The Barre Wool Combing Co., Ltd.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 20, 1940

28 N.L.R.B. 40 (N.L.R.B. 1940)

In the Matter of THE BARRE WOOL COMBING COMPANY, LIMITED and
FEDERAL LABOR UNION No. 21928, TEXTILE WORKERS, AFFILIATED
WITH THE AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR
Case No. C 1598 .Decided November 20, 19.40
Jurisdiction : wool top processing industry.
Unfair Labor Practices
Interference, Restraint, and Coercion: charges of, sustained.
Company-Dominated Unwn: charges of, sustained
Discrimination: charges of, dismissed.
Remedial Orders
Board found that discharges of 12 employees were occasioned by adoption
of rule by respondent that not more than four members of one family
living in a single household be employed in plant, and dismissed complaint
as to them. In view of unfair labor practices of respondent and because
Trial Examiner's recommendation that 'respondent reemploy the 12 indi-
viduals in their former or substantially equivalent positions if any changes
should occur in status of any of the four members of their respective
families in the respondent's employ contemplated a continuing course of
conduct on part of respondent, Board ordered respondent to place these
individuals upon a preferential list for employment in accordance with
Trial Examiner's recommendation. -
Practice and Procedure.
Where no exceptions filed to 8 (1) and (2) findings and conclusions of
Intermediate Report, Board, after reviewing such findings and conclusions,
adopted and incorporated them by reference into its decision
Mr. Bernard J. Donoghue, for the Board.
Mr. Edward A. Robertson, of New York City, for the respondent.,
Mr. A. Frank Reel, of Boston, Mass., and Mr. Herbert S. Thatcher
and Mr. Anthony Valente, of Washington, D. C., for the Federal.
Mr. John M. Hart and Mr. W. Lester Wyatt, of Worcester, Mass.,
for the Local Union.
Mr. W. Lester Wyatt, of Worcester, Mass., for Mr. Fritz H.
Johnsen.
Mr. Henry Manning and Mr. J.' Oscar Rocheleau, of Worcester,
Mass., for Mr. H. Oscar Rochelau.
Mr. Daniel J. Harrington, of counsel to the Board.
28 N. L. R B.. No. 14.
40
THE BARRE WOOL COMBING COMPANY ,4I
DECISION
AND
ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon amended charges duly filed by Federal Labor Union No.
21928, Textile Workers, affiliated with the American Federation of
Labor, herein called the Federal, the National Labor Relations
Board, herein called the Board; by the Regional Director for the
First Region (Boston, Massachusetts), issued its complaint dated
August 11, 1939, and an amendment to complaint dated August 19,
1939, against The Barre Wool Combing Company, Limited, South
Barre, Massachusetts, herein called the respondent, alleging that the
respondent' had engaged in and as engaging in unfair labor prac-
tices 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. Copies of the complaint and
the amendment to the complaint, accompanied by notices of hearing,
were duly served upon the respondent, upon the American Federation
of Labor, upon the Federal, and upon South Barre Employees Local
Union, Inc., a labor organization mentioned in the complaint, herein
called the Local Union. At the hearing the complaint, as amended,
was further amended in certain respects.
With respect to the unfair labor practices the complaint, as
amended, alleged in substance (1) that the respondent, since on or
about February 16, 1939, dominated and interfered with the forma-
tion and administration of the Local Union and contributed financial
and other support to it; (2.) that the respondent discouraged member-
ship in the Federal by discharging 12 named employees between
February 24, 1939, and February 28, 1939,1 one named employee on
July 10, 1939,2 and 3 named employees on July 11, 1939,3 and there-
after refusing to reinstate or reemploy said employees because they
had joined and assisted the Federal; (3) that the respondent on or
about February 16, 1939, and prior to and after said date, by request-
ing its employees during working hours and at other times to join
the Local Union, requiring employees to join the Local Union, ques-
tioning employees' as to their membership in the Federal, and en-
gaging in iarious other acts, conduct and statements, interfered with,
The names of these 12 employees are: John A Fargnoli, Santa Coopalina. Catherine
Roselli , Carmela Sottile, Josephine Sidote, Joseph Coppolino, Nicholas Borelli , Philippa
Sidote, Josephine Puliafico, Eleanor Salvadore, Santa Roselli, and Frances Roselli.
2 The name of this employee is Rosa Puliafico
'The names of these three employees are Emelda Carruolo, Ida Inzerillo, and Enessa
Tutino.
42 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
restrained and coerced its employees in-their free choice of represent-
atives for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid,
or protection; and (4) that the respondent by all its aforesaid acts
and by other acts and conduct, interfered with, restrained, and coerced
its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of
the Act. -
On August 23, -1939, the respondent filed an answer and on Sep-
tember 19, 1939, an amended answer, denying generally the material
allegations of the complaint.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held in Barre, Massachusetts,
from August 24, 1939, to October 18, 1939, before Henry J. Kent, the
Trial Examiner duly designated by the Board.4 The Board, the re-
spondent, the Federal, and the Local Union were represented by
counsel and participated in the hearing.5 Full opportunity to be
heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evi-
dence bearing on the issues was afforded all parties.
During the hearing the Local Union filed a motion to intervene in
the proceeding. The Trial Examiner granted the motion, but limited
the intervention` to the issues involving the Local Union. At the close
of the Board's case and also at the conclusion of the hearing counsel
for the respondent moved to dismiss the complaint, as amended, on
the ground that the Board lacked jurisdiction over the respondent and
to dismiss the complaint, as ammended, in so far as it alleged that the
respondent had committed unfair labor practices within the meaning
of Section 8 (1) of the Act. The Trial Examiner reserved ruling
on the motions and in his Intermediate Report denied them. Counsel
for the respondent also moved to dismiss the complaint, as amended,
in so far as it alleged that Nicholas Borelli, one of the employees
named in the complaint, as amended, had been discharged in violation
of the Act and made various motions to dismiss the complaint, as
amended, in so far as it alleged that 15 of the employees named in the
complaint, as amended, had been discharged in violation of the Act.
The Trial Examiner granted the motion with respect to Borelli,
reserved ruling on the other motions, and in the Intermediate Report
granted them. At the close of the respondent's case counsel for the
Board moved to reinstate the name of Borelli to the complaint, as
amended, and to add two more names to said complaint. The Trial
Examiner denied the motions. At the conclusion of the respondent's
4011 October 18, 1939, the hearing was ad Boni ned "to a date and place later to be
determined " On the same day the Board ordeied that the instant case be consolidated
with platter of The Barre Wool Combing Company, Limited and Federal Labor Union
No $1938, Textile Workers, affiliated with the American Federation or Labor (Case No
R-15S0), 19 N L R. B. 1008 On Decembe, 28, 1939, the Board oidered the cases
severed for purposes of decision On January 27, 1940 , without further hearing, the
record in the instant case was closed pursuant to a stipulation of the parties
5 Two individuals , Fritz II. Johnsen and II Oscar Rocheleau , were also represented
by counsel and participated in the hearing.
THE BARRE WOOL COMBING COMPANY , 43
case counsel for the Board moved to conform the complaint, as
amended, to the proof with respect to minor\variances between the
proof and the allegations of the complaint, as amended. The motion
was granted by the Trial Examiner. During the course of the hearing
the Trial Examiner made several other rulings on motions and on
objections to the admission of evidence. The Board has reviewed all
the rulings of the Trial Examiner and finds that no prejudicial errors
were committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed.
Thereafter the Federal submitted a brief which has been considered
by the Trial Examiner and by the Board.
In his Intermediate Report, dated May 27, 1940, copies of which
were duly served upon the respondent, the Federal, and the Local
Union, the Trial Examiner found that the respondent had engaged in
and was engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce, within
the meaning of Section 8 (1) and (2) of the Act, and recommended
that the respondent cease and desist therefrom and that it take certain
affirmative action to remedy the situation. He further found that
the respondent had not engaged in unfair labor practices in regard to
the 16 employees named in the complaint, as amended, as having been
discriminatorily discharged. I
No exceptions to the Intermediate Report or to the record were filed
by the respondent or by the Local Union.
On June 17, 1940, the Federal filed exceptions to the portions of the
Intermediate Report wherein the Trial Examiner found that the
testimony failed to support the Federal's contention that the respondent,
instigated the seeking of-aid from the Congress of Industrial Organiza-
tions, herein called the C. I. 0., by the Local Union, and that the
respondent had not engaged in unfair labor practices with respect to
the 16 above-mentioned employees as alleged in the complaint, as
amended. Thereafter the Federal submitted a brief which has been
considered by the Board.
Pursuant to notice a hearing was held before the Board on October
3, 1940, in Washington, D. C., for the purpose of oral argument. The
respondent and the Federal were represented by counsel and partici-
pated in the hearing. The Local Union did not appear at this hear-
ing. The Board has fully considered the exceptions to the Interme-
diate Report and finds them to be without merit. .
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
The respondent, a Massachusetts corporation engaged in the busi-
ness of processing wool top at its plant in South Barre, Massachusetts,
annually processes from 20,000,000 to 25,000,000 pounds of wool,
44 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
greasy weight, all of which originates outside the Commonwealth
of Massachusetts and approximately 8,000,000 to 10,000,000 pounds
of which are shipped directly to the plant from outside the Common-
wealth. From this wool the respondent manufactures approximately
10,000,000 to 12,000,000 pounds of wool top annually. A consider-
able portion of this wool top, which is owned by the customers who
ship the wool to the respondent's plant, is shipped by the respondent
at the direction of such customers to places outside the Common-
wealth of Massachusetts.
During 1938 the respondent purchased raw materials amounting
in value to $325,000 and consisting of soda ash, soap, combing oils,
card clothing, bristles, packing materials, sulphuric acid, dye stuffs,
chemicals used in dyeing, coal, and other miscellaneous raw materials.
All of the 'soda ash, soap, combing oils, bristles, sulphuric acid, and
coal, amounting in value to $145,000, and some of the remaining raw
materials were obtained outside the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
During 1938 the respondent manufactured and shipped to various
parts of the country approximately 1,000,000 pounds of wool grease,
a waste product.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
Federal Labor Union No. 21928, Textile Workers, is- a, labor or-
ganization affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, admit-
ting to membership employees of the respondent.
South Barre Employees^Local Union, Inc. is an unaffiliated labor'
organization, admitting to membership employees of the respondent.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Interference, restraint, and coercion and domination and inter-
ference with the administration of the Local Union,
In his Intermediate Report the Trial Examiner, upon the sub-
sidiary or evidential findings of fact which he there made, found
and'concluded that the respondent through various specified activ-
ities in which it engaged, interfered with, restrained, and coerced
its employees at its South Barre plant in the exercise of the rights
guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act and that the respondent formed
and sponsored the Local Union as a labor organization of such em-
ployees and was dominating and interfering with its administration
and contributing financial and other support to it. As stated above,
no exceptions to the Intermediate Report or to the record were filed
by the respondent or by the Local Union and the exceptions filed by
the Federal, save the exception to the finding that the testimony
THE BARRE WOOL COMBING COMPANY 45
failed to support the contention that the respondent instigated the
seeking of aid from the C. I. O. by the Local Union, did, not relate
to the above findings of fact or conclusions or to the recommendations
based thereon, of the Trial Examiner. The local Union did not ap-
pear at the hearing held before the Board for purposes of oral argu-
ment. At that hearing, although counsel for the respondent stated
that he did not consider failure'to file exceptions to the above findings
of the Trial Examiner to be an admission by the respondent of the
correctness of such findings, he also represented that the respondent
has complied with the recommendations of the Trial Examiner in
every respect.' It appeared at the oral argument that the Local
Union had dissolved and that its members had joined the C. I. O.
We have considered the record and find that the subsidiary or
ti•vidential' findings of fact, the ultimate findings, of fact, and the
conclusions of the Trial Examiner contained in his Intermediate
Report, in so far as they relate to the respondent's engaging in activi-
ties interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the
exercise of rights guaranteed under Section 7 of the Act, and to its
formation and sponsorship of the Local Union, its domination and
interference with the administration of the Local Union, and its
contributing financial and otllel: support to the Local Union, are, and
each of, said findings and conclusions is, supported by the weight of
the evidence and correct. -Accordingly, we approve said findings of
fact and conclusions, and each of them, adopt them as the findings
of fact and conclusions of the Board for purposes hereof, and hereby
incorporate by reference into this Decision and Order said findings
of fact and conclusions, and each of them, to the same extent as if-
they were here physically set forth.
Upon the findings of fact and conclusions incorporated herein, and
otherwise set forth herein, and upon the entire record in the case,
we find that the- respondent dominated and interfered with the for-
mation and administration of the Local Union and contributed finan-
cial and other support to it; that by, said acts the respondent
interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise
of rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act; that the Local Union
is not nor has it ever been the employees' genuine choice of a collec=
tive bargainiig representative; and that the Local Union is incapable
of serving as a true collective bargaining agency of these employees,
and its existence does and will constitute a continuing obstacle to the
exercise by these employees of the rights guaranteed them in the Act.
0 Counsel for the respondent also stated that he felt "that the Trial Examiner has
given due consideration *to the entire iccoid in the case and that his findings are very
well substantiated by the record, and the dismissal of the allegations of discrimination
are justified by the record in the case."
46 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
B. The discharges
The complaint, as amended, alleged that the respondent during the
period from February 24, 1939, to February 28, 1939, discharged
John A. Fargnoli, Santa Coopalina, Catherine Roselli; Carmela
Sottile, Josephine Sidote, Joseph Coppolino, Nicholas Borelli, Phil-
ippa Sidote, Josephine Puliafico, Eleanor Salvadore, Santa Roselli,
and Frances Roselli ; that on July 10, 1939, it discharged Rosa Pulia-
fico; that on July 11, 1939, it discharged Emelda Carruolo, Ida In-
zerillo, and Enessa Tutino ; and that the above-named employees
were discharged and thereafter refused reinstatement or reemploy-
ment in order to discourage membership in the Federal, because they
engaged in activities in behalf of the Federal, and because they en-
gaged in concerted activities with other employees for the purpose
of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection.
The 12 employees discharged in February 1939.-were Italians and,
since the employees who had joined the Federal were largely of that
nationality, the Federal contended that those discharges were effectu-
ated to weaken and prevent a successful union organization among
employees. The evidence is conflicting as to whether or not some of
the 12 discharged employees were members of the Federal at the
times of their discharges , but at any rate all of them, together with
other members of their families, had attended Federal meetings and
favored that organization.
The respondent, on the other hand, claimed that the 12 employees
were selected for discharge in accordance with a rule which had been
adopted due to slack business that not more than four members of
one family living in a single household should be employed in the
plant. The record shows that during 1938 and the early part of
1939, prior to any organizational activities among the respondent's
employees, the employees had complained that the practice, then in
effect, of sharing work among individual employees was unfair be-
cause of the employment of numerous members of several large fami-
lies. On January 21, 1939, after a meeting between the management
and a committee representing the employees, the respondent decided
to put the above -mentioned rule into effect. The respondent's office
manager, Carlisle, was instructed to prepare a list of families having
numerous members employed in the plant . He prepared such a list
and submitted it to the management on January 27, 1939, nearly 3
weeks before any organizational activities were initiated. The rule
was not put into effect immediately, however, because of unrest in the
plant culminating in a strike which lasted f'ro'm February 14, 1939, to
February 20, 1939, during which strike the Federal was organized.
Shortly after the employees returned to work the 12 employees were
discharged in accordance with the rule . Each had less seniority than
THE BARRE WOOL COMBING COMPANY 47
other members of his family employed in the plant with the exception
of John Fargnoli, whose sister had less seniority than he had, but,
inasmuch as she was an office employee, lie was discharged in her
stead. At the time of their discharges the respondent informed these
12 employees that they would be eligible for reemployment if changes
should occur in the status of any of the 4 members of their respective
families then employed which would render the rule inoperative as
to the discharged employees. Several of these employees were subse-
quently rehired when such changes occurred.
The four employees discharged in July 1939 were comb operators in
Section 3, so called, of the plant. There were nine combs in this
Section and the work had been divided among five operators, four
operators running two combs each and the fifth running one comb.
In Sections 1 and 2 of the plant, where similar operations were per-
formed, each operator ran three combs. In those Sections, the noil,
a waste product, was automatically disposed of, while in Section 3
the operators were required to pick up the noil from the floor and
deposit it in, a truck. Levon Yacubian, superintendent of the plant,
had considered for a considerable length of time assigning three
combs to each operator in Section 3 and furnishing 'an employee to
pick up the noil, 'but had not done so because work was slack and
it would necessitate the laying off of employees.
In July 1939 the plant was busy and on July 10 Yacubian ordered
the change put into effect in Section 3. Rosa Puliafico, one of the
comb operators on the afternoon shift, objected to the change and
Yacubian went to the Section to speak to her. Yacubian asked her
to operate three combs for a week and consult him on any problems
that might arise and told her that she would earn $2.15 additional per
week by operating three combs or if she preferred could be trans-
ferred to another Section. Puliafico answered that she was a mem-
ber of the Federal and would have to talk to her union representative
before changing the method of operation. Yacubian then told her
that the management was running the plant and not the head of her
Union. Puliafico then either left the plant of her own accord or
was told to do so by Yacubian.
On the following morning, July 11, Emelda Carruolo, Ida Inzerillo,
_Enessa Tutino, Mary Vallardo, and Mrs. Thomasello, who had been
operating the nine combs in the Section on the first shift, were notified
of the change. Ida Inzerillo, who had been operating one comb, was
transferred to work on the finishers on which she had worked previ-
ously and which was comparable work on which she would receive the
same rate of pay. George Fish, overseer in the Section, requested
Carruolo, Tutino, and Thomasello to run three combs each. They re-
-fused to accept the change and Fish asked them to go to Yacubian's
I
48 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR ,RELATIONS BOARD
office with him where the matter was further discussed with Yacubian.
He told the girls that they would receive $2.15 additional per week
for operating three combs; that they would not be required to pick
up noils; and that the change would not cause any lay-offs and would
place the respondent in a better competitive position. He asked them
to give the changed assignment a week's trial and to consult him on
any problems that might arise; and told them that if the assignment,
proved unsatisfactory he would restore the two comb assignment. The
girls still insisted on running only two combs. Carruolo and Tutino
testified that Yacubian told them that they had minds of their own
but were not using them, that the "A. F. of L. must be backing" them,
and that, if they were looking for trouble, they would get it. Both
Yacubian and John Hinchcliffe, assistant superintendent of the plant,
who was present, denied this testimony and Fish testified that he did
not hear Yacubian make such a statement. Under all the circum-
stances we credit Yacubian's denial that he made the statement.
Yacubian, Fish, and the three girls then went to Section 3 where
Yacubian again asked them to operate three combs. Carruolo and
Tutino testified that Yacubian told them that that was what they
got "for joining the A. F. of L." Yacubian denied this testimony
and Fish and Henry Caron, a section hand who was present, testified
that they did not hear him make any such statement: We find that
Yacubian did not make this statement. Meanwhile Ida Inzerillo had
returned from the finishers and was standing by the comb she had been
operating. Yacubian told her she would have to obey orders or go'
home. Inzerillo left the plant and was followed by Carruolo, Tutino,
and Thomasello. Yacubian or Fish then asked Vallardo to operate
three combs. She asked and received permission from Yacubian to
attempt to induce the girls to return. Vallardo met Thomasello clown-
stairs in the plant and the two of them went after the three girls and
asked then to return. They replied that, if Yacubian wanted them
back, he should send the timekeeper after them. Other operators in
Section 3 accepted the three comb assignment and at the date of the
hearing were still operating three combs each.
The respondent has filled the positions vacated by Puliafico, Car-
ruolo, Inzerillo, and Tutino and there is no showing in the record
that they have ever-sought reinstatement.
We find, as did the Trial Examiner, that the respondent did not
discharge John A. Fargnoli, Santa Coopalina, Catherine Roselli, Car-
mel Sottile. Josephine Sidote, Joseph Copplino, Nicholas Borelli,
Philippa Sidote, Josephine Puliafico, Eleanor Salvadore, Santa Roselli.
Frances Roselli, Rosa Puliafico, Emelda Carruolo, Ida Inzerillo, and
Enessa Tutino; or any of them, in order to discourage membership in
the Federal, or because they engaged in activities in behalf of the Fed-
THE BARRE WOOL COMBING, COMPANY 49
era], or because they engaged in concerted activities with other em-
ployees for purposes of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or
protection. The allegations of the complaint, as amended, with respect
to these employees will, accordingly, be dismissed.
IV. TILE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
We find that the activities of the respondent set forth in Section III
A 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
tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce
and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
As stated above, the Trial Examiner in his Intermediate Report
recommended that the respondent cease and desist from the unfair labor
practices in Which he found it to have engaged, and that it take cer-
tain affirmative action to affectuate the policies of the Act and remedy
the situation brought about by these unfair labor practices. Also, as
above mentioned, the respondent at the oral argument before the
Board represented that it had complied with the recommendations of
the Trial Examiner. It indicated that it had disestablished the Local
Union as a collective bargaining representative of its employees; that
it had posted certain notices to its employees in form and manner as
recommended in the Intermediate Report; and that it had offered
employment to certain of the discharged employees as they became
eligible for reemployment, in accordance with another recommenda-
tion of the Trial Examiner.
We are of the-opinion, and find, that a cessation of the acts and
conduct from which the Trial Examiner in his Intermediate Report
recommended the respondent should cease and desist, and its taking
of the affirmative action which he recommended it should take, were
and are essential to an effectuation of the purposes and policy of the
Act and constitute an appropriate means of removing and avoiding
the consequences of the respondent's unfair labor practices, as found in
the Intermediate Report and herein. The Trial Examiner in his
Intermediate Report found, and we have found, that the discharges
of the 12 named employees in February 1939 were occasioned by the
adoption of the rule that not more than four members of one family
living` in a single household should be employed in the plant. We,
therefore, shall not order their reinstatement. In-view of the re-
spond'ent's unfair labor practices as set out in Section III A', above,
and because the Trial Examiner's recommendation that the respond-
ent reemploy these 12 employees in their former or substantially
I
50 DECISIONS OI, NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
equivalent positions if any changes should occur in the status of any of
the four members of their respective families in the respondent's em-
ploy, contemplates a continuing course of conduct on the part of the
respondent, we shall require that the respondent place the 12 employees
upon a preferential list for employment as they become eligible for
reemployment to their former or substantially equivalent positions.
We hereby approve the recommendations, of the Trial Examiner and
shall make our Order in accordance therewith, save for certain modifi-
cations of said recommendations in view of the respondent's compliance
as of the time of the oral argument with the recommendations of the
Trial Examiner.
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact incorporated and
otherwise set forth herein and upon the entire record in the case, the
Board makes the following :
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Federal Labor Union, No. 21928, affiliated with the American
Federation of Labor, and South Barre Employees Local Union, Inc.,
are labor organizations, within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the
Act.
2. By dominating and interfering with the formation and adminis-
tration of South Barre Employees Local Union, Inc. and contrib-
uting support to it, the respondent has engaged in unfair labor
practices, within the meaning of Section 8 (2) of the Act.
3. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in
the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the
respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices, within the meaning
of Section 8 (1) of the Act.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices
affecting commerce, within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of
the Act.
5. The respondent has not engaged in unfair labor practices with
respect to John A. Fargnoli, Santa Coopalina, Catherine Roselli,
Carmela Sottile, Josephine Sidote, Joseph Coppolino, Nicholas Bo-
relli, Philippa Sidote, Josephine Puliafico, Eleanor Salvadore, Santa
Roselli, Prances Roselli, Rosa Puliafico, Emelda Carruolo, Ida In-
zerillo, and Enessa Tutino, or any of them, as alleged in the com-
plaint, as amended.
ORDER
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and conclusions of
law and pursuant to Section 10 (c) of the National Labor Relations
Act, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the
respondent, The Barre Wool Combing Company, Limited, South
THE BARRE WOOL COMBING COMPANY 51
Barre, Massachusetts, and its officers, agents, successors, and assigns
shall :
1. Cease and desist from:,
(a) Dominating or interfering with the administration of South
Barre Employees Local Union, Inc., or with the formation or admin-
istration of any other labor organization of its employees, and from
contributing financial or other support to said South Barre Employ-
ees Local Union, Inc., or any other labor organization of its
employees;
(b) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing
its, employees in the exercise of their right 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 Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action, which the Board finds
will effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Place John A. Fargnoli, Santa Coopalina, Catherine Roselli,
Carmela Sottile, Josephine Sidote, Joseph Coppolino, Nicholas Bo-
relli, Philippa Sidote, Josephine Puliafico, Eleanor Salvadore, Santa
Roselli, and Frances Roselli on a preferential list of persons to be
offered reinstatement to their former positions or to substantially
equivalent positions should any of the four members of their respec-
tive families on the respondent's pay roll be terminated from his
employment, .cease his employment, or effect a change of status
whereby he is excluded from the operation of the respondent's rule
that not more than four members of one family living in one house-
hold be employed in its plant, and maintain each of said persons upon
such list until he or she is employed in his or her former or substan-
tially equivalent position ;
(b) Notify the Regional Director for the First 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 engaged in un-
fair labor practices with respect to John A. Fargnoli, Santa Coopa-
lina, Catherine Roselli, Carmela Sottile, Josephine Sidote, Joseph
Coppolino, Nicholas Borelli, Philippa Sidote, Josephine Puliafico,
Eleanor Salvadore, Santa Roselli, Frances Roselli, Rosa Puliafico,
Emelda Carruolo, Ida Inzerillo, and Enessa Tutino.
i
413597-42-vol. 28-5