Trenton Garment Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 28, 1938

4 N.L.R.B. 1186 (N.L.R.B. 1938)

In the Matter of TRENTON GARMENT COMPANY and INTERNATIONAL,
LADIES' GARMENT WORKERS UNION, LOCAL. 278
Case No. C-242.-Decided January 08, 1938
Ladies' and Children's Undergarments Manufacturing Industry-Interference
Restraint, or Coercion: remarks derogatory to union; questioning employees
regarding union membership ; expressed opposition to labor organization ; threats
of retaliatory action if union activity continued-Discrimination: discharge of
seven employees for union membership and activity-Strike: result of dis-
charges-Unit Appropriate for Collective Bargaining: production workers-
Representatives: proof of choice: membership application cards; majority not
shown-Collective Bargaining: employer acted in good faith in the negotiations
and honestly attempted an agreement with the union ; charge that respondent
refused to bargain collectively with union, dismissed-Reinstatement: not
ordered-Back pay: awarded to seven employees discriminatorily discharged.
Mr. George J. Bott, for the Board.
Rosenburg d Painter, by Mr. J. A. Painter, and Mr. Frank C.
Painter, of Jackson, Mich., and Mr. George J. Burke, of Ann Arbor,
Mich., for the respondent.
Mr. Harold W. Schwartz, of Chicago, Ill., and Mr. Samuel B.
Keene, of Detroit, Mich., for the Union.
Mr. Rawlings Ragland, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
On April 14, 1937, Harold W. Schwartz, on behalf of International
Ladies' Garment Workers Union, Local No. 278, herein called the
Union, filed with the Regional Director for the Seventh Region
(Detroit, Michigan) a charge that Trenton Garment Company, Jack-
son, Michigan, herein called the respondent, had engaged in and was
engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the
meaning of Section 8 (1), (3), and (5) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of
the National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein called the Act.
The National Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board, issued
a complaint dated June 25, 1937, and an amended complaint dated
June 30, 1937, both signed by the Regional Director, alleging that
1186
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 1187
the respondent had engaged in the unfair labor practices stated in the
charge. The complaints and accompanying notices of hearing were
duly served upon the respondent and the Union.
Thereafter the respondent filed an answer dated June 30, 1937, and
an amended answer dated July 3, 1937, denying that it had engaged
in or was engaging in the alleged unfair labor practices or that its
operations affect interstate commerce within the meaning of the Act.
The respondent also filed two motions to dismiss the complaint, al-
leging, in part, that the Act is unconstitutional, that the charge does
not comply with the requirements of Article II, Section 4 (c), of
National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 1, as
amended, and that the complaint is not based upon the charge.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held in Jackson, Michigan, from
July 12 through July 20, 1937, before Harold R. Korey, the Trial
Examiner duly designated by the Board. Full opportunity to be
heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to produce evi-
dence bearing upon the issues was afforded all parties. At the close
of the Board's case, the respondent renewed its motions to dismiss and
made a number of additional motions which, in effect, set forth addi-
tional grounds for dismissal of the complaint. At the close of the
hearing, counsel for the Board moved that the complaint be further
amended to include the name of Bart Dorrell as one of the employees
discharged for union activities and moved that the pleadings be
amended to conform to the proof. Decision on the motions was
reserved by the Trial Examiner.
On September 27, 1937, the Trial Examiner filed an Intermediate
Report in which he found that the respondent had engaged in and
was engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section
8 (1) and (3) and Section 2 (6) and (7) ; but that it had not com-
mitted unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (5).
In the Intermediate Report, the Trial Examiner denied the various
motions of the respondent for dismissal of the complaint; denied the
motion of counsel for the Board for amendment of the complaint
to include the name of Bart Dorrell; and granted the motion of
counsel for the Board for amendment of the pleadings to conform to
the proof. On September 27, 1937, the respondent filed exceptions
to the Intermediate Report.
We have reviewed all the rulings made by the Trial Examiner on
motions and on objections to the admissions of evidence, and find
that no prejudicial errors were committed. One of the respondent's
objections was that the charge did not contain a clear and concise
statement of the facts constituting the alleged unfair labor practices
affecting commerce as required by Article II, Section 4 (c), of the
Rules and Regulations. The purpose of the requirement is to assure.
1188 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the respondent due notice of the material facts. Since the complaint
in this case contained a clear and concise statement of such facts
and since a copy of the complaint was served upon the respondent a
consluerable time before the hearing, the respondent was not preju-
diced by any paucity of facts in the charge. Another objection of the
respondent was that the complaint was not based upon the charge.
As to this, it is to be noted that the complaint and the charge allege
precisely the same types of unfair labor practices on the part of the
respondent and that the complaint was issued only after the charge
was filed with the Board. The rulings of the Trial Examiner are
hereby affirmed. The respondent's exceptions to the findings of the
Trial Examiner in his Intermediate Report are disposed of by the
findings which the Board makes, as stated below.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF TIIE RESPONDENT
The respondent was incorporated in Michigan in 1925. Its plant
was located in Jackson, Michigan, from November 1926 until June
1937. About June 16, 1937, the respondent began to move its stock
and machinery from Jackson to Kendallville, Indiana, which is a
distance of approximately 40 miles. By the middle of July 1937,
the moving of the stock and machinery had been completed and the
respondent was prepared to commence operations at the new
location.
'The respondent is engaged in the manufacture and sale of ladies'
and children's rayon undergarments. It sells the undergarments
principally to the S. S. Kresge Company, F. W. Woolworth Company,
Morris Stores, J. J. Newberry, and G. C. Murphy. Over 50 per cent
of the sales are to the S. S. Kresge Company, a Michigan corporation,
which instructs the respondent to deliver directly to its stores in vari-
ous parts of the country, and the greater portion of the goods thus
sold are shipped to stores outside of Michigan. The F. W. Wool-
worth Company purchases approximately 25 per cent of the under-
garments manufactured by the respondent, most of the goods being
shipped to stores in Michigan.
The principal raw material used in the respondent's manufactured
product is rayon. The respondent purchases this material from
plants located in Cleveland, Ohio, and Beverley, New Jersey, ship-
ments being made directly to the respondent's plant. The respondent
spent $62,086.12 for rayon during the first six months of 1937, and
approximately $50,000 for other raw materials, consisting of laces and
trims, thread, elastic, and hose supports. During 1936, the gross
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 1189
sales of the respondent were approximately $780,000, approximately
$224,000 was expended for raw materials, and approximately $133,000
was expended for production labor.
II. THE UNION
During March 1937, there was talk among certain employees of the
respondent about formation of a union, and about March 26 approxi-
mately 25 employees met at Labor Hall in Jackson with William Kics,
representative of the "Automobile Workers' Union", to discuss the
matter. About March 30 a second meeting was held, at which ap-
proximately 80 persons were present and at which application cards
of the "Automobile Workers' Union" were signed by a considerable
number of persons. The understanding was that such cards would be
used until the arrival in Jackson of a representative of International
Ladies' Garment Workers Union.
At a meeting held April 6, Abraham Plotkin, General Organizing
Chairman in the Middle West for International Ladies' Garment
Workers Union, was in attendance, and membership application cards
furnished by Plotkin were signed by a number of persons. Another
meeting was held April 14, at which persons who had previously
signed cards of the "Automobile Workers' Union" were asked to sign
cards of the International Ladies' Garment Workers Union, Local
No. 278. In certain instances, union representatives copied names
from the old cards to the new cards. According to application cards
submitted in evidence at the hearing, 90 persons had signed applica-
tion cards,of the Union on-April 14, and ten additional persons had
signed such application cards prior to May 4. In addition, five
signed but undated application cards were submitted in evidence.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Interference, restraint and coercion
On March 30, 1937, which was four days after the first meeting held
for the purpose of discussing organization of the employees of the
respondent, notices were given production employees of the respond-
ent, exclusive of members of the cutting room, that beginning March
31 and until further notice, the plant would be closed because of lack
of business and the necessity for certain changes. On the following
Friday, April 2, the employees went to the plant to receive their pay
checks. At that time, the employees were called, some individually
and some in small groups, into the offices of O. V. Lautzenhiser,
President, or Clyde E. Walker, Secretary, and questioned concerning
the Union ,and what they expected- to gain by membership in it.
'Several employees testified that Lautzenhiser stated at such time that
1190 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
he would never have a union in his shop and would close down first.
Other employees testified that Lautzenhiser informed them that they
could return to work the following Monday if, but only if, they
refrained from joining the Union. Lautzenhiser denied that he made
statements derogatory to the Union or that he threatened action
against any one because of union membership or activity. Lautzen-
hiser admitted questioning employees concerning the Union and their
membership, but stated that the only purpose of such questioning
was to ascertain whether the employees actually desired the Union
to represent them.
A number of employees testified that they had considerable work
on hand at the time of their lay-off. At the hearing, Walker ex-
plained that even if some, employees had work on hand, the vast
number did not and that good business practice required the lay-off
of all production employees except those in the cutting room. As
indicative that the lay-off was not because employees had engaged in
union activity, the officers of the respondent pointed out that even
though the cutters were among those most active in the Union the
cutting room was not affected by the lay-off.
On Saturday, April 3, William Kits and a committee of employees
designated by the Union conferred with Lautzenhiser relative to
opening the shop and taking back all workers regardless of union
affiliation. The conferees were concerned particularly with the return
to work of Georgia Tripp, Marie Freeman, Margaret Spradlin, and
Helen Nichols. Lautzenhiser stated that the shop would open again
Monday, April 5, and agreed to areturn to work of all employees.
The shop did in fact reopen April 5 and all employees were per-
mitted to resume work at that time.
Although there is evidence in the record that the lay-off of "the
production workers from March 31 to April 5 was designed to dis-
courage employees from union membership and activity, the evidence
is insufficient to support a finding that such was its purpose. The
lay-off must, therefore, be deemed a proper one in the course of
operation of the respondent's business.
There is, however, sufficient evidence to support a finding that Mr.
Lautzenhiser attempted to interfere with organizational activities
of the employees by remarks derogatory to the Union, by threats as to
action which might be taken if union activity continued, and by
questioning employees concerning the Union and their activities
relative thereto.
At noon April 7, two days after resumption of work following the
lay-off, a large number of employees of the respondent went on
strike and almost immediately thereafter picket lines were estab-
lished. Although several employees testified that they went on
strike because they desired higher 'wages, the record indicates with
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 1191
reasonable clarity that the strike was the result of the discharge on
that day of six cutters and one machinist because of their union
membership and activity . Facts as, to the discharge are discussed
more fully subsequently . Although the respondent attempted to
continue operations at the plant , the strike and picket line made
impossible anything approximating normal operation and the plant
was entirely closed down on or about May 4, 1937.
The respondent brought proceedings in the Circuit Court at Jack-
son against the Union and various individuals to enjoin the picketing
and alleged acts of violence , threats, intimidation , and coercion. A
hearing was had in connection with such injunction on April 13,
1937 , at which the Court suspended decision on the basis of an
agreement of the respondent and the Union to attempt to settle
their difficulties out of court . Thereafter, beginning April 13 and
extending over a period of weeks, negotiations were had between
representatives of the Union and the respondent . Representatives of
the Chamber of Commerce of Jackson and State officials took part in
some of the discussions . During the course of the negotiations, the
respondent agreed to reinstate all employees whether union members
or not and to do so without discrimination . The Union , however,
refused to agree to return of the employees until some definite agree-
ment was reached upon the entire matter of wages , lay-offs during
slack seasons , and employment of new personnel. It is not clear
from the record precisely on what date the respondent offered rein-
statement of all workers without discrimination , but the indications
are that such offer was first made at a conference on the night of
April 13 and hence that the reinstatement was to begin April 14, 1937.
On May 4, 1937 , while negotiations were still pending . the respond-
ent filed in the Circuit Court for the County of Jackson , Michigan, a
petition for dissolution of the Company , appointment of a temporary
receiver, and distribution of assets . The respondent contended that
such action was imperative inasmuch as high rental, increased costs
of materials , and uncertain labor conditions had resulted in operation
at a considerable loss. Evidence was submitted showing that the
respondent lost approximately $18,956 during the six -month period
ending June 30, 1937.
Certain of the stockholders protested dissolution of the Company
and urged that attempts be made to find another location where
rentals were lower and operating conditions more feasible. Under
a lease expiring July 1, 1937 , with an option to renew, the respondent
paid an annual rental of $10,800 for approximately 76,000 square feet
of space. Walker testified that, in accordance with the wishes of the
stockholders , officials of the respondent attempted to secure better
rental terms in Jackson , but such attempts proved fruitless . There-
after, the officials sought other locations and found a building in
67573-38-vol. iv-76
1192 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS, BOARD -
Kendallville, Indiana, containing approximately 60,000 square feet
of space at a much lower rental. Kendallville is located approxi-
mately 40 miles from Jackson. On June 1, 1937, the respondent
notified its lessor in Jackson that it would not exercise its option to
renew and thereafter signed a lease for the location in Kendallville.
The lease provided for payment of $150 per month for two years and
payment of $200 per month for a third year. It also gave the re-
spondent an option to purchase the property for $12,500 during the
first year, $15,000 during the second year, and $20,000 during the third
year. The respondent obtained a dismissal of its petition for dissolu-
tion of the Company, and about June 19, 1937, began moving its stock
and machinery to Kendallville. At the time of the hearing, the
respondent was about ready to begin operations at the new location.
The complaint, as amended, alleges that the respondent did for
the purpose of intimidating and coercing its employees in the exer-
cise of the rights, guaranteed them in Section 7 of the Act, and par-
ticularly, for the purpose of evading and avoiding collective bargain-
ing with the Union, threaten to close its factory at Jackson, Michigan;
file a petition in the Circuit Court for the County of Jackson, Mich-
igan, for dissolution of the corporation; later voluntarily withdraw
such petition; make plans and arrangements on or about June 18,
1937, to move its factory to Kendallville, Indiana ; and since June
18, complete arrangements to move the factory to Kendallville. It
alleges also that such actions had the effect of intimidating, coercing,
and interfering with the exercise by the employees of the rights guar-
anteed as aforesaid. Although the actions of the respondent, partic-
ularly when considered together with its other activities discussed
herein, give rise to considerable suspicion concerning the respondent's
motives and purposes, there is not an adequate showing in the record
to support the allegations contained in the complaint. We must,
therefore, conclude upon the basis of the record that the court peti-
tion, the removal of the plant, and the other acts were the result of
the high rentals and costs of operation in Jackson and the fact that
continued operation in Jackson meant continued operation at a loss.
On the basis of the foregoing, we find, however, that the respondent
interfered with the organizational activities of its employees by
remarks derogatory to the Union, by threats as to action which might
be taken if union activity continued, and by questioning employees
concerning the Union and their activities relative there. The respond-
ent has therefore interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees
in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
B. The discharges
Georgia Tripp, Marie Freeman, Helen Nichols, Margaret Spradlin.
The complaint alleges that on or about April 1, 1937, the respondent
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 1193
discharged Georgia Trip, Marie Freeman, Irene Nichols, and Mar-
garet Spradlin, all employed by the respondent at its Jackson plant,'
for the reason that each of them joined and assisted the Union and
engaged in concerted activities with other employees in the Jackson
plant for the purpose of collective bargaining and other mutual aid
and protection. The only possible support in the record for such
allegations is found in the testimony of Marie Freeman. She testi-
fied that on Thursday, April 1, 1937, after the commencement of the
lay-off, she and the other three employees were jointly informed by
Lautzenhiser that he would not run a union shop and that he "didn't
have to have anybody working for me that I don't want to, and if
I never need you girls, I don't have to call you". She testified also
that the four employees deemed such to be the equivalent of a dis-
charge. She conceded, however, that Mr. Lautzenhiser at no time
stated that the four were discharged. It would appear, therefore,
on the basis of Marie Freeman's testimony that Lautzenhiser threat-
ened discharges, but that he did not actually discharge the employees.
Lautzenhiser denied making any of the statements attributed to him
by Marie Freeman.
Since, as indicated heretofore, we do not find that the lay-off on
March 31, 1937 was for the purpose of interference with union or-
ganization of the respondent's employees, but was a normal operation
during a slack period, the four employees in question can not be
deemed to have been discharged at the time of or by virtue of the
lay-off. This latter consideration is mentioned for the reason that it
is not entirely clear whether the allegation of the complaint relative
to the discharge of the four employees is predicated upon the words
attributed to Lautzenhiser or upon the lay-off of March 31. As
noted heretofore, the four employees in question were rehired on
April 5 with the other production employees.
Archie Bell, Thomas Floyd Fitch, Deyo Lovell, Enos Price, Rich-
ard Duckworth, Lynn C. Dutton. On the morning of April 7, 1937,
Paul Duckworth, foreman of the cutting room, discussed with the
six employees of the cutting room their participation and member-
ship in the Union and spoke strongly against the Union. The cut-
ters were at the time members of the Union and active participants
in its affairs. It is clear from the record that Duckworth knew of
such facts. Several cutters testified that Duckworth left the cutting
room shortly thereafter stating that he would see what Lautzenhiser
had to say about the matter. After a stay of approximately ten
minutes in Lautzenhiser's office, Duckworth returned to the cutting
room and informed Archie Bell, Thomas Floyd Fitch, Deyo Lovell,
Enos Price, Richard Duckworth,, and_Lynn C. Dutton that they were
'In the transcript Georgia Trip is referred to as Georgia Tripp and Irene Nichols is
referred to as Helen Nichols.
1194 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
laid off.2 Several cutters testified that Duckworth stated that Laut-
zenhiser said to lay the cutting room off. According to the testimony
of Lautzenhiser, Paul Duckworth was drunk the morning in ques-
tion, lie had been instructed to go home until sober, and in any
event he was without authority to lay off employees, such authority
being vested only in himself and Walker. The conclusion is in-
escapable, however, that both Lautzenhiser and Walker knew of the
action taken by Duckworth and that they did nothing to rectify the
situation. We find that the six named cutters were discharged by
the respondent because of their union. membership and activities.
Ralph Basle. A few hours after the discharge of the cutters,
Lautzenhiser informed Ralph Bashe, machinist and president of the
Union, that he was fired and "should never come back". Lautzen-
hiser offered no reason for Bashe's discharge. Bashe's testimony that
he was discharged because he was a member of the Union and an
active participant in its activities was not challenged. We find that
he was discharged because of such membership and activity.
We find that the respondent has discriminated with respect to
hire and tenure of employment against the six cutters and the ma-
chinist named in the complaint, as amended, thereby discouraging
membership in a labor organization, and that by, such acts, respond-
ent has interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the
exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
C. The refusal to bargain collectively
1. The appropriate unit
The complaint alleges that all of the production workers together
constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargain-
ing. The respondent does not assert that any other unit is the
proper one. All the production workers are apparently eligible to
membership in the Union.
We find that the production workers employed by the respondent,
excepting supervisory and clerical employees, constitute a unit which
is appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining, and that
such unit insures to the employees the full benefit of their right to
self-organization and to collective bargaining, and otherwise effec-
tuates the policies of the Act.
2. Representation by the Union of the majority in the appropriate
unit
Mr. Walker, the respondent's secretary, testified that the pay roll
as of April 7, 1937, the day of the strike, contained the names of
2 In the complaint , as amended , Thomas Floyd Fitch is referred to as Floyd Fitch,
Deyo Lovell is referred to as Dyzo Lovell, Enos Price is referred to as Erios Price, and
Lynn C. Dutton is referred to as Lynne Dutton.
f,
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 1195
179 production employees. He testified further that the normal
number of employees during the peak season varied from 250 to
300. The latter figures apparently included some non-production
workers. Membership application cards of the Union submitted in
evidence show that 90 cards were signed on or prior to April 14,
1937, and that ten additional cards were signed prior to May 4,
1937. Four undated membership application cards were submitted
in evidence. It is nc,., clear from the record precisely how many
persons were members of the Union at the time of the strike which'
began April 7.
Although testimony at the hearing indicated that 179 production
employees were on the pay roll at the time of the strike and that
the names of 90 or more persons were on membership application
cards of the Union at that time or shortly thereafter, no comparison
was made of the names on the pay roll and the names on the cards.
Since the strike occurred during the slack season, it is entirely pos-
sible that a number of the names on the cards were those of persons
not then employed by the Company. All the cards submitted in evi-
dence, moreover, were not signed by the persons whose names ap-
peared thereon. In certain instances, names were copied on union
cards from names appearing on application cards of the "Automobile
Workers' Union". It is not clear, therefore, whether the Union at
any time represented a majority of the employees in the appropriate
unit. Since it is clear, as noted below, that the respondent did not
refuse to' bargain, a definite determination on the question of a
majority is not necessary.
3. The refusal to bargain
On April 13, 1937, definite negotiations were begun between the
respondent and the Union with regard to an agreement covering the
matter of wages, hours, and working conditions. The negotiations
continued regularly over a period of weeks, until May 22, 1937. The
Union representatives insisted throughout the negotiations upon
either a closed-shop or a preferential shop. The respondent stated
its willingness to meet many of the Union demands, but was not
willing to sign an agreement for a closed-shop or a preferential
shop. The respondent suggested an agreement providing that lay-
offs during slack seasons and rehiring be on the basis of seniority.
The record establishes that the respondent acted in good faith in the
negotiations and honestly attempted to reach an agreement with the
Union.
We find that the respondent has not refused to bargain collec-
tively with the Union as the exclusive representative of its production
employees.
1196 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The portion of the complaint, as amended, which charges that
respondent refused and does now refuse to bargain collectively with
the Union as the representative of the employees in the appropriate.
unit will be dismissed.
IV. EFFECT OF UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
We find that the activities of respondent set forth in Section III
A' and B above, occurring in connection with the operations of re-
spondent 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.
THE REMEDY
In addition to an order to cease and desist from its unfair labor
practices, we shall affirmatively require respondent to pay back pay,
respectively, to the six cutters and the machinist whom we have
found were discriminately discharged, from the date of their dis-
charges to April 14, 1937, the date of the offer of reinstatement.
It was pointed out in Section III above that on the night of April
13 the respondent apparently offered reinstatement beginning April
14, 1937, to all employees, including the six cutters and the machinist.
No order to offer reinstatement will, therefore, be made.
As to the four women workers named in the complaint, the com-
plaint will be dismissed.
CONcrusIONs OF LAw
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, the Board makes
the following conclusions of law :
1. International Ladies' Garment Workers Union, Local 278, is a
labor organization, within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the
National Labor Relations Act.
2. The respondent, by discriminating in regard to the hire and
tenure of employment of Archie Bell, Thomas Floyd Fitch, Deyo
Lovell, Enos Price, Richard Duckworth, Lynn C. Dutton, and Ralph
Bashe, and thereby discouraging membership in a labor organization,
has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices, within the
meaning of Section 8 (3) of the Act.
3. The respondent, by interfering with, restraining, and coercing
employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the
Act, has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices, within
the meaning of Section 8 (1) of the Act.
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 1197
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 and is not engaging in unfair
labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (3) of the Act as to
the alleged discharges of Georgia Tripp, Marie Freeman, Helen
Nichols, and Margaret Spradlin.
6. The respondent has not engaged in and is not engaging in unfair
labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (5) of the Act.
ORDER.
0
On the basis of the 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 Trenton Garment
Company and its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall :
1. Cease and desist from discouraging membership in International
Ladies' Garment Workers Union, Local 278, or any other labor or-
ganization of its employees, by discharging any of its employees by
reason of their membership, past or present, in the International
Ladies' Garment Workers Union, Local 278, or any other labor or-
ganization or by discriminating in any other manner in regard to
their, hire or tenure of employment.
2. Cease and desist from 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 purposes of collective
bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, as guaranteed in Sec-
tion 7 of the National Labor Relations Act.
3. Take the following affirmative action, which the Board finds
will effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Make whole Archie Bell, Thomas Floyd Fitch, Deyo Lovell,
Enos Price, Richard Duckworth, Lynn C. Dutton, and Ralph Bashe
for any loss of pay they have suffered by reason of the respondent's
discrimination in regard to their hire or tenure of employment, by
payment to each of them, respectively, of a sum of money equal to
that which he would have earned as wages during the period from
the date of such discrimination to the date of the offer of reinstate-
ment, less any amount he may have earned during such period;
(b) Post immediately notices to its employees in conspicuous
places throughout its plant, stating that the respondent will cease
and desist in the manner aforesaid, and maintain such notices for a
period of at least thirty (30) consecutive days from the date of
posting :
1198 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
(c) Notify the Regional Director for the Seventh Region 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 (1) in so far as it alleges that the respondent has dis-
criminated against persons other than the seven referred to in Para-
graph 3 (a) above; and (2) in so far as it alleges that the respondent
has engaged in an unfair labor practice within the meaning of
Section 8 (5) of the Act.
4