Standard Handkerchief Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 15, 1965

151 N.L.R.B. 15 (N.L.R.B. 1965)

STANDARD HANDKERCHIEF CO., INC. 15
Standard Handkerchief Co., Inc . and Ladies' Neckwear Work-
ers' Union Local 142, International Ladies' Garment Workers
Union , AFL-CIO. Case No. d-CA-9519. February 15, 1965
DECISION AND ORDER
On July 7, 1964, Trial Examiner Joseph I. Nachman issued his
Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent
had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices and
recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain
affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's De-
cision. Thereafter, the General Counsel and the Union filed excep-
tions to the Trial Examiner's Decision and supporting briefs.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, the National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel [Chair-
man McCulloch and Members Fanning and Jenkins].
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 entire
record in this case, including the Decision and the exceptions and
briefs, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommenda-
tions of the Trial Examiner.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended, the National Labor Relations Board hereby adopts as its
Order the Order recommended by the Trial Examiner, and orders
that the Respondent, Standard Handkerchief Co., Inc., its officers,
agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the
Trial Examiner's Recommended Order.
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This proceeding heard by Trial Examiner Joseph I. Nachman at New York,
New York, on March 25, 1964 , with all parties present and participating , involves a
complaint under Section 10(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended,'
herein called the Act, alleging that Standard Handkerchief Co., Inc., herein called
Respondent or Company , refused to bargain in certain particulars , hereafter dis-
cussed, with Ladies' Neckwear Workers' Union Local 142, International Ladies'
Garment Workers Union , AFL-CIO, herein called the Union or Local 142, the
recognized collective -bargaining representative of Respondent 's employees . The re-
'Issued January 31, 1964 , based on a charge filed August 9 and amended August 26,
1963.
151 NLRB No. 2.
16 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
spective parties were afforded full opportunity to introduce evidence, to examine and
cross-examine witnesses, and to argue orally on the record. Oral arguments were
presented and are reported in the transcript of proceedings. Briefs submitted by the
General Counsel and Respondent have been received and duly considered.
Upon the pleadings, stipulations, and evidence, including my observation of the
demeanor of the witness, and upon the entire record in the case, I make the following:
FINDING OF FACT 2
1. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES INVOLVED
A. The facts
For some years Respondent operated a plant in New York City (herein called the
Bronx plant), and since about 1950 the Union has been the recognized collective-
bargaining representative of the employees. Over the years successive contracts have
been in effect, the last such entered into November 30, 1960, effective until March 15,
1962, and later mutually extended to March 15, 1963.
There operates in another segment of the industry an employer group known as
National Women's Neckwear and Scarf Association, herein called the Association,
with which the Union bargains. The contract with the Association also had an
expiration date of March 15, 1963. Respondent is not a member of Association, but
since 1950 it has been the pattern that the Union after reaching agreement with
Association, negotiates with the nonmember employers, including Respondent. Con-
tract negotiations between the Union and Association were begun in January 3 and
agreement was reached about March 20.
While negotiations between the Union and the Association were in progress,
Joseph Tuvim, business manager of the Union, and the person who negotiates all
contracts on its behalf, received a telephone call from Henry Smooke, president of
Respondent. Smooke asked that the Union not "push" him about contract negotia-
tions, that he (Smooke) would be in touch with Tuvim in about 10 days. Tuvim,
however, did not hear from Smooke. After agreement was reached with Association,
the Union fixed a "stoppage date" for April 4,4 and all employers were notified of
the date so fixed. A day or two later Smooke telephoned Tuvim and asked whether
it would be necessary for his employees to attend the ratification meeting. Tuvim
said that it was. Following the meeting Tuvim instructed his business agents to
arrange a date for negotiating with Respondent, but they reported their inability to
contact Smooke. Finally, Tuvim, after meeting Smooke on the street and a sub-
sequent telephone call, a meeting was arranged.5
According to Tuvim, the parties met at the Union's office on June 4 or 5; the
Union made known its demands; Smooke stated that he was experimenting with
some new machinery and until he got the results, in about 3 weeks, would not know
his labor costs, and therefore, could not then respond to the Union's demands; and
the parties then agreed to defer the matter until June 24.6 At the request of Smooke's
office the meeting on June 24 was postponed to June 25. According to Tuvim, on
June 25, the parties again discussed the Union's demands, certain points were com-
promised, and, after agreement had been reached on all issues, Tuvim remarked that
all agreements were to be retroactive to March 15. Smooke demurred to retro-
2 No issue of commerce or labor organization is involved. The complaint alleges and the
answer admits the necessary facts to establish both elements. I find these facts to be as
pleaded. The complaint also alleges, the answer admits, and I find that all production
and maintenance employees of Respondent, employed at its Bronx plant prior to June 28,
1963, excluding office clerical employees, professional and technical employees, watchmen,
guards, and all supervisors as defined in the Act, constitutes a unit appropriate for the
purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act.
° This and all dates hereafter mentioned are 1963 unless otherwise Indicated.
4 This is the date fixed by the Union for all employees to be bound or affected by the con-
tract to suspend work and attend a meeting at which ratification of the contract is to be
considered.
The foregoing findings are based upon the credited and undenied testimony of Tuvim.
° Smooke denied that be had any meeting with Tuvim on June 4 or 5. In view of the
fact that the parties admittedly met and discussed contract terms on June 25 and Smooke
does not give any different version as to how the meeting for that day was arranged, I
credit Tuvim.
STANDARD HANDKERCHIEF CO., INC. 17
activity, saying that he would have to discuss that point with his business associates
and would let Tuvim know about it within a week. According to Tuvim, he heard
nothing further from Smooke 7 until a telephone conversation on or about July 9
or 10, to be hereafter more fully related.
It has been the practice for some years for all employees to take a ]-week vaca-
tion during the week in which July 4 falls. Pursuant to this arrangement the last
day of work at Respondent's Bronx plant was June 28. At that time all employees
were told there was no work available, and that they should call about July 9 to find
out when they could return to work. On or about July 9 or 10, Tu rim received
reports indicating that Respondent was moving its Bronx plant Tuvi n sent Busi-
ness Agent Kaye to investigate. Kaye went to the plant and observed that the
plant machinery was being disassembled and loaded on a truck. However, Kaye
was unable to ascertain where the plant machinery was being moved. Upon re-
ceiving this information from Kaye, Tuvim telephoned Smooke and protested that
he had never been informed that the Company was moving. Smooke asked, "How
do you know we are moving9" Tuvim replied, "We have the evidence," and called
Smooke's attention to the fact that at the meeting of June 25, Smooke promised to
advise whether he would agree to the contract terms retroactive to March 15 and
inquired, "Is this the answer, Henry?" Smooke's comment was, "Don't press me."
Tuvim replied, "I'm going to press you for the [health and welfare] money anyway."
Smooke then stated, "Give me 10 days," and hung up. There has been no further
conversation between the parties.
The first information that Tuvim had as to where Respondent was moving was
on July 31 when he read in a newspaper that the Company had moved its opera-
tions to Amsterdam, New York. The following week Tuvim and Business Agent
Kaye went to Amsterdam, observed the plant in operation with Camila Echevarria,
the same forelady who had been in charge at the Bronx plant, supervising the em-
ployees. Echevarria admitted that except for herself and four key employees who
came from the Bronx plant, she hired all the workers locally, and that she found
all the people she wanted in the Amsterdam area. She also testified that she was
directed by "the boss" 8 to offer employment at Amsterdam to the employees who
had worked in the Bronx plant, and that she wrote, or on her visits to New York City
she telephoned, people who had worked in the Bronx plant and told them they
could come to work in the Amsterdam plant if they wished.9 She admittedly did
not offer these employees moving expenses; told them their pay would be $1.25 an
hour, as against piece rates that had been paid at the Bronx plant; and that there
was a union at the Amsterdam plant to which they would have to belong.10
The parties stipulated that in February 1963 Respondent was approached about
leasing space to operate its plant in Amsterdam. After assuring itself that an
adequate labor supply was available, Respondent entered into negotiations in May,
to secure such space, and had a telephone conversation toward that end with the
representatives from Amsterdam which took place about a week prior to July 1.
Although Smooke claims that such negotiations were in progress until July 1, the
day the lease on the Amsterdam plant was signed, and that he did not know his
firm was in fact moving to Amsterdam until the deal was closed on July 1, he
admitted that during his meeting with Tuvim on June 25, he did not mention the
fact that negotiations for the move were in progress. Smooke also admitted that
after the lease on the Amsterdam plant was signed on July 1, he did not notify
anyone connected with the Union that the move was to take place. While claiming
that he had frequently mentioned to Union Business Agent Kaye that a move to
7 Smooke admits that he met with Tuvim on or about June 25 Although he claims that
the Union gave him no demands, he admits that some contract terms were discussed, par-
ticularly such proposals as a 35-hour workweek, increased piece rates, and increased con-
tributions for health and welfare. Smooke claims that no agreements were reached on
June 25, but admits that the meeting adjourned with an agreement that the parties would
meet again in 10 days to 2 weeks. To the extent that Smooke's testimony is in conflict
with that of Tuvim, and resolution of such conflict is necessary to a decision, I credit the
latter for reasons hereafter stated.
8I assume she meant Smooke or Dickstein, each owning 50 percent of the Company.
9In view of the stipulation of counsel that Echevarria's testimony was fairly indicative
of a pattern, it would appear that she communicated with about half of the approximately
41 employees working in the Bronx plant at the end of June 1963
10 The contract between Respondent and Textile Workers Union of America, covering the
operations at Respondent's Amsterdam plant, contains a union-security provision.
783-133-66-vol. 151-3
18 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
cheaper quarters was necessary if the business was to avoid financial ruin , Smooke
admitted that his statements to Kaye could reasonably be understood by the latter
that Smooke was contemplating a move to other quarters in New York City.
Smooke also admitted that at the meeting with Tuvim on June 25, it was agreed
that the parties were to meet again in 10 days to 2 weeks , and that he did not do
so. Smooke admitted that Tuvim called him between July 8 and 11, that the move
was then in progress , and that was the first information he gave anyone connected
with the Union that Respondent was moving. In this connection it is to be noted
that Smooke did not deny Tuvim's version of their telephone conversation on or
about July 10 . Smooke's excuse for not telling Tuvim that the move was contem-
plated, or that it would take place, is that Tuvim did not ask him.
Analysis and Concluding -Findings
The General Counsel, while conceding that Respondent 's decision to move its
plant from New York to Amsterdam was not discriminatorily motivated , and was
made only for valid economic reasons, nevertheless contends that Respondent violated
Section 8 ( a)(5) and ( 1) of the Act , in that: ( 1) its bargaining with the Union on
June 4 and 25 was in bad faith and with no intention of reaching agreement on
any collective -bargaining agreement with the Union ; ( 2) it decided to and did sub-
sequently move its operations from New York City to Amsterdam without notice to,
or bargaining on that subject , with the Union ; and (3 ) it failed to bargain with the
Union with respect to the effect of the move upon the employees of the New York
plant Respondent contends , in substance that. ( 1) all of its negotiations with the
Union were in good faith ; ( 2) its decision to move the plant from New York was
a matter of management prerogative concerning which it was under no duty to notify
or bargain with the Union ; and (3 ) in any event , the Union made no demand on
Respondent to bargain with respect to the moving of the plant . For the reasons
hereafter stated, I find and conclude that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) and
( 1) of the Act , as alleged by the General Counsel.
The parties stipulated that Respondent was approached in February about mov-
ing its plant to Amsterdam . In April or early May, Dickstein , one of Respondent's
officers, went to Amsterdam to examine the offered premises, and to assure himself
that an adequate labor supply would be available . Apparently satisfied on these
points, further negotiations were conducted via telephone , the last such telephone
conversation being on Smooke's admission about a week prior to July 1 . Although
Smooke claims that he did not know until July 1 that the move to Amsterdam
would definitely occur, it is plain that when he met with the Union on June 4 or 5,
and again on June 25 , he knew at the very least that such a move was being seriously
contemplated . Smooke also admits that when he met with the Union he did not
disclose to the latter that removal of the plant from New York City was under con-
sideration . On the contrary Smooke discussed various contract demands of the
Union, just as though any agreement reached would be effective for a 1-year term,
as had been usual in the past. Good faith would certainly require that Respond-
ent advice the Union that moving of the plant was under consideration , but Smooke
admittedly made no such disclosure . His failure to do so reduced the negotiations
which did occur , to no more than an exercise in frivolity , and demonstrates Smooke's
purpose of keeping the Union on the "string " until the negotiations regarding the
move to Amsterdam were finally concluded . This, I find and conclude , constituted
bad-faith bargaining . Cf. Rapid Bindery , Inc. and Frontier Bindery Corporation,
127 NLRB 212, enfd 293 F. 2d 170 ( C.A. 2); Aluminum Tubular Corporation and
American Flagpole Equipment Co., Inc., 130 NLRB 1306 , enfd. 299 F. 2d 595
(C.A. 2).
Likewise , by proceeding unilaterally , and without notice to the Union , to move
its plant from New York City to Amsterdam, and by failing to bargain with the
Union concerning the effect of such a move upon the employees of the New York
City plant, Respondent failed and refused to bargain in good faith with the collective-
bargaining representative of its employees . Town & Country Manufacturing Com-
pany, Inc., et al., 136 NLRB 1022, enfd . on other grounds 316 F. 2d 846 (C A 5);
Fibreboard Paper Products Corporation, 138 NLRB 550 , enfd. sub nom East Bay
Union of Machinists , Local 1304, United Steelworkers of America , AFL-CIO,
et al. v. N L.R .B., 322 F. 2d 411 (C.A.D.C.), cert. granted ; Adams Dairy , Inc., 137
NLRB 815, enforcement denied 322 F. 2d 553 (C A. 8), cert . granted 379 U.S.
644. "Unilateral action by an employer without discussion with the Union does
amount to a refusal to negotiate about the affected conditions of employment ... .
STANDARD HANDKERCHIEF CO., INC. 19
N.L R B. v. Benne Katz, etc., d/b/a Williamsburg Steel Products Co., 369 U.S. 736,
747. See also Telegraphers v. Chicago, etc. Railway Co., 362 U.S. 330, where it was
specifically held that a decision by management to eliminate jobs was a mandatory
subject of bargaining.
Among the purposes behind an employer's obligation to disclose and bargain
with a union representing its employees regarding a contemplated change in a term
or condition of employment, particularly in the instant case about moving the loca-
tion of the plant from New York City, is to give the Union an opportunity to reach
agreement with the employer concerning the economic effect of the move upon the
employees, such as rights to employment at the new location for those desiring it,
moving expenses for those who elect to move, severance pay for those who elect not
to move, and other related matters. Admittedly, Respondent has not bargained with
the Union about such matters. Even when Tuvim telephoned Smooke on or about
July 9 and confronted the latter with the fact that the move was virtually an accom-
plished fact, Smooke merely said, "Don't press me." This, I find and conclude, also
constituted a refusal by Respondent to bargain with the Union concerning the
economic effect of the move on the employees represented by the Union
There remains the matter of fixing the time when Respondent's refusal to bargain
first occurred. The complaint does not specifically allege such a date, nor does
General Counsel's brief suggest one. Although I have found that in the June
meetings Smooke was deliberately drawing out the negotiations to give him time to
find out whether the negotiations for the move to Amsterdam would be consummated,
I do not find the evidence adequate to establish that prior to June 4 Smooke delayed
meeting with the Union with any purpose of avoiding Respondent's bargaining
obligation. Even Tuvim admits that after meeting Smooke on the street during the
first week of May, he (Tuvim) was out of the city until after May 15, and that upon
his return he contacted Smooke and the meeting of June 4 or 5 was arranged. As
I have heretofore found, however, Respondent was obligated to disclose to the
Union at that meeting that the move to Amsterdam was in contemplation, and
that it failed to do so. Accordingly, I find that Respondent's initial refusal to bargain
occurred at the meeting held on June 4 or 5.
II. THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent engaged in certain unfair labor practices, it will be
recommended that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain action, set forth
in the Recommended Order which follows, and which, it is found, will effectuate the
policies of the Act.
The General Counsel seeks a remedial order which would require Respondent to
(1) resume operation of the plant in New York City; (2) offer reinstatement at the
resumed New York City operation, to all employees who were on Respondent's pay-
roll on June 28, with backpay from that date until so reinstated; and (3) resume
bargaining with the Union as the collective-bargaining representative of the em-
ployees. I am unable to agree that the remedy sought by the General Counsel is
appropriate under the facts of this case.
Assuming, without deciding, that in fashioning an appropriate remedy the Board
has the authority to require an employer to resume operation of a discontinued plant,
the General Counsel has not cited, nor has my independent research revealed, any case
where the Board required such remedial action.ii Indeed, even in cases like Darling-
ton Manufacturing Company, 139 NLRB 241, Esti Neiderman, et al., co-partners
doing business as Star Baby Co., 140 NLRB 678, New Madrid Manufacturing Com-
pany, a corporation, et al., 104 NLRB 117, New England Webb, Inc., et al., 135 NLRB
1019, and Bonnie Lass Knitting Mills, Inc., 126 NLRB 1396, in each of which the
Board found that the closing or moving of the plant was discriminatorily motivated,
and hence a violation of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act, the Board did not require the
employer to reestablish the closed or moved plant. As the General Counsel, in the
instant case, concedes that Respondent's moving of its plant was not discriminatory,
but motivated only by valid economic considerations, to order Respondent to re-
establish the New York City plant would mean that more is to be required from an
^i I do not regard Town R Country Manufacturing Company, Inc., et al , 136 NLRB 1022;
Fibreboard Paper Products Corporation, 138 NLRB 550; and Adams Dairy, Inc, 137 NLRB
815, to be to the contrary. In each of those cases the employer had continued to operate
the plant involved, having contracted out a portion of the work without bargaining with
the union on that subject To remedy that violation the Board directed the employer to
resume the contracted-out work in the existing plant
20 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
employer who acts solely out of economic considerations, than is required of an
employer who is discriminatorily motivated. I cannot believe that the Board ever
intended such a result. Accordingly, I shall not recommend that Respondent be re-
quired to reestablish a plant in New York City and as reopening of a plant in New
York City is not to be recommended, offers of reinstatement for employment in such
a plant, and bargaining with the Union as to the wages, hours, and conditions of
employment in that plant, may not be required.
However, as heretofore found, Respondent has violated Section 8(a)(5) of the
Act in certain respects, and particularly by moving its operations without notice to the
collective-bargaining representative and without giving the latter an opportunity
to bargain over the terms and conditions of such move, so far as the employees are
concerned It is therefore necessary, in order to effectuate the policies of the Act, that
Respondent be required to reestablish the status quo ante, as nearly as practicable,
in order that it not profit from its own wrongdoing. I believe this can best be ac-
complished by requiring Respondent to grant immediate, full, and unconditional
reinstatement at its Amsterdam plant to all employees who were on its payroll on
June 28, 1963, discharging if necessary, all persons hired after that date, to their
same or substantially equivalent positions, without prejudice to their seniority or
other rights or privileges, who shall notify Respondent within 20 days from the date
it notifies the Regional Director that it will comply with the Board's Order, that he or
she desires such reinstatement, and pay to each employee so reinstated, all necessary
and proper items of expense in moving themselves, their immediate families, and their
household effects to Amsterdam. In addition, Respondent will be required to pay to
each of the aforementioned employees backpay for the period beginning July 8, 1963,
the date Respondent would normally have resumed operations at its New York City
plant after the week of vacation, and terminating when the first of the following
events shall occur; namely (1) upon their reinstatement by Respondent, (2) upon
their failure to notify Respondent, within the time herein provided, that they desire
reinstatement, or (3) when they obtain, or did obtain, other substantially equivalent
employment. Such backpay shall be computed in the manner established by the
Board in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289, and shall bear interest at
6 percent per annum computed as provided in Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138
NLRB 716.
I also find and conclude that the informal telephone calls and the letters by
Echevarria to some employees of the New York City plant, that work was available
for them at Amsterdam if they desired to obtain it, did not constitute valid offers of
reinstatement, and did not terminate the backpay liability as above set forth. The
offers of employment were not to the same or substantially equivalent jobs,12 nor was
there any offer to pay these employees their expenses in in to Amsterdam
Respondent shall preserve and, upon request, make available to the Board or its
agent, for examination or copying, all personnel and payroll records necessary or
useful in determining compliance with the Board's Order, and the computation of
backpay due, as herein provided
As Respondent no longer operates a plant in the New York City area, the customary
posting of notices is not feasible. I shall recommend, therefore, that Respondent be
required to mail a copy of the attached notice to each employee who was on Re-
spondent's payroll on June 28, 1963, at his or her last known address, as disclosed
by Respondent's records, or as may be amplified by the Union.
It will also be recommended that the Board reserve to itself the right to amend
or modify its order to provide for events which have not been anticipated.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record in this case, I make
the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Respondent is an employer within the meaning of Section 2(2) of the Act,,
and is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the
Act.
2.The Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the
Act, and at all times material was the collective-bargaining representative of all
production and maintenance employees of Respondent, employed at its Bronx plant,
,excluding office clerical employees, professional and technical employees, watchmen,
guards, and all supervisors as defined in the Act.
12 As I pointed out above, in the New York City plant the employees were paid at price
rates, and at least offered some opportunity for earnings in excess of the minimum rate,
while the wage rate at the Amsterdam plant was a fixed hourly rate of $125 an hour, the
minimum fixed by law.
STANDARD HANDKERCHIEF CO., INC. 21
3. By (1) engaging in discussions with the Union on June 4 or 5 and June 25 with-
out any purpose of reaching an agreement; (2) failing to disclose to the Union that
moving the plant was contemplated; and (3) failing to bargain with the Union regard-
ing the economic effect upon the employees of the New York plant concerning the
moving of the plant from New York City to Amsterdam, Respondent refused to bar-
gain collectively with the Union as the representative of the employees involved, and
thereby engaged in unfair labor practices proscribed by Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of
the Act.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Upon the foregoing finding of fact and conclusions of law, and upon the entire
record in this case, pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act,
as amended, I recommend that Respondent, Standard Handkerchief Co., Inc., its
officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from refusing to bargain collectively with the representative
of its employees as to whether its plant should be moved, and if so the terms and
conditions under which such a move should take place, or in any like or related
manner, interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of
the right to self-organization, to form labor organizations, to join or assist Ladies'
Neckwear Workers' Union Local 142, International Ladies' Garment Workers Union,.
AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively through rep-
resentatives of their own choosing, and to engage in other concerted activities for
the purposes of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain
from any and all 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 by Section 8(a)(3) of the National Labor Relations
Act, as amended
2. Take the following affirmative action which it is found will effectuate the
policies of the Act:
(a) Create a preferential hiring list containing in the order of their seniority, the
names of all persons in its employ on June 28, 1963, and notify the above-mentioned
Local 142, and each listed employee, of the establishment of such list and the con-
tents thereof. If and when it shall resume operation of a plant in the New York
City area, it shall offer the individuals whose names appear on the aforesaid list,
unconditional reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent positions,
without prejudice to their seniority or other rights and privileges previously enjoyed,
all as set forth above in the portion entitled "The Remedy"; provided, however, that
it shall not be required to offer reinstatement under this paragraph to any employee
who is in fact reinstated pursuant to the provisions of paragraph 2(c) hereof.
(b) If and when operations of a plant in the New York City area are resumed,
bargain collectively, upon request, with the aforesaid Union as the exclusive collective-
bargaining representative of all employees in a unit consisting of all production and
maintenance employees, excluding office clerical employees, professional and technical
employees, watchmen, guards, and all supervisors as defined in the Act, and embody
any understanding reached into a signed agreement.
(c) Grant to all employees on its payroll on June 28, 1963, who shall within
20 days from the date it advises the Regional Director for Region 2 of the National
Labor Relations Board that it will comply with the provisions of this Order notify
Respondent that he or she desires reinstatement under the terms of this paragraph,
immediate, full, and unconditional reinstatement at its Amsterdam, New York plant,
to his or her former or substantially equivalent position, without prejudice to their
seniority or other rights and privileges, discharging, if necessary, any and all employees
hired since June 28, 1963, and pay to each employee who elects to be so reinstated the
necessary travel and moving expenses entailed in transporting themselves, their
immediate families, and their personal effects from New York City to Amsterdam,
New York.
(d) Make whole each employee who was on its payroll on June 28, 1963, for any
loss of pay they may have sustained, severally, by reason of its moving its plant, all
as set forth in the portion hereof entitled "The Remedy"; provided, however, that the
backpay herein provided for shall cease to accrue to said employees, severally, upon
the first to happen of the following events- (1) reinstatement at the Amsterdam plant,
22 DECISION S OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
as provided in the preceding paragraph hereof; (2) failure to notify Respondent
within the time limit above set forth that reinstatement is desired ; or (3) other sub-
stantially equivalent employment was or is obtained.
(e) Preserve and, upon request , make available to the Board or its agents, for
examination and copying , all payroll records , social security payment records, time-
cards, personnel records and reports, and all other records necessary or useful in
determining compliance with this Order, and the computation of the amount of back-
pay due pursuant thereto.
(f) Forthwith , mail to the last known address of each employee on its payroll on
June 28, 1963 , a copy of the attached notice marked "Appendix ." 13 The copies
to be so mailed shall be those furnished for that purpose by the Regional Director for
Region 2 of the National Labor Relations Board ( New York, New York ), and shall
be duly signed by an authorized representative of Respondent.
(g) Notify the aforesaid Regional Director , in writing , within 20 days from the
receipt of this Decision , what steps it has taken to comply herewith.14
IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the Board reserve unto itself the right to alter
or modify its Order herein , if found necessary by reason of changed circumstances not
now anticipated.
13 In the event this Recommended Older is adopted by the Board , the words "a Decision
and Order" shall be substituted for the words " the Recommended Order of a Trial Ex-
aminer" in the notice . In the further event that the Board 's Order is enforced by a de-
cree of a United States Court of Appeals , the voids "a Decree of the United States Court
of Appeals , Enforcing an Order" shall be substituted for the words "a Decision and Order "
14 In the event this Recommended Order Is adopted by the Board, this pro',ision shall
be modified to read: "Notify the aforesaid Regional Director, in writing , within 10 days
from the date of this Order, what steps it 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 Labor Management
Relations Act, we hereby notify our employees that:
WE WILL NOT interfere with , restrain , or coerce our employees in the exercise
of their right to self-organization , to form labor organizations , to join or assist
Ladies' Neckwear Workers' Union Local 142, International Ladies' Garment
Workers' Union, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization , to bargain collec-
tively through representatives of their own choosing , and to engage in other
concerted activities for the purposes of collective bargaining or other mutual aid
or protection , or to refrain from any and all 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 by Section 8(a)(3)
of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended.
WE WILL create a preferential hiring list, listing in the order of their seniority,
the names of all persons in our employ on June 28 , 1963, and notify the afore-
said Local 142, and each listed employee, of the establishment of such list and
the contents thereof. If and when we resume operation of a plant in the New
York City area, we will offer to the persons named on the aforesaid list, un-
conditional reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent positions,
without prejudice to their seniority or other rights and privileges ; except that we
are not required to offer such reinstatement to any such employee who shall
have accepted reinstatement at our Amsterdam , New York plant, as hereafter
set forth.
WE WILL , if and when we resume operation of a plant in the New York City
area, bargain collectively , upon request , with the aforesaid Local 142 as the
exclusive collective -bargaining representative of our employees in a unit com-
posed of all production and maintenance employees, excluding office clerical
employees , watchmen, guards, and all supervisors as defined in the aforesaid Act,
and embody any understanding reached into a signed agreement.
WE WILL fully and unconditionally reinstate at our Amsterdam , New York,
plant, to his or her former or substantially equivalent position , without prejudice
to his or her seniority or other rights and privileges each employee in our employ
UNIVERSITY CLUB 23
on June 28 , 1963, who shall within 20 days from the date we advise the Regional
Director for Region 2 of the National Labor Relations Board that . we will comply
with the Order of said Board , notify us that he or she desires such reinstatement,
discharging , if necessary , any and all employees hired by us since June 28 , 1963.
WE WILL pay to each employee reinstated as above set forth the necessary
travel and moving expense entailed in transporting themselves , their immediate
families, and household effects from New York City to Amsterdam , New York.
WE WILL make whole each employee who was on our payroll on June 28,
1963, for any loss of pay they may have suffered, severally , by reason of the
moving of our plant from New York City to Amsterdam , New York, for the
period beginning July 8, 1963, and terminating upon the first to happen of the
following events ; namely, ( 1) when he or she has been reinstated by us as above
set forth ; (2) the failure to notify us within the time set forth above that rein-
statement is desired ; or (3) when he or she obtains or did obtain , other sub-
stantially equivalent employment.
STANDARD HANDKERCHIEF CO., INC.,
Employer.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------
(Representative ) (Title)
NoTE.-We will notify such of the aforementioned employees who are serving
in the Armed Forces of the United States of their right to reinstatement upon applica-
tion in accordance with the Selective Service Act and the Universal Military Training
and Service Act of 1948 , as amended , after discharge from the Armed Forces.
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting,
and must not be altered, defaced , or covered by any other material.
Employees may communicate directly with the Board 's Regional Office, Fifth
Floor, Squibb Building, 745 Fifth Avenue, New York, New York, Telephone No.
751-5500 , if they have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its
provisions.
University Club and Chicago Joint Executive Board of the
Hotel and Restaurant Employees and Bartenders Interna-
tional Union, AFL-CIO. Case No. 13-CA-6501. February 15,
1965
DECISION AND ORDER
On November 17, 1964, Trial Examiner C. W. Whittemore issued
his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that Respond-
ent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices
within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act, and recom-
mending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative
action, as set forth in the attached Decision. Thereafter, the Respond-
ent filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision, with a support-
ing brief, and the General Counsel filed an answering brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the National
Labor Relations Board has delegated its powers in connection with
this case to a three-member panel [Chairman McCulloch and Mem-
bers Fanning and Brown].
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made
at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed.
151 NLRB No. 8.