T. W. Hepler

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 19, 1938

7 N.L.R.B. 255 (N.L.R.B. 1938)

In the Matter of T. W. HEPLER and INTERNATIONAL LADIES' GARMENT
WORKERS UNION
Case No. C 319.Decided May 19, 1938
Dress Manufacturing Industry-Interference, Restraint, and Coercion: dis-
crediting union and union organizers ; persuading employees to refrain from join-
ing union ; expressed opposition to labor organization ; threat to shut down
plant ; intimidating union organizers ; by civic coinmittee ; during strike : "back-
to-work" movement-Coalzpany-Dominated Union: domination of and interfer-
ence with formation and administration ; support ; discrimination in favor of, in
recognition as representative of employees and in signing contract; activity of
supervisory employees ; disestablished, as agency for collective bargaining-
Strike: result of employer's unfair labor practices-Conciliation: efforts at, by
Pennsylvania State Department of Labor and Industry-D iscriinination: dis-
charge : charges of, not sustained-Reinstatement Ordered: strikers : if agreement
for reinstatement not complied with ; upon application, dismissing employees
hired after commencement of strike, if necessary ; preferential list ordered : to be
followed in further reinstatement-Back Pay: ordered to strikers who are not
reinstated or placed on preferential list within 5 days of application for
reinstatement.
Mr. Joseph F. Castiello, for the Board.
Mr. L. E. Bashores, of Pottsville, Pa., for the respondent.
Mr. Claude J. Waltman, of Orwigsburg, Pa., for the Independent.
Mr. Allan H. Lind, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
On July 8, 1937, Michael Johnson, an organizer for the Interna-
tional Ladies' Garment Workers Union, affiliated with the Committee
for Industrial Organization, herein called the International, filed a
charge with Bennet F. Schauffier, Acting Regional Director for the
Fourth Region (Philadelphia, Pennsylvania), alleging that the Citi-
zens Manufacturing Company, now known as T. W. Hepler,l herein
1 Prior to 1934, T. W. Hepler was the manager and largest shareholder of the Citizens
Manufacturing Company, a Pennsylvania corporation. In 1934, due to some difficulty
with the N. R. A. code authorities, T. W. Hepler leased the plant from the Citizens
Manufacturing Company. Since then he has been operating the plant under his own
name. It was stipulated between counsel for the Board and counsel for the respondent
that the complaint be amended and T. W. Hepler be substituted for the Citizens Manu-
facturing Company . Upon mutual consent this stipulation was admitted to the record
by the Trial Examiner.
255
256 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS 130ARD
called the respondent, had engaged in and was engaging in unfair
labor practices affecting commerce, within the meaning of Section 8
(1), (2), and (3), and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor
Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein called the Act.
On October 1,-1937, the National Labor Relations Board, herein called
the Board, by the Acting Rdgional Director issued a complaint and
a notice of hearing which was duly served upon the respondent and
the International. The complaint alleged in substance that the re-
spondent, on or about May 6, 1937, had discharged Irene Harner, a
member of the International, and at all times since that date had
refused to reinstate her, for the reason that she had joined and assisted
the International and engaged in concerted activities with other em-
ployees for the purpose of collective bargaining and other mutual aid
and protection; that the respondent had discouraged its employees
from becoming or remaining members of the International ; that the
respondent had urged, aided, and assisted in the formation and main-
tenance 'of a labor organization known as the Independent Garment
Workers Union of Valley View, Pennsylvania, herein referred to as
the Independent. No answer was filed by the respondent.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held at Pottsville, Pennsylvania,
on October 14, 15, 18, and 19, 1937, before Lawrence J. Kosters, the
Trial Examiner duly designated by the Board. At the commence-
ment of the hearing the Independent filed a petition for leave to inter-
vene. This petition was granted by the Trial Examiner. The Board,
the respondent, and the Independent were represented by counsel and
participated in the hearing. Full opportunity to be heard, to examine
and cross-examine witnesses, and to produce evidence bearing upon the
issues was afforded all parties.
At the conclusion of the hearing counsel for the Board moved to
amend the complaint to conform to the evidence adduced at the hear-
ing. No objection being made by counsel for the respondent, the
Trial Examiner granted the motion. His ruling is hereby affirmed.
During the course of the hearing the Trial Examiner made various
rulings on other motions and objections to the admission of evidence.
The Board has reviewed these rulings and finds that no prejudicial
errors were committed. The rulings of the Trial Examiner are
hereby affirmed.
On January 5, 1938, the Trial Examiner filed his Intermediate
Report in which he found that the respondent had engaged in and
was engaging in unfair labor practices, within the meaning of Sec-
tion 8 (1), (2), and (3), and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. Ex-
ceptions to the Intermediate Report were filed by the respondent and
the Independent on January 14 and 15, 1938. On May 6, 1938, the
,- IjEC1SIONS AND ORDERS 257
Board advised counsel, for the respondent, for the Independent, and
the International that they were granted the right to apply for oral
argument or permission to file briefs in the present case within 10
days from the receipt of the notification. On May 9 the Interna-
tional advised the Board that it did not desire to avail itself of the
privilege of an oral argument unless one of the other parties requested
it. On May 12 counsel for the respondent notified the Board that
it did not desire an oral argument. No word was received from
counsel for the Independent within the 10-clay period.
We have reviewed the exceptions to the Intermediate Report and
except in one instance as indicated below, find them without merit.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
The respondent, T. W: Hepler, is an individual operating a dress
manufacturing plant in Valley View, Pennsylvania. The respondent
receives cut-out and ready-to-fit dress materials from Sam Seham,
Inc., Jersey City, New Jersey. Upon receipt of the raw materials
the respondent's employees sew the dresses together in their finished
form. The finished product is then sent back to Sam Seham, Inc.,
which markets the dresses throughout the various States of the United
States. The transportation of the raw materials and finished product
is made in trucks owned and operated by the respondent. The re-
spondent receives the thread, which it uses to sew the dresses, from
the State of New York. Thus, 100 per cent of the respondent's raw
materials and finished products are shipped in interstate commerce.
On March 1, 1937, the factory consisted of three buildings and
Hepler's employees numbered 104. Of this number 94 were produc-
tion employees and 10 were supervisory and clerical employees. At
the time of the hearing the respondent was still operating the factory
in his own name, but only two buildings were being used by him.
The third building's lease had been terminated due to the labor
dispute involved in this proceeding.
II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
The International Ladies' Garment Workers Union is a labor organ-
ization affiliated with the Committee for Industrial Organization.
This Union admits to nienibership all production employees, except
supervisory and clerical, in establishments manufacturing ladies'
garments.
The Independent Garment Workers Union of Valley View,. Penn-
sylvania, is an unaffiliated labor organization admitting to member-
258 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ship all female employees , except supervisory and clerical , engaged in
production work in the factory operated by T. W. Hepler at Valley
View, Pennsylvania.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Interference, restraint , and coercion
Before organizers of the International came to Valley View, Hepler
evidently anticipated trouble in case of their arrival and was pre-
paring to resist their demands. Hepler admits that in the latter
part of February or the early part of March 1937, after he was in-
formed that union organizers were moving west, he made speeches
in each of his three factories in which he said that if the "pickets"
came to Valley View he would shutdown the factory. He also stated
that he wanted his employees to go home and to say nothing to the
"pickets". In this speech Hepler was outlining in advance part of his
campaign against any union activity.
In April 1937, three International organizers, Johnson, Williams
and Baum, arrived in Valley View, at the request of several of,the
respondent's employees, to begin an organizational campaign. After
obtaining a number of members they approached the respondent, in-
formed him that they represented a number of employees, and sug-
gested that the respondent look over the terms of an agreement which
they left with him. The respondent was given time to consider the
terms of the agreement and Johnson was to communicate with him
at a later date.
On May 5, 1937, the employment of Irene Harner, a member of
the International , was terminated . Some union members believed
that she was discharged for union activities. As a consequence there
was soiree dissatisfaction expressed among the employees. To quell
this incipient revolt among his employees Hepler, on May 10, made a
speech to the assembled girls of one factory and threatened to shut
down the factory unless the girls would agree to support him. He
asked for a standing vote of those who would support him and main-
tain production. All stood up, each realizing that her position
depended upon her vote.
Not content with threatening the shut-down of his plant if union
activity interfered with productivity, Hepler began a campaign among
his employees to discredit the organizers of the International. On
May 14 Hepler' brought to his plant a clipping from the Scranton
Times, dated May 11, 1937. The clipping contained an article which
was headlined, "Dress Plant Workers Denounce Organizers." The
article read in part as follows :
Declaring that they have been badly fooled by organizers of
the International Ladies' Garment Workers Union , employees of
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 259
the Firm Borgeniclit & Spire, which operates dress factories in
Forest City, Archbald and Dickson City, stated today that they
are organizing company unions at each plant.
Hepler showed this clipping to his floorboys who in turn brought
it to the attention of the foreladies. One of the foreladies, Viola Long,
asked Hepler if she could read the article to the girls. Hepler gave
his permission and stood by while the article was read to the assembled
girls.
When Long came to the part, quoted above, regarding the formation
of company unions she stopped and said, "that is what we are trying
to do here." , Hepler stood by, silently acquiescing. The importance
of this announcement becomes apparent 'when we examine the cir-
cumstances surrounding the formation of the Independent.
Hepler agreed to furnish copies of this issue of the Scranton Times
to the girls who desired them. On May 17 Hepler brought a number
of such copies to each factory and ordered the floorboys to distribute
them to the girls. The floorboys, at the close of the day, stood at the
exit of each factory and passed them out. At the same time they
informed .the girls that a meeting was to be held at the Fire Hall that
night for the purpose of forming an inside union. -
On May 20 or 21 Hepler again, in speeches at his three factories,
endeavored to influence his employees in the exercise of their right of
self-organization. He admits telling the girls that he did not see the
necessity of any union. The respondent attempts to qualify this
admission by saying he also informed the girls that they could join
any union, so far as he was concerned. Martha Shucker, an employee,
testified that Hepler, in one of his speeches, stated that the Interna-
tional organizers were filling the girls with lies. Helen Hatter, an
employee, testifies that Hepler said that the International was an
unfair organization and that it was a "racket". Hepler admits that
he stated that he would never recognize the International because of
its ipsulting tactics.
In ,private conversations with his employees the respondent further
added to his public utterances. Katheryn Hoffman testifies that Hep-
ler told her that the International organizers were "racketeers". He
also expressed the thought to Hoffman that the girls should form their
own union rather than join the International . Hepler does not deny
that he conversed with Hoffman but states that such conversation was
supposed to be confidential.
By such activity and utterances the respondent was clearly inter-
fering with the freedom of organization and the rights guaranteed
to employees by Section 7 of the Act. We find that the respondent by
the acts set forth above, has interfered with, restrained, and coerced
its employees in the exercise of their rights guaranteed in Section 7 of
the Act.
'260 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
B.' Interference , domination , and support of the Independent
In addition to the respondent 's general antiunion activity hereinbe-
fore described , the respondent, through his floorboys , actively partici-
pated in the formation of two inside unions. The respondent denies
that he is responsible for the activities of the floorboys and also denies
that they are supervisory employees. He emphasizes the fact that
,these individuals do not have the authority to hire or discharge. From
this the respondent concludes that the floorboys are not supervisors.
However, the record indicates that the floorboys distribute work to
the girls, that they are in charge of production, that they are placed
in control of the plant whenever Hepler is not personally present, and
that they are considered by the girls as supervisors. As we have held
in analogous situations ,2 the extent of the supervisory authority in
fact exercised by the floorboys, coupled with the fact that they were
recognized by the employees as supervisors , clearly supports the con-
clusion that such employees must be classed as supervisors.
On or before May 11 , the floorboys , Oscar . Stutzman , Henry Spotts,
and Russell Osman, originated the idea of forming an inside union.
The reason for starting this organization was explained by Spotts as
follows : "I had seen what was going on between this other Union
(referring to the International ) ; I happened to see things in the
paper I didn't like about it so I spoke to Mr. Osman and Mr. Stutz-
man and we came to the conclusion that we were going to try and
stop it."
In order to effectuate their plans the floorboys ordered and paid for
the printing of membership cards in an organization which they
termed the Women's Protective Organization . After the cards were
printed the floorboys began their organizational campaign. Cards
were distributed to the girls and members were solicited . The floor-
boys were careful to avoid giving the cards to known International
members.
By May 17 the floorboys had gained a number of adherents. ,In
order to create a more formal organization they called a meeting to be
held at the Fire Hall that evening . Announcement of the meeting
was made when the floorboys were passing out copies of the Scranton
Times on orders of the respondent . By such action Hepler, through
his supervisory employees , was able at the same time to denounce the
International and to announce the formation of a union more in
accordance with his desires.
The Women 's Protective Organization never was formally organ-
ized because its originators abandoned their efforts toward its forma-
tion and transferred their allegiance to the formation of the
2Matter , of Arnerican Manufacturanq Company, ct al, 5 N L R B 443
DECISIO\S AND ORDERS 261
Independent. The date of this transference of allegiance coincides
with the formation of the Independent, which immediately followed
the meeting held at the Fire Hall.
The meeting at the Fire Hall was well attended by the supervisory
employees. Foreladies Thelma Herb and Viola Long were present.
Floorboys Stutzman, Osman, Spotts, and Russell Hepler were also
present. Osman admits he spoke at the meeting and urged the girls
"to stick together" and form some kind of an organization so as to
keep the work in town.
After the meeting of May 17 the formation of the Independent pro-
ceeded rapidly. Gertrude Clauser was elected president and Iva
Schwalm vice president. The latter, according to the testimony of
Stutzman, takes the place of Forelady Thelma Herb when she is away.
Gertrude Clauser, first president of the Independent, when called
as a witness, was very vague and hostile upon questioning as to when
and how the Independent was organized. She insisted that the floor-
boys had nothing to do with the Independent, "since I am president."
It is significant to note the fact that the Independent was not formed
until after the International appeared to be gaining strength and that
it did not come into being until the floorboys transferred their
activities to it.
Stutzman continued his activity for the Independent by passing
out Independent application cards and urging the girls to join. Os-
man continued to make speeches for the Independent at subsequent
meetings. '
The floorboys did not confine their activities to a forming the In-
dependent. They actively opposed the organizational activities of
the International. At public meetings of the International they
heckled the organizers and endeavored to intimidate the members.
On July 29 a group of men including Stutzman and Clauser, hus-
band of the president of the Independent, chased the International
organizers in a car. The International organizers were threatened
and called names. Upon the complaint of Johnson, Stutzman and
Clauser were arrested. The respondent thereupon posted peace bonds
for them and they were released. ,
On May 25, because of the respondent's unfair labor practices in
aiding the Independent and opposing the International through the
activities of its officials and supervisors, the International organizers
called for a strike vote. At the meeting called for that purpose 45
members unanimously voted to call a strike. On the morning of May
26 the members of the International did not enter the factory. Picket
lines were formed around the buildings. In order to avoid property
damage resulting from any strife between strikers and nonstrikers
Hepler agreed to shut down his factory.
262 NATIONAL LABOR RELATION'S BOARD
Upon the closing of the plants the respondent telephoned Wallick,
production manager of Sam Seham, Inc., and asked him to come to
Valley View. Hepler testifies that Wallick told him that if he signed
an agreement with the International he (Hepler) "would be done."
This warning explains, in part, the motivation of the respondent's
subsequent conduct.
A Citizens Committee was formed upon the outbreak of the strike.
It was composed of several ministers and the town printer. The
Citizens Committee had printed a handbill addressed to the "Citi-
zens of Valley View." The handbill contained the information that
the respondent had no control over the retention of the plant in the
community, since that matter was entirely in the hands of the supplier
and marketer of the dress goods. "They", referring to the supplier
and marketer, "positively refuse a union controlled shop in Valley
View." However, the article went on to say, "They will recognize a
union within the bounds of the factory." The handbill carried a
threat to have the factory removed to another ' community if the
strikers remained adamant in their demands. The handbill also con-
tained an agreement, purportedly signed by the respondent, which
granted a general wage increase along with a guarantee of a 40-hour
week. The handbill closed with a plea that the workers report to
work 100 per cent on June 1, 1937, "to save the factory."
Three hundred copies of this handbill were printed at the expense
of the Citizens Committee and distributed, in part at least, by the
floorboys to the employees of, the respondent.
The respondent denies that he was a member of the Citizens Com-
mittee or that he had anything to do with the printing or circulation
of the handbill. However, he admits consulting with the Citizens
Committee on the subject of the opening of the factory. In fact
Hepler advised against the opening on June 1, unless he could be
supplied with the sheriff's protection. The Citizens Committee as-
sured him that protection would be supplied and arranged for the
attendance-of two deputy sheriffs at the plant on the opening day.
The respondent also admits that when .the Citizens Committee in-
formed him that the girls would not be satisfied unless he signed a
written agreement, he adjourned to the town printer's office and there
placed his name on a piece of paper to which was pasted the wage
increase cut out from the Citizens Committee handbill. In the light
of these admissions and the information set forth in the handbill the
respondent's denial of having anything to do with formation of poli-
cies and activities of the Citizens Committee is not credible.
On June 1 the plant was reopened. However, clashes between
pickets and nonstrikers soon caused the respondent to agree once
again to close down his factory. From June 1 the Independent, en-
couraged by the respondent's overt sponsorship and assistance, con-
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 263
tinned to recruit members. Employees were approached in their
homes 'and urged to sign up with the Independent and to return to'
work. Katheryn Hoffman testifies that Hepler himself approached
her on June 10 or 11 and stated that he would not sign the agreement
submitted to hun by the International. This was not denied by
Hepler. Martha Shucker testifies that at. a later date Hepler urged
her to return to work and pointed out that she had lost over $100 in
wages clue to the strike.
On June 14, the Independent, by Gertrude Clauser, president, wrote
to the Board's Regional Director for the Third Region and asked
for an investigation of the strike at Valley View. In this letter she
wrote, "our employer has stated that he will not recognize the Inter-
national but he has made negotiations and agreements with the Inde-
pendent . . ., who have the majority of workers enrolled."
The Independent, now fully organized, secured the services of a
lawyer to draw up an agreement for submission to the respondent.
The agreement set forth in the Citizens Committee's handbill, here-
tofore discussed, was used as a basis for the proposed agreement. On
June 22 the Independent presented the proposed agreement to the
respondent for signature. Without any present or prior negotiation
or bargaining the respondent signed the agreement offered to him.
The agreement was to have gone into effect on July 1, 1937. How-
ever, after the, strikers refused to come back to work under such an
agreement and when the mediation department of the Pennsylvania
State Department of Labor and Industry later suggested that Hepler
refuse to recognize either labor organization pending the outcome of
a hearing to be held by the Board, the Independent agreed to release
Hepler from the contract.
On June 29 the factory resumed operations with a diminished force.
It continued to operate until July 27, when again it was closed down
because of clashes occurring between pickets and nonstrikers.
In the first week of August the mediation department for the De-
partment of Labor and Industry of Pennsylvania, through Clarence
J. Mozier, arranged a conference between the International organizers
and the respondent. Mozier proposed that the respondent recognize
the International as bargaining agent for its members and disasso-
ciate himself from the Independent. Hepler seemed agreeable, but
after consultation with the Independent committee he refused the
proposal.
The strike continued until September 7, when, through Ralph
Bashore, Secretary of the State Department of Labor and Industry,
a truce agreement was made whereby the respondent agreed to rein-
state members from both labor organizations without discrimination.
He also` ,grebd not to recognize either the Independent or' the Inter-
national as bargaining agent for the employees pending the hearing
106791-38-vol vu-l 8
264 NATIONAL LABO1t ]RELATIONS BOARD
to be held by the Board. This settlement was agreed to by both the
Independent and the International. The strike was thus concluded
,on September 7, 1937.
By the acts set forth above we find that the respondent has domi-
nated and interfered with the formation and administration of the
Independent and, contributed support to it, and has thereby inter-
fered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of
their rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
C. Discharge of Irene Harner
Irene Harner had been employed by the respondent for about 5 or 6
years. On May 5, 1937, or thereabouts, she had finished her particular
work, piecing skirts, and was ordered to set pockets. Setting pockets
is a somewhat more difficult task than the work to which Harner
had been accustomed. However, the respondent offered conclusive
proof that at least on one prior occasion Harner had set pockets.
The respondent also established that Harner had previously done a
variety of work.
Harner objected to being assigned to setting pockets. Nevertheless
she proceeded to set one pocket. In so doing she set it crooked. This
exasperated her and she refused to set any more. The assistant fore-
lady testifies that she sat at the machine with her arms folded refusing
to do any further work. The forelady then informed Osman, the
floorboy, who came over and asked Harner what the trouble was.
Harper replied that he should give her work to somebody else. Osman
then informed her that if she did not want to set pockets she was to
go home. Osman testifies that Harner then roundly cursed him,
which the weight of the evidence supports, despite ' Harrier's denial.
Following this incident, Harner went home. After work that evening
Osman reported the incident to Hepler, emphasizing the fact that
Harner had cursed him. Hepler agreed that Osman had acted
properly.
On the following Monday, Harner reported to work. Hepler at
the time was making a speech to the girls. On seeing her in the
crowd he inquired what she was doing there and told her to report
to him before she came to work. Harner, however, never reported to
him.
It is undenied that the floorboys had no right to hire or discharge
the girls, although they could send an employee home when there
was no work available for her. Hepler testified that he subsequently
told Harner's father and Johnson, International organizer, that she
could return to work if she apologized for cursing Osman. This
testimony was not contradicted. Hepler also testified that he had no
intention of discharging Harner but merely desired her to apologize
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 265
before returning to work. The fact that Harner never reported to
him precludes the conclusion that Harner was actually discharged by
Hepler.
Hepler denies that he knew of Harner 's union affiliation. Osman
also testifies to the same effect . Harner's union activities at this time
were confined to the solicitation of members and the signing up of
two employees. She was neither an officer of the Union nor was she
a leader in the unionization of the respondent 's plant.
We find, under the circumstances set forth above, that Irene
Harner was not discharged or refused reinstatement because of her
union activities. Therefore we will dismiss that portion of-the com-
plaint which alleges a violation of Section 8 (3) of the Act.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
We find that the activities of the respondent set forth in Section III
above, occurring in connection with the operations of the respondent
described in Section I above, have a close, intimate , and substantial
relation to trade, traffic , and commerce among the several States, and
have led and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing
commerce and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
We have found that the respondent dominated and interfered with
the formation and administration of the Independent and contributed
support thereto. In order to remedy the situation arising from this
unlawful conduct we shall order the respondent to withdraw all
recognition from the Independent and to disestablish it as a collective
bargaining representative of any of the respondent's employees.
We have also found that the strike was caused by the respondent's
unfair labor practices . In order to restore the status quo one obvious
requisite is the restoration of the strikers to their former or substan-
tially equivalent positions. This has already been partially done by
the agreement'between the respondent and the International whereby
the respondent was to reinstate all strikers and nonstrikers without
discrimination . That agreement has not been fully presented in
the record. However, if the agreement has been complied with, we
shall not require any further action in that respect . This is in accord-
ance with our practice of allowing the-parties involved to satisfy the
requirements of the Act through the use of the procedure of collective
bargaining . If, however , the agreement adverted to above has not in
fact been executed, we shall order the reinstatement of the employees
according to our well-settled practice.
266 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Although the respondent discontinued operation of one of its
three buildings after the strike, the record indicates that under the
settlement agreement the respondent reinstated in the two remaining
buildings both strikers and nonstrikers who had previously worked
in the closed building. Accordingly, in our order we shall follow
the same practice.
We shall therefore order that, if the above agreement has not been
complied with, the respondent shall, upon application, offer rein-
statement to their former or substantially equivalent positions to
those employees who went out on strike and have not since been fully
reinstated. Such reinstatement shall be effected in the following
manner : All employees hired after the commencement of the strike
shall, if necessary to provide employment for those to be offered
reinstatement, be dismissed. If, thereupon, by reason of a reduction
in force or otherwise, there is not sufficient employment immediately
available for the remaining employees, including those to be offered
reinstatement, all available positions shall be distributed among such
remaining employees in accordance with the respondent's usual
method of reducing its force, without discrimination against any
employee because of her union affiliation or activities, following ' a
system of seniority to such extent as has heretofore been applied in
the conduct of the respondent's business. Those employees remain-
ing after such distribution, for whom no employment is immediately
available, shall be placed upon a preferential list prepared in ac-
cordance with the principles set forth in the previous sentence, and,
shall thereafter, in accordance with such list, be offered employment
in their former or in substantially equivalent positions, as such
employment becomes available and before other persons are hired
for such work.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the
entire record in the case, the Board makes the following :
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. International Ladies' Garment Workers Union, affiliated with
the C. I. 0., and the Independent Garment Workers Union of Valley
• View, Pennsylvania, are labor organizations, within the meaning of
Section 2 (5) of the Act.
2. The respondent, by interfering with, restraining, and coercing
its employees in the exercise of'their rights guaranteed in Section 7
of the Act, has engaged in unfair labor practices, within the meaning
of Section 8 (1) of the Act.
3. The respondent, by dominating and interfering with the forma-
tion and administration of the Independent Garment Workers Union
of Valley View, Pennsylvania, and by contributing support thereto,
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 267
has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices, within the
meaning of Section 8 (2) of the Act.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices constitute unfair labor
practices affecting commerce, within the meaning of Section 2 (6)
and (7) of the Act.
5. With regard to the termination of the employment of Irene
Harner, the respondent has not engaged in an unfair labor practice
within the meaning of Section 8 (3) of the Act. -
ORDER
Upon 'the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions
of law, and pursuant to Section 10 (c) of the National Labor Rela-'
tions Act, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that
the respondent, T. W. Hepler, and his officers, agents, successors, and
assigns, shall :
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) In any manner dominating or interfering with the adminis-
tration of the Independent Garment Workers Union of Valley View,
Pennsylvania, or with the formation and administration of any other
labor organization of its employees, and from contributing support
to the Independent Garment Workers Union of Valley View, Penn-
sylvania, or to any other labor organization of its employees;
(b) Recognizing the Independent Garment Workers Union of Val-
ley View, Pennsylvania, as representative of any of its employees
for the purpose of dealing with the respondent concerning grievances,
labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, or condi-
tions of work;
(c) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing
its employees in the exercise of their rights to self-organization, to
form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively.
through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in
concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other
mutual aid or protection, as guaranteed in Section 7 of the National
Labor Relations Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action, which' the Board finds
will effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Withdraw all recognition from the Independent Garment
Workers Union of Valley View, Pennsylvania, as the representative
of its employees for the purposes of collective bargaining with the
respondent concerning grievances, labor disputes, rates of pay, wages,
hours of employment, or other conditions of employment, and com-
pletely disestablish said organization as such representative;
(b) If the agreement for the reinstatement of strikers has not
been complied with, upon application offer to those employees who
268 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
went out on strike on May 26, 1937, and thereafter, immediate and
full reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent posi-
tions, without prejudice to their seniority and other rights and priv-
ileges, in the manner set forth in the section entitled "Remedy",
above, placing those employees for whom employment is not immedi-
ately available upon a preferential list in the manner set forth in
said section ;
(c) Make whole the employees ordered to be offered reinstatement
for any loss of pay they will have suffered by reason of the respond-
ent's refusal to reinstate them, upon application, following the
issuance of this order, by payment to them, respectively, of a sum
of money equal to that which each would normally have earned as
wages during the period from five (5) days after the date of such
application for reinstatement to the date of the offer of a position or
placement upon the preferential list required by paragraph (b)
above, less any amount, if any, which each will have earned during
that period;
(d) Post immediately in conspicuous places in each of its buildings
at Valley View, Pennsylvania, and maintain for a period of at least
thirty (30) consecutive days, notices to its employees stating that
the respondent will cease and desist in the manner aforesaid, and
that recognition is withdrawn from the Independent as ordered
above;
(e) Notify the Regional Director for the Fourth Region in writing
within ten (10) days from the date of this order what steps the
respondent has taken to comply herewith.
And it is, further ordered that, the complaint be,. and it hereby
is, dismissed in so far as it alleges that the respondent has engaged
in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (3) of the
Act.