Ravena Sportswear

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 19, 1963

142 N.L.R.B. 1299 (N.L.R.B. 1963)

RAVENA SPORTSWEAR, ETC. 1299
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor
Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, we hereby notify our employees that:
WE WILL bargain, upon request, with International Brotherhood of Pulp,
Sulphite, and Paper Mill Workers, AFL-CIO, as the exclusive representative
of all employees in the bargaining unit described below in respect to rates of
pay, wages, hours of employment, or other conditions of employment, and,
if an understanding is reached, embody it in a signed agreement. The bar-
gaining unit is:
All employees at our Baltimore, Maryland, plant, excluding office
clericals, professional employees, guards, and supervisors as defined in
the Act.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain, or
coerce our employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to
form, loin, or assist International Brotherhood of Pulp, Sulphite, and Paper
Mill Workers, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization, to bargain col-
lectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in other
concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual
aid or protection, or to refrain from any or all such activities, except to the
extent that such right may be affected by the provisos in Section 8(a)(3) of
the Act.
WE WILL, upon his unconditional application, restore to his former position
any employee who engaged in the strike of November 1, 1962, dismissing, if
necessary, any replacement hired on or after that date and make such ap-
plicant whole for any loss of pay suffered by reason of our refusal, if any,
to reinstate him within 5 days after his application.
All our employees are free to become, remain, or refrain from becoming or
remaining members of International Brotherhood of Pulp, Sulphite, and Paper Mill
Workers, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization.
SOLO CUP COMPANY,
Employer.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------
(Representative) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting,
and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
Employees may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office, 6th Floor,
707 North Calvert Street, Baltimore, Maryland, 21202, Telephone No. 752-8460,
Extension 2100, if they have any questions concerning this notice or compliance
with its provisions.
Clodomiro Isolino doing business under the trade name and style
of Ravena Sportswear ; Edmeston Dress Co ., Inc.; Oneonta
Dress Co., Inc.; Sherwood Fashions, Inc. and International
Ladies' Garment Workers Union , AFL-CIO. Case No. 3-CA-
1843. June 19, 1963
DECISION AND ORDER
On January 18, 1963, Trial Examiner James V. Constantine issued
his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that
Respondents, Clodomiro Isolino doing business under the trade
name and style of Ravena Sportswear, Oneonta Dress Co., Inc., and
142 NLRB No. 129.
712-548-64-vol. 142-83
1300 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Sherwood Fashions, Inc., herein referred to as Isolino, Oneonta, and
Sherwood, respectively, had engaged in and were engaging in certain
unfair labor practices land recommending that they cease and desist
therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the at-
tached Intermediate Report. The Trial Examiner also found that
Respondent Edmeston Dress Co., Inc., herein referred to as Edmeston,
had not engaged in unfair labor practices and granted the Respond-
ents' motion to dismiss the complaint as to Edmeston. Thereafter,
the General Counsel and Respondents Oneonta and Sherwood filed
exceptions to the Intermediate Report and supporting briefs.'
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the Act, the Board
has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-
member panel [Chairman McCulloch and Members Leedom and
Brown ].
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made
at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed.
The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Inter-
mediate Report, the exceptions and briefs, and the entire record in
this case,' and hereby adopts the findings,' conclusions, and recom-
mendations of the Trial Examiner to the extent that they are con-
sistent with this decision.
1. The General Counsel contends, in substance, that the operations
of the four Respondents are integrated, and that they constitute a
single employer for jurisdictional purposes and with respect to
liability for funfair labor practices committed at Ravena Sportswear.
At the hearing, the Trial Examiner granted the Respondents' motion
to dismiss as to Edmeston on the ground that it was not integrated
i The Charging Party, International Ladies' Garment Workers Union , AFL-CIO, joined
in the exceptions filed by the General Counsel, and Respondent Isolino joined in those
filed by Respondents Oneonta and Sherwood
2 The Respondents ' request for oral argument is denied as , in our opinion , the record,
including the exceptions and briefs , adequately presents the issues and the positions of
the parties.
S We herewith correct the following inadvertent errors in the Intermediate Report :
(1) the "anniversary dinner" which Mrs Creighton referred to in her discussion with
Bleezard on February 2, 1962 , was to occur at Oneonta rather than Binghamton ; there
was no objection to the General Counsel's supplemental motion to correct the record in
this regard ; and (2 ) Isolino's statement to Morrell with respect to her possible recall,
referred to in the section entitled "Concluding Findings as to the Discharge of Morrell,"
took place on February 17 rather than 14
The General Counsel excepts to the Trial Examiner 's failure to find that Mrs Creigbton's
announcement on February 12 or 13 constituted a threat of discharge not only for aiding
or supporting the Union but also for becoming or remaining a union member. As the
Order requires the Respondents , because of their other violations, to cease and desist from
threatening employees with discharge or termination of operations for becoming or re-
maining members of the Union , we find it unnecessary to pass upon this exception
The Respondents except to the Trial Examiner 's crediting some of employee Hoyt's
remarks to Isolino on February 16, 1962 , on the ground that they were hearsay. We
note, from the record , moreover , that Hoyt's testimony concerning this conversation
differs in some respects from the account given in the Intermediate Report. As these
remarks do not affect any of our ultimate findings in the case , we deem it unnecessary to
pass upon the merits of this contention or correct the Intermediate Report on this matter.
RAVENA SPORTSWEAR, ETC. 1301
with Sherwood and Oneonta to the extent of being jointly liable for
the unfair labor practices. In the Intermediate Report, he found
that Respondents Sherwood and Oneonta constitute a single employer,
but that Respondent Isolino is an individual proprietor whose busi-
ness is not an integral part of their operations. He found Sherwood,,
Oneonta, and Isolino all responsible, however, for the conduct of Mrs_
Creighton at Ravena Sportswear on the ground that she was the
agent of all of them, but that only Isolino was responsible for unlaw-
ful statements by Bishop, a floorlady at Ravena Sportswear, because
she acted only as his agent. We find merit in the General Counsel's
exceptions to the Trial Examiner's failure to find that all four Re-
spondents constitute a single employer.
All four Respondents are located in New York, and the three
corporate enterprises are New York corporations. Sherwood is a
manufacturer or jobber of dresses in New York City. John St.
George is its treasurer, 1 of its 3 directors, and the holder of 25
of its 100 shares. The record indicates that he handles for Sherwood
such matters as labor relations, plant acquisition, insurance and sub-
contracts. Oneonta is engaged in the production of dresses at One-
onta, New York, exclusively for Sherwood. St. George is its presi-
dent, 1 of its 2 directors, and the owner of 50 percent of its stock.
The physical plant of Oneonta is owned by Mrs. Creighton, who for-
merly operated it. Although she now leases it to Oneonta, she serves
as its manager, and her son-in-law, Sal Colletti, is production man-
ager. St. George directs Oneonta's activities personally and through
Mrs. Creighton; there is no evidence that the other director, Luckese,
takes an active part in management. Edmeston, a wholly owned sub-
sidiary of Oneonta, performed certain dressmaking functions ex-
clusively for Oneonta at its plant in Oneonta, New York, until De-
cember 1961; since that time, the plant has been closed, but Edmeston
has remained as a corporate entity with a mailing address at the One-
onta plant. St. George is vice president and treasurer of Edmeston,
and one of its three directors; the other two, who also serve as presi-
dent and secretary, respectively, are Sal Colletti and his wife, Mrs.
Creighton's daughter.4
In September or October 1961, St. George met Isolino, who had
come from Argentina 2 years before. They agreed that Isolino
would purchase the Edmeston plant. On November 24, 1961, Isolino
'The only other individuals who have any interest in the 3 corporations are Rosen-
garten, president and director of Sherwood who owns 20 of its 100 shares ; Azaria , secre-
tary and director of Sherwood, who owns 30 shares ; and Luckese, who owns 25 shares
of Sherwood stock, and who is also secretary -treasurer of Oneonta and 1 of its 2 direc-
tors, with ownership of 50 percent of its stock.
St George is the only individual authorized to sign checks for all three corporations,
although Rosengarten and Sal Colletti have authority to sign checks for Sherwood and
Edmeston , respectively, and Mrs Creighton has authority to sign payroll checks for
Oneonta.
1302 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
gave Mrs. Creighton $1,000 as a deposit on the purchase price, with
the understanding that a contract was to be executed in 4 weeks.'
Shortly after Isolino assumed management of the Edmeston opera-
tion, a defective sewer necessitated closing the plant. The agree-
ment of sale was rescinded and, as Isolino testified, at the end of De-
cember 1961, St. George returned his deposit and he, Isolino, began
to look for another plant.
Prior to this time, St. George had begun negotiating for the pur-
chase of Cousant, Inc., a plant located in Ravena, New York, which
had ceased operations on September 13, 1961. In the latter part of
November 1961, the New York Business Development Corporation,
which held a mortgage with a balance of approximately $30,000 on
the plant, had referred Mrs. Levy, its president, to St. George of
Sherwood as a possible purchaser. St. George and Mrs. Levy held
about five meetings, with Isolino present at all or practically all ex-
cept the first one. Also present at one or more of these meetings
were Mrs. Creighton; Mrs. Isolino; Ungerman, then Mrs. Levy's at-
torney, later Isolino's attorney; and Lustig of the New York Business
Development Corporation. Mrs. Levy testified that, because St.
George wanted to lease Cousant for a period to determine if it would
be suitable for his operation, during which time he would assume the
mortgage payments, and, thereafter, full ownership, they agreed to
the following "rather unusual arrangement." A lease was executed
on January 18, 1962, whereby Cousant leased to Edmeston its real
and personal property for a period of 1 year, at an annual rental of
$3,180 payable in equal monthly installments. Edmeston was given
the right to renew annually for an additional 14 years, with the option
to purchase the plant at any time during the term of the lease for
$31,000, with credit for the rent paid less 6 percent interest .6 This
lease was signed by Mrs. Levy as president of Cousant, and by St.
George, as president of Edmeston. On the same date, Cousant as-
signed its right to receive the rent due under the lease to the New
York Business Development Corporation, with the understanding
that it was to be applied in payment of the Cousant mortgage. On
the following day, Edmeston, over the signature of St. George as vice
president, assigned "any and all interest" it had in the "lease and
option" to Isolino, who accepted the assignment and agreed to be
61solino borrowed from a bank $997 of the $1.000 deposit. There is no evidence in
the record as to the total purchase price of the Edmeston plant nor of the terms of pur-
chase. St George testified that Isolino gave him "a promise of money" which Isolino
expected to secure from Argentina.
B Edmeston further agreed, inter alia, to pay water assessments, to carry liability insur-
ance covering both itself and Cousant, to carry $31.000 worth of fire insurance, to make
all repairs necessary for proper maintenance, and to pay all taxes, which Cousant repre-
sented did not exceed $700 a year. Cousant in turn agreed to repair the property in the
event of partial destruction by fire ; in the event of total destruction, the lease was to
terminate except that Edmeston still had the option to purchase the premises.
RAVENA SPORTSWEAR, ETC. 1303
bound by it. Isolino subsequently made the rent payments to the
New York Business Development Corporation.'
Sherwood arranges and pays for insurance covering group life, ac-
cidental death and dismemberment, hospital, surgical, and medical
benefits, not only for its own employees but also for those of subsidiary
companies and companies affiliated with, and controlled by, Sher-
wood. Such insurance coverage included the employees at Oneonta
and Edmeston prior to January 31, 1962, on which date Sherwood
canceled the Edmeston coverage and arranged for coverage for the
employees at the Ravena operation. Isolino testified that St. George,
acting for Sherwood, brought him a booklet describing the insurance
policies which covered the Ravena operation, which Mrs. Isolino then
distributed to the employees. The introductory page of this booklet
was entitled "Sherwood Fashions, Inc.," was addressed "To Our Em-
ployees," and was signed by St. George.
Isolino, who commenced operations at Ravena on January 22, 1962,
shortly thereafter deposited in his bank account approximately $3,000
which his mother-in-law in Argentina had sent him. On February 8
and 9, 1962, Isolino made his first two shipments of dresses to Sher-
wood for sale by Sherwood, attaching a statement of the number of
dresses shipped in each style, but with no indication of the amount of
money due him for the dresses. Isolino testified that St. George,
acting on behalf of Oneonta, had entered into an oral agreement with
him as to the amount to be paid based on each dress style Isolino
shipped. The record shows that, beginning February 9, 1962, Isolino
received advances of funds from Oneonta, which received such ad-
vances from Sherwood; from that date through August 30, 1962,
Isolino's advances amounted to $63,850. There is no evidence in the
record as to any settlement of accounts among Isolino, Sherwood,
and Oneonta.
Isolino originally operated under his own name, paid operating
expenses from his personal checking account, and was carried on
the payroll at a salary of $125 a week, although his wife, who assisted
him in running the plant, was not on the payroll. After the original
charges herein were filed on March 8, 1962, however, Isolino's name
no longer appeared on the payroll, he changed his personal bank ac-
7 Although the Trial Examiner excluded the Edmeston /Isolino assignment during the
hearing, he admitted it into evidence in the Intermediate Report. The Respondents con-
tend that its exclusion during the hearing prevented their showing all the circumstances
of its execution . They had offered to prove during the hearing that the lease and assign-
ment arrangement was prompted by the fact that the New York Business Development
Corporation had indicated that it would not foreclose on the Cousant mortgage if it re-
ceived an assignment of rent from Edmeston , but that such an assignment from Isolino
would not have the same effect we have considered the testimony offered by the Re-
spondents and find that , if it had been admitted and credited , it would not affect our
conclusions in this matter . Regardless of the motivation for this "rather unusual arrange-
ment ," it is significant that Edmeston as lessee under the contract remained responsible
to the lessor for any default of Isolino under the terms of the lease. Accordingly, we
find that the Trial Examiner 's rulings do not constitute prejudicial error.
1304 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
count to one in the name of Ravena Sportswear, and filed a certificate
in the clerk's office of the county of Albany, State of New York, of
intent to "conduct or transact business under the name and style of
Ravenna [sic] Sportswear."
As set forth in the Intermediate Report, St. George and Mrs.
Creighton took the lead in assembling the labor force for the Ravena
operation and in establishing and announcing the policy of operating
a nonunion shop. During this time, both in a newspaper interview
and at meetings held with prospective employees, Isolino was iden-
tified by Mrs. Creighton as plant manager. Mrs. Creighton was ac-
tive not only in hiring and training employees for the Ravena opera-
tion, but also in overseeing day-to-day operations, and in deciding
on the discriminatory shutdown of the finishing department.
On the basis of the entire record, particularly the extent of common
ownership, officers, and directors at Sherwood, Oneonta, and Edmes-
ton, and the control over them exercised by St. George and Mrs.
Creighton; the role played by St. George and Mrs. Creighton in the
acquisition of the Ravena plant; the use of the Edmeston corporate
entity as a vehicle for acquiring the Ravena plant, and its continuing
liability in the event of Isolino's default; the holding out of Isolino
as plant manager both to the public at large and the employees at
Ravena; Sherwood's substitution of Ravena for Edmeston as an in-
sured company when Edmeston ceased to be a subcontractor for
Oneonta and Ravena became one; the financial advances made by
Sherwood to Oneonta and by Oneonta to Ravena, without which
neither Oneonta nor Ravena could operate ; the integration of Sher-
wood, Oneonta, and Ravena in a unified production effort resulting
in a single product ; the leading roles played by St. George and Mrs.
Creighton in the commencement of operations at Ravena, and the
day-to-day control exercised by Mrs. Creighton thereafter; and Mrs.
Creighton's decision to terminate the finishing department, we find
that Respondents Sherwood, Oneonta, Edmeston, and Ravena con-
stitute a single employer for the purposes of this proceeding.' Ac-
8 As the Supreme Court stated in a comparable situation , "( T]he question [ is] whether
in fact the economic enterprise is one, the corporate forms being largely paper arrange-
ments that do not reflect the business realities . One company may in fact be operated
as a division of another ; one may be only a shell , inadequately financed ; the affairs of
the group may be so intermingled that no distinct corporate lines are maintained."
N.L.R.B. v. Deena Artware, The ., 361 U.S. 398 , 403. Accord : Local 282, International
Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America (Precon
Trucking Corp ), 139 NLRB 1077 ( Member Brown dissenting on another ground) ;
Pearson Corporation, 138 NLRB 910 ; U.S. Mattress Corporation and Restyme Products
Incorporated , 135 NLRB 1150; Wichita Falls Foundry & Machine Co, 132 NLRB 199;
Jack Lewis and Joe Levitan d/b/a California Footwear Company, 114 NLRB 765, 787
(Member Rodgers dissenting ), remanded on another ground 246 F. 2d 886 (CA 9),
supplemented in 122 NLRB 37; Somerset Classics , Ina. and Modern Mfg. Co, Inc., 90
NLRB 1676 , 1681-1682, enfd . 193 F. 2d 613, 615 ( C.A. 2), cert. denied 344 U S. 816.
See also National Garment Company and Wells -Wear Company , 69 NLRB 1208, enfd.
,166 F . 2d 233 ( C A. 8).
RAVENA SPORTSWEAR, ETC. 1305
cordingly, we further find that all four Respondents are jointly and
severally responsible for remedying the unfair labor practices which
were committed at Ravena Sportswear.
2. We agree with the Trial Examiner that Floorlady Bishop was
a supervisor; we further find, contrary to the Trial Examiner, that
Floorlady Schwalb was also a supervisor.
Schwalb was the floorlady in the finishing department, which em-
ployed 12 girls and was located on the first floor; Bishop was the
floorlady in the sewing department, which employed approximately
50 girls and was located on the second floor. Both had charge of
their respective departments and were responsible directly to Isolino.
Both were paid a salary, whereas the girls under their direction were
paid on a piecework basis except Floorgirl Barber in the sewing de-
partment, who worked under the direction of both Bishop and Isolino.
Both floorladies have telephoned girls to come in to work, and both
have discharged girls, on instructions of Mrs. Creighton or Isolino.
Neither does manual work except when assistance is needed in making
repairs. Both assign work,' instruct the girls in their departments,
inspect the work, and when repairs are needed, return it to the opera-
tors with directions to make the repairs. The only differences affect-
ing the status of Bishop and Schwalb concern the number of girls
under the direction of each and the fact that Bishop is assisted by
Floorgirl Barber. In our opinion, these differences are not signifi-
cant with respect to their status under the Act. Accordingly, in view
of the fact that Bishop and Schwalb have the same title and the
same responsibility for directing employees in their respective depart-
ments, and as there would be only one supervisor-Isolino, the plant,
manager-directing the work of 62 girls on two different floors if
Schwalb and Bishop were found not to be supervisors," we find that
both Schwalb and Bishop are supervisors within the meaning of the
Act.ll
3. The Trial Examiner found, and we agree, that the Respondents
shut down the finishing department and discharged the girls in that
department for discriminatory reasons. As the Trial Examiner held,
the precipitate nature of the shutdown, following the Union's success
in organizing the finishing department and the failure of Respond-
ents' efforts to defeat such organization, when considered in the light
® Bishop testified that she assigns work in accordance with Isolino's instructions.
" Applied Research, Inc., 138 NLRB 870; .Stein-Way Clothing Company, Inc., 131 NLRB
132, 135.
U The Trial Examiner stated that even if Schwalb were a supervisor, he would not
attribute her knowledge of union activity to the Respondent's because she had not com-
municated her knowledge to them and was in fact sympathetic to the Union. We do not
find it necessary to decide whether Schwalb's knowledge of union activity is attributable
to the Respondents in view of the fact that Respondents' knowledge is amply demon-
strated through the remarks of Mrs. Creighton and may further be inferred from the
small size of the plant and the fact that union card signing took place in and about it.
Manbeck Baking Company, 130 NLRB 1186, 1188.
1306 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
of Respondents' expressed animus, including threats in violation of
Section 8(a) (1) of the Act, clearly support this conclusion.
The Respondents contend, however, that the work done in the finish-
ing department required such extensive repairs as to necessitate a shut-
down of the department for economic reasons. However, they pro-
duced no documentary evidence to substantiate this claim, and the
evidence in the record does not support this contention. Thus, Sher-
wood accepted shipments of dresses from Isolino on February 8 and 9,
after the finishing department began operating, with no complaints as
to the workmanship. On February 13 it accepted another shipment;
while the Respondents contend that Sherwood sent this shipment
to "a New York Shop" and paid for repairs thereon, they pre-
sented no documentary evidence of such payment, made no deduc-
tion for such payment from the advances which Isolino subsequently
received, and did not claim that such a deduction would be made in
the future when accounts were settled with Isolino.12
The Respondents further contend that their lack of union animus
was evidenced by their failure to close the sewing department, al-
though the girls there were also engaging in union activity. The
record indicates .that all or most of the employees in both the finishing
and sewing departments had been union members while employed by
Cousant, and had retained such membership although no dues had
been paid since the shutdown of the Cousant operation. However,
on February 11, 12, and 13, 1962, there was extensive activity at the
Ravena plant in connection with the signing of union authorization
cards.13 The record indicates that approximately 9 out of 12 girls
in the finishing department had signed such cards prior to the shut-
down of the department on February 14, and that 8 or 9 of the ap-
proximately 50 girls in the sewing department had done so. It is
thus obvious that the incidence of union activity was proportionately
much greater among the girls in the finishing department, and Mrs.
Creighton's comments establish that she knew this. Moreover, even
if the union activity had been equally extensive in the sewing depart-
ment, the fact that the Respondents chose for antiunion reasons to
shutdown only the smaller of two departments, rather than an entire
12 The Respondents except to the Trial Examiner's exclusion of oral testimony by
Isolino that the plant was operating at a substantial loss during the period from Janu-
ary 22 to February 15, 1962, and of testimony by Mrs. Isolino as to the amount of the loss
from January 22 to February 23, 1962 . We note that these offers of proof involved the
loss sustained by the entire Ravena operation , and not by the finishing department alone.
Moreover , when Mrs . Creighton told Schwalb to discharge the girls in the finishing
department , she explained this action , according to both Schwalb and Amedio, an em-
ployee who overheard her remarks , as follows : "I have seen the handwriting on the wall.
They are one hundred percent for the Union . The hell with them. I think I am going
to let them go." Thus, we find that, even if the finishing department had been operating
at a loss during its first week, the motivation for its shutdown was union animus and
not economic necessity.
13 On February 15, 1962, the Union filed a petition for an election at Ravena in Case
No. 3-RC-2786 , but the hearing in that proceeding was adjourned indefinitely.
RAVENA SPORTSWEAR, ETC. 1307
plant, does not vitiate the finding that their conduct was motivated by
union animus.14
On the entire record, we find that Respondents' asserted reasons
for closing the finishing department at Ravena were not their real
reasons, but were seized upon to conceal their discriminatory motiva-
tion. We further find, accordingly, that by closing this department,
and discharging the employees therein, Respondents violated Section
8(a) (3) and (1) of the Act.
Upon the basis of the foregoing, and upon the entire record in the
case, we make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Sec-
tion 2 (5) of the Act.
2. Respondents Sherwood, Oneonta, Edmeston, and Isolino are a
single employer for the purposes of this case and are engaged in
commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
3. By threatening employees of Ravena Sportswear with discharge
and with termination of operations if said employees became or re-
mained members of the Union or gave it any assistance or support, by
warning Ravena's employees not to become or remain members of
the Union or give it any assistance or support, and by coercively inter-
rogating the employees at Ravena Sportswear concerning their mem-
bership in, activities on behalf of, and sympathies for, the Union,
through Supervisor Bishop, the Respondents have engaged in unfair
labor practices in violation of Section 8(a) (1) of the Act.
4. By discriminatorily discontinuing Ravena's finishing depart-
ment, transferring it from Ravena to Oneonta, and discharging the
employees of said department, and by discriminatorily discharging
employees Cornwell and Morrell, the Respondents have engaged in
unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8 (a) (3) and (1) of
the Act.
5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce within the
meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondents have engaged in unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 8(a) (3) and (1) of the Act,
14N.L.R.B. v. TV. C. Nabors d/b/a W. C. Nabors Company, 196 F. 2d 272, 276 (C.A. 5).
Respondents point to the fact that Bertha Palmer, who was named by Mrs. Cregihton on
February 8 or 9 as the "instigator" in the sewing department, was not discharged. How-
ever, the record does not indicate that Palmer was one of the girls who signed a union
card. Moreover, as found by the Trial Examiner, the Respondents did discriminatorily
discharge two of the girls in the sewing department : Morrell, who distributed some of
the union cards and signed one herself, and Cornwell, another of the signers in that
department.
1308 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
we shall order, in substantial accord with the recommendations of
the Trial Examiner, that they cease and desist therefrom and take
certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the
Act.
ORDER
Upon the entire record in this case, and pursuant to Section 10 (c)
of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board hereby orders that Respondents, Sherwood Fashions,
Inc., Oneonta Dress Co., Inc., Edmeston Dress Co., Inc., and Clodo-
miro Isolino doing business under the trade name and style of "Ravena
Sportswear," their officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Interrogating employees of Ravena Sportswear concerning
their membership in, activities on behalf of, and sympathies for, In-
ternational Ladies' Garment Workers Union, AFL-CIO, or any other
labor organization, in a manner constituting interference, restraint,
or coercion.
(b) Threatening employees of Ravena Sportswear with discharge
or with termination of Ravena's operations if such employees become
or remain members of, or give any assistance or support to, the above-
named Union, or any other labor organization.
(c) Warning employees of Ravena Sportswear not to become or
remain members of, or give any assistance or support to, the above-
mentioned Union.
(d) Discouraging membership in the above-named Union, or any
other labor organization, by shutting down departments at Ravena
Sportswear, by discharging any employees of Ravena Sportswear,
or in any other manner discriminating against them in regard to their
hire or tenure of employment or any other term or condition of
employment.
(e) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing
employees of Ravena Sportswear in the right to self-organization,
to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively
through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in other
concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other
mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any or all of such ac-
tivities, except to the extent that such right may be affected by an
agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as a condi-
tion of employment, as authorized in Section 8(a) (3) of the Act, as
amended.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds is
necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Offer the employees named below immediate and full reinstate-
ment to their former or substantially equivalent positions, without
RAVENA SPORTSWEAR, ETC. 1309
prejudice to their seniority or other rights and privileges previously
enjoyed, and jointly and severally make each of them whole for any
loss of pay, plus interest at the rate of 6 percent per annum, which
they may have suffered by reason of the discrimination against them :
Mary Amedio
Gloria Campoli
Ellen Hall
Rose Lozana
Mary Powell
Carmella Cornwell
Margaret Dorsey
Josephine DeBarthe
Frances Gicomini
Edith Hoyt
Rita Perrine
Carrie Sgroi
Carmela Morrell
Elizabeth Perreault
(b) Reestablish the finishing department operations at Ravena
Sportswear, under the conditions which existed prior to February 14,
1962, and rescind any arrangement whereby Oneonta Dress Co., Inc.,
performs the functions of said department.
(c) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the Board or
its agents, for examination and copying, all payroll records, social
security payment records, timecards, personnel records and reports,
and all other records necessary to analyze the amount of backpay due
under the terms of this Order.
(d) Post at Ravena's plant in Ravena, New York, copies of the
attached notice marked "Appendix." 15 Copies of said notice, to be
furnished by the Regional Director for the Third Region, shall, after
being signed by the Respondents or their duly authorized agents, be
posted by them immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained
by them for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, in-
cluding all places where notices to their employees are customarily
posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondents to insure
that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other
material.
(e) Notify the Regional Director for the Third Region, in writing,
within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps the Respond-
ents have taken to comply herewith.
1e In the event that this Order is enforced by a decree of a United States Court of
Appeals, there shall be substituted for the words "Pursuant to a Decision and Order" the
words "Pursuant to a Decree of the United States Court of Appeals , Enforcing an Order."
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES OF RAVENA SPORTSWEAR
Pursuant to a Decision and Order of the National Labor Rela-
tions Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National
Labor Relations Act, as amended, we hereby notify you that :
WE WILL NOT interrogate employees at Ravena Sportswear as
to their membership in, activities on behalf of, or sympathies for,
1310 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
International Ladies' Garment Workers Union , AFL-CIO, or
any other labor organization , in a manner constituting inter-
ference, restraint , or coercion.
WE WILL NOT threaten employees of Ravena Sportswear with
discharge or termination of operations if they become or remain
members of, or give any assistance or support to, the above-
named Union or any other labor organization.
WE WILL NOT warn employees of Ravena Sportswear not to
become members of, or give any assistance or support to, the
above-named Union.
WE WILL NOT discourage membership in International Ladies'
Garment Workers Union , AFL-CIO, or any other labor orga-
nization, by shutting down departments at Ravena Sportswear, by
discharging any employees of Ravena Sportswear , or in any other
manner discriminating against them in regard to their hire or
tenure of employment or any other term or condition of
employment.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or
coerce employees of Ravena Sportswear in the right to self-
organization , to form, join , or assist labor organizations , to bar-
gain collectively through representatives of their own choosing,
and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of
collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or the
right to refrain from any or all of such activities , except to the
extent that such right may be affected by an agreement requiring
membership in a labor organization as a condition of employment,
as authorized in Section 8(a) (3) of the Act, as amended.
WE WILL offer the employees named below immediate and full
reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent posi-
tions, without prejudice to their seniority or other rights and
privileges previously enjoyed, and we will jointly and severally
make each of them whole for any loss of pay, plus interest at
the rate of 6 percent per annum , which they may have suffered by
reason of the discrimination against them :
Mary Amedio
Gloria Campoli
Ellen Hall
Rose Lozana
Mary Powell
Carmella Cornwell
Margaret Dorsey
Josephine DeBarthe
Frances Gicomini
Edith Hoyt
Rita Perrine
Carrie Sgroi
Carmela Morrell
Elizabeth Perreault
WE WILL reestablish the finishing department operations
Ravena Sportswear, under the conditions which existed prior
at
to
February 14,1962, and rescind any arrangement whereby Oneonta
Dress Co., Inc., performs the functions of said department.
RAVENA SPORTSWEAR, ETC. 1311
All our employees at Ravena Sportswear are free to become or re-
main, or to refrain from becoming or remaining, members of Inter-
national Ladies' Garment Workers Union, AFL-CIO, or any other
labor organization, except to the extent that such right may be af-
fected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organization
as a condition of employment, as authorized in Section 8(a) (3) of
the Act, as amended.
RAVENA SPORTSWEAR,
Employer.
Dated---------------- By-------------------------------------
(Representative ) ( Title)
SHERWOOD FASHIONS, INC.,
Employer.
Dated---------------- By-------------------------------------
(Representative) (Title)
ONEONTA DRESS Co., INC.,
Employer.
Dated---------------- By-------------------------------------
(Representative ) ( Title)
EDMESTON DRESS Co., INC.,
Employer.
Dated---------------- By-------------------------------------
(Representative ) ( Title)
NoTE.-We will notify any of the above-named employees presently
serving in the Armed Forces of the United States of their right to full
reinstatement upon application in accordance with the Selective Serv-
ice Act and the Universal Military Training and Service Act of
1948, as amended, after discharge from the Armed Forces.
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the
date of posting, and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any
other material.
Employees may communicate directly with the Board 's Regional
Office, Fourth Floor, The 120 Building, 120 Delaware Avenue, Buf-
falo, New York, 14202, Telephone No. TL 6-1782, or the Board's
Subregional Office, Seventh Floor, Drislane Building, 60 Chapel
Street, Albany, New York, 12207, Telephone No. HO 3-5581, if they
have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its
provisions.
INTERMEDIATE REPORT AND RECOMMENDED ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon a charge and an amended charge filed on March 8 and June 7, 1962,
respectively , by International Ladies' Garment Workers Union, AFL-CIO, the
General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board , by the Regional Director
for the Third Region (Buffalo, New York), issued his complaint dated June 28,
1312 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
1962, against Clodomiro Isolino doing business under the trade name and style of
Ravena Sportswear; Edmeston Dress Co., Inc.; Oneonta Dress Co., Inc.; and Sher-
wood Fashions, Inc. Said complaint, as amended at the hearing, alleges in sub-
stance that Respondents have engaged in and are engaging in unfair labor practices
as defined in Section 8(a) (1) and (3) of the National Labor Relations Act, herein
called the Act, and affecting commerce as comprehended by Section 2(6) and (7)
of the Act. Each Respondent has answered denying the commission of any unfair
labor practices.
Pursuant to due notice, a hearing was held before Trial Examiner James V.
Constantine at Albany, New York, from September 10 to 14 and September 24 to
October 4, 1962. All parties were represented at and participated in the hearing
and had full opportunity to introduce evidence, examine and cross-examine wit-
nesses, submit briefs, and offer oral argument. All parties except the Union argued
`orally. Briefs have been received from all parties.
When the General Counsel rested, all Respondents moved to dismiss the com-
plaint on the ground that, as a matter of law, a prima facie case had not been
made out. This was denied as to all Respondents except Edmeston Dress; as to
the latter, I reserved ruling. At the close of the case Respondents renewed their
several motions to dismiss for the same reason. Edmeston's motion was granted,
but the motions of the other Respondents were denied. The facts touching upon
Edmeston are nevertheless being recited herein so that the Board may review my
ruling 1 dismissing the complaint as- to this Respondent. -
The General Counsel's two motions to correct the transcript are hereby granted
in the absence of opposition thereto.
Upon the entire record in this case, and from my observation of the witnesses,
I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENTS
Clodomiro Isolino, an individual doing business under the firm name and style
of Ravena Sportswear, is engaged at Ravena, New York, in the manufacture of
ladies' dresses and related products. Since commencing operations on January 22,
1962, Ravena Sportswear at its plant has performed services valued in excess of
$63,000 for Oneonta Dress Co., Inc. There is no evidence that Ravena received
materials, products, goods, or supplies directly from points outside the State of
New York, or that it shipped the same directly to out-of-State points. I find that
Ravena is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of
the Act because it performs services for Oneonta Dress Co., Inc., which, as herein-
after found, is engaged in commerce. Bon Hennings Logging Co. v. N.L.R.B.,
308 F. 2d 548 (C.A. 9).
Oneonta Dress Co., Inc., a New York corporation, is engaged at Oneonta, New
York, in the manufacture of ladies' dresses and related products. During the 12
months preceding the issuance of the complaint, Oneonta Dress performed services
valued in excess of $50,000 for Sherwood Fashions, Inc., and also received cloth,
dresses, and related products valued in excess of $50,000 indirectly from points out-
side the State of New York.
Edmeston Dress Co., Inc., a New York corporation wholly owned by Oneonta
Dress, is engaged at Oneonta, New York, in the manufacture of ladies' dresses and
related products.
Sherwood Fashions, Inc., a New York corporation, is engaged at New York,
New York, in the manufacture, sale, and distribution of ladies' dresses and related
products. During the year preceding the issuance of the complaint, Sherwood
Fashions purchased and received cloth, dress materials, and related products valued
in excess of $50,000 directly from points outside the State of New York, and sold
and delivered dresses and related products valued in excess of $50,000 directly to
points outside said State.
As hereinafter found, Sherwood and Oneonta constitute a single employer for
purposes of asserting jurisdiction. Accordingly, I find that Sherwood and Oneonta 2
are engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
If material, I also find Edmeston to be engaged in commerce.
'An appeal by the General Counsel from this ruling has been denied by the Board
without prejudice to its renewal on exceptions
3 ,Sherwood, Oneonta, and Isolino are hereafter called Respondents.
RAVENA SPORTSWEAR, ETC.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
1313
International Ladies' Garment Workers Union , AFL-CIO, herein called the
Union, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
HI. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
Many of the factual issues were sharply disputed and vigorously and ably con-
tested. Where dispute exists, it has been resolved in accordance with myevaluation
of the credibility of the witnesses and the more probable inferences from the
evidence . The following findings of fact are based upon my assessment of the
whole record pursuant to the foregoing evaluation and inferences.
A. The nature of contracts in the ladies' garment industry
Generally, a manufacturer of dresses will design the style, purchase cloth therefor,
and sometimes cut the material . The manufacturer gets the order for the garments
and sells the garments to his customers . Such manufacturer is usually called a
jobber . Often the manufacturer will enter into a contract with the operator of
another plant , usually referred to as a contractor , whereby the contractor agrees
to put the garment together and does cutting if necessary , and the manufacturer
agrees to provide the contractor with the design and cloth. The contractor then
will manufacture the dresses performing all operations itself or may subcontract
to a subcontractor the task of performing one or more operations in connection
with the finished product . Sometimes a jobber or contractor will advance funds
to its contractor or subcontractor , as the case may be, to enable the latter to con-
summate the work required by the contract ; such advance, however , is not a loan,
but is a part payment for money ultimately due under the contract . A jobber may
also advance funds to a subcontractor.
B. The predecessors of Ravena Sportswear
1. Edmeston Dress Co., Inc.
At sometime in November 1961, Clodomiro Isolino purchased from John St.
George a corporation known as Edmeston Dress Co., Inc., one of the Respondents
herein, located in Oneonta , New York, giving $1 ,000 as downpayment on the pur-
chase price. Three or four weeks later Isolino and St . George mutually rescinded
this transaction because a defective cesspool or sewer rendered the plant unusable
and his $1 ,000 deposit was returned to Isolino.
After he gave up the Edmeston operation , Isolino sought another plant in the
area. Having heard that Cousant, Inc., was available , he got in touch with Mrs.
Levy, the owner thereof, in late December 1961 or early January 1962, and, with
his wife, looked over this plant early in January . He again saw Mrs. Levy about
January 10, 1962, in the offices of New York Business Development Corporation.
After engaging Mr. Ungerman as counsel on the same day, the two examined
"papers from Edmeston , pass to Ravena." Thereafter, Mrs. Levy leased the prem-
ises of Cousant , Inc., to Edmeston Dress Co., Inc., by a lease dated January 18,
1962. Edmeston assigned its lease interest in this lease to Isolino 3 on Janu-
ary 19, 1962. -
2. Cousant, Inc.
Isolino then occupied , by reason of the foregoing assignment , the premises and
used the equipment of Cousant, Inc., a New York corporation . located in Ravena,
New York, and controlled by Mrs. Evelyn Levy. The events leading to the trans-
action transferring the plant of Cousant, Inc., to Edmeston Dress Co., Inc., are
condensed in the remaining paragraphs of this subsection of the Intermediate Report.
Cousant, Inc., had operated a plant manufacturing women's blouses at 7 Railroad
Avenue, Ravena, New York, employing between 90 and 100 persons. Its president
and controlling stockholder is Evelyn Levy. From January to December 1961,
Mrs. Levy had sought to dispose of the business to a union operator but without
success. On September 13, 1961, Cousant, Inc., discontinued operations and be-
came an "inactive corporation ," laying off all its employees . About November 1961,
Mrs. Levy interested John St. George, an officer and stockholder of Sherwood
Fashions, Inc., in buying or leasing the Cousant plant, and Mrs. Levy met with
3 Although I excluded the document purporting to effect this assignment, I am now of
the opinion that it is admissible . Accordingly , Respondent Ravena's Exhibit No. 10 is
hereby admitted in evidence.
1314 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
John St. George and Lillian Creighton at a restaurant in Albany, New York, to
discuss with them the sale or lease of the business of Cousant. As more fully de-
scribed below, at that time Lillian Creighton was plant manager of Oneonta Dress.
About a week later they met again at the same place for the same purpose. At this
second meeting St. George observed that he "had a complete non-union operation"
and mentioned that he would not be interested in a union operation of Cousant's
idle plant.
As a result of St. George's resistance to take over the Cousant factory as a union
operation, Mrs. Levy met with 10 or 12 of Cousant's former employees at her home
to ascertain their willingness 4 to work for a nonunion employer to whom she con-
templated a transfer of Cousant's plant. She also told them her efforts to obtain
a union operator were fruitless. These employees told Mrs. Levy that they were
anxious to return to work and did not care whether their new employer was a union
operator. At her next meeting with St. George, Mrs. Levy informed him that it
was the sentiment of the girls that they were willing to work in a nonunion plant
as they were unemployed and were anxious to obtain employment.
A few more meetings were held between Mrs. Levy and St. George .5 At the
last one, St. George orally agreed to lease Cousant's plant with an option to buy,
and to assume a mortgage 6 on Cousant 's plant . Pursuant to that agreement,
Cousant , Inc., leased its plant, as noted above, to Edmeston Dress Co ., Inc., on
January 18, 1962. On the same day Cousant, Inc., assigned the landlord's interest
in this lease to New York Business Development Corporation. As noted above,
Edmeston assigned its lease interest to Isolino.
3. Cousant's talks to its employees concerning the new operator
As recited above, in December 1961 Mrs. Levy called a meeting of 10 to 12 of
Cousant's former employees at her home and informed them that she had a non-
union potential customer for the plant. Upon inquiring of them whether they
insisted on working for a union employer, they replied that they had no preferences,
asserting that, because they were unemployed, they were eager to return to work.
This was followed by a meeting called by Mrs. Levy at the Cousant plant to which
all of the former Cousant employees were invited on December 15, 1961. At least
40 and perhaps as many as 80 attended. She informed those present that she had
tried to obtain a union operator to take over, but without success, that she was
about to transfer Cousant to a nonunion employer, and asked those present if
they would work for a nonunion employer. The girls replied that they were anxious
to return to work and did not mind working in a nonunion shop.?
This December 15 meeting was also attended by John St. George and Lillian
Creighton. Mrs. Levy introduced Creighton and St. George as the people who
were interested in opening a plant in Ravena, and wanted "to buy the shop."
Addressing St. George, Mrs. Levy told him, in the presence of all, that the em-
ployees attending "were a good bunch of workers," and were craving to go to
work. Following this, Lillian Creighton spoke, informing the group that "they"
were interested in reopening the plant and those hired would receive $1.20 an hour
whereas other factories were paying $1 to $1.10 an hour. She also emphasized
that she was "the boss," that she ran "the business" as she saw fit, and that if any
present did not like this, "the door swung both ways." At this meeting, former
Cousant employee Mary Bruno asked Creighton if the reopened plant would be a
"union factory." Creighton replied that it would not be, but asked what difference
it would make. When asked if the girls would get vacations and paid holidays,
Creighton looked at St. George. The latter instructed her not to promise anything.
Another meeting of former Cousant employees was held on January 15, 1962,
at the Cousant plant. Mrs. Creighton, St. George, Mrs. Levy, Mr. and Mrs. Isolino,
and most of the former Cousant girls attended it. Mrs. Creighton introduced Mr.
and Mrs. Isolino as the new managers of the factory, but also referred to them
as "very interested in opening up the factory in Ravena." She also assured the
Cousant girls that there would be work 52 weeks a year and that they would receive
$1.20 an hour. Finally, she said that nobody was going to tell her how to run her
4 Cousant, Inc, had recognized the Union and all its employees, other than supervisors,
belonged to the Union.
5 Mrs Creighton was present at all meetings. Isolino attended all but the first.
9 This mortgage was given by Cousant to New York Business Development Corporation
to secure a loan of $32,000
't Prior to its shutdown in September 1961, Cousant recognized the Union as the exclu-
sive bargaining agent of its employees. "With the exception of a few supervisors," all
Cousant's employees were members of the Union.
RAVENA SPORTSWEAR, ETC. 1315
business, that anyone who tried to tell her how to run it was a communist, and
that any communists in the room should get up and leave. Mrs. Creighton asked
the girls to form a line. Then Harold Schwalb, who was also present,8 together
with Mrs. Creighton, took the names of those in line and the kind of work each
did at Cousant.
4. The interview by the local newspaper's editor
Early in January 1962 George Bleezard, editor of the Ravena New Herald, called
on Mrs. Creighton at Ravena Sportswear's plant to interview her concerning its re-
opening. Mr. and Mrs. Isolino were also present. During the conversation, Mrs.
Creighton introduced Isolino as the manager of the plant. When Bleezard asked
her for the name of the plant, she replied that she was unable to tell him until she
called St. George in New York. Thereupon, Creighton telephoned St. George,
informing him that Bleezard desired information relating to the new plant, including
its name. Immediately following this call, Creighton told Bleezard that the business
"would be Ravena Sportswear, Inc." Characterizing herself as "assistant to Mr.
Isolino," Creighton then proceeded to describe in detail several aspects of the new
operation, such as the number of employees, the total annual payroll, and the meth-
od of packing and shipping dresses produced there .9
On February 21, 1962, Mrs. Creighton, accompanied by Mrs. Levy, walked into
Bleezard's office and engaged in conversation with him. Among other things,
Creighton told of plans to have employees of Ravena Sportswear attend an "an-
niversary dinner" in Binghamton, mentioned that such employees had been given
a health insurance plan, an increase in wages, and a vacation pay plan, and that
she was having a problem of training enough people to operate the sewing machines.
C. The relationship among Respondents
Oneonta Dress Co., Inc., a nonunion plant, is engaged in the production of
dresses. It is managed by Lillian Creighton, whom I find to be a supervisor within
the meaning of Section 2(11) of the Act. Mrs. Creighton is also a troubleshooter
for Sherwood Fashions. Dresses manufactured by Oneonta are ultimately shipped
to Sherwood Fashions, Inc., in New York City. Part of Mrs. Creighton's duties
involve the training of employees not only for her employer but also for employers
who do work for Sherwood Fashions and for Oneonta Dress Co., Inc., as contractors
or subcontractors. In such capacity, and pursuant to instructions from Oneonta
Dress or Sherwood Fashions, she has trained employees of Edmeston Dress Co.,
Inc.,10 and Ravena Sportswear. Oneonta's president is St. George, its secretary-
treasurer is Thomas Luckese, and its directors are St. George and Luckese. It has
no other officers or directors. St. George and Luckese each own 50 percent of
the stock, although no stock certificates have been issued and delivered to them.
During the time it operated in 1961, Edmeston Dress Co., Inc., a wholly owned
subsidiary of Oneonta Dress Co., Inc., and also a nonunion plant, produced certain
dressmaking functions exclusively for Oneonta Dress, and the latter then finished
such dresses for Sherwood Fashions. Edmeston's officers are: president, Sal Colletti
(a son-in-law of Lillian Creighton); vice president and treasurer, John St. George;
secretary, Nancy Colletti; directors, the three mentioned above.
Sherwood Fashions, Inc., is a manufacturer or jobber of dresses in New York,
New York. John St. George is its treasurer and Albert Azaria its secretary. St.
George owns 25 out of 100 shares issued by it. Its other stockholders are Thomas
Luckese, who owns 25 shares; Albert Azaria, who owns 30 shares; and Alfred Rosen-
garten, who owns 20 shares and is also the president. St. George, Rosengarten, and
Azaria compose the board of directors. There is no vice president.
Sherwood Fashions advances money to Oneonta Dress only "on account" for
work done, although the dresses being worked on have not been completed. Oneonta,
in turn, similarly advances money to its subcontractors, one of whom is Ravena
Sportswear. Sherwood sometimes advances money to Oneonta's subcontractors,
one of whom is Isolino.
Sherwood provides insurance for its employees, the employees of its contractors,
and the employees of subcontractors of its contractors. Employees of Ravena
8 Schwalb was formerly Cousant's bookkeeper
8 Two or three days before this Bleezard asked Isolino questions concerning the opening
of the new plant. However, Isolino invited him to return at a later time, when Mrs.
Creighton would be present, to supply the requested information.
18 Both when owned by Oneonta and also when temporarily owned by Isolino.
712-548-64-v of 142-84
1316 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Sportswear" and of some contractors of Sherwood are covered under a policy
issued by Equitable Life Assurance Society of America to Sherwood. Sherwood's
employees are not included in this policy but are insured under another policy.
Monthly statements on premiums on these policies are sent to Sherwood, and
Sherwood pays such premiums. Payment of these premiums is considered by St.
George "as part payment for the work" such contractors and subcontractors produce
for Sherwood. It was stipulated that Ravena's employees are covered by three
policies, one each for life, accident, and hospitalization insurance, issued by Equitable
Life Assurance Society of America, that notices of group insurance premiums due
thereunder are sent to Sherwood Fashions, Inc., 501 Seventh Avenue, New York,
New York (attention: Mr. John St. George, secretary-treasurer), and that Sherwood
pays said premiums.
Concluding Findings as to the Relationship of Respondents Among Themselves
Clodomiro Isolino is an individual proprietor doing business as Ravena Sportswear.
Although his financial resources are not impressive,12 and it appears that St. George
is his backer,13 I nevertheless find that Isolino is an independent entrepreneur, that
his business is not integrated with that of any one or more of the other Respondents,
and that, for the purposes of this case, he is not collectively or jointly an employer
with the other Respondents. This conclusion is not affected by the fact that Isolino's
methods of operating are in many respects influenced, if not dictated, by St.
George or Mrs. Creighton when acting for St George. Such influence and dictation,
in my opinion, fall short of confirming that Isolino's business has become an
integral part of the operations of the other Respondents, although it may be said
that St. George has subsidized Isolino.
In this connection, I have not overlooked Section 8(e) of the Act, and its
legislative history, but I do not regard it as determinative. That section, although
exhibiting a congressional awareness of the close affiliation among those engaged
in the garment industry, was enacted to remove that industry from specific proscrip-
tions extended to others in Section 8(b)(4). It was not, in my opinion, calculated
to fuse the respective categories mentioned therein into a single employer for the
purposes of other sections, including Section 8(a), of the Act.
On the other hand, I find that Sherwood and Oneonta collectively constitute a
single employer for the purposes of this proceeding, and that they compose a single
integrated enterprise. This is patent from a critical examination of the undisputed
evidence. Thus, St. George directs the activities of Oneonta both personally and
through its manager, Lillian Creigton. Further, St. George not only owns 50
percent of Oneonta's stock, but its only other stockholder, Thomas Luckese, has
not been shown to take an active part in its management. Moreover, Oneonta has
issued no stock, has held no directors' meetings since its inception, and is run by
St. George, who regularly oversees and supervises its functions and transactions.
Hence, I find that St. George controls Oneonta. This control is such that Oneonta
contracts exclusively with Sherwood.
Sherwood Fashions and Oneonta for several reasons are found to be a single
employer. (1) These two corporations in common have (a) stockholders Thomas
Luckese and St. George, who between them own 50 percent of the stock of Sherwood
and all the stock of Oneonta, (b) directors St. George and Luckese, who between
them constitute the entire board of directors of Oneonta and one-third of the three
directors of Sherwood, and (c) officers St. George and Luckese.14 (2) St. George
has consistently acted on behalf of Sherwood without obtaining authority from its
directors to engage in conduct normally requiring directors' approval. (3) Their
110n or about February 1, Sherwood gave booklets to Isolino describing Sherwood's
insurance coverage of employees. Isolino in turn passed these on to his employees as
describing benefits which they were to receive or were receiving.
32 On or about January 17 or 18, 1962, Isolino told Mrs. Schwalb that he did not have
the money to "open up" a factory of his own. Other evidence recited above on this phase
of the ease need not be here reiterated.
is On or about February 23, 1962, employee Sgroi and several other employees went to
the Ravena Sportswear plant for a paycheck. They were paid "in the office" by Mrs.
Isolino, where Mr Isolino, St. George, and Mrs Creighton were also present. While the
relationship between St George and Isolino is "close and intimate," It does not "permit
a finding . . that [Isolino] was the alter ego" of the other Respondents. Cf. Morris
and David Yoseph, d/b/a M Yoseph Bag Company, 139 NLRB 1310.
14 St George is president of Oneonta and treasurer of Sherwood, and Luckese is
secretary-treasurer of Oneonta
RAVENA SPORTSWEAR, ETC. 1317
-operations are integrated. In fact these features indicate, and I find, that St.
George sufficiently controls the affairs of Sherwood to direct its policies in such
matters as labor relations, acquisitions of plant, obtaining insurance policies for
employees of contractors and subcontractors, and contracting with contractors in
the garment industry.
It thus appears, and I find, that St. George in effect controls both Sherwood and
Oneonta, that they both operate under his general supervision as an integrated busi-
ness, and that he controls and sets the labor policies of both. Hence, I find that
requisite common ownership, common financial control, and centralized control
of labor relations which render Sherwood and Oneonta a single employer. P-M
Garages, Inc., et al., d/b/a P-M Parking System, 139 NLRB 987. Miami News-
paper Printing Pressmen Local No 46, etc. (Knight Newspapers, Inc.), 138 NLRB
1346, is distinguishable.
As noted above, I have found that St. George in effect controls both Sherwood
and Oneonta. He often exercises this control through Lillian Creighton, especially
in matters of supervision. Although Mrs. Creighton works as a supervisor and
instructor for Oneonta, she often performs the same functions at the plants of con-
tractors and subcontractors of Sherwood, and is subject to the supervision of St.
George when so acting.is
Finally I find that Lillian Creighton is the agent of Sherwood, Oneonta, and
Isolino. She is an agent of Oneonta because she manages and is in complete
charge of its plant, subject only to supervision by St. George. She is the agent of
Sherwood because (1) she is the alter ego of St. George from whom she receives
orders and on whose behalf she often acts, and with whom she constantly confers
on matters pertaining to Sherwood, (2) she is "responsible" to both St. George and
Azaria, and (3) in any event Oneonta and Sherwood are a single employer, and
her functions as manager of Oneonta are attributable to Sherwood. Finally she
is the agent of Isolino because she often spoke to employees in his presence with-
out disavowal of her utterances 16 by him, she hired many employees for Ravena,
Isolino allowed her free access to the plant and personnel, including employees and
supervisors, she discussed a few employees' grievances 17 and adjusted at least one,
and she sets wages, such as Schwalb's and the $1.20 an hour for employees. Thus
I find that Isolino both clothed, and allowed Creighton to clothe herself, with
authority to speak for him in labor relations. Pearson Corporation, 138 NLRB
910. Nor is the foregoing conclusion relating to Creighton's authority at Ravena
altered by testimony that Creighton, who also spoke Italian, addressed the em-
ployees as an interpreter for Isolino. While it is true that Isolino encountered
difficulty in expressing himself in English, it is nevertheless also patent that he was
able to testify at the hearing without the interposition of an interpreter.l$
Accordingly, I find that Sherwood, Oneonta, and Isolino are responsible for the
conduct of Creighton as herein described.
D. The initial events at Ravena Sportswear
1. Initiation of the sewing department
On January 22, 1962, Isolino began to operate the former Cousant plant under
the name of Ravena Sportswear.19 At first he ran only the sewing department,20
employing six or seven girls. This was located on the second floor. On Janu-
ary 3, 1962, he opened a personal checking account in the National Commercial
Bank of Albany with an initial deposit of $1,000. Later, in March 1962, he changed
the account to "Ravena Sportswear." This money was used to finance the payroll
of the new operation. As time went on he employed more girls in the sewing
department, so that between 40 and 45 were working in it by February 1, 1962.
15 In addition, Mrs Creighton, the manager of Oneonta, is "responsible" only to St.
George and Azaria, her salary is set by St George, and she reports only to St. George.
'"Included in the utterances are the directions to Schwalb to dismiss the finishing
employees
17 Included in grievances is the matter of unemployment compensation which the girls
took up with her and piece rates which one employee protested.
18I do not reach the question of whether, since most of the employees also spoke or
understood Italian, Isolino actually needed an interpreter at these meetings.
10 A business certificate dated January 20, 1962, which was not recorded until March 15,
1962, was filed by Isolino in the Albany County clerk's office stating that he intends to
conduct business under the name of Ravena Sportswear.
20 In general, sewing consists of sewing the already cut cloth into dresses.
1318 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
2. The meeting of January 23, 1962
On January 23, 1962, a meeting of the former Cousant employees and the few
newly hired Ravena employees was held at Ravena's plant. Mr. and Mrs. Isolino,
Mrs. Creighton, William Nagle (a former State trooper who then was a bookkeeper
at Oneonta Dress), and many of the former Cousant employees were present.
Creighton asked that each person identify herself by raising a hand as her name was
called by the ex-State trooper. This applied only to the former Cousant employees.
Then she stated that "they" were very interested in opening a factory in Ravena,
that she and St. George "did not need the place . . . [or] you .. . but you need
us." At some point in her remarks Mrs. Creighton modeled a dress, commenting
that it would cost $29.95 if made in a union shop but that it would sell for $19.95
if produced in a nonunion shop. Someone then asked Creighton about severance
pay from Cousant, Inc. Mrs. Creighton and former Cousant employee Mary
Eaton, who was patently prounion, then entered into a heated discussion over it,
during which Creighton said the Union would "dangle" the severance paychecks
over them until it found out from them what was going on at the plant. Finally,
Mrs. Creighton emphasized that she definitely would not work in a union factory,
or "with the Union," and that if a union came in "she would close the doors"; that
she had received a telephone call that "they were going to picket the plant," but
she would not tolerate this sort of thing and if anything like that happened she
would close the doors. Although many former Cousant employees were then or
soon thereafter hired, Eaton was not.
3. The opening of the finishing department
On or about February 6, 1962, Isolino started a finishing department at Ravena
on the first floor of the plant. Finishing usually involves pressing , trimming,
putting on belts and loops, and inspecting . He had asked Rose Schwalb to start
working the evening before so that she could be familiar with the work. In her
case, this consisted primarily of pressing , trimming, and belting. Schwalb worked
mostly as a presser from the evening of February 5 to about 10:30 a.m. February 7,
when Isolino ordered her to stop pressing and to "examine the garments, give out
work to the girls, and so forth." 21 She described her work as a floorlady to
include seeing that the work was done right "and so on." A few employees were
hired to start in the finishing department on February 6, and by February 14 this
department employed 13 girls.
E. Chronology of events after the opening of the finishing department at Ravena
Sportswear, and the shutdown of the department
In the early afternoon of February 8 and 9 , Mrs. Creighton complained to
Schwalb that "there were 20 girls in the upstairs sewing room that were instigating
for a union ," and that Bertha Palmer , an operator in the upstairs sewing room,
"was the instigator and had called Mr. Nash of the [Union] and told him that
20 girls were ready to sign up ." Then Mrs. Creighton asked Schwalb to let her
know if Schwalb heard of any "union instigators " in the Ravena plant.
On February 8, Schwalb found from an inspection of garments that hems were
imperfectly finished, dart holes were showing , dresses were gathered or gapped in
front, holes were incorrectly made , and belts were wrong . This work was per-
formed by the sewing department . Accordingly, as part of her duties, she re-
turned these defective garments to the sewing department, whence they came, to be
repaired . There she turned them over to Eleanor Bishop, the floorlady of the sew-
ing department . Schwalb also told Isolino that she found that a lot of the sewing
"wasn't done right."
On or about February 12, 1962, Mrs. Creighton spoke to employees of Ravena
Sportswear about 10 or 10:30 a .m. over its public address system . Using the loud
speaker she said she was not pleased with their work and asked them "to pick
211 find that Rose Schwalb is not a supervisor under Section 2(11) of the Act. She
transmitted orders from Isollno to the employees and was told by Isolino that she was a
"supervisor ." Such orders were routine and did not require the exercise of independent
judgment She also called a few employees to work at the direction of Isolino, and
inspected work. Even if she is such supervisor, I find that her knowledge of union
activity at Ravena Sportswear may not be attributed to her employer because (a) as one
sympathetic to the Union, her interests were allied with fellow employee union members,
including two sisters who belonged, (b) she never communicated such knowledge to any
of her superiors, and (c) she never had a union animus
RAVENA SPORTSWEAR, ETC. 1319
up . . . get down to business and accomplish what they were supposed to."
At the close of this talk she called them all to the sewing department for a meeting.
In addition to the employees , Mr. and Mrs . Isolino were present. Creighton ad-
dressed the assemblage . She started by alluding to the sewing as horrible , a night-
mare, and just awful , adding that Mr. and Mrs. Isolino had spent the weekend
repairing the defective sewing and Mrs. Isolino had "cried all weekend long" over
it. After specifying the complaints she had with the sewing, Creighton observed
that the sewing could be done "fast and good . . . without batching it up."
Alluding to the finishing department, Creighton praised it with the comment that
"the work was going along beautifully ," or "very well ," and that the girls there were
"catching on fast."
On February 12 or 13, Mrs. Creighton again spoke to the employees of Ravena
Sportswear over the public address system. She noted that she heard a rumor
that there was an "instigator" in the factory who wanted to stir up trouble and
added that such girls would be out of their jobs.
On or about February 13, finishing department employee Rose Lazano, in the
presence of three other employees, complained to Mrs. Creighton that the piece-
work rate was too low. Creighton replied that it was the same as that paid at
Oneonta, that the girls could make more soon , and that they were making less at
the time because they were new at it. Then she said that "if anybody starts any-
thing, Mr. St. George is no fool. He knows how to use his hands too." She con-
cluded by remarking that she knew these girls were good and asked them to "go
along" with her so that she could "go along" with them.
On the same day employee Elizabeth Perreault , a presser , in the presence of
employee Carrie Sgroi, asked Mrs. Isolino how the dresses looked in the finishing
room. Mrs. Isolino replied that they looked good.
About 11:30 a.m. on February 14, Creighton spoke to Schwalb in the presence
of Isolino. Creighton said to Schwalb, "I have seen the handwriting on the wall.
They are one hundred percent for the Union. The hell with them. I am going
to let them go." 22 Creighton thereupon directed Schwalb (1) to instruct the girls in
the finishing department to remain for the morning and then go home at noon,
and (2) to tell these girls they would be recalled by Creighton when needed.
Schwalb thereupon conveyed these instructions to the girls. One of the girls then
called Creighton to the finishing room. Upon arriving, the girls asked her "if
they should collect their unemployment insurance." Creighton replied, "Definitely."
Shortly thereafter the girls punched out and went home, and Schwalb went to lunch.
The girls were never called back, although a substantial amount of finishing work
remained uncompleted at the time. Isolino continued to operate the sewing depart-
ment, and the finishing work was thereafter performed by Oneonta Dress Co., Inc.
After lunch on February 14, Schwalb returned to the plant about 12:30 p.m.
and finished the work remaining on the racks in the finishing room. That after-
noon about 2:30 p.m., Creighton spoke to Schwalb in an office used by the former
and Mrs. Isolino. Creighton asked Schwalb why the downstairs department, i.e.,
the finishing department , were 100 percent for the Union , asserting that three girls
from the upstairs sewing room had so informed her. Schwalb answered that she
had no knowledge of this and urged Creighton not to believe these rumors. Never-
theless Creighton insisted that she believed the girls in the finishing department
wanted a union "and to hell with them. Let them go collect their unemployment."
Continuing, Creighton remarked that former Cousant employee Mary Eaton "was
working on the outside for the Union," that she, Creighton, believed that employee
Millie Cornwell "was the instigator upstairs in the sewing department, because
she was a good friend of Eaton's ," that employee Carmela Morrell "was another
instigator ," and that Rose Lozana "was the instigator for the downstairs ." Creighton
added that knowledge of "this would make Mr. Saint George sick."
On February 14, employee Edith Hoyt 23 asked Isolino if the layoff included
her. He replied that it did , and that he would try to obtain work for her at Oneonta.
Hoyt returned to the Ravena plant on February 16, 1962, for a paycheck. On
encountering Isolino , Hoyt told him the following story : She had a conversation
with Mrs. Creighton in which Hoyt informed Mrs. Creighton that the latter was
mistaken about the finishing department "being one hundred percent for the Union"
because Hoyt and Mabel Hall, another employee, had not joined it. Thereafter,
Creighton asked Hall to convey a message to Hoyt that Hoyt was to report to
Ravena's plant and tell Isolino that he was to put Hoyt to work . On hearing the
above statement , Isolino told Hoyt that he had only sewing work available and that
22 Employee Mary Amedlo overheard this statement.
23 Hoyt's duties required her to work both in the sewing department and the finishing
department.
1320 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
he would teach her how to do it. Hoyt, who could not perform sewing work,
rejected this offer.
Concluding Findings as to the Shutdown of the Finishing Department
In my opinion the finishing department was closed, and its work and operations
were transferred from Ravena Sportswear to Oneonta Dress because nearly all the
employees in that department joined and assisted the Union. I so find. I also,
find that the discharges of February 14, which resulted from the termination of
this department and its transfer from Ravena to Oneonta, were motivated by
antiunion considerations and opposition to the organization of finishing department
employees, and were consummated because such employees joined and assisted the
Union. It follows, and I find, that the shutdown of the finishing department, its.
transfer to Oneonta, and the consequent discharges transgress Section 8(a)(3) and
(1) of the Act.
The foregoing findings are based on the whole record, including the following
factors:
(a) From the beginning, i.e., when St. George became interested in acquiring the
plant, it was contemplated that a nonunion operation would be introduced to succeed
Cousant, Inc. Although Isolino did not attend the first negotiating meeting be-
tween Mrs. Levy and St. George, he was present at the subsequent meetings and
was cognizant that a nonunion plant would be opened. This nonunion attitude
was conveyed to the former employees of Cousant, who were seeking employment
in the new plant to be operated by Ravena Sportswear, not only by Mrs. Levy, their-
former employer, but also by Mrs. Creighton.
(b) Creighton was decidedly opposed to unionism and was outspoken in her
determination to foil any efforts of the Union to gain a foothold in Ravena's plant.
(c) The shutdown was effected precipitately, that is, within 3 days after the
Union commenced its recruiting program, and almost immediately following the
complete unionization of the finishing department. Ripley Manufacturing Corn--
pany, 138 NLRB 1452.
(d) Not only was the shutdown precipitate, but it occurred most abruptly in
the middle of the working day without any showing of the necessity therefor. In
addition, work remained to be finished. While I recognize that an employer may
close a department at any time as a matter of business judgment, "quite apart from
whether or not there is a Union on the scene," 24 I find that to do so in the middle
of a day in the middle of a workweek is an ingredient which, along with the other
elements mentioned herein, leads to the conclusion that such closing was prompted:
by hostility to unions. Cf. Ethel J. Hinz, etc., d/b/a Myers Ceramic Products
Co., 140 NLRB 232
(e) Although it was Creighton's habit personally to speak to all of Ravena's,
employees on matters concerning their jobs, either over the public address system
or at an assembly called by her, she did not resort to this practice to explain to all
the employees why the finishing department was being abolished. In fact, she
personally did not give the employees any reason for the termination of the depart-
ment, but directed Schwalb to dismiss the employees. Nor did Isolino give the
employees any reason for this sudden action. In fact, when employee Mary Amedio,
of the finishing department asked him when she would return to work, he merely
replied that he would call her when there was work; and he told employee Hoyt
nothing about the reason for the shutdown.
(f) The absence of any documentary evidence identifying the transaction be-
tween Sherwood and "a New York shop" whereby the latter performed repair
work for Sherwood on several hundred allegedly defective garments. While this
is not conclusive, it suggests that the nature of the defects, if any, disclosed on an
invoice, if any, from the New York shop to Sherwood would have been adverse
to the contentions of Respondent.
(g) The failure of Isolino to protest the temporary rejection of his garments
until a New York shop remedied the alleged defects. If, as Colletti testified, he
forbade Isolino to ship certain garments to Sherwood until their defects were
remedied, then it is reasonable to assume that when Isolino did ship them Isolino
was satisfied that they were in marketable condition Yet Isolino did not protest
when, on February 14, Azaria telephoned him, Mrs. Creighton, and Mrs. Schwalb
that the garments shipped to Sherwood were unacceptable. This failure to protest
indicates that Isolino was not concerned about the potential loss of business from
his only customer. But in the business world it is reasonable to expect that a
24 N.L R B. v. New England Web , Inc., et al, 309 F. 2d 696 (C.A. 1).
RAVENA SPORTSWEAR, ETC. 1321
supplier will not accept a mere oral statement from his customer that an entire
shipment of the supplier's products fails to meet the specifications of the customer.
Hence I have considered this lack of protest 25 in arriving at the findings that the
dresses were not materially defective and that their alleged condition was not the
motivating cause for discontinuing Ravena's finishing operations. Further, it is
significant that Sherwood did not send a written statement to Ravena that an entire
shipment was unacceptable, as would be reasonable to expect in the business world.
(h) An argument of Respondents in substance is that no antiunion motive ac-
companied the cessation of finishing operations because none of the sewing depart-
ment girls, all of whom were said to be members of the Union, was discharged
except for cause. But I have found that Morrell and Cornwell, both members
of the Union employed in the sewing department, were discharged for union ac-
tivity or membership and not for cause, as hereinafter set forth. Moreover, the
employees of the sewing department who testified that they "belonged" to the
Union, had not paid dues to it for several months and had not signed union author-
ization cards in February as had all the girls in the finishing department. Hence
I find this argument not to be well taken 26
To meet the General Counsel's case, Respondents have offered certain defenses,
which are discussed below. These are
(a) The finishing department was abandoned for economic reasons 27 I do not
reach the question of whether that department was actually operating at a deficit, for
I find that it was closed because of hostility to the Union and not because it was
losing money. Moreover, even if lack of profit motivated the relinquishment of
the finishing work, it was not communicated to the employees at any time. Hence
I find that this defense has not been substantiated as the reason for abandoning the
finishing work 28
(b) Respondents additionally contend that continually defective workmanship
in the finishing department necessitated its abrogation. This was a strenuously con-
tested issue and one on which extensive evidence was received. All the evidence
of both General Counsel and Respondents is harmonious that some defects ap-
peared in the finished garments and that these became the subject of talks of Mrs.
Creighton to the employees. While Respondents vigorously maintain that these
defects originated principally in the finishing department, the General Counsel has
stoutly argued that they were caused chiefly by the sewing department.
Evidence has been received to support both the Respondents' and the General
Counsel's positions on this segment of the case, i.e., the nature, extent, and origin
of the defects. I have found that the finishing department was terminated for anti-
union reasons. I further find that its finishing operations were not discontinued
because the employees thereof performed unsatisfactory work, and that such work
did not enter materially into the decision to close the department. Accordingly,
I need not decide the type of defects at issue or whether the defective work is to
be attributed to the sewing department or the finishing department. Hence I do not
set out at length the evidence on the nature of the defects, regardless of whether
such evidence came from employees , supervisors, management , or outsiders . (Never-
theless, the testimony of two outsiders is given hereafter in conspectus form. By
25 This is somewhat intensified by the fact that the girls in the finishing department
were experienced workers
26 It is true that Bertha Palmer, whom Mrs Creighton suspected of union activity in
the sewing department, was not discharged But there is no evidence that Palmer did
engage in such activity In any event, I find that, with one possible exception, the sew-
ing department girls were not receptive to the Union because they did not sign union
authorization cards Therefore no imminent unionization of this department suggested
or dictated to Respondents its immediate abolition.
27 At the hearing I accepted oral evidence that Ravena was operating at a loss, but
excluded oral evidence of the exact amount of the loss No evidence, whether oral or
documentary , was offered by Respondents that continuance of Ravena ' s finishing depart-
ment was economically unprofitable. ,
2s On the evidence introduced by Respondents it is problematical whether Isolino actu-
ally lost money on his finishing operations . In the first place, Isolino testified that the
finishing department girls refused his request to work on Saturady , February 10 (a regular
nonworking day), for the purpose of repairing garments . Thus no additional wage costs
are indicated . Secondly , Sherwood ( according to Azaria's testimony ) did not charge
Isolino with the expense of sending hundreds of garments to a "New York shop" allegedly
to be renovated Hence this expense was not a burden on Isolino. Finally, Sherwood
made advance payments to Isolino without deducting therefrom the loss in value, if any,
resulting to the garments from the allegedly defective work
1322 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
outsiders I mean persons unconnected with the performance of the work at Ravena,
i.e., Sal Colletti, a supervisor at Oneonta, who inspected the garments at Ravena,
and Albert Azaria, an officer of Sherwood, who examined them at Sherwood's
premises in New York City, and both of whom testified as to the irregularities in
the garments.)
In this connection Respondents have offered evidence through Colletti and Azaria,
among others, that the garments revealed substantial defects in the finishing opera-
tions. A brief condensation follows:
(a) Colletti, Oneonta's production manager, testified that he visited Ravena's
plant on February 9 to inspect finished garments, and that he then found the finish-
ing inadequate. He returned to Ravena the next day and, having found more
garments tainted with defects of the same type, told Isolino that Isolino "could not
ship them" and also reported this to Mrs. Creighton. Assuming this to be true,
it is difficult to understand why Isolino nevertheless shipped the dresses if they
were not in condition to pass Sherwood's final inspection. Since Isolino admittedly
did ship the garments, it is reasonable to deduce that he regarded them suitable for
retail sale. Hence I am of the opinion, and find, that, regardless of the nature of
the defects in the garments while at Ravena's premises, these defects had been re-
paired so that Sherwood received merchantable merchandise.
(b) Azaria, Sherwood's production manager, testified that on February 14 he
inspected hundreds of the garments in question and that they failed to meet Sher-
wood's standards of quality in that belts were not sized correctly, threads hung,
some cuts were unacceptable, and cleaning was very bad. As a result he called
Mrs. Creighton at Ravena 29 to inform her of the unsatisfactory conditions he
found,30 and then sent the entire lot to a "New York shop" at Sherwood's expense
to make it marketable.
While I find that Azaria did make such a telephone call and did describe the
poor work as attributable to Ravena's finishing department in that call, I am unable
to find that the defective work, if it existed, can be traced to Ravena's finishing
department. In the first place, no corroboration of Azaria's appraisal of the
garments has been offered through the "New York shop" which is said to have
remedied the defects. In the second place, Isolino would not have shipped the
dresses, especially after Colletti's warning not to do so until they were rendered
saleable, unless they had been made fit for purchase at retail. In the third place,
no written memorandum describing the unsatisfactory work was sent to Ravena by
Sherwood. Finally, it is hard to reconcile the almost charitable act of Sherwood
in repairing several hundred defective garments at its own expense with the generally
accepted canons of the business world that major defects of the goods of a supplier
are not usually overlooked when encountered by the recipient in substantial quantities.
Accordingly, I find that the condition of the garments upon arrival at Sherwood's
premises does not impugn the competence of the finishing department employees.
However, the time of the foregoing telephone call by Azaria on February 14
to Mrs. Creighton at the Ravena plant has become important . 31 If this call was
made before noon , as submitted by Respondents it would tend to bolster their con-
tention that deficient finishing work caused Ravena's only customer to reject several
hundred garments , so that it was deemed unfeasible by Isolino to continue that
department any longer. However, I find that this call was made at 12:45 p.m.,
shortly after Schwalb had returned from lunch and after the girls in the finishing
department had been dismissed, and that, consequently, it could not have prompted
or led to the decision about 11:45 a.m. to close the department at noon.
For the foregoing reasons, and upon the entire record , I find that the termination
of the finishing department, the transfer of its functions to Oneonta, and the result-
ing layoffs of the department's employees, were principally motivated by antiunion
considerations, and, therefore, violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act.
American Manfacturing Company of Texas, 139 NLRB 815.
29 The time of this call, which in my opinion is material and is discussed below, is in
dispute.
11Isolino and Mrs Schwalb also listened in on this telephone conversation. It is
significant that Isolino did not question this conclusion but, rather , acquiesced without
a protest
31 Actually, Azaria first called Mrs Creighton at Oneonta and, upon learning from
Calletti that she was at Ravena, called her at the latter plant. Mrs. Schwalb and Isolino
also listened in on this call at Creighton 's request . No explanation was given as to why
Azaria communicated with Creighton, rather than with the owner and subcontractor,
Isolino.
RAVENA SPORTSWEAR, ETC. 1323
F. The discharge of employees after February 14, 1962
1. The discharge of Carmela Morrell
a. Morrell's testimony
Employee Morrell was hired as a sewer by Ravena and reported for work on
January 24. She had previously worked as a stitching machine operator for
Cousant for 14 or 15 years. She "signed a Union card" in Ravena 's sewing room
on February 12, which she received from employee Mary Amedio. Morrell also
passed out cards at the plant "for the Union" and , after they were signed, returned
them to Amedio.
On February 13, Mrs. Creighton called Morrell into the office and said, "I hear
you are the instigator upstairs ." After an evasive reply by Morrell , Creighton con-
tinued, "What do you want of me?" When Morrell answered that piece rates
were too low, Creighton requested that the girls give her a "chance," but offered to
"go" if the girls did not want her. Morrell also overhead Creighton refer to "a
bunch of rats" in talking to employee Beck as Morrell entered the room. On or
about February 14, Mrs. Creighton , in a conversation with Mrs. Schwalb , referred
to Morrell as "another instigator " for the Union in the sewing department.
About 8 p.m. in the evening of February 15, Morrell's supervisor, Eleanor Bishop,
called her at home and instructed her not to come in the next morning because
there was no work. She has not since been recalled. On February 17, when
Morrell went to the plant to pick up her paycheck, she asked Isolino if there was
any work for her. He replied that he would call her when any was available.
When Morrell returned to the plant on February 23 to get an additional paycheck,
she noticed Mrs. Creighton and St. George there along with Mr. and Mrs. Isolino.
b. Ravena's testimony
Isolino in substance testified that he instructed Bishop "to call [Morrell] at
home" and to discharge her. He further testified that this conclusion was prompted
by the fact that Morrell did her work "wrong." First, he said, her work as a
sewer was wrong, so he had her assigned to setting canvas. When he found her
work defective on this latter job, he assigned her to sewing gores on skirts. He
found her performance on this last operation also deficient , and then decided to
discharge her.
Concluding Findings as to the Discharge of Morrell
I find that Morrell was discharged for being a union member and for soliciting
union membership among employees in the sewing department , and not because
her work failed to meet specified standards . If, as Isolino contends , Morrell's work
was unsatisfactory, no rational explanation is given why her alleged incompetence
was tolerated from January 24, when she was hired, to February 15, or why he
told her on February 14 that he would recall her. Moreover, no warning was
ever given to Morrell that her work was substandard and that she was exposed to
the risk of discharge . Nor is it reasonable to expect that Morrell would be dis-
charged for cause abruptly at 8 p.m. in the evening while at home when it would
have been much simpler to notify her at the plant.
On the other hand , ( 1) Morrell 's discharge occurred not long after she signed
a union card and started to assist the Union in obtaining signatures to more cards,
(2) the discharge was quite precipitate , especially since no urgency is disclosed re-
quiring an evening call to her home, (3) Creighton accused her of being "the
instigator upstairs ," and also transmitted a similar sentiment to Mrs. Schwalb in
the afternoon of February 14, 1962, (4) Morrell was a potential source of irrita-
tion when , after she became a union member , she complained that piece rates were
too low, and ( 5) as found herein , Respondents ' displayed hostility to the Union's
organizing activities.
Accordingly , all evidence consistent with the foregoing findings is credited and
that not consonant with them is not credited.
2. The discharge of employee Carmella Cornwell
a. General Counsel 's evidence
Employee Cornwell reported for work on January 29 as a sleeve setter in the
sewing department . Previously she had been a sleeve setter at Cousant , Inc., for
20 years. On February 11 she "signed a union card ," which Mr. Nash , a union
1324 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
representative, had given her at a spaghetti dinner in Ravena, New York. Other
employees of Ravena Sportswear also signed cards at this dinner.
About 9 or 10 a.m. on February 15, Supervisor Bishop asked her if "this rumpus
[is] over with?" When Cornwell inquired what she meant, Bishop replied, "These
Union doings." Although Cornwell disclaimed knowledge thereof, Bishop vol-
unteered that she (Bishop) had been asked to join the Union but declined. Bishop
then asked Cornwell what she would do. Cornwell answered that she was going
to do "what everybody else does." About 8 p.m. that same evening Bishop tele-
phoned Cornwell at home to tell her not to come in for work because there was no
work and that she would be recalled when needed.
b. Respondents' evidence
Respondents' defense is based on evidence in substance disclosing that Cornwell
"did not do the work right" in that she attached the "wrong sleeves" every day,
and in denying most of the General Counsel's evidence as recited above. As a
result, Isolino told Mrs. Bishop that, because of this defective 32 work, Cornwell
was no longer wanted and to notify Cornwell to this effect.
Concluding Findings as to the Discharge of Cornwell
In my opinion Cornwell was discharged for having joined the Union, and not for
allegedly improper performance of work tasks, and I so find. In this connection,
I find that Bishop had knowledge of Cornwell's membership in and favorable dis-
position toward the Union, and that Mrs. Creighton also had such knowledge when
she referred to Cornwell as a union "instigator" in a conversation with Mrs. Schwalb
on February 14. I also find that Cornwell's precipitate discharge after the above
knowledge was acquired, as well as the failure to discipline or warn Cornwell, an
experienced hand, about her work over an appreciable lapse of time (January 29,
when she was hired, to February 15), contribute to the conclusion, based upon the
entire record, that Cornwell was discharged for membership in and adherence to
the Union. Finally, I attribute some weight to the fact that no compelling reason is
shown for a telephone call by Bishop to Cornwell at 8 p.m. to effect Cornwell's dis-
charge at that time of night.
Accordingly, I credit such evidence which tends to or does support the finding
that Cornwell was discriminatorily discharged and do not credit any evidence in-
consistent therewith.
G. The other alleged violations
1. Threats to terminate operations
As noted above, Lillian Creighton on January 15, told the assembled former
Cousant girls that no one was going to tell her how to run her business, that anyone
who tried that was a communist, and that any communists in the room should leave
immediately. It is alleged in the complaint that this language threatened employees
of Isolino "with termination of operations of said plant" if the employees became or
remained members of the Union or assisted or supported it. Standing alone, this
statement does not compel the result that a plant shutdown was conceived. But
when assessed against a background of union animus by Creighton as revealed in
the December 15 meeting with the girls, as well as Mrs. Levy's inquiry at the same
meeting whether the girls would work for a nonunion operator, and St. George's
statement to Mrs. Levy in the presence of Creighton that he was not interested in a
union operation, it is reasonable to draw the inference-and I draw it-that Mrs.
Creighton was informing the girls that any attempt by the Union to interfere with
the operation of the plant as a nonunion shop would be met by closing it down.
Hence I find that this part of the complaint has been sustained.33
u It is doubtful whether Cornwell's work was consistently unsatisfactory, although I
make no finding on this issue. For on February 15 Cornwell Informed Mrs. Creighton
that she needed more time at lunch each day thereafter to see a daughter off on a school
bus, and Creighton readily consented If Cornwell's work at that time required her dis-
missal, it is strange that Creighton granted her request in a manner implying continued
future employment.
83 Although none of the girls had been hired at this meeting, nor had Isolino com-
menced operations, I find that such girls were applicants for employment, that they were
addressed as such, and that therefore they were employees within the meaning of the Act.
Phelps Dodge Corp. v N L R B , 313 U S 177. See N L R B v. Hearst Publications, Inc.,
322 U S. 111
RAVENA SPORTSWEAR, ETC. 1325
It is also complained that on January 23 Mrs. Creighton made threats to close
Ravena's plant if its employees became or remained members of the Union or gave
it assistance or support. I have found that Mrs. Creighton, on that occasion, stressed
that she emphatically would not work in a union factory or with the Union, that if
the plant became organized she would close its doors, and that if the plant was
picketed she would shut down. Hence I find that this segment of the complaint has
been established.
2. Threats to discharge employees
It is further alleged that Lillian Creighton again on February 12 threatened em-
ployees with discharge for being members of or aiding the Union. I have found
that on February 12 or 13 Mrs. Creighton spoke to Ravena's employees over the
public address system and, in relevant part, told them that she had heard a rumor
that an "instigator" in the plant wanted to stir up trouble and that any girls who
instigated trouble would be out of a job. Although Creighton did not mention the
nature of the trouble, I find, in view of her other antiunion statements and the record
as a whole, that she intended to convey the impression, and the employees under-
stood her to mean, they risked discharge if they aided or supported the Union. But
I do not find that she also, as alleged in paragraph 10 of the complaint, by these same
remarks "threatened employees employed at the Ravena plant with discharge if
they became or remained members of the Union."
3. Warning employees to eschew the Union
Paragraph 11 of the complaint ascribes to Mrs. Creighton a warning by her to
employees on February 13 "not to become or remain members of the Union or
give any assistance or support to it." As set forth above, I have found that Mrs.
Creighton accused employee Carmela Morrell of being an "instigator" in the sewing
department on February 13 and that on February 14 she told Mrs. Schwalb that
employees Morrell, Cornwell, and Lozana were "instigators" for the Union, that
Mary Eaton (who was not an employee) was working on the outside for the Union,
and "the hell with them [union Members]. Let them go collect their unemploy-
ment." While these pronouncements reveal a studied distate for union members,
which Section 8(c) ordinarily immunizes, I am of the opinion, and find, that they
also carry an overtone of loss of jobs to those who joined or worked for the Union,
and, in the context of other 8(a) (1) conduct, go beyond protected utterances.34
Accordingly, I find this portion of the complaint well taken.
4. Interrogation
As recited above, I have found that on February 15 Eleanor Bishop, whom I
find to be a supervisor 35 of Ravena, asked employee Cornwell if the "rumpus,"
meaning "the Union doings," was "over with," mentioned that, she Bishop had
declined to join the Union although invited to do so, and asked Cornwell what
Cornwell would do about joining the Union. I find that these questions were more
than innocuous inquiries, and that thereby Bishop unlawfully interrogated Cornwell
concerning the union movement and Cornwell's reaction toward it. However,
since Bishop is found not to be an agent or supervisor of the other Respondents,
liability for her statements may be fastened only on Isolino.
While interrogation may be insulated from infection as an unfair labor practice
where it is clear that its only purpose is to attain specified lawful objectives and
when accompanied with assurances against reprisals, I am of the opinion, and find,
that the elements of permissible interrogation are lacking here. Not only did the
Union fail to demand recognition, which is one of the elements warranting lawful
interrogation, but pledges against retaliation are absent from and a background
of hostility to unions are also present in the record. New French Benzol Cleaners
and Laundry, Inc., 139 NLRB 1176. Accordingly, I find that Supervisor Bishop's
interrogations are not sanctioned by Blue Flash Express, Inc., 109 NLRB 591. See
P-M Garages, Inc., et al, d/b/a P-M Parking System, 139 NLRB 987.
H. The joint responsibility of Respondents
In my opinion all Respondents must share joint responsibility 36 for all unfair
labor practices found except those committed by Isolino alone or by Isolino's
84 Savoy Leather Mfg. Corp., 139 NLRB 425.
35 Applied Research, Inc., 138 NLRB 870.
ae International Trailer Company, Inc. t Gibraltar Industries , Inc., 133 NLRB 1527,
1529, enfd 307 F. 2d 428 (C A 4)
1326 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
supervisor, Eleanor Bishop. Since I have found no integration or affiliation between
Isolino and the other Respondents, liability for his actions and those of his subordi-
nates may not be fastened upon the other Respondents absent evidence that they
sanctioned, ratified, or affirmed the same.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
Those activities of Respondents which have been found to be unlawful, set forth
in section III, herein, occurring in connection with the operations of Respondents
as 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.
V. THE REMEDY
It having been found that Respondents have engaged in specified unfair labor
practices it will be recommended that each of them cease and desist therefrom and
that each take certain affirmative action, as related below, designed to effectuate
the applicable policies of the Act.
Having found that Respondents violated Section 8(a) (3) and (1) in discharging
Ravena's employees Cornwell and Morrell, and in discharging all the employees in
Ravena's finishing department, it will be recommended that they offer to these em-
ployees immediate and full reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent
positions at Ravena. Having found that Respondents, in their opposition to the
organization of the finishing department employees, also violated Section 8(a) (3 )
and (1) of the Act in discontinuing Ravena's finishing department and transferring
its functions to Oneonta, it will be recommended that Ravena resume that operation
(Drennon Food Products Co., 122 NLRB 1353, 1356-1358,37 enforcement denied on
factual grounds 272 F. 2d 23 (C.A. 5)), in order to reinstate such employees, as
above noted, to their former or substantially equivalent positions. American Manu-
facturing Company of Texas, 139 NLRB 815; Hawaii Meat Company, Limited,
139 NLRB 966. Having found that the transfer of the finishing department from
Ravena to Oneonta also violated Section 8(a) (3) and (1), it will be recommended
that Oneonta and Sherwood be ordered to restore that operation to Ravena.
It will also be recommended that all Respondents jointly and severally make
whole all reinstated employees for any loss of earnings suffered by reason of the
discrimination with respect to such employees, by payment to each of them of a
sum of money equal to the amount they would normally have earned as wages
from the date of discrimination against them to the date of an offer of reinstate-
ment or actual reinstatement, as the case may be, less net earnings during the in-
tervening period. Such pay loss shall be computed in the manner set forth in
F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289, with interest to be added at the rate
of 6 percent per annum as formulated in Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB
716. It will be further recommended that reinstated employees shall be restored
to work without prejudice to their seniority and other rights and privileges.
The conduct in terminating the finishing department, in discharging the employees
thereof, and in discharging employees Cornwell and Morrell, goes "to the very
heart of the Act." N.L.R.B. v. Entwistle Mfg. Co., 120 F. 2d 532, 536 (C.A. 4).
Accordingly an order broad in scope is warranted and will be recommended in order
that the preventive objectives of the order may be commensurate with the legislative
design as enunciated in Section 7 of the Act.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record in
the case, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of
the Act.
2. Respondent Clodomiro Isolino doing business under the trade name and style
of Ravena Sportswear, is an independent employer, whose operations are not in-
tegrated with those of the other Respondents, and is engaged in commerce within
the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
$7 Ethel J. Hann, etc, d/b/a Myers Ceramic Products Co, 140 NLRB 232, where the
Board did not order the reopening of a plant, Is distinguishable on its facts In Myers, the
Board found some economic justification, although it found that antiunion considerations
accelerated such justification In the instant case, unlike Myers, I have found no eco-
nomic basis for the shutdown and, in any event, that the predominant motive therefor
was antiunion.
LLOYD A. FRY ROOFING CO., INC., ETC. 1327
3. Respondents Oneonta and Sherwood are a single employer for the purposes of
this case and are engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7)
of the Act.
4. Lillian Creighton is an agent for Respondents Ravena, Oneonta, and Sherwood,
and said Respondents are jointly and severally responsible for any unfair labor prac-
tices committed by her.
5. John St . George is a common officer, director, and agent of Sherwood and
Oneonta, and controls both.
6. By coercively interrogating his employees concerning their membership in,
activities on behalf of, and sympathies for, the Union through Supervisor Bishop,
Respondent Isolino has engaged in unfair labor practices as defined in Section 8
(a) (1) of the Act.
7. By discriminatorily discharging employees Cornwell and Morrell, Respond-
ents have engaged in unfair labor practices comprehended by Section 8(a)(3)
and (1 ) of the Act.
8. By threatening Ravena's employees with discharge and with termination of
operations if said employees became or remained members of the Union or gave
it any assistance or support , and by warning Ravena's employees not to become
or remain members of the Union or give it any assistance or support, Respond-
ents have engaged in unfair labor practices proscribed by Section 8(a) (1) of
the Act.
9. By discriminatorily discontinuing Ravena's finishing department , transferring
it from Ravena to Oneonta , and by discharging the employees of said department,
Respondents have engaged in unfair labor practices within the contemplation of
Section 8 ( a) (3) and (1) of the Act.
10. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
11. Respondents have not committed any other unfair labor practices within
the meaning of the Act as alleged in the complaint.
[Recommended Order omitted from . publication.]
Lloyd A. Fry Roofing Co ., Inc., and Volney Felt Mills, a Divi-
sion Thereof and Oil , Chemical and Atomic Workers Inter-
national Union, AFL-CIO. Case No. 11-CA-92056. June 19,
1963
DECISION AND ORDER
On April 10, 1963, Trial Examiner Thomas A. Ricci issued his
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that
the Respondent had not engaged in the unfair labor practices alleged
in the complaint and recommending dismissal of the complaint in its
entirety, as set forth in the. attached Intermediate Report. There-
after, the General Counsel filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report
and a supporting brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board
has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-
member panel [Chairman McCulloch and Members Rodgers and
Leedom].
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 In-
termediate Report and the entire record, including the exceptions and
142 NLRB No. 139.