Vargeo, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 1, 1962

137 N.L.R.B. 1 (N.L.R.B. 1962)

Vargeo, Inc. and Local 222, International Ladies ' Garment
Workers ' Union , AFL-CIO. Case No. 99-CA-950. May 1, 1969
DECISION AND ORDER
On January 26, 1962, Trial Examiner John H. Eadie issued his
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that
the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair
labor practices and recommending that they cease and desist therefrom
and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the Intermediate
Report attached hereto. He found further that the Respondent had
not engaged in certain other unfair labor practices alleged in the com-
plaint, and recommended dismissal of such allegations. Thereafter,
the Respondent and the Charging Party filed exceptions to the Inter-
mediate Report and supporting briefs.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with
this case to a three-member panel [Chairman McCulloch and Mem-
bers Rodgers and Fanning].
The Board has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner at
the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The
rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Interme-
diate Report, the exceptions and briefs, and the entire record in the
case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommenda-
tions of the Trial Examiner.'
ORDER
The Board adopts the Recommendations of the Trial Examiner.
1 As we find that Respondent's failure to recall Torick at the start of the 1961 season
was not in line with Respondent 's recall policy whether Torick was classified as a "tagger"
or a "bagger ," we shall dismiss the Charging Party' s motion , made in its brief, to correct
the record to show that Torick was actually classified as a "bagger "
INTERMEDIATE REPORT
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This case, with all parties representedby counsel , was heard before me at Newark,
New Jersey , on September 18 and 19, 1961 . The issues litigated were whether
Vargeo, Inc., hereinafter called the Respondent , violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3)
of the Act by the conduct described below.'
1 The charge in this matter was filed on June 14, 1961 Briefs , filed with the Trial
Examiner by the General Counsel and the Charging Party, have been considered
137 NLRB No. 1. 1
649856-63-vol 137-2
2 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Upon the entire record, and from my observation of the witnesses, I make the
following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
The Respondent is a New Jersey corporation with its principal office and place
of business in Union City, New Jersey, and a plant in Secaucus, New Jersey. It is
engaged in the manufacture, sale, and distribution of men's and women's knitwear
and related products.
During the past year the Respondent caused to be manufactured, sold, and dis-
tributed at said plants products valued at in excess of $50,000, of which products
valued at in excess of $50,000 where shipped from said plants in interstate commerce
.directly to States of the United States other than the State of New Jersey. The
.complaint alleges, the answer admits, and the Trial Examiner finds that the Respond-
ent is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Local 222, International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union, AFL-CIO, herein
called Local 222, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the
Act.
HI. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Background
The Respondent's business is seasonal, with the season commencing about May
and ending about November. Local 945, International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
has been the bargaining representative for the Respondent's employees since 1959.
As a result of a petition filed by Local 222, an election was conducted by the Board
on May 9, 1961. Local 945, the Intervenor, thereafter was certified as the bargain-
ing representative by the Board.
Kathleen Boldin, Gertrude Boldin, Concetta Brunelli, Eileen Torick, and Dorothy
Dwyer were all employed by the Respondent in 1960, and were all laid off in the
latter part of 1960 for lack of work The Respondent failed to rehire Kathleen
Boldin, Gertrude Boldin, Brunelli, and Torick at the start of the 1961 season, and
failed to pay Dwyer her holiday pay for Christmas 1960 and New Year's Day 1961
when she returned to work in 1961.
B. The failure to recall
Kathleen Boldin, Gertrude Boldin, Brunelli, and Torick became active adherents
of Local 222 after their layoff in 1960. John Miller, the Respondent's plant man-
ager, knew of their activity, as did Jennie Bitrttto, a forelady of the Respondent.
Kathleen Bolden, prior to her employment by the Respondent, attended school.
The school term started during early September and ended in June. Gertrude
Boldin, Kathleen's mother, was employed by the Respondent as a section head.
During July 1960 she told Bitritto that her daughter was looking for a job as she
was not returning to school, and that Kathleen would be 16 years of age on
August 12. Bitritto agreed to employ Kathleen.
Kathleen Boldin was hired as a floor girl by the Respondent on August 31, 1960.
For the most part she worked as a bagger until her layoff for lack of work about
the middle of October. About a month after she was hired she was required to join
Local 945. In March or April 1961, she received a letter from the Respondent in-
quiring as to whether she was interested in returning to work. Although she replied
that she was, she heard nothing further from the Respondent.2 She voted in the
election held by the Board on May 9, 1961.
During May 1961, the Respondent placed an advertisement in the Hudson
Dispatch for floor help. Kathleen Boldin read the ad, and as a result went to the
Respondent's plant some few days later or on or about May 17. She spoke to
Bitritto who told her that there was no work for her at that time but that she would
be called when there was.
During July 1961, Miller sent letters to Kathleen Boldin , Gertrude Boldin,
Brunelli, and Torick, requesting them to return to work.3 All but Gertrude Boldin
2 Gertrude Boldin , Brunelli, and Torick also received such letters from the Respondent
and heard nothing further after they had advised the Respondent that they wanted to
return to work.
3 Miller testified that he made the above offers of employment upon the advice of counsel
VARGEO, INC. 3
reported for work on July 31, 1961. Bitritto told Kathleen Boldin to work as a
tagger. When Boldin replied that she did not want to do that type of work for the
reason that she did not know how to do it, Bitritto assigned her to bagging. At the
time there were at least ,two employees who were bagging and who had been hired
during May and June 1961, namely, Beatrice Jones and Joyce Todesco. Boldin,
Jones, and Todesco were listed on the Respondent's "Seniority List as of July 29,
1961" under the classification of "Floor Help." Two other employees were hired
during May and June 1961 as floor help. In addition, the Respondent's seniority
list contains the names of two employees under the classification of "Bagger." One
of these employees, Florence Mae Olsen, was hired on May 17, 1961.
Gertrude Boldin began her employment with the Respondent in May 1959 as a
button girl. During June 1959 she became a bagger and worked at this job for
about 1 year. She also examined and tagged during this time. About June 1960,
Bitritto made her a section head of the Merrow department. She worked at this
job until her layoff for lack of work on or about December 2, 1960. At the time
of her layoff Bitritto told her that she would be recalled to work when five Merrow
operators were working.
During May 1961, when she saw the Respondent's advertisement for help in the
newspaper, Boldin called Bitritto and hold her that she would like to return to her
job as section head. Bitritto told her that there was no work for her at the time,
but that she would be called back when the plant got busy.
The record indicates that more than five Merrow operators were at work before
May 22, 1961. As stated above, Gertrude Boldin was recalled to work on July 31,
1961, but did not report.
Brunelli was hired as a tagger by Bitritto in March 1959. She worked as a tagger
for a few days and then was assigned to bagging. She worked as a bagger until
July 1960, at which time she was made section head of the cutting department. She
was working at this job when she was laid off for lack of work at the end of
December 1960.
During February and March 1961, Brunelli called Bitritto on several occasions
and asked her for work. On each occasion Bitritto told her that she had no work
available for her. When Brunelli read the Respondent's advertisement for floor help
in May, she again called Bitritto and inquired whether there was work for herself
and Torick. Bitritto replied that she did not have work for either of them, and that
she would contact them when the plant got busy.
When Brunelli returned to work on July 31, 1961, Bitritto told her that her
job as section head had been abolished, but that she should continue to perform the
same work as she had before her layoff, which was "distributing the work" to the
cutters.4 She worked at this job for only 1 day, and then was assigned to distributing
work to the "Singer operators."
Eileen Torick (Haflin) was hired as a floor girl by the Respondent in May 1959.
She worked as a tagger for about 2 months and then was assigned to bagging.
She was working at this job when laid off for lack of work about the middle of
December 1960.
When Torick returned to work on July 31, 1961, Bitritto assigned her to her "old
job" of bagging. As stated above in connection with the case of Kathleen Boldin,
during May and June 1961 the Respondent hired four new employees as "floor
help." At least two of these employees were bagging, as was Olsen, who also was
hired during May of 1961. In addition to these, both Torick and Kathleen Boldin
testified without contradiction that employee Eileen McClugage was performing
bagging work when they were recalled on July 31. McClugage had less seniority
than Torick, but more than Boldin. Torick was listed on the Respondent's seniority
list of July 29, 1961, as a "Tagger." In a seniority or eligibility list which was
submitted to the Board at sometime prior to the election held on May 9, 1961,
Torick was classified as a tagger.
Miller testified that the 1961 season was an "exceptionally" poor one; and that
the employees were not recalled until May or June, or about 2 or 3 months later
than usual. He testified, in substance, that it was the Respondent's practice in
recalling employees to "fill up the various departments as they are needed, going
down our seniority list," with seniority counting in the department only; that when
the seniority list is exhausted in a particular classification, the Respondent "usually"
advertises for help rather than offer jobs to unemployed employees in other job
classifications; and that when job classifications were abolished, the employees in-
volved were not recalled or offered jobs which paid a lower rate. Concerning
+ Brunelli testified that when she returned to work on July 31, she observed that Marion
Ciasca, a supervisory employee, was performing this work
4 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
baggers, he testified that there were two baggers on the seniority list (of July 29,
1961) ; that both of these employees were rehired; 5 that he did not recall any other
baggers being hired at the start of the season; and that the Respondent "probably"
did hire other baggers during June and July 1961.6 As for the recall of taggers in
1961, Miller testified that Fannie Bruzzelh, a section head during the 1960 season
whose job had been abolished, was recalled and made a tagger because she "had a
great deal of seniority . .. came around after pleading with us for work, because
not only she but her husband was very sickly"; that Torick, the only employee
listed on the seniority list as a tagger, was not recalled at the start of the season
for this reason; and that this was against the Respondent's usual custom and policy.
As for section heads, Miller testified that "in the beginning of the season," in order
to alleviate the poor economic situation, it was decided to "eliminate various section
head jobs and have individuals try to pick up the load," 7 that only those section heads
were recalled who could do the production work of the employees whom "they were
previously supervising"; that Brunelli was not recalled because she could not perform
as a cutter; that the section head of "brushing" was recalled because she was able
to perform the job of brushing; that as for the section head of pressing, "she was in
charge of not only the pressing department but also the department, what we call
assembly, when the work came back for dyeing, so we recalled her to do assembly";
that the section head of "looping" was recalled and "given a chance to learn a different
job which is called Rimoldi" because "the looping job in our plant was more or
less abolished"; that Bruzzelli, the section head for "buttons," was not recalled for
that department; 8 and that the section head of "Singer" who was unable to operate
a Singer machine was recalled for the reason that "she is the section head with the
lowest seniority [hired Januaiy 2, 1948] of any in the plant, and we felt that perhaps
she could handle both Merrow 9 and Singer, plus the fact you have to have a girl
there to cut ribbons for the Singer department and get them their supplies And
so we kept her on to try and do both jobs." Concerning the work of Brunelli when
she was recalled on July 31, 1961, Miller testified, "Concetta Brunelli, as I recall,
we just left on the floor, and Phyllis was quitting, Phyllis Fascio, who was the
section head [of Singer during 19601, so we immediately gave [Brunelli] the job as
section head if she wanted it in Singer, which she did accept at the time." He also
testified to the effect that Kathleen Boldin would not have been recalled except for
the advice of counsel and normally would not have been recalled "unless I was really
desperate for help" because of her poor record of attendance.1°
Bitritto testified at length concerning the reasons why Kathleen Boldin, Gertrude
Boldin, Brunelli, and Torick were not recalled at the start of the 1961 season. Ex-
cepting for Kathleen Boldin, her testimony was substantially the same as Miller's in
this connection. With respect to Kathleen Boldin, Bitritto testified to the effect that
Boldin was not recalled in 1961 because she was slow in her work and was absent
too much; that she complained to Gertrude Boldin, Kathleen's mother, about this,
telling her that if she expected her "to keep her there, she would have to improve"; ii
that about 2 or 3 weeks before Labor Day 1960 she told Kathleen that her work was
not good; 12 that thereafter her work improved only "slightly"; and that "being that
r, As stated above, the list shows that Olsen was a new employee who was hired on
May 17, 1961
8 As found above, four new employees who were classified as floor help on the seniority
list were hired during May and June.
7 Brunelli testified that when she was recalled on July 31, 1961, she observed Supervisor
Marion Ciasca performing the work that she formerly had done as section head of the
cutting department.
8 As related above, Bruzzelli was recalled for tagging The evidence discloses that she
was rehired on May 13, 1961.
8 As found above, Gertrude Boldin was section head of Merrow during the 1960 season
Boldin admitted that she was unable to perform the work of a Merrow operator
I5Kathleen Boldin testified that she did not "recall" taking any days off Gertrude
Boldin testified that her daughter was absent from work "maybe one or two days if she
was sick or something, she stayed home." The Respondent's records, which were received
in evidence, show that Kathleen Boldin was hired on August 31, 1960, a Wednesday
that she did not work over 8 hours a day ; and that her weekly hours were 23, 31, 31, 40,
391/._,, 39i/i and 388/1
11 Gertrude Boldin denied that Bitritto complained to her about her daughter's work,
and testified that about a week after Kathleen was hired Bitritto told her that Kathleen
was "doing very good " I credit Gertrude Boldin's testimony in this connection.
12 As found above, Boldin was hired on August 31, 1960. She denied that Bitritto
complained to her about her work. I credit her denial.
VARGEO, INC. ij
I had wasted four weeks already of [the Respondent's] money, and I knew it was
only going to be another couple of more weeks of this rush, I beared with her."
In its answer the Respondent states:
Its employees were recalled strictly in accordance with past practice and
seniority requirements of the Collective Bargaining Agreement in effect be-
tween the Respondent and the Collective Bargaining representative of its
employees.
The evidence clearly shows that the Respondent did not follow such practice, par-
ticularly in the cases of Kathleen Boldin and Torick. Both of these employees
actually were baggers, although one was classed as floor help and the other as a
tagger on the Respondent's seniority list. As found above, three employees were
hired in May and June 1961 who worked as baggers; and another employee with
less seniority that Torick was recalled as a bagger on June 24. However, accepting
the Respondent's classifications, the seniority list shows that the Respondent hired
four new employees as floor help during May and June 1961; 13 and that Torick was
the only employee classified as a tagger. Nevertheless, an exception admittedly was
made in the case of Bruzzelli, a section head whose job had been abolished. She
was recalled and given work as a tagger in place of Torick, contrary to the Re-
spondent's alleged policy. In addition to showing that the Respondent did not
follow the practice of seniority in the cases of Kathleen Boldin and Torick, in my
opinion the above facts put in question the Respondent's defense in the cases of
Gertrude Boldin and Brunelli.
The Respondent contends that it is its policy that when jobs are abolished, it does
not recall the employees involved or offer them other work. I am unable to believe
this testimony of Miller, especially in view of the exceptions made in the cases of
Bruzzelli, Ranuro, the section head of Looping, and Fascio, the section head of
Singer. Both Gertrude Boldin and Brunelli asked for work, as did Bruzzelli.14
However, Boldin and Brunelli, experienced workers and admittedly known leading
adherents of Local 222,15 were not offered work, whereas Bruzzelli, Ranuro, and
Fascio were made exceptions and retained. From this it appears that the only
section heads whom this alleged policy of the Respondent affected were Boldin and
Brunelli.
From the undisputed evidence there can be no doubt but that the 1961 season was
a poor one and was late in starting However, in my opinion, the General Counsel
made out a prima facie case, which the Respondent failed to rebut.16 Accordingly,
I find that the Respondent's defenses to the cases of Kathleen Boldin, Gertrude
Boldin, Brunelli, and Torick are mere pretexts; and that by failing to recall these
employees to work at the start of the 1961 season the Respondent discriminated
against them within the meaning of Section 8(a) (3) and (1) of the Act.
C. Dorothy Dwyer
Dwyer was hired by the Respondent on May 31, 1955, as a Merrow operator.
After her layoff in December 1960, she became active on behalf of Local 222. This
activity was known to the Respondent prior to the election held on May 9, 1961.
Dwyer was recalled to work on or about May 1, 1961. About this time Dwyer
got into a dispute with an assistant forelady about some work. Dwyer said to the
assistant forelady, in the presence of Bitritto, "Well, you don't have to try to get rid
of me in this way. When the election comes and if the ILG does not win, I'll not
be here."
The Respondent's contract with Local 945 17 contained a clause for paid holidays,
including Christmas Day and New Year's Day, provided "Employees must have
worked for the Company within thirty (30) days prior to the holiday." It was
stipulated by the parties that "Dorothy Dwyer did in fact work at least thirty days
prior to Christmas and New Year's in the year 1960."
11 Bitritto testified, contrary to the above, that no new floor help was hired during 1961.
"It is indicated that Faselo was not laid off during 1960, and that Ranuro was re-
called on March 25, 1961.
15 In her affidavit, dated June 26, 1961, Bitritto states, "I do recall having conversa-
tions with John Miller prior to the NLRB election this year during which time it was
mentioned that the girls who have not been recalled Boldin, Turak [sic] and Brunelli
were active for the ILGWU "
1e Since there are numerous contradictions and conflicts in the testimony and affidavits
of Bitritto, I do not regard her as a reliable or credible witness.
17 The contract was entered into on June 26, 1956, and had an expiration date of
March 16, 1961.
6 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
When Dwyer received her pay for the first week of work , she noticed that pay
for the two holidays had not been included. She called this to the attention of
the office , and was told that a mistake had been made and that she would receive
it the following week.
Dwyer voted in the election. At sometime prior to the election , Dwyer also told
Miller that she would quit her job if Local 222 lost the election . Dwyer quit her
job with the Respondent after the election . Thereafter , she returned to the plant to
get her pay. The holiday pay still was not included . She was told by an office
employee that "it was an oversight on ,their part" and that she should return the
following night . Dwyer returned to the plant the next night as directed, and had
a conversation with Miller. As to this conversation , Dwyer testified credibly as
follows:
. . . First he came to the office and he looked at me and said , "Dorothy, when
are you coming back to work9" . . . I said , "John , I'm not coming back to
work because my children eat twelve months a year , not six months." I said,
"With the Teamsters , I know I cannot get that kind of work."
He . said , "I hear you are here for your vacation pay?" I said, "John
I'm not here for my vacation pay because I left , but I am here for my holiday
pay that I feel I am entitled to."
He said, "You are not entitled to it because we have no union here ." I said,
"You are still governed by the rules of the old contract."
He said , "No, that's not true. You are not entitled to it."
Concerning the reason why Dwyer did not receive her holiday pay, Miller testified,
"She already told me she was leaving , and I felt I can't see why I should pay for holi-
day pay when a person is not coming back to work for me. She was leaving, leaving
our organization."
I believe and find that on the basis of the above facts the General Counsel has
failed to sustain the burden of proving that the Respondent failed and refused to pay
Dwyer holiday pay because of her activities on behalf of Local 222. Accordingly,
it will be recommended that this allegation of the complaint be dismissed.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
The activities of the Respondent set forth above, occurring in connection with its
operations described in section 1, above, have a close, intimate , and substantial re-
lation 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
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices, it will
be recommended that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative and
remedial action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. Having found that
the Respondent discriminatorily failed and refused to recall for employment Gertrude
Boldin , Kathleen Boldin , Concetta Brunelli, and Eileen Torick during the period
from the start of 1961 season 18 until July 31, 1961, I recommend that the Respondent
make them whole for any loss of pay each may have suffered by reason of said
discrimination by payment to each of them of a sum of money equal to that which
each would have earned as wages during the above period of time, less net earnings
during such period, in accordance with the formula set forth in F. W. Woolworth
Company, 90 NLRB 289. I further recommend that the Respondent , upon reason-
able request , make available to the Board and its agents all payroll and other records
pertinent to an analysis of the amount due in backpay.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record in the
case, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Vargeo, Inc., is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and
(7) of the Act.
IS The dates when these employees would have been recalled but for the discrimination
are not clearly established by the evidence since the Respondent's payroll records were
not adduced in evidence . This is so particularly in the cases of Gertrude Boldin and
Brunelli The Respondent 's "Seniority List as of July 29 , 1961" indicates the dates of
recall for Torick as May 13, 1961 , the date that Bruzzelli was recalled as a tagger, and
for Kathleen Boldin as May 17, 1961 , the date that Olsen was hired as a bagger
VARGEO, INC. 7
2. Local 222, International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union, AFL-CIO, is a
labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. By discriminatorily failing and refusing to recall for employment Kathleen
Boldin, Gertrude Boldin, Concetta Brunelli, and Eileen Torick, the Respondent has
engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(3) and (1)
of the Act, and thereby interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the
exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and conclusions of law, and upon
the entire record in the case, it is recommended that Vargeo, Inc., its officers, agents,
successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from discouraging membership in Local 222, International
Ladies' Garment Workers' Union, AFL-CIO, or in any other labor organization of
its employees, by failing and refusing to recall employees for employment or other-
wise discriminating in regard to their hire or tenure of employment, or any term or
condition of employment.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the Trial Examiner finds will ef-
fectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Make Kathleen Boldin, Gertrude Boldin, Concetta Brunelli, and Eileen
Torick whole in the manner set forth in the section above entitled "The Remedy."
(b) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the Board or its agents, for
examination and copying, all payroll records, social security payment records, time-
cards, personnel records and reports, and all other records necessary to analyze
the amount of backpay due under the terms hereof.
(c) Post at its plants in Union City and Secaucus, New Jersey, copies of the
notice attached hereto marked "Appendix." 19 Copies of such notice, to be furnished
by the Regional Director for the Twenty-second Region, shall, after being duly
signed by an authorized representative of the Respondent, be posted immediately
upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for a period of 60 consecutive days
thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees
are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to
insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
(d) Notify the Regional Director for the Twenty-second Region, in writing,
within 20 days from the date of the receipt of this Intermediate Report, what steps
the Respondent has taken to comply herewith.2°
It is further recommended that the complaint be dismissed insofar as it relates
to Dorothy Dwyer.
19 If these recommendations are adopted by the Board, the words "A Decision and
Order" shall be substituted for the words "The Recommendations of a Trial Examiner"
in the notice In the event that the Board's Order is enforced by a decree of a United
States Court of Appeals, there shall be substituted for the words "Pursuant to a Decision
and Order" the words "Pursuant to a Decree of the United States Court of Appeals,
Enforcing an Order "
20 If these recommendations are adopted by the Board, this provision shall be modified
to read: "Notify the Regional Director for the Twenty-second Region, in writing, within
10 days from the date of this Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply
herewith."
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the Recommendations of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor
Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, we hereby notify you that:
WE WILL NOT discourage membership in Local 222, International Ladies'
Garment Workers' Union, AFL-CIO, or in any other labor organization of
our employees, by failing and refusing to recall them for employment, or other-
wise discriminating in regard to their hire or tenure of employment or any
term or condition of employment.
WE WILL make Kathleen Boldin, Gertrude Boldin, Concetta Brunelli, and
Eileen Torick whole for any loss of earnings suffered by reason of
discrimination.
8 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
All our employees are free to become, remain, or refrain from becoming or
remaining members of any labor organization.
VARGEO, INC,
Employer.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------
(Representative) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof, and must not be
altered, defaced, or coveted by any other material.
Employees may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office (614
National Newark Building, 744 Broad Street, Newark, New Jersey; Telephone
Number MArket 4-6151) if they have any question concerning this notice or
compliance with its provisions.
United Wire and Supply Corporation and United Steelworkers
of America , AFL-CIO. Case No. 1-CA-3474. May 1, 1962
DECISION AND ORDER
On February 27, 1962, Trial Examiner Eugene E. Dixon issued his
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the
Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor
practices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and
take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the Intermediate Report
attached hereto. Thereafter, exceptions to the Intermediate Report
and supporting briefs were filed by the Respondent and the General
'Counsel.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the Act, the Board
has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member
panel [Members Leedom, Fanning, and Brown].
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made at
the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The
rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Inter-
mediate Report, the exceptions and briefs, and the entire record, and
hereby adopts the findings,' conclusions, and recommendations of the
Trial Examiner with the exceptions and modifications herein noted.
Contrary to the Trial Examiner,' we do not find that the Respondent
demoted and constructively discharged Subforeman Adams because
of his failure or refusal to follow orders and engage in the unlawful
surveillance of employee Squillante.
Upon the entire record, we are not satisfied that the General Counsel
has established by a preponderance of the evidence that Adams was
1 The General Counsel excepted to the Trial Examiner ' s failure to find that Supervisor
Rogers unlawfully interrogated employee Martin on May 15, 1961, and that Supervisor
Canario unlawfully threatened employee Squillante on May 22, 1961 These exceptions
appear to raise issues of credibility which were not resolved by the Trial Examiner. In
view thereof, and as the resolution of these issues would not affect the Order, we make no
findings of these matters
2 Member Brown would affirm the Trial Examiner 's findings and conclusions that
Respondent violated Section 8(a) (1) of the Act respecting Adams. He accordingly does
not join the majority 's reversal in this regard.
137 NLRB No. 2.