Salant & Salant, Inc.Download PDFNational Labor Relations Board - Board DecisionsDec 19, 1966162 N.L.R.B. 264 (N.L.R.B. 1966) Copy Citation 264 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Each of the foregoing sums shall accrue interest at the rate of 6 percent per annum , computed in the manner set forth in Isis Plumbing & Healing Co., 138 NLRB 716. There shall be deducted from each of the foregoing amounts social security, income tax withholding, and such other deductions as may be required by the laws of the United States or the State of Rhode Island. IT Is FURTHER ORDERED, that the amounts herein directed to be paid to Edward G. Herman and Wesley G. Phipps, shall be paid to the Regional Director for Region 1 of the National Labor Relations Board, to be held in escrow by said Direc- tor for a period not exceeding 1 year, and during such period he shall afford Respondent an opportunity to examine Herman and Phipps as to their interim earn- ings in excess of those credited in the backpay specifications, if any, or other rea- sons justifying a reduction in the amount of backpay due them, in accordance with existing Board precedents, and determine the amount thereof, if any. Should any proper basis for deduction be established, the amount thereof shall be returned to Respondent , and the remainder paid to said discriminatees . The Regional Director shall, when he has resolved said matters, promptly, and no later than 1 year from the date of this Supplemental Decision, report to the Board, the status of these mat- ters at that time. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that jurisdiction over this proceeding is reserved for the purpose of determining when Silvio Napolitano and Frank Natale are reinstated as required by our Order of November 27, 1964, and what backpay, if any, accrued to them after May 1, 1965, the terminal date of our computations herein. Salant & Salant , Incorporated and Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America , AFL-CIO. Case 06-0-4-2360. Decent- ber 19, 1966 DECISION AND ORDER On September 6, 1966, Trial Examiner A. Bruce Hunt issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respond- ent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor prac- fices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set: forth in the attached Trial Exam- iner's Decision. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to the '.Trial Examiner's Decision and a supporting brief. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel [Chairman McCulloch and Members Brown and Zagoria]. The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial Examniner's Decision, the Respondent's exceptions and brief, and the entire record in this case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclu- sicls, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner, as modified herein. [The Board adopted the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order with the following modifications: 162 NLRB No. 25. SALANT & SALANT, INC. 265 [1. Change the period at the end of paragraph 1 (a) to a comma, and add the following: "in a manner violative of Section 8(a) (1) of the National Labor Relations Act." [2. Change the period at the end of the first indented paragraph of the attached notice and add the following: "in a manner violative of Section 8(a) (1) of the National Labor Relations Act."] TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE This proceeding , in which the charge was filed on March 21, 1966, and the com- plaint was issued on May 4, 1966, involves allegations that the Respondent, Salant & Salant, Incorporated , violated Section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended , 29 U.S.C., Sec. 151, et seq. On July 14, 1966, Trial Examiner A. Bruce Hunt conducted a hearing at Lexington , Tennessee , at which all parties were represented by counsel . Upon the entire record and my observation of the witnesses, I make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT I. THE RESPONDENT The Respondent , a New York corporation , manufactures men's clothing at plants which it operates in various communities . The two plants involved herein are located in Lexington , Tennessee . During a 12-month period preceding issuance of the complaint , the Respondent received materials valued in excess of $50 ,000 which were shipped to its Lexington plants directly from points outside Tennessee, and during the same period the Respondent shipped from those plants to points outside that State finished products valued in excess of $50,000. There is no dispute, and I find, that the Respondent is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. II. THE UNION Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization which admits to membership employees of the Respondent. III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. The issues The Union is the representative of employees at certain plants which the Respond- ent operates . During January 1966 , the Union commenced an organizational cam- paign at the Respondent 's plants in Lexington , Tennessee . The issues are whether certain conversations which supervisors held with employees constituted violations of Section 8(a)(1) by the Respondent. B. The uncontradicted evidence in support of the complaint John Mays is a supervisor in the shipping room of the Respondent 's Harrison plant, one of the two plants in Lexington . There are about 18 employees who work in that room under Mays ' supervision , and he also supervises five office employees. Seven of Mays ' subordinates testified concerning conversations with him during January and February 1966. Their testimony is uncontradicted because Mays was not a witness. I credit the testimony and make the findings which follow. Mays ini- tiated a conversation with Ernest Reed, Jr., asking whether Reed had heard "any- thing about the union" and had "seen any cards being passed around ," but Reed declined to participate in a discussion about the organizational activity. Mays inquired of Ralph Deere whether the latter had "heard anything about the union trying to come in," to which Deere answered affirmatively, and Mays said that he hoped that Deere knew how to vote. Deere replied that he always tried "to know how to vote," and the conversation ended. About 2 weeks later, Mays had a second conversation with Deere which was substantially like the first one. Mays approached Willie Woods and asked whether Woods had heard about the Union and whether 266 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Woods favored or opposed it. Woods answered that he was not "for it." About 2 weeks later, Mays asked Woods whether the latter had heard employees discussing the Union and "how they felt about it," to which Woods responded that "some" employees were for the Union and that "some" were against it. Mays asked John Lee whether Lee knew anything about the Union, and Lee answered in the negative. Nothing else was said. Mays initiated a conversation with Andrew Long, asking whether Long had heard anything about the Union's organizational efforts, and Long replied that he had heard that one of the Respondent's plants in another town was being organized. Mays asked Alton Shugart whether the latter had heard any- thing about the Union, and Shugart answered that he had not "heard a thing." Noth- ing else was said. Mays asked O. T. Yates what Yates thought about the Union, and Yates replied that he did not know anything about it. Mays then asked whether Yates had seen any of the cards, and Yates replied in the negative. Lounelle Grissom is the head of the sewing and finishing room at the Harrison plant. She supervises about 145 employees and one or more supervisors. She was not a witness and my findings in this paragraph are based upon the uncontradicted testimony of Jerry Reeves, a "bundle boy" who delivers materials to the women who operate sewing machines. Upon three occasions soon after the commencement of organizational activity, Grissom talked with Reeves. Grissom approached Reeves and asked whether he had heard anything that she should know about. Reeves answered negatively, adding "Like what?" Grissom then said, "Well, just anything you think I should know about," and repeated the remark. Reeves asked "What? Like talk?" Grissom replied, "Yes," and Reeves said that he had not heard any- thing. Grissom then said that if Reeves should hear anything she wished that he would let her know. Reeves said, "Okay," and the conversation ended. The word "union" was not used in the conversation, but it is a reasonable inference in view of the organizational activity, Grissom's later remarks to Reeves, and Grissom's failure to testify, that she had the Union in mind and that she solicited Reeves to report to her anything that he might hear about such activity. I so find. About a week later, Grissom spoke to Reeves and Edward Horn. Grissom said that the Union was not any good, that it would not "help anybody," and that probably "you" would not be allowed to vote for it.' About 2 weeks thereafter, Grissom approached Reeves and said that she did not know whether he was working for the Union or how he felt about it, but that if he had done anything she wished that he would go to the plant's superintendent and square himself. Reeves replied that he had not done anything and that he did not think that he should go to anyone. Grissom said that she wished he would go anyway. Reeves did not go to the superintendent. Louise Wheatley supervises approximately 45 employees at the Respondent's Hanover plant, the larger of its plants in Lexington. She was not a witness and the findings in this paragraph are based upon the uncontradicted testimony of one of her subordinates, Carolyn Lee. About February 1, 1966, Wheatley approached Lee and asked whether the latter had "heard the news." Lee asked, "What news?" Wheatley replied, "you know, about the union." Lee then said that she had heard about it, and Wheatley asked what Lee thought of it. Lee answered that she did not know, and the conversation ended. C. The conflicting evidence concerning conversations Lois Rhodes is a departmental supervisor at the Harrison plant with approxi- mately 48 subordinates. Lizzie Jowers was one of the latter. According to Jowers, about March 1, 1966, Rhodes asked her whether a representative of the Union had called upon her, to which Jowers replied affirmatively, adding that she was "kind of afraid to fool with it" because employees "could be hired or fired for different things and be for the union all at the same time." Jowers testified further that Rhodes then said, "Yes, that's right" and added that "[y]ou girls had better be careful how you talk about it." On the other hand, Rhodes' version is that Jowers initiated the conversation by volunteering that a union representative had visited her home, to which Rhodes interjected by asking, "He did?", and that Jowers continued by say- ing that the representative's purpose had been "mostly to interview her son" (a for- mer employee of the Respondent who had quit his employment because it inter- fered with his education) to ascertain how he had been treated as an employee. Rhodes testified further that she said nothing other than to interject the two-word 1 Reeves understood Grissom's use of the pronoun to be a reference to him. In cross- examination of Reeves, the Respondent sought to show that Grissom was referring to Horn who is the head mechanic at the Harrison plant. ITorn was not a witness. SALANT & SALANT, INC. 267 question, that Jowers did not express a fear "to fool with" the Union, and that she did not say to Jowers that employees should be careful how they talked about it. I credit Jowers' version of the conversation and find accordingly. She impressed me favorably while on the witness stand, and Rhodes impressed me unfavorably, I believe that there was more to the conversation than was related by Rhodes and that Rhodes spoke more than the two words which she attributed to herself. The final incident to be discussed involves Supervisor Rosie Pratt and one of her 37 subordinates, Maxine Flowers. According to Flowers, Pratt inquired what she thought of the Union, to which she responded that she did not know, and Pratt then said that "You [Flowers] might not ought to sign a union card. If you did you might get into it." On the other hand, Pratt testified that Flowers initiated the con- versation by inquiring what she should do about the Union, to which Pratt responded that Pratt was not "for it" and that she would "have to make up her own mind about what she wanted to do," that Pratt could "not tell her what to do." Both Pratt and Flowers, as witnesses, appeared to be testifying truthfully, and my observation of them plus my analysis of the record do not enable me to resolve the conflict in testimony with any degree of certainty. I conclude that, in this instance, the General Counsel has not borne his burden of proof. In any event, a resolution of the conflict in his favor would not materially enlarge the Recommended Order below. D. Conclusions The Respondent argues in its brief that the "conversations between supervisors and employees were casual and innocuous," that "the information sought was quite general ," that the conversations were not accompanied by expressions of "anti-union hostility or animosity on the part of the Respondent," that relatively few supervisors and employees were involved, and, therefore, that no violations of Section 8(a)(1) should be found. I cannot accept the Respondent's characterization of the conversa- tions. It is true that most of the conversations were very brief, but the brevity appears to have been due to the employees' unwillingness to discuss the organiza- tional activities, or to their professed or real lack of knowledge about such activi- ties, not to the supervisors' disinterest in pursuing inquiries which they had initi- ated. It also is true that Supervisor Wheatley's one conversation with an employee, Carolyn Lee, if viewed in isolation, would not warrant an 8(a)(1) order. On the other hand, Supervisor Grissom, who also talked with only one employee, Reeves, initiated at least two of the three conversations that she had with Reeves and her remarks were designed to persuade Reeves to report to her concerning union activ- ities and to coerce Reeves into refraining from such activities. Moreover, Super- visor Mays inquired of 7 of the 18 nonclerical employees under his supervision in a search for information concerning the strength of the organizational movement. I find that the Respondent violated Section 8(a) (1) by Foreman Mays' conversations with subordinates; by Forelady Grissom's inquiries of Reeves, her solicitation of Reeves to report to her anything that he might hear, and her suggestion that he call upon the plant's superintendent and square himself; by Forelady Wheatley's in- quiries of Carolyn Lee; and by Forelady Rhodes' inquiry of Jowers and her warning that employees should be careful how they talked about the Union. Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and upon the entire record, 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. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing employees in the exercise of their rights under the Act, the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Sections 8(a)(1) and 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. RECOMMENDED ORDER Upon the entire record and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, and in order to effectuate the Act's policies, I hereby recommend that the Respondent, Salant & Sal- ant, Incorporated, Lexington, Tennessee, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Interrogating and warning employees concerning their union activities. (b) Soliciting employees to report to management concerning the union activities of themselves or other employees. 268 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD (c) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action which is necessary to effectuate the poli- cies of the Act: (a) Post in conspicuous places at its plants in Lexington, Tennessee, including all places where notices to employees customarily are posted, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix." 2 Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for Region 20, after being duly signed by the Respondent's representative, shall be posted by it immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for at least 60 consecutive days thereafter. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to ensure that said notices shall not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (b) Notify said Regional Director, in writing, within 20 days from the receipt of this Decision, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith.3 2In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board, the words "a Decision and Order of the" shall be substituted for the words "the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner of the" in the notice. In the further event that the Board's Order is enforced by a decree of a United States Court of Appeals, the words "a Decree of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the" shall be substituted for the words "a Decision and Order of the." 3In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board, this provision shall be modified to read : "Notify said Regional Director, in writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith." APPENDIX 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, as amended, we hereby notify our employees that: WE WILL NOT interrogate or warn our employees concerning their union activities. WE WILL NOT solicit our employees to report to us concerning the union activities of themselves or other employees. WE WILL NOT violate any of the rights which you have under the National Labor Relations Act to join a union of your own choice and to engage in union activities, or not to join a union and not to engage in such activities. SALANT & SALANT, INCORPORATED, 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. If employees have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its pro- visions, they may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office, 746 Fed- eral Building, 167 North Main Street, Memphis, Tennessee 38103, Telephone 534- 3161. Reno 's Horseshoe Club, Inc. and American Federation of Casino and Gaming E mployees . Case TO-CA-.Jig/.. December 19. 19CC DECISION AND ORDER On September 14, 1966, Trial Examiner Gordon J. Myatt issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that Respond- ent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor prac- tices within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act, as 162 NLRB No. 21. Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation