Lucille of Hollywood

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 7, 1951

93 N.L.R.B. 37 (N.L.R.B. 1951)

LUCILLE OF HOLLYWOOD 37
termination of the Local's liability, as hereinbefore provided. The quarterly
periods, hereinafter called "quarters," shall begin with the first day of January,
April, July, and October Loss of pay shall be determined by deducting from a
sum equal to that which ltoslalid would normally have earned for each quarter
or portion thereof, his net earnings, if any, in other employment during that
period Earnings in one par ticular quarter shall have no effect upon the back-pay
liability for any other quarter.
It is further recommended that the Board expressly reserve the right to modify
the back-pay provisions if made necessary by a change of conditions in the future,
and to make such supplements thereto as may become necessary in order to define
or clarify their application to a specific set of circumstances not now apparent."
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record in
this case, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1 The Company is engaged in conuneice within the meaning of Section 2 (6)
and (7) of the Act.
2. The Local is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of
the Act.
3 By causing the Company to discriminate against John H. Rosland in viola-
tion of Section S (a) (3) of the Act, the Local has engaged in and is engaging in
unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (b) (2) of the At.
4 By restraining and coercing employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed
in Section 7 of the Act, the Local has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 8 (b) (1) (A) of the Act.'2
3 The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting
commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
(i The Biotherhood has not engaged in the unfair labor practices alleged in
the complaint
[Recommended Order omitted from publication in this volume.]
11 Fairmont Creame, iy Company , 64 NLRB 824 , cf. N L R B. v New York Merchandise
Company, Inc , 1:14 F 2d 949 (C A 2) ; International Union v. Eagle-Picker Mining and
Smelting Co., 325 U S 335
12 Randolph Corporation, 89 NLRB 1490; Union Starch d Refining Company, 87 NLRB
779, Clara-Pat Packing Company, 87 NLRB 703.
LUCILI,F. OF Hoi,r,Ywoon and UNDERGARMENT WORKERS UNION LOCAL
No. 496
LUCILI.E Or IIOLI.YWOOD and UNDERGARMENT W ORKERS UNION LOCAL
No. 496. Cases Nos. 21-CA-673 and 21-CA-737. February 7,
1951
Decision and Order
On November 13, 1950, Trial Examiner Maurice M. Miller issued
his Intermediate Report in this proceeding, finding that the Respond-
ent had engaged in certain unfair labor practices alleged in the com-
93 NLRB No. 16.
38 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
plaint, and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take
certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the Intermediate
Report attached hereto. The Trial Examiner also found that the
Respondent had not engaged in certain other unfair labor practices,
and recommended that the complaint be dismissed with respect to such
allegations. Thereafter, the General Counsel filed exceptions to the
Intermediate Report and a supporting brief, and the Respondent filed
a "Reply Brief In Opposition To The General Counsel's Statement
Of Exceptions."
The Board 1 has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner 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 in
the case, and hereby adopts the findings,2 conclusions, and recommen-
dations of the Trial Examiner, with the following additions and modi-
fications.
1. We agree with the Trial Examiner's conclusion that, even if the
Respondent knew of the union activity of Knudson, Celaya, and
Collelouri, the preponderance of the' evidence fails to establish any
discrimination in regard to their hire, tenure or terms or conditions
of employment.3 We accordingly find it unnecessary to adopt or pass
upon the Trial Examiner's reasons for refusing to infer such knowl-
edge from the size of the Respondent's plant.
2. In the absence of exceptions thereto, we adopt the Trial Exam-
iner's findings of Section 8 (a) (1) violations.
Order
Upon the entire record of the case, and pursuant to Section 10 (c)
of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board hereby orders that the Respondent, Lucille of Holy-
wood, a copartnership, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns,
shall :
1 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
[ Members Houston , Reynolds , and Styles].
'The Trial Examiner made certain misstatements and omissions of facts which do not
affect his ultimate conclusions or our concuirence therewith However , we note the follow-
ing corrections and additions • ( 1) Astrid Knudson had been employed 4, not 2 years, (2)
Celaya had been employed 3 veais in December 1950, (3) Celaya testified that she had
told Mr Green that she was leaving because Mrs Russell didn ' t like her work and she could
find employment some other place
8In its exceptions the General Counsel directs the Board 's attention to the fact that
Celaya, after leaving her job to pick up her pay check met Thant Manages Gieen who
already had her final check piepaied . Although the Trial Examiner failed to note this
fact , the record establishes that Mi s Russell had, however , called the office to notify the
bookkeeper that Celaya had quit.
LUCILLE OF HOLLYWOOD 39
1. Cease and desist from :
Interference with, restraint, or coercion of its employees in their
exercise of the right to seek self-organization, to form labor organiza-
tions, to join or assist Undergarment Workers Union Local No. 496,
affiliated with the International Ladies Garment Workers Union,
A. F. of L., or any other. labor organization, to bargain collectively
through representatives of their own free choice, to engage in con-
certed activities for the purposes of collective bargaining and other
mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any or all of such activities,
except to the extent that such rights may be affected by an agreement
which requires membership in a labor organization as a condition of
employment, as authorized in Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Post at its establishment in Hollywood, California, copies of
the notice attached to the Intermediate Report, marked Appendix 4
Copies of the notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director of the
Twenty-first Region, as the agent of the Board, should be posted by
the Respondent immediately upon their receipt, after being, duly.
signed by a person qualified to act as its representative, and should be
maintained by it for sixty (60) consecutive days thereafter in con-
spicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are
customarily posted. Reasonable steps should be taken by the Respond-
ent to insure that these notices are not altered, defaced, or covered
by any other material.
(b) Notify the Regional Director for the Twenty-first Region in
writing, within ten (10) days from the date of this Order, what steps
it has taken to comply herewith.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint be, and it hereby is, dis-
missed insofar as it alleges that the Respondent violated Section 8
(a) (3) of the Act.
Intermediate Report and Recommended Order
Mr. Daniel J. Harrington, for the General Counsel.
Loeb and Loeb, by Mr. Michael Kohn, of Los Angeles, Calif., for the Respondent.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon charges and amended' charges duly filed by the Undergarment Workers
Union, Local No. 496, affiliated with the International Ladies Garment Workers
Said notice, however, shall be, and it hereby is, amended by striking from line 3 thereof
the words "The recommendations of a Trial Examiner" and substituting in lieu thereof the
words "A Decision and Order." In the event that this Order is enforced by a decree of a
United States Court of Appeals, there shall be inserted before the words, "A Decision and
Order," the words, "A Decree of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing."
40 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Union, A. F. of L., and designated herein as the Union, the General Counsel of
the National Labor Relations Board,' in the name of the Board, caused the
Regional Director of its Twenty-first Region, at Los Angeles, California, to issue
a complaint dated June 27, 1950, against Lucille of Hollywood, a copartnership
doing business in Hollyood, California, herein called the Respondent. The com-
plaint alleged that the Respondent did engage and has continued to engage in
unfair labor practices affecting commerce, within the meaning of Section 8 (a)
(1) and (3) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act, 49
Stat. 449, as amended and reenacted in the Labor Management Relations Act of
1947, 61 Stat. 136, designated herein as the Act. Copies of the charges, an order
consolidating the cases, the consolidated complaint, and a notice of hearing were
duly served upon the Respondent and the Union.
With respect to the unfair labor practices, the complaint, as amended at the
hearing, alleged in substance: (1) that the Respondent, by its officers, agents,
and employees, from on or about December 19, 1949, up to and including the
date of the complaint had interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees
in their exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, by various
acts and statements; (2) that the Respondent had discharged Josephine Col-
lelouri on or about December 20, 1949, and Astrid Knudson on or about December
21, 1949, and that it had transferred Laura Celaya to other work on or about
December 22, 1949, and discharged her on December 23, 1949; (3) that the
Respondent had failed or refused to offer these employees reinstatement until
certain enumerated dates thereafter; (4) that the Respondent's actions with
respect to these employees had been motivated by their membership in and
activities on behalf of the Union, and by their participation in concerted activity
with other employees for mutual aid and protection; (5) that the Respondent,
on or about March 21, 1950, had locked out, discharged, or laid off all of its
employees, and has at all times since that date failed and refused to reinstate
them-including, inter alia, Astrid Knudson and Laura Celaya-for the reasons
previously noted ; and (6) that the Respondent's course of conduct, thus described,
involved unfair labor practices affecting commerce, within the meaning of the
Act as amended.
In due course, on July 17, 1950, the Respondent filed an answer, and on
September 20, 1950, an amendment to its answer, in which it admitted the
jurisdictional allegations of the complaint, denied the allegation that the Union
was a labor organization within the meaning of the Act, and denied the com-
mission of any unfair labor practices. In its answer, also, the Respondent
admitted that Josephine Collelouri and Astrid Knudson had been laid off on or
about the dates alleged in the complaint but went on to allege that they had been
offered reinstatement on specific dates prior to those cited by the General Counsel ;
with respect to Laura Celaya, the. Respondent's answer, as amended, alleged that
she had resigned on December 22, 1949, and had been offered employment on the
date cited in the complaint. Affirmatively, the Respondent's answer alleged that
it had been the Respondent's regular policy for a number of years to close the
plant throughout the holiday period from Christmas to New Year's Day because
business is then slow and because of its need to take inventory ; that the firm
usually operates with a skeleton crew at such times ; and that it recalls all of its
regular workers not employed elsewhere , sometime in January of each year, and
reemploys them at their former jobs.
' The General Counsel and his representative in this case are designated herein as the
General Counsel , and the National Labor Relations Board as the Board.
LUCILLE OF HOLLYWOOD 41
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held at Los Angeles, California, on October
3 and 4, 1950, before me, a Trial Examiner duly designated by the Chief Trial
Examiner. The General Counsel and the Respondent were represented by
counsel. All of the parties participated in the case and were afforded a full
opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to intro-
duce evidence pertinent to the issues. At the close of the testimony the General
Counsel moved to conform the pleadings to the proof in nonessential matters;
there being no objection I granted the motion. The parties waived their right to
oral argument, although the General Counsel cited a number of Board and Court
decisions, allegedly relevant to the issues, for my consideration. Neither of the
parties expressed a desire to file a brief. Subject to an understanding that I
would be permitted to view the Respondent's plant, in the company of counsel,
after the hearing, and to utilize any impressions derived as a result of such an
inspection even though such impressions were not physically recorded, the record
of testimony was closed.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Upon the entire record in the case, and from my observation of the Respond-
ent's plant and the witnesses, I make the following findings of fact :
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
The Respondent, Lucille of Hollywood, is a copartnership with its principal
office and place of business at Hollywood, California, where it is engaged in the
manufacture of ladies undergarments-specifically brassieres and garter belts.
In the 1949 calendar year, the Respondent purchased material, equipment, and
supplies valued in excess of $100,000; more than 50 percent of it, in value, was
shipped to the Respondent's plant from points outside the State of California.
During the same period, the Respondent's sales exceeded $100,000; more than
50 percent, in value, of the goods sold were shipped to points outside of the
State.
The Respondent concedes, and I find, that it is engaged in commerce, within
the meaning of the Act?
II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
In the light of the evidence with respect to the activities of the Union's
parent organization and its representatives, I find, contrary to the contention
of the Respondent, that the Union is a labor organization within the meaning
of the Act, which admits and has admitted to membership employees of the
Respondent.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
The General Course of Events
1. The Union campaign
The Union's attempt to organize the Respondent's employees began in Novem-
ber, on a date not set forth in the record As the result of a telephone contact
by an unnamed "girl," Astrid Knudson, a sewing machine operator with 2 years
of experience in the Respondent's employ, was solicited to apply for union
membership. She did. Thereafter, at the request of the union organizer, she
distributed a number of union membership application cards to other employees.
The record indicates that the cards were distributed outside of her regular
2 See S'tanislaus Implement and Hardware Co, Ltd, 91 NLRB 618
42 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
working hours, or during free time at the plant. Her activities, in this connec-
tion, continued in December. There is no evidence of an overt response on the
part of the Respondent's other employees. Knudson testified, and I find, that
no representative of the Respondent spoke to her about the distribution.
2. The December discharges
The Respondent 's business normally suffers a seasonal slump at the end of
December . Its regular policy , as a result, has been to close the plant, imme-
diately after the Christmas holidays , for a short period-usually, at least, until
after the New Year's holiday which follows .' There was no deviation from the
Respondent 's regular practice , in this respect , during the 1949-1950 holiday
period. Prior to the holidays , on various dates in December which do not appear
in the record , four employees were laid off. Eight additional employees were
laid off or separated between the 17th and the 21st of December 1949-four of
these on the 17th. A fifth , Philomend Parsley, was laid off on an undetermined
date within the 5 -day period ,' and Josephine Collelouri , named in the complaint
as a discriminatory dischargee , was terminated on the 20th . On December 21,
1949, Knudson received her pay and was notified by Mrs. Russell , the Respond-
ent's forelady and general plant manager , that she was being laid off also.
Russell's testimony , which I credit in this connection , indicates that Knudson
was informed as to the temporary character of the separation , and was advised
to keep in touch with the plant with respect to possible recall'
Coincidentally with the layoffs noted, Laura Celaya, another sewing machine
operator NN ith 3 years of experience in the Respondent ' s employ , was shifted
on December 20 from one machine to another . Previously employed as a setter
of brassiere cups, subject to occasional assignments involving other work, Celaya
was assigned on this occasion to work as a sewer of cup centers . Her place of
work was also shifted , she had been eniploved at a machine approximately in the
middle of a "line " in the eastern half of the building, adjacent to the southern
wall of the plant and extending westward from its eastein windows, and was
transferred to a machine in the western half of the plant, close to the aisle
which divides its eastern and western sections.' At various times on the 21st
and 22nd which ale not detailed expressly in the record, Celaya was apprised
3 While a "skeleton crew" is sometimes retained in spite of the general shutdown, the
Respondent noimally utilizes the holiday peitod to take a stock inventory, and to make
necessary repairs and alterations in the physical setup of the plant.
4 Only one of the five employees involved had been in the Respondent's employ for more
than a few weeks.
5 Knudson testified that Mrs. Russell had described the layoff as one of indefinite
duration-and also stated that Mrs Russell had remarked at the time that she was
"weeding them all out" , she also testified that, in the course of a visit to the plant on the
following day to retiieve a thermos bottle she had left behind, she had been informed by
Mishel Green, the Respondent's active head, that he didn't "keep" people when he dis-
covered that they were not his friends The remark attributed to Mrs Russell may have
been made : she did not deny it. I find it equivocal, however, and conclude that, even
if made, it gives no reliable indication as to the existence of an illegal motive for
Knudson's layoff. Green did not expressly deny or repudiate the observation attributed
to him ; he did testify, however, that the employment policy of the Respondent was
administered and effectuated by Mrs. Russell exclusively, and that Airs Knudson had not
been discharged discriminatorily because of her union activity In the light of the entire
record, to be analyzed in this report, I find the testimony of Knudson with respect to
Green's observation unworthy of credit. It is hereby rejected.
6 Celaya contended that her new work station was poorly lighted, in comparison with
the light available at her former place of work ; her contentions in this respect are set
forth and discussed elsewhere in this Report
LUCILLE OF HOLLYWOOD 43
by the Respondent's "floor girl" that her work on the cup centers of certain
`bundles" had been defective, and that the work would have to be redone.?
At about 10 a. m. on the morning of December 22, Celaya, upon being informed
that another bundle of her work would have to be resewn, left her machine and
protested the order. The record reveals a conflict of testimony as to the way
in which her protest was made; I find, upon a preponderance of the evidence,
that Celaya informed Mrs. Russell of her strenuous objection to the Nvay in
which she was being treated and announced that she would leave the Respondent's
employ; that she returned to her machine forthwith to collect her personal be-
longings ; and that she secured her final check from Green-on the factory stairs-
after informing him, in response to a question, that she was "leaving" the plant.
The rest of the production workers in the Respondent's employ, approximately
110 in number, were laid off until the turn of the year when the plant closed for
the Christmas holiday week end.
3. Organizational activity in January
Production at the Respondent's plant resumed on January 2, 1950; by the
end of the first week of the new year, 124 employees had returned to work 8
Knudson, Celaya, and Collelouri were niong those who were not reemployed.
On Friday, January 6, 1950, two union organizers, Abe Pincus and Jack
Schindler, called upon Green at the plant office. The available testimony with
i espect to their conversation is in conflict; I find, upon the entire record, that the
organizers opened the discussion with a request for the reinstatement of
Knudson; that Green admitted his general awareness of the union activity among
his employees but contended that he had been unaware of Knudson's connection
with it; and that Mrs. Russell was invited to the conference by Green to explain
why Knudson's layoff had antedated the general shutdown. Mrs Russell joined
the group, I find, approximately 10 or 15 minutes after the arrival of the union
organizers She ascribed the early layoff of Knudson to her poor work and the
fact that she had once presented a disciplinary problem A lengthy discussion of
the Union's attempt to organize the undergarment manufacturers of the Los
Angeles area, the nature of the agreement which the Union might offer, and the
possibility of a strike at the Respondent's plant then followed? The conference
ended with a renewal of the Union's request that Knudson be reinstated ; Green
replied, I find, that he would exercise his own judgment in that respect
On Monday, January 9, 1950, Mrs. Russell, in the absence of Green, called the
machine operators in the Respondent's employ to her desk at the 10 o'clock rest
period. She was, according to her own testimony, nervous and upset. A syn-
thesis of the available evidence with respect to her remarks establishes that she
began with a reference to her recently acquired knowledge that there had been
or would be "labor trouble" at the plant She then proceeded, apparently, to
decry the attempts of the employees to achieve self-organization ; and advised
' Celaya testified that she had been instructed by the "floor girl ," on each occasion, to
rip the defective work and to resew it. Mrs Russell testified, however, and I find, that
floor girls in the Respondent's employ were generally expected to rip defective work
unless they were too busy. Whatever instructions were given Celaya, in fact, it is clear
that her compensation, which was computed on an hourly basis, was not affected Upon
the entire record, I find it unnecessary to determine whether Celaya was actually instructed
to perform work which the floor girls ordinarily did.
8 The plant 's average complement was about 130 employees ; this figure includes appioxi-
mately 15 permanent office workers.
I find the lengthy testimony given with respect to this phase of the conversation im-
material in the context.
44 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
them that any grievances they might have in connection with their employment
ought to be brought directly to the attention of the management The employees
were also exhorted to leave if their dissatisfaction with their employment was
basic. Mrs. Russell, it is found, referred repeatedly to her own dismay at the
thought that the employees had seen fit to seek the assistance of the Union,
and went on to express the fear that Mr. Green might move the plant to Long
Beach in order to avoid the possibility that he might have to deal with a labor
organization.10 In the course of her remarks, I find, Mrs Russell also declared
that she had sought, unsuccessfully, to identify the union adherents at the-
plant and called upon the employees to determine for themselves the identity
of those workers who were interested in the Union ; she implied, if she did not
expressly state, that the employees who were opposed to the Union might well
exercise their persuasive powers upon the employees who favored it, in an
attempt to persuade them to change their minds.
The testimony of Anna Shackman, a witness subpenaed by the General Counsel,
quoted Mrs. Russell, in this connection, substantially as follows : "It is up to you
girls now to save your jobs. Try and find out just who is making the trouble, so,
you will have your jobs saved." I find Shackman's testimony with respect to.
this statement credible.
Shortly after Mrs. Russell's remarks an employee, Laura Dibiase, prepared
and initiated the circulation of a petition among the employees. Its preamble
stated that:
We, the undersigned, employees of "Lucille of Hollywood" want Mr Green
to know that we are happy and satisfied to be working for him in his factory
under the present conditions.
The record establishes without contradiction, and I find, that Dibiase acted,
after a conference with several rank-and-file employees ; that she did not com-
municate her desire to initiate a petition to any representative of management ;
that she borrowed the necessary paper from an office employee without stating
her purpose; that she prepared the petition with her own hand and offered it
for signature, herself, at the outset. that it was then placed upon a table in the
plant for the other employees to sign; and that the Respondent's floor girls, ul-
timately, took it to a number of workers who expressed a desire to sign it sub-
sequently. The testimony of Dibiase establishes, and I find, that the floor girls
took the petition to these employees during working hours, and that the cir-
culation of the petition in this fashion involved some interruption of work.
On the 9th, or within a short period of time thereafter, 122 signatures were
affixed to the petition. One employee refused to sign ; her refusal was noted
on the document, under circumstances not revealed by the record. Dibiase testi-
fied, and I find, that the petition was thereupon given to Mrs. Russell for trans-
mittal to Mr. Green, who was then in New York on a business trip.
The organizational activity of the Union was a topic of heated discussion
among the Respondent's employees in the weeks that followed. While the record
contains no evidence that the proponents of the Union made any overt attempt
to plead its case among the employees, there is ample testimony that those who
were opposed to the organization expressed their views freely at the plant,
during the rest periods and the lunch hour. A number of the employees, I find,
used their free time at the plant, or a portion of it, to harangue their fellow
workers with respect to the dishdiantages of self-organization, and many of
"Russell's own description of her conduct reads as follows: "I just called them all
together and asked them what the trouble was, and what they wanted to do and what
their point of view was and what the girls were dissatisfied with."
LUCILLE OF HOLLYWOOD 45
them posted hand-made signs on the work-room walls, expressive of their op-
-position to the Union.
There is no evidence that the supporters of the Union ever attempted, in simi-
lar fashion, to defend that organization or to promote its organizational cam-
paign. Mrs Russell, who was fully aware of the activity of those opposed to
the Union, made no attempt to interfere with it, or to restrict it, during the
rest periods or at lunch. With respect to the placards or hand-written notices
posted by the employees, Mis. Russell's uncontroverted testimony establishes
that the Respondent's janitor was instructed to remove them every night, and
that he did so, but that others reappeared each day.
In the meantime, on January 23, 1950, Knudson resumed work. At or about
the same time, Celaya was recalled ; she was reemployed by the Respondent at
her "regular" work as a setter of brassiere cups on January 30, 1950. Collelouri
was requested, in a letter dated on the 25th of January, to report for work ;
she did not respond. The Respondent has made no further effort to communi-
cate with her, and she has never been reemployed.
4. The leaflet distribution
Early in February, on a date which does not appear in the record, several
-union organizers undertook to distribute a mimeographed organizational leaflet
at the plant exits. The record establishes, and I find, that they reached the
plant shortly prior to 4: 30 p. in.; -that one of them stationed himself at the
plant's rear exit on the west; and that two of them stood on the sidewalk at the
front entrance of the Respondent's plant. While the evidence as to the precise
way in which the Respondent's management became aware of their presence
is conflicting and somewhat inconclusive, I am satisfied that Green was aware
of their presence and their intentions before work at the plant ended for the
{lay. The testimony of Gloria Busman, an office employee of the Union's parent
labor organization, which I credit in this connection, establishes that Green came
out of his office; that he approached her companion, who was in charge of the
leaflet distribution; and that, in a colloquy with the latter, he challenged the
Union's right to distribute leaflets, under the circumstances, and threatened to
call the police." Green was advised that the leaflet distribution was legal; he
made no effort, I find, to pursue the matter.
When, at 4: 30 p in , the Respondent's employees began to leave the plant, the
leaflet distribution began. At or about this time, however, Green appeared at
another door which led from his plant office to the sidewalk at a point immedi-
ately adjacent to the plant entrance; standing there, he began to say "Good
night" to his employees. The record establishes, and I find, that the organizer
in charge of the leaflet distribution immediately began to suggest, with consid-
erable force and volume, that the employees ought not to be "intimidated" by
their employer, and that they ought to make the plant "100 percent" union.
Busman testified credibly, and I find, that the words of the organizer were taken
up almost immediately by Green who repeated them several times, in a tone
identified by the witness as sarcastic. Busman testified that Green's repetition
of the organizer's language conveyed the impression that mimicry was intended,
apparently to disparage the Union and its organizational activity.
" Busman also testified that Green had told the organizer in charge that he knew every
"union member' among his employees. The statement may have been made; under the
circumstances, however, it cannot be regarded as a material admission. I have not so
considered it
46 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR- RELATIONS BOARD
Green admitted, as a witness, that lie had told the employees within range
of his voice, "Girls, don't be intimidated by the boss," at least once; he denied,
however, more than one repetition of this comment and insisted that he had not
Intended or attempted to mine the organizer or to disparage his activity by
sarcasm. In the light of my conclusions with respect to Green's activity in this
connection, set forth elsewhere in this report, I find it unnecessary to determine
the tone of voice he employed or the manner in which lie made the remarks ad-
mitted by him; upon the entire record I find, however, contrary to his con-
tentions, that lie remained at the office door previously noted, in the immediate
vicinity of the plant's front entrance, for an appreciable period of time-and that
while statiofed there, he was visible to the employees then leaving the plant.
5. Employee activity in February
In the meantime, vocal opposition to the Union continued. After Knudson's
return, and after the leaflet distribution, in particular, this opposition became
particularly vehement. The record establishes, and I find, that employee Ella
Moscarella, one of the principal antiunion spokesmen, accosted Knudson on a
number of occasions during the rest periods and the luncheon period, and
berated her at length as the instigator of the Union's organizational activity.
While the record does not establish that a representative of the Respondent's
supervisory hierarchy was present on each occasion, I find that Mrs Russell
was present, in a position to hear what was said, in the course of Mosearella's
most violent and dramatic outburst. The incident occurred in the midst of
the luncheon period at the plant. Mrs. Russell, I find, made no attempt to halt
the verbal attack to which Knudson was being subjected; when specifically
requested to do so, she replied that the employees were free to "fight it out"
if they chose.
By the middle of February, the fervor of the opposition to the Union had
substantially abated; the record establishes, and I find, that verbal attacks
upon the Union and suspected union supporters became less frequent and
finally ceased.
6. The March layoff
The Respondent's sales volume normally falls in May, June, and July; on
several occasions in previous years, it has maintained operations throughout its
slack season with a partial crew, employed on the basis of a 3-day workweek.
In 1950, however, the Respondent built up a substantial inventory in March,
and the evidence establishes that most, if not all, of the Respondent's production
in that month was being added to its stock. Green, apparently, had sought a
bank loan previously ; he testified, in this connection, that he had been advised
to reduce his inventory in order to expedite the transaction. Late in March,
therefore, the employees were informed by a notice on the Respondent's bulletin
board that there would be a general layoff on the 23rd of the month. The
workers were advised, however, orally and by the written notice, to keep in
touch with the Respondent in person, or by telephone, if they wished reemploy-
ment
On March 23, 1950, a substantial number of the Respondent's production
employees were, in fact, laid off ; of the 132 persons on the payroll of the Re-
spondent for the week ending March 25, only 28 were retained. Knudson and
Celaya were among those laid off.
In the weeks that followed, a full crew was slowly reassembled. The number
of persons in the Respondent's employ-including its permanent office workers-
LUCILLh OF HOLLYWOOD 47
grew from E8 in the week ending on the 1st of April to 70 in the week ending
on the 6th of May, and 85 in the week ending on the 3rd of June, Russell's,
credited testimony establishes that she was away on leave from the end of
May to mid-July ; she contended that she had done no hiring during this period,
but admitted that some of the production employees might have been recalled
by other people in the Respondent's office. The record establishes that the total
number of employees expanded to 99 in the week ending, July 1st, 105 in the
following week, 119 in the week ending on July 22nd, and 138 in the last full
week of the month'' The record indicates, and I find, that the increase in the
number of employees from 105 to 138 was coincidental with Russell's return.
Knudson and Celaya were not reemployed-and there is no evidence of a
renewed effort on the part of the Respondent's management to secure the
services of Collelouri.
Conclusions
1. The Discharges
The General Counsel alleges that the employment of -Knudson, Celaya, and
Collelouri was terminated in December, discriminatorily, to discourage mem-
bership in the Union and their organizational activity in its behalf As an
affirmative defense, the Respondent's answer points out that its regular policy
for years has been to close its plant at the end of December for a few weeks
because of decreased sales and the need to take an inventory. The Respondent
contends that its regular policy at such times is to operate with a skeleton crew
and to recall its workers, if they are not employed elsewhere, as business im-
proves. It is argued that Knudson and Collelouri were laid off in connection
with the Respondent's regular layoff program; that Celaya was transferred in
order to prolong her employment before the layoff and left her new assignment
voluntarily; and that each of these "dischargees" was offered reemployment
subsequently, in due course.
I find merit in the contentions of the Respondent. The record as a whole,
in my opinion, fails to sustain the charges of the General Counsel, with respect
to the existence of an intent to discourage membership in the Union by the
layoff or discharge of the employees named specifically in the complaint.
Only with respect to Knudson and Celaya, for example, is the matter of union
activity clearly established by the record. In the case of Knudson, the execu-
tion of a union membership application and her subsequent activity in con-
nection with the distribution of application cards among her fellow employees
is clearly set forth. With respect to Celaya, the execution of a union member-
ship application card must be inferred ; and her testimony establishes that she
distributed only two union membership applications to fellow workers Of
these transactions, only one occurred at the Respondent's plant.
Collelouri's participation in the Union's organizational activity is not es-
tablished, definitively. Selaya testified that she gave one of the union member-
ship applications which she dist6buted to a fellow worker named "Jo"; even if it
be assumed that the individual in question was Collelouri, the evidence es-
tablishes only that she received the card. There is no indication that she
signed it or that she was active, thereafter, in the Union's behalf.
12 This figure is slightly in excess of the Respondent's normal complement, during the
period antedating the layoff, for which exact figures are available, the average number of
persons in its employ-including approximately 15 permanent employees who do not work
in its plant-average 1 30 persons
48 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The extent to which the Respondent was aware of the union activity in ques-
tion is also a matter of some doubt. Knudson testified, and I find, that none
of her activity in connection with the card distribution occurred during working
hours ; some of the cards, apparently, were distributed at the plant during the
rest and lunch periods, while others were distributed in places having no direct
connection with the plant. There is no indication that Knudson's activities were
the subject of comment by her fellow workers, or that they were noted by any
representative of management. A finding that the Respondent was aware of
the union activity attributable to Knudson and Celaya, therefore, must neces-
sarily rest upon inference. In a number of cases, relied, upon by the General
Counsel, the Board has drawn such an inference-having found that, in small
plants, it is reasonable to infer that information as to the union activities of
particular employees would come to the notice of higher management officials"
In each of these cases, however, the record established, and the Board found,
that the organizational activity involved was both open and notorious ; or that
it had been directly brought to the attention of a rank-and-file employee closely
allied with management, or that it had been of extended duration. The present
record reveals a situation which cannot be regarded as comparable. Knudson's
activity, and that of Celaya, did not involve conduct reasonably calculated to
attract the attention of the Respondent's management by its open or notorious
character ; there is no indication that persons closely allied with management
were solicited to sign membership application cards ; and the activity in question
appears to have involved only intermittent solicitation over a period of time
not very much in excess of one month. Under the circumstances, I find it
difficult to infer, in the teeth of contradictory testimony, that the supervisory
officials of the Respondent were aware of the organizational activity engaged in
by Knudson, Celaya, and Collelouri.
There is testimony, which I credit, to warrant a conclusion that Green was
generally aware of the Union's interest in his employees. Abe Pincus, the union
organizer, testified, for example, that Green had admitted his knowledge of
the union campaign in the course of his conversation with the union representa-
tives on the 6th of January. And Louise Klein, a sewing machine operator
formerly in the Respondent's employ, testified-without contradiction-that
Green had referred to the Union's campaign at his plant in the course of a
conversation at the 1949 Christmas party.'" This testimony, however, whatever
its significance in the determination of the extent to which the Respondent
was aware of the Union's organizational campaign, cannot be regarded as suffi-
cient to establish the knowledge of its management officials with respect to the
identity of the union adherents and its principal supporters.
Even if I were to find, however, that the record contained enough evidence to
warrant an inference that the Respondent's officials were aware of the union
activity of Knudson, Celaya, and Collelouri, I would be constrained to find the
available testimony, with respect to the circumstances under which they were
laid off in December, insufficient to establish the existence of an unlawful motive
for the Respondent's action.
I have considered Knudson's testimony that Russell said she was "weeding
them out" at the time of the layoff ; the statement, even if it was made, is too
"N. L R. B. v Abbott Worsted Mills, Inc, 127 F 2d 438 (C A 1) ; Quest-Shon Mark
Brassiere Co, Inc, 80 NLRB 1149; Central Wisconsin Motor Transport Co., 89 NLRB
1204 : F W Woolwoi th Co, 90 NLRB 289.
11 Green did not deny Klein 's testimony , and Laura Dibiase, although identified as
present when the statement was made, gave no testimony with respect to it when called
as a witness.
LUCILLE OF HOLLYWOOD 49
ambiguous in its total context to support an inference that Knudson was laid
off because of her union activity. I have also considered Knudson's testimony
with respect to Green's alleged remarks on the following day, in the light of
the entire record, including, but without limitation, my antecedent conclusions
with respect to the generalized nature of Green's knowledge with respect to the
union campaign, and the available evidence with respect to Knudson's subsequent
treatment by the Respondent, I have found her testimony with respect to Green's
remarks unworthy of credit.
. The record in its totality seems, in my opinion, to be most consistent with
the Respondent's contention that Knudson's layoff was economically motivated ;
reference is made, in this connection, to the undenied fact that a general layoff
at some time during the year-end holiday period was customary at the plant,
and the fact that Knudson's layoff was not the only one which antedated the
general shutdown.16 Her recall, in the last full week of January, after the
Respondent had been made aware of the Union's interest in her and before the
Union's organizational activity had abated, suggests persuasively that her layoff
in December was not discriminatory, in spite of the fact that it antedated the
general layoff by a few days ; and that it was not illegally motivated lfi I so find
With respect to C'elaya, the General Counsel contends that the change in the
nature of her work assignment and her place of work on December 20, 1949,
was discriminatorily motivated and calculated to discourage her union member-
ship and activity. I am unable to agree Celaya admitted, as a witness, that
she had been trained to do the work to which she was transferred, and that
she had done it on other occasions. There is no evidence that her new assign-
ment involved a change in her rate of pay, or that it involved less desirable work.14
In any event she was not told that her transfer would be permanent With
respect to the assertion that her new work station was less adequately lighted,
I find, after a personal inspection of the Respondent's plant, that the machine
to which she had been newly assigned, while somewhat less brilliantly lighted,
was sufficienty well illuminated by an attached light and, overhead fluorescent
lights to warrant the rejection of the General Counsel's argument. Upon the
record and my inspection of the plant-an inspection made with the consent,
and in the presence of, the parties-I find that Celaya's transfer did not involve
a significant impairment of the conditions under which she was required to work.
On the contrary, I find that her transfer was motivated by Mrs. Russell's desire
to retain her in the Respondent's employ, at a time when the changes in its pro-
duction schedule, antecedent to the holiday shutdown, might otherwise have
dictated her immediate release.
Celaya testified that her objection to Mrs. Russell's order that certain work be
redone had been countered with the statement that she could go downstairs
and "get" her check if that was what she was "worrying" about, Mrs Russell
testified that Celaya had resigned. I find, in accordance with Mrs Russell's
testimony, that she left work voluntarily My conclusions in this respect are
derived not only from my observations with respect to each witness, but upon
11 There is no evidence that the other layoffs made before the 23rd were discriminatorily
motivated
16 Knudson testified that Green had advised the Respondent ' s bookkeeper , 3 weeks after
the layoff-and 1 week before her recall-to record her as permanently laid off. In the
light of her subsequent recall it seems clear , and I find , that Green 's instructions to the
bookkeeper, if given, were the result of a miscalculation as to the likelihood of her
reemployment , and did not indicate a fixed intention not to reemploy her
11 Celaya herself testified that the cup centers she was asked to sew were an "important
part" of the garment on which she worked
943732-51-5
50 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Celaya's own testimony. She gave evidence that when queried by Green as to
the reason for the issuance of a check to her on a day other than the Respondent's
regular payday, she told him that she was "leaving" the plant. And when ques-
tioned in redirect examination as to whether her last conversation with Mrs.
Russell had occurred on the day she was "laid off," Celaya replied voluntarily
that the conversation had occurred on the day that she "left" the place. In the
light of the testimony quoted, and in view of the available evidence with respect
to Celaya's recall by the Respondent under a set of circumstances substantially
similar to those already mentioned in connection with Knudson's case, I find
no merit in the General Counsel's contention that Celaya was discriminatorily
discharged
In regard to Collelouri, also, I find that the General Counsel has failed to
sustain his burden of proof. If Celaya's testimony that Collelouri accepted a
union membership application card in blank is acceptable, and I believe that
it is, her "activity" in behalf of the Union was so minor as to be insignificant.
I have found no justification in the record for an inference that the Respond-
pnt's supervisory officials were aware of it, and the record is silent as to the
circumstances under which her employment was terminated. She was not availa-
ble as a witness, and did not testify. While, in proper cases, the failure of an
alleged dischargee to testify will not bar a finding by the Board that his or her
termination involved an unfair labor practice, such a conclusion, in the face
of a contrary contention by the Respondent, must necessarily rest upon the
reliable, probative and substantial evidence offered by other witnesses.' No
such evidence has been offered in this case. I find that the record is insufficient
to sustain the General Counsel's contention that Collelouri was dismissed dis-
criminatorily, to discourage union membership or activity in its behalf.
The allegations of the amended complaint with respect to the discriminatory
character of the "lockout" or mass layoff which occurred on the 23rd of March are
bottomed entirely upon the testimony of a single witness-Klein. The latter
testified that Mrs. Russell, in a subsequent telephone conversation with her,
had characterized the layoff as one calculated to enable the Respondent to get
rid of the union supporters in its employ. I find Klein's testimony with respect
to Mrs. Russell's alleged admission unworthy of, credit. The forelady did not
impress me as the sort of person who would be likely to make unguarded admis-
sions in the course of a casual telephone conversation-and the record, as a
whole, will not support an inference that she made one. Knudson's testimony,
with respect to her layoff in March, establishes clearly that Mrs. Russell advised
her, thereafter, to leave her sweater and apron at the plant, since she would
be "coming back" to work. Such advice would clearly be inconsistent with a
fixed intent to dispense with Knudson's services ; I find no warrant in the record
for an inference that Russell would have misled Knudson, deliberately, as to
her prospects of reemployment when a forfeiture of the latter's personal property
might result.
The forelady testified also that it was her policy to recall former employees
of the Respondent through the employment service whenever possible, and not
to recall those employed elsewhere at the time. Her testimony has not been
denied; I find it credible The record reveals that Knudson was employed else-
where in July, when the Respondent recalled a number of its former employees.
I find that the forelady's policy, note, provides a sufficient explanation of the
Respondent's failure to recall her And a similar conclusion would seem to be
18 Crosby Chemicals, Inc, 85 NLRB 791, 799.
LUCILLE OF HOLLYWOOD 51
warranted in the case of Celaya. Upon the entire record, I find that the Respond-
ent's failure or refusal to recall these employees after the March layoff does not
render its motives suspect ; I therefore reject, for lack of merit , the contention
that the layoffs in March involved an unfair labor practice.
2. Interference, restraint , and coercion
The complaint alleges that the Respondent , by its officers , agents, and em-
ployees, interfered with, restrained , and coerced its employees in connection with
their effort to exercise rights guaranteed by the Act. In connection with his con-
tention, in this regard , the General Counsel has listed in the complaint the
various acts and statements which, it is alleged, involved illegal interference,
restraint , and coercion . I find it unnecessary , in the light of the present record,
to discuss the sufficiency of the evidence with respect to each type of conduct
therein set forth . The General Counsel's contention , in general , has merit.
Specifically , I find illegal interference , restraint , and coercion in the remark
of Forelady Russell on the 9th of January. This conclusion is bottomed upon
the evidence, which I credit, that:
(1) She referred, in the course of her remarks, to the possibility that the
plant might be moved to Long Beach if "labor trouble" there made it necessary
for the Respondent , ultimately , to deal with the Union-and that such a move
on the part of the Respondent might deprive the workers of their employment.
(2) She requested the employees to bring their grievances directly to the
Respondent 's management , and to resign if they were basically dissatisfied
with the conditions of their employment.l0
(3) She suggested that the employees undertake to determine for themselves
the identity of the union adherents ; the suggestion was accompanied by, and
related to, the observation-found coercive elsewhere in this report-that the
Respondent might otherwise be persuaded to move its plant 20
The suggestion that employees ought to determine for themselves the identity
of the union supporters among the plant personnel might very well warrant
dismissal as of no consequence if it were merely part of a noncoercive antiunion
speech. When , however, such a suggestion is coupled with clearly coercive
statements , reasonably calculated to induce action on the part of the employees,
the suggestion itself must be regarded as an integral part of an illegal course
of conduct. Essentially, the statements of Mrs. Russell constituted an attempt
coercively to enlist the aid of the antiunion faction among the Respondent's
employees in the identification of the union supporters, a type of activity pro-
scribed-in the case of the Respondent-by established decisional doctrine.
To permit the Respondent to coerce its employees into such a course of action
is to permit the accomplishment of a forbidden end by indirection, i. e , through
the medium of the antiunion faction ; the Board, if it permitted such conduct
would, in effect, sanction a readily contrived device for evasion of the Act 21
I find, therefore, that the forelady's suggestion, when considered in the light of
the coercive statements made in conjunction with it, involved an unfair labor
practice.
The record reveals that certain employees of the Respondent made an immedi-
ate effort to satisfy Mrs. Russell, by the initiation and circulation of a petition
which required their fellow employees to declare themselves content with the
2 0 Antone Louis d/h/a Metropolitan Markets, 83 NLRB 1106.
20 John H Mackin Peanut Co., Inc, 84 NLRB 384
21 Wytheville Knitting Mills, Inc, 78 NLRB 640
52 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
conditions of their employment. While there is no evidence that any official of
the Respondent suggested the petition, expressly, as a device to determine the
attitudes of each worker with respect to his or her employment, or that the
Respondent's office personnel supplied the paper used in its preparation with
knowledge of the use to which it would be put, there can be no doubt that Mrs.
Russell, at least, was aware of-its existence after it became available for signa-
ture. It was circulated openly, during free time at the plant-and to some
extent during working hours-with the assistance of the floor girls whose regu-
lar work was under her direct supervision. Despite the absence of evidence in
the record that pressure of any kind was used to compel the addition of signatures
to the petition, I find that it was prepared and circulated as a direct result of
Mrs. Russell's coercive suggestion, previously noted, and that it was circulated
on free time and during working hours with her knowledge and tacit approval
Under the circumstances, I find that its preparation and circulation were directly
attributable to the Respondent, and that Mrs Russell's tacit approval of its
circulation during working hours involved illegal interference, restraint, or
coercion.
In addition, I find that _llrs. Russell's refusal to interfere with the vituperative
attacks of employee Moscarella and others on Astrid Knudson during their free
time at the plant,'indicated, and was intended to indicate, her approval of the
attacks. Her refusal to act did not derive, I find, from an official neutrality
policy Since the vocal activity of the antiunion faction did not begin until
Mrs Russell had spoken, I find that the activity in question was a direct result
of the coercive suggestion, previously noted, which formed an integral part of
her remarks. In a proper case, it might well be argued that a respondent's failure
or refusal to interfere with expressions of antiunion opinion by rank-and-file
employees, during free time at the plant, does not involve an unfair labor prac-
tice, since the Act guarantees the right of employees to refrain from union organ-
izational activity or concerted activity for their mutual aid or protection I have
found, however, that the activities of Moscarella and the other members of the
antiunion faction were directly induced by the forelady's coercive statements
Mrs. Russell's refusal to inhibit the excessive zeal displayed by the leaders of the
antiunion group, under the circumstances, necessarily conveyed to the employees
the impression that she approved it 22 I find that her ostensible neutrality in this
connection actually involved an endorsement of the conduct attributable to the
antiunion faction, and that it constituted illegal interference with, restraint, or
coercion of the Respondent's employees, at least insofar as it served to indicate
her approval of statements and conduct which involved something more than
the legitimate expression of views, argument, or opinion.
Green's conduct at the 'time of the leaflet distribution must also be character-
ized, in one respect at least, as violative of the statute. His threat to call the
police to stop the distribution does not appear to have been made in the presence
of any employees ; in any event he made no effort to execute the threat. I find
that it did not constitute an unfair labor practice. His repetition of the organ-
izer's language, regardless of his manner or the tone of voice he employed, did
not amount, in my opinion, to illegal interference, restraint, or coercion. There
can be no doubt, however, that he was present at a point from which he could
observe the departure of his employees-a point at which he, in turn, could be
observed-and that he remained there for an appreciable part of the compara-
22 Specifically , I find that she gave tacit approval by her silence to the intei rogation of
Knudson as to the reasons why she had "brought in" the Union to organize the plant.
LUCILLE, OF HOLLYWOOD 53
tively short period within which his employees left the plant. I find that his
presence, under the circumstances, was motivated, at least in part, by a desire
to keep the leaflet distribution under surveillance-a course of conduct proscribed
by the Act
Upon the entire record I find. in sum, that Mrs. Russell's speech to the Respond-
ent's employees on the 9th of January, her tacit approval-of the circulation
during working hours, of the petition pi eviously noted, her acquiescence in the
course of conduct attributable to the antiunion faction which developed as a
result of the coercive suggestions embodied in her remarks, and Green's sur-
veillance of the Union's leaflet distribution in February, constituted interference
with, restraint, or coercion of the Respondent's employees in their exercise of
rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent set forth in Section III, aboveywhich occurred
in connection with the operations of the Respondent described in Section I, above,
have a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce
among the several States, and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and
obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce.
V. TIIE REMEDY
Since it has been found that the Respondent did engage in and is engaged in
unfair labor practices, it will be recommended that it cease and desist therefrom
and take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
It has been found, specifically, that the Respondent interfered with, restrained,
and coerced its employees in their exercise of rights guaranteed by Section 7 of
the Act, by certain acts and statements on the part of its forelady, and by other
conduct attributable to Mishel Green, a member of the firm. Accordingly, it
will be recommended that the Respondent declare its intent to cease and desist in
future from the course of conduct described herein as violative of the Act, and
from any and all other interference, restraint, and coercion directed against em-
ployees, with respect to their exercise of rights which the Act guarantees.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAw
In the light of these findings of fact, and upon the entire record in the case,
I make the following conclusions of law :
1. The Respondent, Lucille of Hollywood, is an employer within the meaning of
Section 2 (2) of the Act, engaged in commerce and business activities which
affect commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
2 Undergarment Workers Union, Local No. 496, affiliated with the Inter-
national Ladies Garment Workers Union, A F of L, is a labor organization
within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
3. By its interference with, restraint, and coercion of employees engaged in
the exercise of rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act, the Respondent did
engage and has continued to engage in unfair labor practices within the meaning
of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.
4. The unfair labor practices cited are unfair labor practices affecting com-
merce, within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
5. The Respondent,did not engage in unfair labor practices within the meaning
of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act when it teilninated the services of Josephine
54 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Collelouri and Astrid Knudson in December 1949, or in connection with the
termination of Laura Celaya's employment at or about the same time ; nor did
its conduct in connection with the layoffs it made in March of 1950 involve such
an unfair labor practice.
[Recommended Order omitted from publication in this volume.]
AMERICAN PIPE AND STEEL CORPORATION and T. R. WATSON
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF BOILERMAKERS, IRON SHIPBUILDERS
AND HELPERS OF AMERICA, AFL, AND ITS LOCAL UNION No. 92 and
T. R. WATSON. Cases Nos. 21-CA-361 and 21-CB-130. February
7,1951
Decision and Order
On March 29, 1950, Trial Examiner Maurice M. Miller issued his
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that
Respondent American Pipe and Steel Corporation, herein referred to
as the Employer, and Respondent Local Union No. 92, referred to
herein as the Local, had engaged in and were engaging in certain
unfair labor practices, and recommending that they cease and desist
therefrom, and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy
of the Intermediate Report attached hereto. He also found that these
Respondents had not engaged in certain other unfair labor practices
and recommended that the complaint be dismissed as to them. The
Trial Examiner found that Respondent International Brotherhood of
Boilermakers, Iron Shipbuilders and Helpers of America, AFL, re-
ferred to herein as the International, had not engaged in any unfair
labor practices and recommended that the complaint with respect to it
be dismissed. Thereafter, the- Local and the General Counsel filed
exceptions to the Intermediate Report and supporting briefs.,
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 Inter-
mediate Report, the exceptions and briefs, and the entire record in the
case, and hereby adopts the Trial Examiner's findings, recommenda-
tions, and conclusions, to the extent that they are consistent with our
conclusions and order, hereinafter set forth.
1. We agree with the Trial Examiner that the contract executed on
October 16, 1948, by the Employer, the Local, and the International is
not invalid. In so finding, we reject the General Counsel's contention
'The General Counsel and the Local also requested oral argument . These requests are
hereby denied because the record and the exceptions and briefs , in our opinion , adequately
present the issues and the positions of the parties.
93 NLRB No. 11