied authorization cards
The first time Sansone saw any signed authorization cards-or employees
of Respondent-was nearly 3 weeks later, on June 13 One can legitimately
say that on this occasion Sansone was pulling a bluff-or had information
not disclosed by his testimony
It is even possible that no Teamsters cards had been signed by this time
although some of the cards bear dates in March , an obviously incorrect
date When Teamsters cards were actually signed is highly questionable
The only definite evidence on this point is that of Sansone that Teamsters
cards were still being signed as late as June 26
' A previous meeting of the employees had been scheduled for May 19
but was postponed due to the fact that Dawson who apparently secured
most of the signatures to the Teamsters authorization cards had to attend a
funeral in North Carolina at that time This meeting was subsequently held
on June 13
" Sansone explained his admitted inability to identify any of the signed
authorization cards he received at either of these two union meetings as fol-
lows "I'm a new fellow in the business I had a stipulation signed I wasn't
concerned about cards I didn't feel there was any importance for the
cards Of course, I could be wrong, but this is what I actually done "
MR. WICKE LTD. CO.
that he could only checkoff if the girls signed the
authorizations "voluntarily."
The following day Zwicker had the machines in
the shop stopped and called all the employees to a
meeting in the shop during working hours. He dis-
tributed the Teamsters checkoff authorization cards
and told the employees to sign them. One em-
ployee, Edwigec Carrion, signed her checkoff
authorization card after asking Zwicker what would
happen to her if she refused to sign and being told
that in that case she would have to quit. The em-
ployees signed the checkoff cards as ordered.
Respondent began checking off union dues from
the employees' wages on July 13 Respondent also
checked off dues for employee Lucy Rosario at the
same time although Rosario had signed no checkoff
authorization card. The $6-per-month union dues
have been checked off regularly ever since by
Respondent from all the employees, including
Rosario.
2. Conclusions
The present case is an excellent illustration of
that now prohibited organizational technique com-
monly referred to in labor circles as "organizing
from the top." That phrase refers to the technique
whereby, for their own individual purposes, an em-
ployer and a union working in concert force the
employees into membership in and representation
by the employer-favored union. The Act now
guarantees the right of employees to be represented
in collective bargaining "through representatives of
their [the employees'] own choosing." This guaran-
tee, therefore, makes such "organizing from the
top" illegal because that technique forces the em-
ployees to accept representation of their employer's
and the favored union's choice rather than that of
the employees' own choosing.
The admitted facts here prove beyond a perad-
venture of a doubt that the idea of organizing
Respondent's employees into Local 443 originated
with Respondent Employer with an assist from its
sole and exclusive customer, John Meyer, who in-
formed Respondent that , unless Respondent's em-
ployees became members of the Teamsters, he,
Meyer, would be unable to supply Respondent with
work in the future. The clear implication of that
statement was that , unless Respondent 's employees
became Teamsters, Respondent was out of busi-
ness, an implication which Zwicker immediately
perceived. And it worried him from then on as his
testimony proved. Of course Respondent can
properly claim that the economic business situation
s The complaint alleged Mrs K to have been a "managerial agent" of
Respondent The evidence proved that Mrs K, who did not testify, sol-
icited signatures of Respondent 's employees on Teamsters organization at
the request , or order , of Zwicker and, for the purposes of that effort, in-
formed other employees that it was "inevitable " that Respondent's em-
ployees be organized into Local 443 because otherwise Respondent's plant
would receive no work from its sole customer, John Meyer In fact Zwicker
1691
created by this statement of Meyer forced it to or-
ganize its employees into Local 443 in order to stay
in business and save the jobs of its employees.
Neither the Board nor the courts have ever recog-
nized "economic necessity" as justification for the
commission of unfair labor practices by an em-
ployer. This has been settled law since the decision
in N.L.R.B. v. Star Publishing Co., 97 F.2d 465, 470
(C.A. 9), where the court in pertinent part held:
The respondent further contends that it was
necessary to make the transfer, and thus en-
gage in the unfair labor practice, because its
business would otherwise be disrupted, and
therefore, under all the facts, the transfer was
excusable. We think, however, the act is con-
trolling. The act prohibits unfair labor prac-
tices in all cases. It permits no immunity
because the employer may think that the ex-
igencies of the moment require infraction of
the statute. In fact, nothing in the statute per-
mits or justifies its violation by the employer.
Thus faced with this purported economic situa-
tion raised by the Meyer statement, Respondent
promptly proceeded to get its employees organized
into Local 443 through the efforts of its officials,
Zwicker and D'Aniello, as well as through the ef-
forts of Mrs. K,9 Dawson, and Lincoln, employees
selected by Respondent for this purpose who were
admittedly and carefully informed that, unless the
employees were organized into Local 443, John
Meyer would supply no more work to Respondent.
The evidence proved that in order to secure the
employees' signature to authorization cards of
Local 443 the John Meyer statement was reiterated
to the employees not only by the three employees
selected by Respondent to solicit such signatures
but also by Zwicker and D'Aniello. Thus the em-
ployees were well informed that, unless they joined
Local 443, Respondent would have no work. The
implication to be drawn therefrom was as clear to
Respondent's employees as it had been to Zwicker:
No work, no jobs. Thus the employees signed the
authorization cards in order to save their jobs. If
Zwicker were coerced by the statement as his own
testimony showed him to be, so too were Respon-
dent 's employees. No work from Meyer meant only
that Respondent was out of business and con-
sequently Respondent's employees had no jobs.
In their briefs both Respondents argue that the
fact that Respondent reiterated the Meyer state-
ment to the employees and thus allegedly apprised
them of the economic necessity for their joining
Local 443 was not, in fact, coercive and, in addi-
tion , such reiteration was protected by the so-called
had used the same means to induce Mrs K to act as his agent in the or-
ganizational campaign The testimony proved that Mrs K performed these
organizational services for Respondent as requested by Respondent and,
hence, was Respondent's agent for these purposes
Although the complaint contained no similar allegation in regard to Erlia
Mae Dawson or Clementine Lincoln , the same finding as made above could
be made in regard to each of them
1692 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
free speech provision (Section 8(c)) of the Act
because the statements made were in fact truthful.
As authority for these positions Respondents cite
the case of Neco Electrical Products Corporation,
124 NLRB 481, set aside and remanded, sub nom.
International Union of Electrical, Radio and
Machine Workers v. N.L.R.B., 289 F.2d 757
(C.A.D.C.).
A careful reading of these Neco decisions by the
Board and the court show Respondent's reliance
thereon to be misplaced. In the Neco case the Trial
Examiner had found that a statement made by the
respondent there to the effect that "two of Re-
spondent's biggest customers" had informed
respondent that, if respondent's employees voted
for the Union in the scheduled representation elec-
tion, they would be forced to seek other sources of
supply for fear that strikes might interrupt respon-
dent's production constituted a violation of Section
8(a)(1) as coercive. The Board reversed this find-
ing on the theory that the statement was merely a
"prediction" of possible future events and as such
was not coercive. Upon appeal the Circuit Court of
Appeals for the District of Columbia corrected the
Board and found the so-called "prediction" was in
fact coercive but remanded the case to the Board in
order to provide respondent an opportunity to
prove the truthfulness of the assertion made on the
theory that, if proved truthful, the truthfulness of
the statement might bring it within the protection
of Section 8(c) of the Act.10
A rapid survey of Board decisions on this point
both prior and subsequent to the original Neco
decision indicates that that Neco decision was and
is a maverick and an aberation, if not also unique.
At least by the time of the Board's decision in
Haynes Stellite Company, 136 NLRB 95 at 97, the
Board had changed its mind and found a statement
similar to that in Neco to constitute a violation of
Section 8(a)(I ).11 But, also, so had the court in the
cited cases and reversed the Board, 310 F.2d 844
(C.A. 6), finding no violation.
Finally there is the recent decision in Dubin-
Haskell Lining Corp. v. N.L.R.B., 375 F.2d 568
(C.A. 4), where that court speaking through Judge
Boreman affirmed the Board's decision that
Respondent had violated Section 8(a)(1) of the
Act in an incident described by the court as fol-
lows:
In early June, Cox [employee] was summoned
by Jones [plant manager] to the latter's office.
Jones asked Cox if any of the men were con-
templating forming a union and Cox replied in
the negative. Jones told Cox that important
customers (Colonial and Spartan) "would quit
us" if a union were organized and it would
mean Cox's job as well as his (Jones'). Jones
ended this conversation by asking Cox to let
him know in the event anything further was
heard about the union.
In affirming the Board's decision that that con-
versation was a violation of Section 8(a)(1) as
coercive, the court held:
It is clear that such statements may or can be
violations of section 8(a)(1) although they
contain no express threats of economic
reprisals. While it might be argued that Jones'
remarks amount to little more than prophecy
and expression of opinion within the protection
of section 8(c), the request to report future ac-
tivity seems calculated to create the impression
that the employer was on guard for union ac-
tivity, and intended if need be to take ineasures
designed to prevent the union from gaining a
foothold. Likewise such questions and re-
marks, made without assurances that no
reprisals would be taken, leave the employee
to conjure up various images of employer
retaliation. We are not concerned at this point
with the company's argument, discussed below,
that the Board has not proved that the com-
pany had knowledge of Cox's union activity for
the remarks made by Jones were violative of sec-
tion 8(a)(1) even if made without any
knowledge of Cox's organizing role because such
remarks would have the effect of chilling future
as well as any present union activity.12 [Empha-
sis supplied.]
It must also be noted that Respondents here
made no effort to comply with the suggestion
proffered in the Neco case that the truth of the
statement, if proved, might-a legal point specifi-
cally not decided by Judge Bazelon-bring its
reiteration within the protection of Section 8(c).
There is no proof in this record that John Meyer
ever had any employees, that they were ever or-
ganized by the Teamsters, that Meyer ever reached
a collective agreement with the Teamsters or that
such agreement, if ever reached, restricted Meyer
to subcontracting to Teamsters organized shops. As
the Neco decision places the burden of such proof
upon the party asserting the same and Respondent
here failed to avail itself of the opportunity
presented, the Section 8(c) issue never arises here.
It is true that Zwicker testified that he received
such a telephone call from Meyer. Zwicker's
10 Upon this remand the Board modified its cited decision in an unre-
ported decision dated April 13, 1961 See Anibox, Incorporated, 146 NLRB
1520, 1528 Respondents can hardly be blamed for this omission
" Also see such analogous cases as Herman Wilson Lumber Company,
149 NLRB 673, Brosnuood Manufacturing Company, 149 NLRB 921 at
924, and Madison Brass Works, Inc , and Surf, Inc , 161 NLRB 1206, enfd
381 F 2d 854 (C A 7)
1z The request made to report upon future union activity, noted in the
decision, does not distinguish the quoted case from the instant one Such
request differs only in kind from the request Respondent here made of em-
ployees Mrs K, Dawson, and Lincoln to see and hear the Teamsters official
when he called upon them Such invitation by the Employer was an open
invitation, if not an order, that said employees comply with the Teamsters
official's request that they help organize the employees on behalf of the
Teamsters
MR. WICKE LTD. CO.
testimony is probative proof as to the receipt of the
Meyer telephone call. However , it is pure hearsay
as to the contents of any statements made by
Meyer . Thus such contents were never proved
despite the Neco suggestion . 13 In the light of the nu-
merous instances of obvious collusion between
Meyer , Respondent , and Local 443 prevalent in
this record , such proof of truthfulness is definitely
necessary.
In the instant case the Meyer statement was not
even phrased as a "prediction ." It was a plain state-
ment of fact : No work from Respondent's sole
customer unless Respondent 's employees were or-
ganized into the Teamsters . Unlike some of the
authority cited above , there was no expressed
threat to abolish the employees ' jobs. There was no
need for that . That was implicit . Practically a 2-
year old would recognize instantly that , if Respon-
dent had no work , the employees had no jobs. That
is the way the system works . Zwicker instantly
recognized the threat to his business in the Meyer
statement just as the employees did to their jobs by
its reiteration . And both reacted as intended.
Even without the unnecessary and long legal dis-
sertation above , I have no hesitation in finding that
the repetition of the Meyer statement was
reasonably calculated to, tended to, and did in fact
interfere with , restrain , and coerce Respondent's
employees in the free exercise of the rights guaran-
teed to them in Section 7 of the Act and was thus a
violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act . Further-
more , I find that the reiteration to the employees of
the Meyer threat was so general , so extensive, so in-
tentional , and so all pervasive that it tainted every
act the employees were required to take thereafter:
The execution of-the authorization cart s f-or Local
443, the ratification of the purported contract of
June 20 , 1966, and the execution of the "volun-
tary" checkoff cards. 14
Accordingly , I must , and hereby do, find that the
statement reiterated by Respondent to its em-
ployees was in fact coercive and a violation of Sec-
tion 8(a)(1) of the Act . As a corollary thereto I
must also, and hereby do, find that the employees
were coerced by such reiteration into executing
Teamsters authorization cards by Respondent and
its agents and that , therefore , Local 443 never at
any time material herein represented an uncoerced
majority of Respondent 's employees in the ap-
propriate unit.
I make this finding despite the fact that at the
hearing Respondent produced and introduced into
evidence authorization cards bearing authentic
signatures of more than a majority of Respondent's
employees in the appropriate unit. The "majority"
thus shown was a coerced majority and, therefore,
was in violation of the Act.
1693
The facts further prove that on May 26, 1966,
Local 443 requested and received written recogni-
tion from Respondent based exclusively upon the
oral "say so" of Business Agent Sansone that, if
Respondent wanted proof of majority, he, Sansone,
would call the employees out on strike and Respon-
dent could count them in the street. The recogni-
tion thus accorded Local 443 was either by a collu-
sive prearrangement or due to the fact that Sansone
was a remarkable poker player because, as of May
26, the time Respondent executed the recognition
stipulation, Sansone admittedly had demanded
recognition on the "assumption," Sansone's word,
that he had a majority based solely upon telephone
conversations. Admittedly at that time Sansone had
no proof of any such majority representation, had
seen no signed authorization cards and, in fact, had
seen none of Respondent's employees other than
the three selected for him by Respondent. Actually
Sansone was not to see a signed authorization card
or an employee of Respondent until almost 3 weeks
thereafter on June 13. Recognition thus had to be
by prearranged connivance between Respondent
and Local 443, especially as Sansone went to the
May 26 recognition meeting, the first time he had
ever met Zwicker, with a "Stipulation for Recogni-
tion" already signed by Local 443 providing recog-
nition not only for the employees at Respondent's
plant but also for "any subsidiary corporation or
operations owned or operated by it or its officers
directly or indirectly." This recognition also in-
cluded the right to check off the employees' dues to
Local 443.
Corroborating this idea of a collusive recogni-
tion, the signed authorization cards presented by
Local 443 at the hearing as proof of its alleged
majority were either undated or were dated by
some undisclosed person other than the individuals
who signed the cards between March 17 and 23,
1966, an impossible date under the facts here. San-
sone himself testified that such cards were still
being executed as late as June 20-but, as noted
above, he considered these cards unimportant in
the light of the signed "Stipulation for Recogni-
tion" he had in his pocket. In this testimony,
quoted supra, Sansone acknowledged that he
"could be wrong" about the importance of these
cards. He was indeed.
Based upon this connived, coerced, and illegal
recognition, Local 443 through its secretary-trea-
surer Pizano proportedly "negotiated" a collective-
bargaining agreement dated June 20 with Respon-
dent and its attorney, in the absence not only of
Respondent's employees but also of the so-called
organizer, which was finally executed about June
27. This was the next to last nail in the coffin.
'a The only attempt made to comply with the Neco suggestion occurred
when Respondent sought to introduce an ILG-not Teamsters-form con-
tract into evidence at the hearing The ILG contract was, of course, incom-
petent , irrelevant, and immaterial and thus was rejected
14 Clement Brothers Company, Inc , 165 NLRB 698
1694 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
This 10-page document, exclusive of matters
covered by statutory requirement, provided in large
measure only the following:
1. A "no strike, no lock out" clause, a grievance
procedure expressly barring any court actions and
as broad a management rights clause as this Trial
Examiner has seen. This no doubt assured Respon-
dent of "labor peace" for the duration of the 3-year
contract.
2. Recognition and a dues-checkoff clause for
Local 443-whereby Local 443 no doubt was paid
for services rendered.
3. Holidays, vacations, and 7-1/2-cent-per-hour
annual wage increases for the employees of which
exactly 50 percent of the first year's increase was
promptly checked off by Respondent to Local 443
as "dues." Thus the employees received an increase
of $6 per month.
Contracts such as this one signed under
analogous circumstances are characterized as
"sweetheart contracts."
The final nail in the coffin, of course, was
Respondent's action in requiring its employees to
execute checkoff authorizations provided by Local
443.15 One employee, at least, was told by Zwicker
that unless she signed such checkoff authorization
card, she would have to quit her employment. She
signed. The facts further prove that despite the
terms of the contract executed (which in phraseolo-
gy complied with the law), Respondent began
checking off employees' dues on July 13, 1966,
within the statutory 30-day period and, in at least
one instance, regardless of the fact that the em-
ployee whose dues were checked off had signed no
such authorization card. Thus by its enforcement of
this legally phrased contract Respondent made the
contract into a "closed shop" contract, even as
Sansone had referred to it to the employees at the
so-called ratification meeting of June 13.
Accordingly, I must and hereby do find and con-
clude that by each of the matters above referred to
Respondent interfered with, restrained, and
coerced its employees into membership in and
representation by Local 443 in violation of Section
8(a)(1) and (3) and thereby gave financial and
other illegal assistance to Local 443 which never
represented an uncoerced majority of Respondent's
employees in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (2)
of the Act.
I further must find and conclude, as I hereby do,
that by the same above facts, Local 443 restrained
and coerced Respondent's employees in violation
of Section 8(b)(1)(A) and caused Respondent Em-
ployer to discriminate against its employees in re-
gard to their wages, hours, and working conditions
in violation of Section 8(b)(2) of the Act.
B. The Refusal To Bargain
1. The facts
The pleadings and evidence prove, and I find,
that all production and maintenance employees, in-
cluding packing and shipping employees, employed
by Respondent Employer at its New Haven, Con-
necticut, plant, but excluding office clerical em-
ployees, professional employees, guards and super-
visors as defined in the Act constitute a unit ap-
propriate for the purpose of collective bargaining
within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act.16
In October 1966 ILG organizers handed leaflets
and ILG authorization cards to all of Respondent's
employees. Between that time and November 16,
1966, many of the employees had mailed signed
ILG authorization cards to that Union or had
signed and given them either to Clementine Lincoln
at the plant or to an ILG organizer after signing the
authorization cards at their homes. As of November
16, 1966, 25 of Respondent's employees had ex-
ecuted ILG authorization cards and delivered them
to the Union. As of January 4, 1967, 34 of such
employees had executed such ILG authorization
cards and delivered them to the Union.
By stipulation it appears, and I find, that as of
November 16, 1966, there were 44 employees in
the appropriate unit and that as of January 4, 1967,
43 employees were employed in the appropriate
unit.
Accordingly, I find that on both November 16,
1966, and January 4, 1967, the majority of Respon-
dent's employees in the above-found appropriate
unit had authorized ILG to represent them in col-
lective bargaining with Respondent.
On November 16, 1966, ILG Business Agent
Bert Cooper accompanied by Union Agent Saul
Rosen met with Stanley Zwicker in Zwicker's office
at the plant. After introducing himself and Rosen,
Cooper informed Zwicker that they were present
demanding recognition on behalf of ILG, that they
represented a majority of the employees in the shop
and were prepared to prove that majority by a card
count. Cooper offered the cards to Zwicker for
comparison against the W-4 forms or the payrolls
in Respondent's possession. Zwicker answered that
he did not understand this because he already had a
Teamsters contract. Rosen explained that the
Teamsters contract was improper and that ILG had
already filed charges with the Board on that basis.
Zwicker was disinterested. Before leaving the of-
fice, Cooper handed Zwicker a signed letter dated
November 16, 1966, stating:
Local 151, International Ladies' Garment
Workers' Union represents a majority of the
15 Paranite Wire & Cable Division Essex Wire Corporation, 164 NLRB
319
" Despite the difference of the terminology used in this description of
the appropriate unit, it is the same unit as described in the "Stipulation for
Recognition" of May 26, 1966, and of the contract executed between
Respondent and Teamsters dated June 20, 1966
MR. WICKE LTD. CO.
workers excluding clerical workers at your
plant located at 75 Daggett Street, New Haven.
We are prepared to demonstrate this majori-
ty by a card count checking names against the
names of workers appearing on your payroll
records or W-4 forms.
This check can be conducted by an indepen-
dent party such as the State Labor Relations
Board, the State Arbitration and Mediation
Service, the Federal Mediation and Concilia-
tion Service or a similarly constituted agency,
or any mutually accepted impartial third party.
Upon return to his office, Cooper sent Zwicker a
telegram confirming the afternoon visit.
Respondent did not afford recognition to ILG.
By letter dated January 4, 1967, Bert Cooper, as
manager of the Connecticut Ladies' Garment
Workers' Union, notified Zwicker as follows:
Local 15 1, International Ladies' Garment
Workers' Union represents a majority of the
workers excluding clerical workers at your
plant located at 75 Daggett Street, New Haven
Connecticut.
In a letter dated November 16, 1966 ad-
dressed to you we stated that we were
prepared to demonstrate this majority by a
card count checking names against the names
of workers appearing on your payroll records
or W-4 forms.
We are again prepared to demonstrate this
majority as stated in the above paragraph.
This check can be conducted by an impartial
party such as the State Labor Relations Board,
the State Arbitration and Mediation Service,
the Federal Mediation or Conciliation Service
or a similarly constituted agency, or any mu-
tually acceptable impartial third party.
ILG has never received an answer to this commu-
nication . Nor has Respondent recognized ILG.
Soon after his visit from Cooper and Rosen,
Zwicker asked Lincoln, if Lincoln knew anything
about his visitors from ILG. After Lincoln had de-
nied knowing anything about those visitors,
Zwicker asked Lincoln if Lincoln knew of anyone
who had signed ILG cards. Again Lincoln denied
any such knowledge whereupon Zwicker said that if
the employees "stayed with the other union [Local
443], [it] would be better for his business if we
stayed with the Union we got and not to change it."
On March 23, D'Aniello invited Lincoln into her
office where she said to Lincoln, "Do you think you
can talk to the girls and talk them into forgetting
the other cards [ ILG ] so that we could start all over
because, after all, you know you are hurting us."
Lincoln answered, "I have no intention of hurting
you or Stanley. . . . You know we are in the wrong
union , and the girls don't like it . They want their
own." D'Aniello replied, "Well, you know who the
girls are ," a statement Lincoln denied. D'Aniello
continued by saying that one of the employees al-
ready regretted the ILG and ended the conversa-
tion by adding, "Well, you know they will back out
anyhow. They always do."
2. Conclusions
1695
The facts here prove without denial that ILG
armed with unambiguous cards authorizing ILG to
represent them in collective bargaining voluntarily
executed by a majority of Respondent's employees
in the appropriate unit above found requested
recognition and bargaining with Respondent in a
meeting with Zwicker in his office on November
16, 1966. Zwicker was offered the signed cards so
as to satisfy himself of their authenticity.
On this occasion Zwicker failed to recognize ILG
on the ground that he "did not understand"
because Respondent already had a contract with
Teamsters, i.e., the contract dated June 20, 1966,
heretofore found to be illegal and of no force or ef-
fect and thus no bar to the ILG claim.
By letter dated January 4, 1967, at a time when
ILG had been authorized to represent even a
greater majority of the employees in the ap-
propriate unit, ILG repeated its demand for recog-
nition and bargaining again offering the voluntarily
signed authorization cards to Respondent so that it
could satisfy itself in regard to ILG's claim.
On this occasion Respondent chose to refuse the
requested recognition by failing to answer ILG's de-
mand.
By the aforementioned actions Respondent failed
and refused to bargain with ILG as the exclusive
representative for collective bargaining for Respon-
dent's employees in the appropriate unit in viola-
tion of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act. I so
find.
In addition I also find that the undenied reasons
made to Lincoln by Zwicker and by D'Aniello were
intended to inhibit her from any activities she might
have been engaged in or contemplated engaging in
on behalf of ILG and thus constituted a violation of
Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent Employer set
forth in section III, above, occurring in connection
with its operations set forth 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.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Respondent Local 443, International Brother-
hood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen
and Helpers of America, and International Ladies'
Garment Workers Union, AFL-CIO, are labor or-
ganizations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of
the Act.
2. By selecting Local 443 to be the representa-
tive of its employees for the purposes of collective
bargaining with Respondent, by organizing its em-
1696 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ployees into Local 443 through coercion, by recog-
nizing Local 443 as such representative for its em-
ployees with full knowledge that any majority of
such employees that Local 443 might represent
was, in fact, a coerced majority, by thereafter en-
tering into a collective agreement containing union-
security provisions with Local 443 as such
representative of its employees and by enforcing
the recognition and dues-checkoff provisions of
that agreement as though it were a "closed shop"
contract, Respondent has interfered with,
restrained, and coerced its employees in violation
of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act and has assisted, con-
tributed financial and other support to Local 443 in
violation of Section 8(a)(1), (2), and (3) of the
Act.
3. By restraining and coercing Respondent's em-
ployees by accepting illegal financial and other
assistance from Respondent Employer in forcing
Respondent Employer's employees into accepting
representation by Local 443 by coercive means,
and by entering into a purported collective-bargain-
ing agreement with Respondent Employer contain-
ing union-security provisions and by enforcement
of said agreement without ever being the represen-
tative of said employees' "own choosing," Respon-
dent Local 443 has restrained and coerced said em-
ployees in violation of Section 8(b)(1)(A) and has
caused Respondent Employer to discriminate
against its employees in violation of Section
8(a)(3) of the Act and in violation of Section
8(b)(2) of the Act.
4. All production and maintenance employees,
including packing and shipping employees, em-
ployed by Respondent Employer at its New Haven,
Connecticut, plant, but excluding office clerical
employees, professional employees, guards and su-
pervisors as defined in the Act constitute a unit ap-
propriate for the purpose of collective bargaining
within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act.
5. On November 16, 1966, and at all times
thereafter , including January 4, 1967, ILG has been
and now is the representative for the purposes of
collective bargaining of a majority of Respondent's
employees in the above-described unit and, by vir-
tue of Section 9(a) of the Act, has been and is now
the exclusive representative of all employees in
such appropriate unit for the purposes of collective
bargaining with Respondent Employer in respect to
rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and
other conditions of employment.
6. By refusing on November 16, 1966, and
January 4, 1967, and at all times thereafter, to
recognize and bargain with ILG as such exclusive
representative of its employees, Respondent has
refused to bargain with ILG as such representative
in violation of Section 8(a)(5) of the Act.
7. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect
commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and
(7) of the Act.
The Remedy
Having found that Respondents have engaged in
and are engaging in certain unfair labor practices, I
will recommend that they cease and desist
therefrom and that they take certain affirmative ac-
tion which will effectuate the policies of the Act
As noted heretofore, I have found that whatever
majority representation Local 443 claimed among
Respondents' employees was in fact a coerced
majority to Respondent Employer's own knowledge
and that the "Stipulation for Recognition" and the
collective-bargaining agreement with its union-
security provisions executed by and between
Respondent Employer and Local 443 were all part
of the same massive coercion exerted upon Respon-
dents' employees by said Respondents as well as il-
legal financial and other assistance rendered Local
443 by Respondent Employer, I will, therefore,
order Respondent Employer to withdraw and
withhold recognition from Local 443 unless and
until said Local 443 be certified hereafter by the
Board and to cease giving any force or effect to
said illegal recognition and contract with its union-
security and checkoff provisions dated June 20,
1966, between Respondent and Local 443 except
that the wage increase provided therein for the em-
ployees shall not be reduced by any unilateral ac-
tion by Respondent.
Local 443 concludes its brief with the following
request: "Further, if the Examiner should find any
violations, it is urged that reimbursement of dues be
restricted to those employees who were actually
coerced into joining the Teamsters. [Local 60, Car-
penters v. N.L.R.B., 365 U.S. 6511."
This is a reasonable request and would be fol-
lowed by this Trial Examiner except for the fact
that the coercion exerted upon Respondent's em-
ployees by Respondent and Local 443 was so mas-
sive, intense , and pervasive as to affect and taint
not only the execution of the Teamsters authoriza-
tion cards but also the execution of the "voluntary"
checkoff provision of the "Stipulation for Recogni-
tion" and of the contract dated June 20, 1966. The
threat made to the employees' future employment
by Respondent was so general and so deliberately
imposed upon the employees that there was nothing
"voluntary" about the execution of any of the
checkoff authorization cards by the employees."
Accordingly, I will order Respondent Local 443
and Respondent Employer, jointly and severally, to
reimburse each of Respondent's employees for all
moneys exacted from each as Teamsters union
dues, initiation fees, or assessments under the
checkoff provisions of that unlawful contract dated
June 20, 1966, with interest at 6 percent per an-
num.
As Respondents were each individually and
deliberately responsible for the coercion imposed
" See Clement Brothers Company, Inc , 165 NLRB 698, and cases there
cited
MR. WICKE LTD . CO. 1697
upon Respondent 's employees and, therefore, for
the wrongdoing done to those employees and each
of them, let Employer and Local 443 reimburse
the employees for the money illegally exacted from
them and then try to straighten out their own finan-
cial affairs between themselves.
I will also order Respondent Employer to bargain
upon request with ILG as the exclusive bargaining
representative of its employees in the appropriate
unit found above.
[Recommended Order omitted from publica-
tion.