Winona Textile Mills, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 19, 1946

68 N.L.R.B. 702 (N.L.R.B. 1946)

In the Matter Of WINONA TEXTILE MILLS, INC. and INTERNATIONAL
LADIES' GARMENT WORKERS' UNION , A. F. OF L.
Case No. 18-C-1176.-Decided June 19, 1946
DECISION
AND
ORDER
On February 27, 1946, the Trial Examiner 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 that
it had not engaged in unfair labor practices by discharging Frances
Bolderman, and recommending that the respondent cease and desist from
engaging in the unfair labor practices, take certain affirmative action,
and that the complaint be dismissed as to Frances Bolderman, as set
forth in the copy of the Intermediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter,
the respondent filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and a support-
ing brief. The Union did not file exceptions.
Pursuant to notice and at the request of the respondent, the Board
scheduled an oral argument for May 7, 1946, at Washington, D. C.
Neither the respondent nor the Union appeared.
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 Intermediate
Report, the respondent's exceptions and brief, and the entire record in
the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommenda-
tions of the Trial Examiner, with the additions hereafter set forth:
We agree with the Trial Examiner that the respondent refused to
bargain in good faith with the Union as the representative of its em-
ployees, within the meaning of Section 8 (5) of the Act. The record
amply warrants this finding. We wish merely to emphasize the lack of
good faith evinced by the respondent during its bargaining conference
with the Union on October 6, 1945. The respondent insisted that the
Union withdraw its request for a union shop before the respondent
would discuss other demands concerning a wage increase, vacations, and
minimum hourly pay." The Union suggested that the parties tempo-
' A minor issue relating to sanitary improvements was disposed of at the outset of the
conference.
68 N. L R. B, No. 96.
702
WINONA TEXTILE MILLS, INC. 703
rarily by-pass the union-shop issue and discuss the remaining issues,
indicating that it might later withdraw the request for a union shop if the
other matters were satisfactorily settled. The respondent rejected this
procedure, insisting that the Union withdraw its request for the union
shop as a condition to further negotiation. We believe that the adamant
position thus taken by the respondent at this conference did not evidence
a bona fide attempt to come to an agreement with the Union, but on the
contrary, was calculated to prevent an agreement from being reached.
It is well settled that the Act obligates the employer to bargain in good
faith with the chosen'representative of a majority of his employees with
respect to all matters which affect their wages, hours of employment, and
working conditions. The collective bargaining process is inevitably one
of give and take in which each party gives in on certain demands and
positions in order to gain assent on others, thereby achieving a satisfac-
tory compromise. While the Act does not impose an obligation on an
employer to agree to a union 's demands, it does impose an obligation to
discuss any proper subject of collective bargaining in a good faith
effort to reach an agreement when requested to do so by the bargaining
representative. To say that an employer may require a union to sur-
render one demand as a condition to a discussion of its other demands,
is, obviously inconsistent with the unconditional obligation imposed by the
Act on an employer to bargain on request with respect to any proper
subject of collective bargaining. Such procedure would make impossible
the ordinary give and take which is the essence of collective bargain-
ing. The respondent's requirement at the conference that the Union
withdraw its proposal for a union shop as a condition to further bargain-
ing, plainly constituted a refusal to bargain in good faith as required
by the Act.
ORDER
Upon the entire record in the case and pursuant to Section 10 (c) of
the National Labor Relations Act, the National Labor Relations Board
hereby orders that the respondent, Winona Textile Mills, Inc., Winona,
Minnesota, and its officers, agents, successors, and assigns shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Discouraging membership in International Ladies' Garment
Workers' Union, affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, or
any other labor organization of its employees, by discriminating against
them in regard to the terms and conditions of employment of any of its
employees or by discriminating in any other manner in regard to their
hire and tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment;
(b) Refusing to bargain collectively with International Ladies' Gar-
ment Workers' Union, affiliated with the American Federation of Labor,
704 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOAR1)
as the exclusive representative of all the respondent's production and
maintenance employees, excluding clerical and supervisory employees
with the authority to hire, promote, discharge, discipline, or otherwise
effect changes in the status of employees, or effectively recommend such
action ;
(c) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, and coercing
its employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to form
labor organizations, to join or assist International Ladies' Garment
Workers' Union, affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, or
any other labor organization, to bargain collectively through repre-
sentatives of their own choosing and to engage in concerted activities,
for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protec-
tion 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) Upon request, bargain collectively with International Ladies'
Garment Workers' Union, affiliated with the American Federation of
Labor, as the exclusive representative of all the respondent's production
and maintenance employees, excluding clerical and supervisory employees
with the authority to hire, promote, discharge, discipline, or otherwise
effect changes in the status of employees, or effectively recommend such
action ;
(b) Make whole Ethel Bartz, Genevieve Dubiel, Betty Glowezewski,
Joseph Holzer, Audrey Katula, Christine Pampuch, Stella Pellowski,
Marion Skroch, Betty Stark, Laura Sternagle and Florence Verdick for
any loss of pay they may have suffered by reason of the respondent's
discrimination against them, by payment to each of them of a sum of
money equal to the amount which each normally would have earned as
overtime wages from August 25, 1945, to December 1, 1945, inclusive ;
(c) Post at its plant at Winona, Minnesota, copies of the notice
attached to the Intermediate Report, marked "Appendix B."2 Copies of
said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for the Eighteenth
Region, after being signed by the respondent's representative, shall be
posted by the respondent immediately upon the receipt thereof, and
maintained by it for sixty (60) consecutive days thereafter, in con-
spicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are cus-
tomarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the respondent to
insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other
material ;
3 Said notice, however, shall be, and it hereby is, amended by striking from the first para-
graph thereof the words "The Recommendations of a Trial Examiner" and substituting in
lieu thereof the words "A Decision and Order."
WINONA TEXTILE MILLS, INC. 705
(d) Notify the Regional Director for the Eighteenth Region in writ-
ing, within ten (10) days from the date of this Order what steps the
respondent has taken to comply therewith.
AND IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that the complaint, insofar, as it alleges
that the respondent, by discharging Frances Bolderman on September
26, 1945, has discriminated in regard to her hire or tenure of employ-
ment or any term or condition of her employment within the meaning
of Section 8 (3) of the Act, be, and is hereby dismissed.
INTERMEDIATE REPORT
Mr. Stanley D. Kane, for the Board.
Mr. H. M. Laimberton, Jr., of Winona, Minn, for the respondent.
Mr. Thomas 0. Kachelmacher, of Minneapolis, Minn., for the Union
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon a second amended charge duly filed on December 21, 1945, by International
Ladies' Garment Workers' Union, affiliated with the American Federation of
Labor, herein called the Union, the National Labor Relations Board, herein called
the Board, by its Regional Director for the Eighteenth Region (Minneapolis,
Minnesota), issued its complaint dated December 21, 1945, against Winona Textile
Mills, Inc., Winona, Minnesota, herein called the respondent, alleging that the
respondent had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices affecting
`,rmmerce within the meaning of Section 8 (1), (3), and (5) of the National
Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein called the Act. Copies of the complaint
and the second amended charge, together with notice of hearing thereon, were
duly served upon the respondent and the Union.
With respect to unfair labor practices the complaint, as amended at the hearing,
alleged in substance that the respondent: (1) on or about August 14, September 23,
and October 6, 1945, and continuously thereafter, refused to bargain collectively
with the Union as the exclusive representative of its employees in an appropriate
unit, although the Union has been the selected and designated representative of
such employees since August 14, 1945; (2) on August 25, 1945, discontinued its
practice of providing overtime employment, with the accompanying overtime pay,
for certain named employees' for the reason that the said employees had
joined and assisted the Union and had engaged in concerted activities for the
purpose of collective bargaining and other mutual aid and protection; (3) dis-
charged Frances Bolderman on or about September 26, 1945, and thereafter refused
to reinstate her, because she had joined and assisted the Union and had engaged
in concerted activities with her fellow employees for the purpose of collective
bargaining and other mutual aid and protection ; (4) at various times since
August 25, 1945, had (a) urged and warned its employees against joining or
assisting the Union, (b) advised, urged, and warned its employees against engaging
in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining and other mutual
aid and protection, (c) threatened to cease to operate its plant, or to move the
plant elsewhere, if the Union was selected as the collective bargaining represen-
tative of its employees or if the employees joined or assisted the Union, (d)
I Namely, Genevieve Dubiel, Marion Skroch, Florence Verdick, Christine Pampuch, Stella
Pellowski, Ethel Bartz, Betty Glowezewski, Laura Sternagle, Betty Stark, Joseph Holzer,
and Audrey Katula.
706 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
threatened to reduce its employees' work hours and to reduce the amount of their
wages if the Union was selected the collective bargaining representative of its
employees or if the employees joined or assisted the Union, (e) questioned its
employees about their union affiliations and activities; and (5) by these acts and
conduct interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of
the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
During the course of the hearing, the respondent filed an answer admitting
certain allegations of the complaint concerning its business activities but denying
the alleged unfair labor practices.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held in Winona, Minnesota, on January 22, 23,
and 24, 1946, before the undersigned, Howard Myers, the Trial Examiner duly
designated by the Chief Trial Examiner The Board, the respondent, and the
Union were represented by counsel and participated in the hearing. Full oppor-
tunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce
evidence bearing on the issues was afforded all parties At the close of the taking
of evidence, Board's counsel moved to conform the pleadings to the proof with
respect to minor matters, such as the correction of misspelled words, typographical
errors, and the like. The motion was granted without objection. Counsel for the
respondent then moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of proof. Decision thereon
was reserved. The motion is disposed of as hereinafter set out. Thereafter oral
argument, in which counsel for the Board and for the respondent participated, was
held and is part of the stenographic report of the hearing. The parties were then
advised that they might file briefs with the undersigned on or before February 7,
1946. A brief has been received from the respondent's counsel.
Upon the entire record in the case, and from his observation of the witnesses,
the undersigned makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
Winona Textile Mills, Inc., a Minnesota corporation , having its principal offices
and plant at Winona , Minnesota , is engaged in the manufacture , sale, and distribu-
tion of woolen and Merino yarns for the knitting and weaving trade In excess
of 95 percent of its 1945 purchases was shipped to its plant in Winona, Minnesota,
from points outside the State of Minnesota . During the same year , the respondent's
sales exceeded $200,000, of which more than 95 percent was shipped to customers
located outside the State of Minnesota.
At the hearing , the respondent conceded that it is engaged in commerce within
the meaning of the Act.
II THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union, affiliated with the American
Federation of Labor, is a labor organization admitting to membership employees
of the respondent.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Interference, restraint, and coercion
1. Sequence of events
On August 5, 1945, the Union commenced a campaign to organize the respondent's
employees . Among those with whom the Union's organizer , Annie Lee Hewett,
WINONA TEXTILE MILLS, INC. 707
spoke that day about organizing the plant was the respondent 's then shipping clerk,
Milton Berger. He refused to join but on the following day informed the re-
spondent 's secretary -treasurer and general manager, John E. Temple, that the
Union was attempting to organize the plant. According to Berger 's credible and
undenied testimony , Temple then said that , "there would be no God damn union
in his place ; he didn 't give a God damn what anybody said" and that if the Union
.,got in" the plant he would "close the place up."
By letter dated August 14 , 1945, the Union 's attorney informed the respondent
that the Union represented the maj ority of the employees and that it desired
to enter into collective bargaining negotiations with the respondent . The letter
also stated that Hewett was the Union 's Winona representative and that the
respondent should advise the attorney or Hewett when the respondent 's officials
would meet with the Union 's representatives . Instead of replying to this letter,
the respondent , on August 17, posted in the plant the following:
ANNOUNCEMENT TO THE EMPLOYEES OF THE
WINONA TEXTILE MILLS, INC.
During the present critical time, occasioned by the conversion of the country
from a War Time to a Peace Time basis, any change in the relationship
between the Mill's employees and the management would be particularly
unwise, in my opinion.
This plant has been and is now engaged in the production of civilian goods.
We have no war contracts subject to cancellation and therefore , have no recon-
version problems which ordinarily follow such cancellations. Price Controls
are, and will be in force for some time in Textiles, while all Manpower Controls
have been lifted-any one can change jobs now.
Wage Stabilization remains and the National War Labor Board is still in
control. This means that any increase in wages must be approved by the
National War Labor Board as in the past.
The Management has already appealed, on its own initiative , to this Board
twice, and in each case, has obtained raises in pay, fixed by the Board, for its
employees. It also requested permission to pay a bonus up to $200.00 but this
was denied; a bonus of $25 00 being authorized which was paid.
The National Labor Relations Act does not require the employees to organize,
it merely gives them the right to either join a national, local or particular
plant union or committee and bargain collectively if they choose
The Law does not require employees to organize; no more than it requires
an employer to operate his plant.
It has been held by the courts and it is the law that Congress, by passage
of this Act, did not compel an Employer to hire members of one union rather
than another union or union members rather than non-union members.
It is Not Necessary for any employee to join a union in order to work for
the Winona Textile Mills, Inc.
It has been our policy to pay overtime to our regular employees, rather than
to put on an additional shift, which would have been justified by the amount
of our orders, but would also have lowered the weekly earnings of many of
our employees. As you know, our policy in regard to overtime has always
been generous and favorable to the employee
In a small mill of this type, there being only 45 to 50 employees, including
foremen, the employer and employee are more closely thrown together than
in a large institution employing hundreds of thousands. This should make for,
and I hope it has, a more friendly relationship and better understanding. I have
696966-46-46
708 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
always tried, and I believe, succeeded in making myself accessible at all times,
both in my office and in the factory, to the employees. I have welcomed sugges-
tions and tried to iron out complaints. Having worked in a mill of this type
all of my life, over 40 years, and having performed as an employee, all the
various operations, I feel that I know both sides of the question (and most of
the answers.)
If any of the employees are dissatisfied with present conditions, I would be
glad to discuss the matter with them on our past friendly basis, without outside
interference, because I believe we know our own problems much better than
any strangers.
The Management makes this statement for the purpose of informing its
employees that it believes that in a small mill geographically located as we are,
membership of its employees in a union is not necessary or advantageous for
the continued progress, prosperity and security of both the employer and
employee; that we have been and will be perfectly capable of settling all our
problems locally without outside interference and control.
In closing, I desire to make the Management's position clear. While we
do not believe in unions in cases of this kind, it is solely up to the employees to
make the choice. The question of joining a union is one for the individual em-
ployee to decide. You have and always have had the right to organize You
should not be influenced by either threats or promises. You, and you alone,
have the right to choose. Neither the Management nor a paid organizer should
make your decision for you.
J. E. TEMPLE, Manager.
By notice dated August 23, 1945, the Respondent was notified by the Division
of Conciliation of the State of Minnesota, herein referred to as the Division of
Conciliation, that the Union had filed on August 22, a petition for Investigation and
Certification of Representation for Collective Bargaining, and of the fact that a
hearing would be held on August 29 next, to determine this issue. This notice was
received by the respondent on August 24, 1945.
For more than a year prior to August 25, 1945, the respondent had continuously
operated its carding and spinning departments on an overtime basis, affording the
employees in the spinning department an average of 8 hours per week of overtime
and those in the carding room an average of 14 hours, for which they were paid at
the customary overtime rate of time and one-half. On August 25, however, imme-
diately following the receipt of the notice of the pendency of the Union's petition
before the Division of Conciliation, without notice or explanation to the employees
and without any change in the respondent's operational demands, the respondent
discontinued all overtime work in the spinning department, in which the Union was
known by the respondent to have substantial representation, but continued the over-
time work in the carding department, where the employees were known by the
respondent to be opposed to the Union?
Pursuant to the aforesaid petition, the Division of Conciliation held a hearing
on August 29, 1945, which was attended and participated in by counsel for the
respondent and the Union. Thereafter the aforesaid agency determined that the
unit appropriate for collective bargaining consisted of all the respondent's produc-
tion and maintenance employees, exclusive of supervisory employees with authority
2 'Chile on the witness stand, Temple admitted that he knew that the Union had a sub-
stantial representation in the spinning department and that the card room employees had
told him that they were opposed to the Union.
WINONA TEXTILE MILLS, INC. 709
to hire and discharge and clerical employees On September 10, an election by
secret ballot was conducted under the auspices of the Division of Conciliation. The
Union won the election by a vote of 18 to 14. On September 14, the Division of
Conciliation certified the Union as the collective bargaining representative of the
employees in the unit found by that agency to be appropriate.
On September 11, the respondent posted in its plant the following notice:
ABSENTEEISM CREATES UNNECESSARY WASTE AND DELAY
NEEDLESSLY INCREASING THE COST OF PRODUCTION.
IN MOST CASES, THIS CAN BE AVOIDED OR MINIMIZED BY
NOTIFYING THE OFFICE IF YOU ARE NOT COMING TO WORK.
IF YOU ARE SICK OR CANNOT COME TO WORK FOR SOME
OTHER GOOD REASON, PLEASE CALL OR HAVE THE OFFICE
CALLED BY 9 A. M. OF THAT DAY. THE TELEPHONE NUMBER
IS 4869.
THE MANAGEMENT WILL AND MUST INSIST UPON YOUR
COOPERATION.
Board's counsel contended at the hearing that this notice was posted for the pur-
pose of defeating the Union 's organizational efforts and therefore violative of the
Act. The record does not support this contention. The credible evidence reveals
that the aforesaid notice was posted after a discussion on September 10, 1945,
between the respondent ' s attorney, the conciliator in charge of the aforesaid election
and Hewett wherein the respondent 's attorney explained that the large amount of
absenteeism among the respondent 's employees since V-E Day had been a source
of great concern to it, especially from a monetary standpoint ; that the conciliator
suggested posting a notice similar to the one above quoted ; that many employees
absented themselves from work during the summer of 1945, without permission and
without informing the plant that they would not be at work ; and that production
was adversely affected by such absenteeism . The undersigned is convinced, and
finds, that the posting of the notice was not inspired by any anti-union animus on
the part of the respondent , but that it was posted for legitimate business reasons and
was wholly justified.
According to the undemed and credible testimony of Berger , he had a conversa-
tion on September 11, 1945, with Temple wherein the result of the election held
the previous day was discussed and that Temple said "the Union had got 18 babies
to take care of and I got 14. I will take care of my 14, let the Union take care
of their 18."
The respondent 's officials and the Union 's representatives agreed to meet on
September 22, 1945, to negotiate a collective bargaining contract . This meeting,
however , was adjourned to October 6, at the Union 's request.
On September 26, the respondent discharged Frances Bolderman allegedly for
union activities . During the afternoon of that day, Hewett requested Temple to
discuss with her Bolderman ' s discharge . He refused to do so, saying there was
nothing to discuss . This discharge is more fully discussed below in Section III D
Hewett testified that during the course of the October 6 bargaining conference,
which was attended by five employees as well as representatives of the respondent
and the Union, the respondent 's spokesman attorney , H. M. Lamberton, Jr.,
threatened to move the plant to a town in the State of Ohio if the Union was
710 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
successful in unionizing the plants Lamberton testified that his remarks about
moving the plant were made in a facetious vein and that they were not made as a
threat. The undersigned rejects Lamberton's explanation and finds that he threat-
ened to move the plant if the employees unionized. This bargaining conference of
October 6, is more fully discussed, however, in Section III B hereof.
On October 18, 1945, the respondent mailed to each of its employees a letter,
copies of which were mailed to four officials of the Union, setting forth its version
of what took place at the October 6 meeting with the Union. One paragraph
of the letter reads as follows:
Annie Lee Hewett and the I L. G. Workers' Union have been in town now
for some time. Let's look at the record, as Al Smith used to say. What union
have they at the Winona Knitting Mills? Where is the original Northwest
Glove Company and the Local that was organized? Was there any contract
signed there? What happened to Stott & Son and what is the condition there
now? Last, but not least, what position are you and the Winona Textile Mills
in? It looks like we have company.
The record shows, and Temple admitted, that the Union attempted to organize
the plants named above, all of which are located in Winona, Minnesota, but its
organizational efforts were of no avail.
Employee Frances Kiekhoefer testified without contradiction, and the undersigned
finds, that on December 3, 1945, she had a conversation with the respondent's
attorney, Lamberton, wherein he accused her of being the Union's "ringleader."
She also testified, and the undersigned finds, that during the course of the con-
versation Lamberton asked her if the employees wanted to work overtime, with
the accompanying overtime pay; that she answered in the affirmative; that he then
said the employees "were horses' necks for doing the things [they] did on August
17th, because on the 18th [the respondent] could have done something for" them ;4
that "Temple was a bullheaded Scotchman ... he would never sign anything until
he knew" ; and that the respondent could sell "the machinery and the building too,
or else move to another town."
Sometime about the middle of December 1945, the respondent posted the fol-
lowing notice in the plant.
WAGE ANNOUNCEMENT
Believing that the large majority of our employees are not in favor of labor
trouble which would inevitably increase cost of production and result in un-
necessary loss to everyone concerned and in an effort to cooperate with
President Truman & the Federal Govt's expressed policy. The management
will grant pay raises of 5c per hour throughout the mill commencing Dec. 3.
All new employees will start at 45c per hr. for an initial three-month train-
ing or probation period. If prior to or at the end of this 3-month period, the
Hewett's testimony on this topic is as follows:
He (Lamberton) said. It came up in the discussion, everything was peaceful and nice
and everybody had been happy until I came into town and stirred up trouble among the
people. He said that they wasn't going to have any labor trouble, it was too costly. And
Mr. Perlstein (the Union's vice president ) said it was costly to us too. He (Lamberton)
said if they want a union , there is nothing to keep us from moving out. There is'a town
in Ohio where the Chamber of Commerce would give them a building and set them up
there. So Mr. Perlstein said there is nothing to keep us from hiring a railroad car and
moving the girls up there too , if they wanted to move out of town.
On August 18, 1945, the Winona , Minnesota , newspaper carried the announcement that
"ceilings" on wages had been lifted the previous day.
WINONA TEXTILE MILLS, INC. 711
worker shows satisfactory interest; aptitude & skill in the work, he or she will
be raised 5c per hr or will be dropped from the payroll and on or before the
expiration of an additional or final 3 month training period, if the worker
shows satisfactory progress he or she will receive an additional 5c per hr. or
will be dropped from the payroll
In the event that the management decides to put on a nite shift nite workers
will be paid an additional 5c per hr. Should the management decide a Christmas
bonus is warranted, such bonus will be based on the employees total earnings
for the last half of the year.
In an effort to promote increased unity & harmony in the mill, the manage-
ment will appreciate any suggestions or complaints, from the employees. These
may be made either personally or in writing, signed or unsigned.
2. Concluding findings
As found above, the efforts to unionize the employees were started by the Union
in August 1945 The respondent's disapproval was first publicized on August 17,
when Temple announced to the employees, a day or two after the respondent re-
ceived the Union's letter of August 14, stating that it represented the majority of
the employees, "any change in the relationship between the Mill's employees and
the management would be particularly unwise" and that if "any of the employees
are dissatisfied with present conditions, I would be glad to discuss the matter with
them on our past friendly basis, without outside interference, because I believe we
know our own problems much better than any strangers."
In drafting the announcement, the respondent appears to have attempted to keep
its language within the area of protection as free speech that was indicated in the
American Tube Bending case,5 and to avoid obvious threats of reprisals. It will
be noted, however, that, without direct connection with any of the other subject
matter of the announcement, the respondent devotes a separate paragraph to the
fact that the respondent has customarily allowed the employees to work overtime
when it could have deprived them of such increased income by hiring additional
help. By such a reference, the respondent was placing its finger on the employees'
most vulnerable spot and, in effect, saying, "Mere is where we can hurt you." Of
course, standing alone, this reference might not be objectionable; but, when viewed
and considered with the fact that about a week later the respondent did, in fact,
discontinue overtime for the department in which the Union predominated but
failed to disturb the overtime practice in the department where it was known the
Union had little or no standing, the covert threat of reprisal is revealed. Moreover,
the announcement also stated that the "law does not require employees to organize;
no more than it requires an employer to operate his plant." This statement, coming
as it did upon the heels of Temple's remark to Berger on August 6 that "there
would be no God damn union in his plant ; he didn't give a God damn what
anybody said" and that if the Union was successful in unionizing the plant he would
"close the place up," pointedly sought to impress upon the employees generally the
futility of organization This is especially true since Lamberton on October 6 and
again December 3 reiterated Temple's threat to close the plant and move to Ohio.
The communications addressed to the employees in the American Tube Bending
case were, as the Court carefully pointed out, isolated utterances by the employer
against unions, wholly divorced from "a history of anti-union activity" and in
themselves devoid of any "intimation of reprisal" against those employees who
favored unions. The record in that case, the Court stated, contained nothing but
5 N. L. R. B. v. American Tube Bending Co., 134 F. (2d) 993 (C. C. A. 2).
712 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
"the letter and speech [of the employer ] together with the occasion-a coming
election-on which they were uttered." The Court , relying upon the N. L. R. B. v.
Virginia Electric case, 314 U. S. 469 , concluded that since the message was in
itself free from "intimation of reprisal" and had not been delivered against a back-
ground of anti-union activity from which the Board might have drawn the inference
that the message conveyed at least "a covert threat to recalcitrans ," it was privi-
leged as free speech . Little elaboration is required to show why the American Tube
Bending case is not here controlling . What was lacking in that case is here plainly
to be found . The announcement of August 17 followed Temple's August 6 threat
to close the plant if the Union succeeded in organizing the employees and his
threat to discontinue overtime work was carried out in the department where the
Union was known to have substantial representation . So viewed , as it must be,
in this context, the announcement amounted to more than an attempt to persuade
by an appeal to reason . As part of the respondent 's pattern of anti -union activities,
the announcement intimated to the employees a covert threat of reprisal6 Accord-
ingly, it exceeded the permissable limits of free speech and constituted a threat to
invoke economic sanctions against those who joined or remained members .of the
Union . The announcement , moreover , was but a part and parcel of the respondent's
general program of interference and restraint of the employees ' efforts to effect
organization which is further evidenced by (1) Temple 's remarks to Berger on
August 6, 1945, that "there would be no God damned union come in his place" ;
(2) discontinuing the overtime work in the department which the respondent knew
had been substantially unionized while continuing overtime work in the department
not unionized ; (3) granting a wage increase in December 1945, without first con-
sulting with the Union , the collective bargaining representative of the employees,
with respect thereto; (4) Lamberton's anti-union remarks to employee Kiekhoefer
on December 3, 1945; ( 5) Lamberton's threat at the October 6, 1945, conference
to move the plant to another State if the employees unionized ; and (6 ) refusing to
bargain collectively with the Union , as hereinafter found. Upon the basis of the
above findings and upon the entire record , the undersigned finds that the respondent
has interfered with, restrained , and coerced its employees in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.7
B. The refusal to bargain collectively
with the Union
1. The appropriate unit
The complaint alleged and the answer admitted that all the employees of the
respondent, excluding supervisory and office employees, constitute a unit appro-
priate for the purposes of collective bargaining. At the hearing, however, the
respondent took the position that the card room employees should be excluded from
the appropriate unit on the ground that these employees were skilled workers and
the employees in the other departments were not. On August 29, 1945, pursuant to
The undersigned has considered the statements contained in Temple 's announcement that
the employees had a right to join any union they wanted and also his protestations of neutral-
ity, but finds , in line with the commenfs above set out, that they are insufficient to counteract
the coercive nature and effect of Temple's other statements and conduct.
° See N L R. B. v. Virginia Electric and Power Co., 314 U. S 469; N. L R. B v.
M E Blatt Co , 143 F (2d) 268 (C C. A. 3), cert . denied 323 U S. 774, Elastic Stop Nut
Corp v. N. L R B , 142 F. (2d) 371 (C C A 8), cert . denied 323 U. S. 722; N L R B. v.
Lasster-Kaufmann Aircraft Corp., 144 F. (2d) 9 (C. C. A. 8); N. L. R B v Trojan Powder
Co , 135 F (2d) 337 (C C. A. 3), cert denied 320 U. S 768; N. L R B. v. Federbuslt Co,
121 F. (2d) 954, 957 (C C. A. 2). Cf. Thomas v. Collins, 323 U. S. 516.
WINONA TEXTILE MILLS, INC. 713
notice, the Division of Conciliation of the State of Minnesota held a hearing for
the determination of a collective bargaining representative for the respondent's
employees. The respondent and the Union, the petitioner in the matter before the
aforesaid agency, appeared and participated in the said hearing. Thereafter the said
agency determined that all the respondent's production and maintenance employees,
exclusive of clerical employees and supervisory employees with authority to hire
and discharge, constitute a unit for the purposes of collective bargaining and
rejected the contention of the respondent herein and that the card room employees be
excluded. On September 10, 1945, a secret ballot election was conducted by the said
agency, which election the Union won and the Union was, on September 14, 1945,
certified by the Division of Conciliation as the collective bargaining representati" e
for the employees in the aforesaid unit. No exception to the determination of
certification was filed by the respondent.
It was the testimony of Temple that the entire process of manufacture is a
continuous and integrated one. It starts with the picking and blending of the wool
which then goes to the carding machines where it is converted into very loose yarn
or roving. From that point the roving goes to the spinners and other processes by
which the carded wool is converted into yarn. In view of the integration and con-
tinuity of plant operation and processes, the undersigned likewise rejects the re-
spondent's contention and finds that the card room employees are part of the
appropriate unit. Accordingly, the undersigned finds that all the respondent's pro-
duction and maintenance employees, excluding clerical employees and supervisory
employees with authority to hire, promote, discharge, discipline, or otherwise effect
changes in the status of employees, or effectively recommend such action, at all
times material herein constituted, and now constitute, a unit appropriate for the
purposes of collective bargaining with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of
employment, and other conditions of employment, and that the said unit insures to
the employees of the respondent the full benefit of their right to self-orgamza-
tion and collective bargaining and otherwise effectuates the policies of the Act.
2. Representation by the Union of a majority
in the appropriate unit
At a secret ballot election conducted by the Division of Conciliation of the State
of Minnesota on September 10, 1945, the Union was designated by a majority of
the employees who participated in the said election Accordingly, on September 14,
1945, the aforesaid agency certified the Union as the exclusive representative of
the respondent's employees in the appropriate unit. At the hearing herein, there
was introduced in evidence by Board's counsel a list prepared by the respondent
containing the names of all the respondent's employees in the unit hereinabove
found appropriate. The list shows that on August 14, 1945, the respondent had in
its employ 40 persons in the said unit.8 On behalf of the Board there were offered
and received in evidence 31 signed cards expressly authorizing the Union to repre-
sent the signers for collective bargaining The genuineness of the signatures on
the cards was in some instances proved directly by the testimony of the signers
and in some instances by witnesses to the signatures Counsel for the respondent
was afforded an opportunity to check the names appearing on the cards against
the respondent's records. The authenticity of the signatures on the cards was not
challenged.
9 The list also contains the names of William Harter and Rudolph Kurth. Admittedly, these
persons are supervisory employees within the meaning of the Act and hence are excluded
from the unit.
714 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The undersigned has compared the names appearing in the aforesaid cards with
the list submitted by the respondent and received in evidence as a Board exhibit
and finds that as of August 14, 1945, 27 employees in the appropriate unit had
signed cards designating the Union as their collective bargaining representative .9
The undersigned accordingly finds that on August 14, 1945, and at all times there-
after, the Union was the duly designated collective bargaining representative of
the respondent's employees in the unit found appropriate. Pursuant to Section 9 (a)
of the Act, the Union was, therefore, the exclusive representative of all the
employees in such unit for the purpose of collective bargaining in respect to rates
of pay, hours of employment, and other conditions of employment.
3. The refusal to bargain
As found above, pursuant to agreement the respondent's officials, the Union's
representatives, and five employees met on October 6, 1945, for the purpose of
discussing a collective bargaining contract. The Union spokesman, Meyer Perlstein,
opened the discussion with a brief resume of the history of the Union and then
presented the following demands :10
A straight increase of 150 per hour for the more experienced workers.
Two weeks' paid vacation for all employees of over 5 years, and one weeks'
paid vacation for all employees of over 1 year.
A Union Shop, all production workers must join the Union within 30 days
of employment. (This is what is commonly called a "Closed Shop," in other
words, if the employee isn't a member of the Union, he cannot work until he
joins.)
A minimum wage of 550 per hour after 6 months experience and time and
one-half for overtime and double time for Sundays and Holidays Of course,
he intimated that the 150 per hour increase was not final and that he would
reduce that amount.
The minor condition was that the toilets were not sanitary, and in order to
protect the health of the female workers, sanitary improvements would have to
be made.
The parties conferred for about 50 minutes, the greater portion of which time
was consumed in a discussion regarding the Union's demand for a union shop. The
respondent 's spokesman , Lamberton, maintained throughout the conference that
the union shop issue must be disposed of before he would discuss the other
demands 11 on the ground that the respondent had been reliably informed that its
card room employees were neither members, nor desirous of becoming members,
of the Union.
Perlstein, on the other hand, attempted to persuade Lamberton to discuss the
other demands first and leave the issue of the union shop for later discussion.
Perlstein also indicated that the union shop demand might be withdrawn or com-
promised if the respondent agreed to the other demands. Lamberton, however, was
adamant in his refusal to discuss the other demands until the Union withdrew its
demand for a union shop. This the Union refused to do. Each time Perlstein
attempted to discuss the demand for wage increases or the other demands, Lam-
9 One card was signed on August 6, 1945 ; four on August 7, 1945; five on August 8, 1945;
fourteen on August 9, 1945; one each on August 10, 11, and 12, 1945, respectively.
10 Quoted from the respondent's letter of October 18, 1945, addressed to its employees and
explaining the conference of October 6.
1i The demand with reference to the unsanitary condition of the toilets was settled at the
very outset of the conference when the respondent agreed to have this condition investigated,
and if the toilets were , in fact , unsanitary to have the condition remedied forthwith.
WINONA TEXTILE MILLS, INC. 715
berton stated that his answer to those demands was "No" unless the union shop
demand was disposed of to his satisfaction Lamberton also refused to submit
counter-proposals when requested to do so by Perlstein The conference concluded
when Perlstein suggested that Lamberton give more thought to the matter. Within
about 10 minutes of the conclusion of the conference, Lamberton telephoned to
Perlstein and stated that his answer to all the Union's demands was "No" Later
that day, the respondent sent Perlstein a letter reading as follows
Confirming our telephone conversation of 12 o'clock noon of today in regard
to the demands made by you at the meeting between you and your committee
members and myself and J. E. Temple, I desire to state that since you refuse
to give us an answer on whether or not you will require a Closed Shop, our
answer to your various demands is no.
It is clear from the above recital of facts that the respondent and the Union
had reached an impasse on the union shop issue. The Act, of course, does not
require an employer to agree to any particular demand so long as he negotiates
with the representatives of his employees in good faith. On the subject of a demand
for a union shop the employer may reject the demand but the fact that such a
demand has been made does not entitle him to refuse to bargain on other matters
until the Union has accepted his refusal and withdrawn its demand as he did here.
Under the Act, the respondent was obliged to bargain with the Union as the
representative of its employees with respect to the other demands submitted by the
Union at the October 6 conference Lamberton not only refused to discuss the
other demands but also failed to indicate that he might consider a contract which
did not contain a union shop provision or to offer any counter-proposal The evidence
clearly establishes that the respondent's attitude goes beyond an unwillingness to
sign a union shop contract. In fact, the respondent's actions throughout, particu-
larly the invitation to its employees to present their grievances "without outside
interference, because . . . we know our own problems much better than any
stranger-," its refusal to discuss Bolderman's discharge with Hewett, and the
granting of a general wage increase in December 1945, without first consulting
the Union, do not evidence a bona fide attempt on the part of the respondent to
come to an agreement with the Union Despite Perlstein's insistence to leave the
union shop issue in abeyance until after all the other issues had been disposed of
and despite the fact that Perlstein indicated that that issue might be settled by
compromise or withdrawn entirely, Lamberton declined to discuss any of the other
proposals until the Union withdrew its demand for a union shop By so doing the
respondent refused to discuss or negotiate all the bargainable matters, which
obligation the Act imposes upon an employer.
The undersigned finds that on October 6, 1945, and at all times thereafter, the
respondent refused to bargain collectively with the Union as the representative of its
employees in the appropriate unit and thereby interfered with, restrained, and
coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the
Act.
C. The discontinuance of overtime work for
the spinning department employees
The complaint alleged that on or about August 25, 1945, the respondent discrim-
inatorily discontinued overtime work, with the accompanying overtime pay, in the
spinning department thereby causing financial loss to 11 named employees The
answer denied this allegation. At the hearing, the respondent contended that over-
time work in the spinning department was discontinued solely at the request of
Hewett.
716 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The credible evidence reveals that for a period of a year or more prior to
August 25, 1945, the respondent operated its carding and spinning departments on
an overtime basis thereby affording to the employees in such departments an aver-
age of 14 and 8 hours per week of overtime, respectively, for which they were
paid at the customary rate of time and one half. On August 24, however, imme-
diately following the receipt of the notice of the pendency before the Division
of Conciliation of the State of Minnesota of the Union's petition for certification
as the collective bargaining representative of the employees here involved, the
employees in the spinning department were notified that there would be no work
the following day, which was a Saturday.12 The spinning department employees,
except for the Saturday immediately preceding Christmas Day 1945, have not
worked overtime since Thursday, August 23, 1945.13
The respondent's contention that it discontinued the overtime work in the spinning
department at the request of Hewett, who, it contended, informed Temple and
Lamberton on August 29, 1945, that none of the respondent's employees desired to
work overtime, is not supported by the record for the following reasons : (1) On
August 24, Temple told Berger that he had been advised by Lamberton to discon-
tinue all overtime work for the spinning department employees; (2) Temple in-
structed Berger on August 24, to inform Employee Holzer, who was not at work
that day, that there would be no overtime work the following day, (a Saturday) ;
(3) the employees of the spinning department were notified on August 24, that
there would be no work for them the following day (a Saturday) ; (4) on August
27 and again on August 28 the employees of the spinning department were notified
that they were to work 8 hours only and that there would be no overtime on
those days nor any thereafter; (5) Hewett did not state to any representative
of the respondent that the employees did not want to work overtime ;14 (6) the
overtime work had been discontinued several days prior to the August 29 meeting
with Hewett which the respondent states afforded the basis for its decision to dis-
continue overtime;15 and (7) the overtime work was discontinued despite the fact
that the respondent had sufficient orders and sufficient stock on hand to continue
to supply overtime work to the spinning department employees until at least the
early part of December 1945
32 The rerpendent's policy of overtime work was for the employees to work 9 hours per
day, in'tead of 8, on Mondays through Thursdays, 8 hours on Fridays, and from 8 a. in. to
12 noon on Saturdays The employees were paid time and one-half for all work performed
beyond 8 hours per day and for the time worked on Saturdays, irrespective of whether they
worked 40 hours a week or not.
i3 The employees listed in "Appendix A", who constitute the spinning group, and the
employees in the picking and carding departments were the only ones who operated on a
consistent overtime basis. The - others, including common labor and the employees in the
winding, twisting, and reeling groups worked overtime only occasionally. With the elimination
of overtime for the spinning department, overtime for the others, except for those in the
carding department, was automatically suspended, but since their overtime was sporadic and
infrequent, and since such of those employees as testified asserted that they did not regard
the elimination of overtime as having any effect on their pay, no consideration has been given
herein to any but those to whom overtime had become a regular and substantial part of then pay.
24 In answer to a question put to Lamberton while lie was on the witness stand as to
whether Hewett requested the discontinuance of the overtime work, Lamberton testified "No,
she said we want to get enough money so we don't have to work overtime. She wanted a raise
in wages "
15 On November 21, 1945, Temple wrote the Board's Field Examiner, who was investigating
the charge filed herein, in part as follows
After the statement of the Organizer, Annie Lee Hewett on August 29th to the effect
that overtime was not wanted by the employees, we discontinued working the Spinning
Department overtime . There are 8 spinners and 2 helpers in this Department . Joe Holzer
was one of the helpers, helping supply the girls with roving and taking away the bobbins
WINONA TEXTILE MILLS, INC. 717
Temple testified that when he returned to Winona early in December from the
trip mentioned in his letter referred to in the foregoing footnote, the stock on
hand necessary to fill the pending orders had been depleted to such an extent that
he could not give overtime work to the spinning department employees and that
that same situation existed at the time of the hearing herein. This testimony,
which is uncontroverted , is credited and it is found that beginning December 1,
1945, and continuing up to the date of the hearing, the respondent has had no
occasion to employ the spinning department personnel on an overtime basis, and
that a discontinuance of the practice on that date would have been in the normal
course of business.
The undersigned is convinced , and finds, that the purpose of discontinuing over-
time work for the spinning department employees, following as it did upon the
heels of the respondent's threat to impose such a penalty, was to demonstrate to
the employees the position that could arise from union organization, to influence
the pending election, and to discourage adherence to the Union. The discontinuance
of the overtime work was therefore a reprisal intended to demonstrate to the
employees that the designation of a bargaining representative would result in
financial loss to them.
The undersigned finds that by the discontinuance of the overtime work for the
spinning department employees, the respondent has discriminated against all the
employees in that department, as a group, as against the employees in the carding
department for the purpose of discouraging membership in the Union and has
thereby interfered with, restrained , and coerced its employees in the exercise
of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
D. The discharge of Frances Bolderman
Bolderman was first employed by the respondent in or about April 1943 She
signed a card on August 8, 1945, designating the Union as her bargaining represen-
tative. Thereafter, she attended union meetings The respondent knew on August
29, 1945, that Bolderman had signed a designation card because it was shown to
Temple and Lamberton that day.
The complaint alleged that Bolderman was discharged on September 26, 1945,
in violation of the Act. The respondent contended that she was discharged
because she absented herself from the plant on the afternoon of September 24,
and all day on September 25, without permission and without informing the plant
of her intended absence, in violation of its rules.
Between V-E Day and September 11, 1945, the large amount of absenteeism
among the respondent's employees was a problem of great concern to the respon-
dent ; the notice posted by the respondent on September 11, 1945, calling to the
employee's attention that the management would insist that absenteeism cease, was
not posted because of the respondent's animus for the union; and since the posting
containing the spun yarn after they had completed them, and doing other odd jobs As we
informed you, it is not necessary for us to work this Spinning Department overtime, and
we thought , by doing so , we were helping the employees, until we were informed to the
contrary on three different occasions listed herein . But, since this Union or some of its
members complained that our discontinuance of overtime in this Department was unfair
and an attempt to coerce the workers , we will again put the Spinning Department on an
overtime basis , and Holzer will be employed again as a helper during this overtime work
while the machines are in operation.
* * * * *
The writer is leaving the city on business Thursday, November 22nd, and will not
return to the city until December 1st , when this change will be made, since it is neces-
sary for him to be here in order to supervise same.
718 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
of the notice, the plant has been functioning more smoothly because of the
reduction of absenteeism. In addition, it has been established that on September 11
or 12, 1945, Bolderman said to several employees who were reading the notice about
absenteeism "To hell with that."
On September 24, 1945, Bolderman left the plant at the lunch hour1e and went
directly home because she was ill. She did not inform anyone before leaving the
plant that she was ill or that she did not intend to return to the plant after lunch.
Upon arriving home, Bolderman took some medication, went to bed, and then slept.
At about 1:15 p. m she was awakened by the ringing of the telephone in the home
and answered it. Still feeling ill, after answering the telephone call, she again
went to bed and to sleep. She remained in bed until the morning of September 26.
Upon arriving at the plant that morning Bolderman was informed by her fore-
man that she was discharged for remaining away from the plant without permis-
sion and without notification.
The credible evidence supports the respondent's contention that Bolderman was
discharged for failing to report her absence. She admitted that in the past it
had been her practice to report her absence or intended absences. Bolderman lived
with her husband who could have, and should have, reported to the respondent
that his wife was ill This he failed to do Furthermore, one of the employees
visited Bolderman's home during the evening of September 24 but Bolderman
did not request this employee to inform the respondent that she would not be at
work the following day, although Bolderman admitted that on at least one
occasion prior to September 24, she requested this employee to report that she
would not report to work the following day. Bolderman's husband came home
at noontime on September 24, but Bolderman admittedly did not ask him to report
her absence. The undersigned is convinced, and finds, that Bolderman was dis-
charged for cause and not for the reason alleged in the complaint. This finding
is buttressed by the fact that in November 1945, the respondent discharged a
non-union employee because he remained away from the plant without permis-
sion and without notification. Accordingly, the undersigned will recommend that
the allegations of the complaint with respect to Bolderman be dismissed.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR
PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the respondent set forth in Section III above, occurring in
connection with the operations of the respondent described in Section I above, have
a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the
several States, and such of them as have been found to be unfair labor practices
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, the
undersigned will recommend that the respondent cease and desist therefrom and
take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
Having found that the respondent has discriminated in regard to the terms and
conditions of employment of the persons whose names appear on "Appendix A"
attached hereto, constituting the spinning department as a group, the undersigned
will recommend that the respondent make those 11 persons whole for any loss
of pay they may have suffered by reason of the respondent's discriminatory dis-
continuance of the overtime work for its spinning department employees on August
16 The lunch hour is from 22 noon to 1 p. m.
WINONA TEXTILE MILLS, INC. 719
25, 1945, by payment to each of them a sum of money equal to the amount which
each would normally have earned as overtime wages from August 25, 1945, to
December 1, 1945, inclusive, the date on which overtime work would have ceased
in the regular course of business because of the lack of material on hand.
Having found that the respondent has refused to bargain collectively with the
Union as the exclusive representative of its employees in an appropriate unit, the
undersigned will recommend that the respondent, upon request, bargain collectively
with the Union.
The scope of the respondent's illegal conduct discloses a purpose to defeat self-
organization among its employees As soon as the respondent learned of the union
activities of its employees it sought to coerce them in the exercise of the rights
guaranteed them in the Act by warning them, in effect, that their adherence to
the Union would result in loss of employment, by making other derogatory state-
ments with respect to the Union; by discriminatorily discontinuing overtime work
for the spinning department employees thereby causing those employees financial
losses; by refusing to bargain collectively with the Union; by granting the uni-
lateral general wage increase in December 1945, and by threatening to close its plant
or to move it elsewhere if the Union were successful in organizing the employees.
Such conduct, which is specifically violative of Section 8 (1), (3), and (5) of
the Act, reflects a determination generally to interfere with, restrain , and coerce its
employees in the exercise of the right to self-organization, to form, )oin 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, and prevents a ready and effective
means of destroying self-organization among its employees Because of the
respondent's unlawful conduct and since there appears to be an underlying attitude
of opposition on the part of the respondent to the purposes of the Act to protect
the rights of employees generally,17 the undersigned is convinced that if the re-
spondent is not restrained from committing such acts, the danger of their
commission in the future is to be anticipated from the respondent's conduct in
the past, and the policies of the Act will be defeated. In order, therefore, to make
effective the interdependent guarantees of Section 7 of the Act, to prevent a re-
currence of unfair labor practices, and thereby minimize industrial strife which bur-
dens and obstructs commerce, and thus effectuate the policies of the Act, the
undersigned will recommend that the respondent cease and desist from in any
manner infringing upon the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
By discharging Frances Bolderman on September 26, 1945, the respondent did
not violate the Act, and accordingly the undersigned will recommend that the
complaint, as amended at the hearing, be dismissed as to Frances Bolderman.
On the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record in
the case, the undersigned makes the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union, affiliated with the American
Federation of Labor, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5)
of the Act.
2 All production and maintenance employees, excluding clerical and super-
visory employees with authority to hire, promote, discharge, discipline, or other-
wise effect changes in the status of employees, or effectively recommend such action
17 See May Department Stores Company, etc. v N L R B, 326 U. S. 376.
720 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining, within the
meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
3. International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union, affiliated with the American
Federation of Labor was on August 14, 1945, and at all times thereafter, the
exclusive representative of all the employees in the aforesaid unit for the purposes
of collective bargaining, within the meaning of Section 9 (a) of the Act.
4. By refusing, on October 6, 1945, and at all times thereafter, to bargain col-
lectively with International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union, affiliated with the
American Federation of Labor, as the exclusive representative of all of its
employees in the appropriate unit, the respondent has engaged in and is engaging
in unfair labor practices, within the meaning of Section 8 (5) of the Act.
5. By discriminating in regard to the terms and conditions of employment of
the 11 persons whose names appear upon Appendix A, attached hereto, thereby
discouraging membership in International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union, affil-
iated with the American Federation of Labor, the respondent has engaged in and
is engaging in unfair labor practices, within the meaning of Section 8 (3) of the
Act.
6. 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
and is engaging in unfair labor practices, within the meaning of Secton 8 (1)
of the Act.
7. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting
commerce, within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act
8. By discharging Frances Bolderman on September 26, 1945, the respondent did
not violate the Act.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the
undersigned recommends that the respondent , Winona Textile Mills., Inc ., Winona,
Minnesota , its officers , agents, successors, and assigns shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Discouraging membership in International Ladies' Garment Workers'
Union, affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, or any other labor
organization of its employees by discriminating against them in regard to the terms
and conditions of employment of any of its employees or in any other manner
discriminating in regard to their hire and tenure of employment or any term or
condition of employment;
(b) Refusing to bargain collectr ely with International Ladies' Garment
Workers' Union , affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, as exclusive
representative of all the respondent ' s production and maintenance employees ex-
cluding clerical and supervisory employees with the authority to hire, promote,
discharge, discipline, or otherriise effect changes in the status of employees, or
effectively recommend such action,
(c) In any other manner interfering with, restraining , and coercing its employees
in the exercise of their rights to self -organization , to form labor organizations, to
join or assist International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union, affiliated with the
American Federation of Labor, or any other labor organization , to bargain collec-
tively 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 undersigned finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act.
WINONA TEXTILE MILLS, INC. 721
(a) Upon request bargain collectively with International Ladies' Garment
Workers' Union, affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, as the exclusive
representative of all the respondent 's production and maintenance employees exclud-
ing clerical and supervisory employees with the authority to hire, promote, dis-
charge, discipline, or otherwise effect changes in the status of employees or
effectively recommend such action, and if an understanding is reached, embody
such understanding in a signed agreement ;
(b) Make whole in the manner set forth in "The remedy" the 11 persons whose
names appear upon Appendix A, attached hereto, for any loss of earnings they
may have suffered by reason of the respondent's discrimination against them from
the date of the respondent's discrimination against them to December 1, 1945;
(c) Post at its plant at Winona, Minnesota , copies of the notice attached hereto
marked "Appendix B". Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional
Director for the Eighteenth Region, after being signed by the respondent's repre-
sentative , shall be posted by the respondent immediately upon the receipt thereof,
and maintained by it for sixty ( 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 Eighteenth Region in writing, within
ten (10 ) days from the date of the receipt of this Intermediate Report, what
steps the respondent has taken to comply therewith.
It is further recommended that unless on or before ten (10) days from the
receipt of this Intermediate Report , the respondent notifies said Regional Director
in writing that it will comply with the foregoing recommendations , the National
Labor Relations Board issue an order requiring the respondent to take the action
aforesaid.
It is further recommended that the complaint insofar as it alleges that the
respondent by discharging Frances Bolderman on September 26, 1945, has
discriminated against her in regard to the hire or tenure of employment or any
term or condition of her employment , within the meaning of Section 8 (3) of the
Act, be dismissed.
As provided in Section 33 of Article II of the Rules and Regulations of the
National Labor Relations Board, Series 3, as amended , effective November 27,
1945, any party or counsel for the Board may, within fifteen (15) days from the
date of the entry of the order transferring the case to the Board, pursuant to
Section 32 of Article II of said Rules and Regulations , file with the Board,
Rochambeau Building , Washington 25 D. C., an original and four copies of a
statement in writing , setting forth such exceptions to the Intermediate Report or
to any other part of the record or proceeding ( including rulings upon all motions
or objections ) as he relies upon, together with the original and four copies of a
brief in support thereof . Immediately upon the filing of such statement of excep-
tions and/or brief , the party or counsel for the Board filing the same shall serve
a copy thereof upon each of the other parties and shall file a copy with the
Regional Director . As further provided in said Section 33, should any party
desire permission to argue orally before the Board, request therefor must be made
in writing to the Board within ten ( 10) days from the date of the order trans-
ferring the case to the Board.
HOWARD MYERS,
Trial Examiner.
Dated February 27, 1946.
722 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
APPENDIX A
Ethel Bartz Stella Pellowski
Genevieve Dubiel Marron Skroch
Betty Glowezewski Betty Stark
Joseph Holzer Laura Sternagle
Audrey Katula Florence Verdick
Christine Pampuch
APPENDIX B
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, we hereby notify our employees that:
We will not in any manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees
in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to form labor organizations,
to join or assist International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union, affiliated with
American Federation of Labor or any other labor organization, 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.
We will bargain collectively upon request with the above-named union as
the exclusive representative of all employees in the bargaining unit described
herein with respect to rates of pay, hours of employment or other conditions
of employment, and if an understanding is reached, embody such understand-
ing in a signed agreement. The bargaining unit is: All production and mainte-
nance employees exclusive of clerical and supervisory employees with the
authority to hire, promote, discharge, discipline or otherwise effect changes in
the status of employees or effectively recommend such action
We will make whole the employees of the spinning department, named
below, for any loss of overtime pay suffered by them as a result of the
discriminatory discontinuance of overtime work in that department between
August 25, 1945, and December 1, 1945, both dates inclusive, by payment to
each of them of a sum of money equal to the overtime pay each would have
earned during that period if there had not been such a discriminatory stop-
page of overtime operations in the spinning department.
ETHEL BARTZ STELLA PELLOWSKI
GENEYIEVE DUBIEL MARION SKROCH
BETTY GLOWEZEWSKI BETTY STARK
JOSEPH HOLZER LAURA STERNAGLE
AUDREY KATULA FLORENCE VERDICK
CHRISTINE PAMPUCH
All our employees are free to become or remain members of the above-named
union or any other labor organization . We will not discriminate in regard to hire
or tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment against any
WINONA TEXTILE MILLS , INC. 723
employee because of membership in or activity on behalf of any such labor
organization.
WINONA TEXTILE MILLS, INC.
Employer.
By ....... ..............................
(Representative ) (Title)
Dated ..............................
NOTE.-This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof, and
must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.