Quest-Shon Mark Brassiere Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 8, 1948

80 N.L.R.B. 1149 (N.L.R.B. 1948)

In the Matter Of QUEST-SHON MARK BRASSIERE Co., INC. and CORSET
AND BRASSIERE WORKERS OF NEw YORK, LOCAL 32, I. L. G. W. U.,
A. F. L.
Case No. 2-C-6876.-Decided December 8, 1948
DECISION
AND
ORDER
On December 31, 1947, Trial Examiner Wallace E. Royster issued
his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that
the Respondent, Quest-Shon Mark Brassiere Co., Inc., had engaged,
and was engaging, in certain unfair labor practices,' and recommend-
ing that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative
action, as set forth in the copy of the Intermediate Report attached
hereto. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to the Inter-
mediate Report and a supporting brief.
The Board 2 has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner
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 supporting brief, and the entire record
in the case. To the extent that they are consistent with the Decision
and Order herein, the Board adopts the findings, conclusions, and
recommendations of the Trial Examiner.3
1. We agree with the Trial Examiner's findings that the Respondent
in October 1946, and on various occasions thereafter, engaged in in-
dependent violations of Section 8 (1) of the Act by offers of rewards
and threats of removal of its plants, to combat union organization, by
interrogation of its employees and by directions to its employees that
those who favored a union leave its employ.
1 Those provisions of Section 8 (1) and 8 ( 3) of the National Labor Relations Act which
the Trial Examiner herein found were violated are continued , as amended , in Section 8
( a) (1) and S (a) (3) of the amended Act.
2 Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, as amended, the Board has dele-
gated its powers in connection with this case to a three -man panel consisting of the under-
signed Board Members [Chairman Herzog and Members Houston and Gray].
3 The Respondent 's request for oral argument before the Board is denied , as the issues
and the contentions of the parties are fully set forth in the record and in the brief filed
with the Board by the Respondent.
80 N. L. R. B., No. 175.
1149
1150 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
2. The Trial Examiner found, and we agree . that on January 22,
1947 , the Respondent unlawfully discharged eight employees at its
39th Street plant . We base our conclusion on the following con-
siderations :
(a) At the time of the discharges the Respondent gave poor pro-
duction as the reason for discharging seven of these employees.
However , the Respondent 's production records, as the Examiner found,
show that some of these seven employees were among the best pro-
ducers in the plant, and that workers less efficient than any of these
seven were retained.
(b) The eighth dischargee, Clementine Nardella, was discharged
allegedly for passing articles to another employee during working
hours. However, we credit the testimony of Mildred Heinle, an eye-
witness, that the discharge was precipitated by Nardella's refusal to
answer a question by Plant Superintendent Emelio Paolillo con-
cerning union activity in the plant.
(c) All eight discharges occurred , without notice , in the middle of
a pay period, only a few hours after many of the employees in the
plant, including the dischargees , had discussed the desirability of
forming a union and circulated and signed slips of paper for the
purpose of demonstrating their pro -union sentiment.
(d) Hostility of the Respondent to union organization was dis-
played in the coercive conduct which violated Section 8 (1) of the
Act, as indicated in paragraph 1, above.
( e) The discussion of a union by the employees on January 22, and
the circulation and signing of the slips of paper mentioned above took
place on the plant premises , a few hours before the eight employees
were discharged , in full view of Forelady Pileggi and in a room
adjacent to the office of the plant superintendent . In a small plant
like the present one ,4 it is a reasonable inference , and we find, that
these activities came to the notice of the plant superintendent.' This
inference is strengthened by the plant superintendent 's afore-nlen-
tioned interrogation of Nardella immediately before discharging
her.
(f) The Respondent 's witnesses testified at the hearing that the
discharges had been determined upon even before the slips were
circulated. At the close of the hearing, however , the Respondent's
counsel for the first time contended that the discharges might be
attributed to the Respondent 's concern over the disruption of pro-
4 The maximum number of employees in this plant was 130
"See N. L . R. B. V Abbott Worsted Mills, Inc., 127 F . ( 2d) 438, 440 ( C. C A. 1 ), where
the Court stated, ". . . in a small plant like the present one it is a reasonable in-
ference that the information [as to the dischargee 's union activities ] came to the notice of
the higher management officials."
QUEST-SHON MARK BRASSInRE CO., INC. I151
duction by the circulation of the slips. This apparent vacillation by
the Respondent in explaining the discharges reflects on the validity,
of the explanation.
In view of all these circumstances, and upon the entire record in
the case, we find that Plant Superintendent Enlelio Paolillo knew of
the union activity of the eight employees and unlawfully terminated
their employment because of such activity.
3. The Trial Examiner found that on January 23, 194S, the Respond-
ent unlawfully locked out and discharged 32 employees at its 39th
Street plant. These employees may be grouped into 4 categories,
as follows :
(a) Those employees concerning whom there was specific, credible
evidence that they left the plant either (1) after hearing the Respond-
ent's Vice-President Anthony Paolillo, the Plant Superintendent
Emelio Paolillo, or Forelady Pileggi, order all those employees who
wanted a union to get out of the plant, or (2) after being ordered out
of the plant individually by one of the Paolillos or by Pileggi for
professing pro-union sentiments. Included in this group are Eva'
DeJames, Christina McLean, Veronica Cattonar, Edith Whalley,,
Mary Wasleger, Mildred Heinle, Marie Stanford, Jean Knauf, Mary
Guardino,e and Virginia Ruggiero .' These employees, we find, in
agreement with the Trial Examiner, were unlawfully discharged on
January 23, 1947.
(b) Those employees who, contrary to their pre- trial statements,
testified at the hearing that they left the plant on January 23, after
hearing Anthony Paolillo say that those who did not want to work
should leave. Included in this group are Theresa Cavallo and Mary
Paramatto.
The Trial Examiner made no finding on the basis of Cavallo's tes-
timony insofar as it conflicted with her pre-trial statement that
Anthony had ordered those who wanted a union to leave. However,
her testimony that she was in the plant on the morning of January
23, and heard an announcement by Anthony about 8: 30 a. in., which
caused her to leave the plant, does not conflict with her pre-trial
statement and was presumably credited by the Examiner. In view
of the convincing testimony of other employees that this announce-
ment instructed all those who wanted a union to leave, we find, as did
6 Mary Guardino ' s own version of her leaving was not credited by the Trial Examiner
because of her prior inconsistent pre-trial statement The Examiner relied, instead, on
Marino's testimony that on the morning of January 23 she heard Anthony Paohllo tell
Guardino in effect that she could not work so long as she wanted a union.
' Ruggiero did not testify. DeJames stated that Ruggiero left the plant on the morning
of January 23, after Emelio Paolillo told her to get out if she wanted a union
1152 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the Trial Examiner, that Cavallo heard such an instruction and left
the plant as a result thereof.
As the circumstances of Paramatto's discharge are virtually iden-
tical with those of Cavallo's, we find that Paramatto was also unlaw-
fully discharged on the same date.
(c) Those employees, other than Ruggiero, 18 in number, who
did not testify at the hearing. As to these, the Respondeut's time
cards for the week ending January 25, 1947, show that they punched
in shortly before, or shortly after, 8: 30 on the morning of January
23, 1948. These time cards show further that these employees did
not work on the 23rd or during the rest of the week. There was no
direct evidence, however, that any of these employees actually heard
any of the various instructions given to the other employees to leave
the plant, nor is there sufficient evidence from which it can reasonably
be inferred that they heard such instructions. In the absence of such
evidence, we are unable to assume that they did in fact hear such in-
structions or, more specifically, that they heard the instructions re-
lated by the employees in the first category, namely, to leave the plant
if they wanted a unions Accordingly, we do not find that the em-
ployees in this group were discriminatorily discharged .9
(d) Special circumstances are presented by the cases of Marie
Strandberg and Anna Giangreco. Both had signed the slips circu-
lated on the 22nd, indicating their desire for a union. They entered
the plant together between 8: 45 and 9: 00 on the morning of the 23rd,
but were told by Emelio not to punch in, as there was no work.10 Both
then joined DeJames and McLean, who were talking with Anthony
Paolillo, and Giangreco testified that the latter declared at the time
that he would move the plant out of town rather than deal with a
union.
We are satisfied from the foregoing circumstances, considered in the
context of the Respondent's other unlawful conduct on the morning
of January 23, and on the preceding day, that Giangreco and Strand-
8 We are particularly reluctant to make this assumption in view of the concession by
Board Counsel in argument before the Examiner that such an assumption was not justified
with respect to 4 of the employees in this third category and that the Board should treat
them merely as unfair labor practice strikers , finding that they voluntarily left the plant
on January 23, out of sympathy with those employees who had been discharged on January
22. The evidence is, however, insufficient in our opinion , to support any finding as to the
reason why these 4 employees did not continue to work ; nor can we perceive that the
cases of the other 14 employees in this category are in any better posture for the purpose
of finding either that they were discharged or that they were unfair labor practice strikers.
8 Included in this group are Thelma Agar , Antoinette Barbieri , Assunta Canone, Anna
Della Rocca , Adelaide DeMarzo , Alexandrina Dorta, Maria Fuschetti , Lillian Hanover,
Dominica Napoli, Mary Nappi , Millie Rizzo , Maria Rodriguez , Jennie Ruiz, Sue Ruiz, Susan
Ruiz, Frances Scarcella , Cecilia Schwartz , and Marie Tirone.
10 There was no apparent basis for this remark inasmuch as the majority of the em.
ployees in the plant had not left at the time and, in fact , remained at work all that day.
QUEST-SHON MARK BRASSIERE CO., INC. 1153
berg were unlawfully discharged on January 23, because of their
union sympathies.
4. The Trial Examiner found that on January 31,1947, the Respond-
ent unlawfully discharged 17 employees at its 86th Street plant. This
finding is based solely on the testimony of Marion Festa that Forelady
Castaldi told the employees just before they left for lunch on that
day that those who wanted a union should not return. In refusing to
credit the contrary testimo of another employee (Grace Chinnice)
that Castaldi on the occasion in question merely requested the em-
ployees not to strike, the Examiner alludes to a failure of Castaldi to
deny the statement attributed to her by Festa.
However, the record reveals that Castaldi did deny that she had
ever told anyone to leave the plant if they wanted a union." More-
over, the Trial Examiner makes no reference to the testimony of Rose
Lavallo, one of the alleged dischargees, that Castaldi said only, "Who-
ever stays out, don't come back in the afternoon and whoever wants
to come back, comes back."
In view of these circumstances, we do not consider that the evidence
warrants a finding that these 17 employees were unlawfully discharged.
5. The Examiner found that Marion Festa, who had been reemployed
in February 1947, and Mamie Ferranto were thereafter unlawfully
discharged on March 7, 1947, at the 86th Street plant. We do not
agree.
After testifying in effect that she had been discharged on March 7,
Festa returned to the witness stand later in the hearing and stated
that she had not been discharged but had voluntarily quit. Moreover,
the Trial Examiner found that the discharge of both Festa and Fer-
ranto on March 7, was precipitated by their engaging during working
hours in protracted discussion of the union to the neglect of their work.
Under these circumstances, we find that neither Festa nor Ferranto
was unlawfully discharged.
6. The offers of reinstatement.
The matter of remedying the unlawful discharges remains. The
record is clear that during the course of the strike offers of reinstate-
ment were made to the strikers, including the individuals who were
unlawfully discharged; and the Trial Examiner, in fact, finds that
"many and perhaps most of" the strikers "were advised in one fashion
or another that they could come back to work." The Examiner, how-
ever, gives no effect to these offers, stating that "those to whom they
were directed must have assumed that the condition which cost them
"The Examiner refers to this denial, but discounts it because it was made in answer to
a leading question by Respondent 's counsel and was not , in the Examiner ' s opinion, a
specific contradiction of Festa's testimony . See fn. 8 of the Intermediate Report. We
believe that the Examiner attached undue weight to these factors.
1154 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
their employment (that they could not work if they desired a union)
was still effective." We are not satisfied, however, that there is ade-
quate basis in the record for imputing such an assumption to the
dischargees. Accordingly. we do not concur in the foregoing reason
given by the Trial Examiner for denying effect to the Respondent's
offer of reinstatement.
For different reasons, however, we do concur in the Examiner's
conclusion that the "offers were not such offers of reinstatement as the
Act contemplates to remedy unfair labor practices." Counsel for
Respondent testified that the strikers were offered reemployment at
their former jobs in the 39th and 86th Street plants, but only on con-
dition that they were acceptable to their former co-workers at those
plants; otherwise, they were to be reemployed at a new and different
plant of the Respondent on 84th Street. This is not an unconditional
offer of reinstatement such as is contemplated by the Act 12 We find,
therefore, that the purported offers of reinstatement did not effectively
terminate the Respondent's liability to the dischargees.
ORDER
Upon the entire record in 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, Quest-Shon Mark
Brassiere Co., Inc., Brooklyn, New York, and its officers, agents, suc-
cessors, and assigns shall :
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Discouraging membership in Corset and Brassiere Workers of
New York, Local 32, I. L. G. W. U., A. F. L., or in any other labor
organization of its employees, by discharging, locking out, or refusing
to reinstate any of its employees, or by discriminating in any other
manner in regard to their hire or tenure of employment or any term
or condition of their employment;
(b) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing
its employees in the exercise of the right to self-organization, to form
labor organizations, to join or assist Corset and Brassiere Workers
of New York, Local 32, I. L. G. W. U., A. F. L., or any other labor
organization, to bargain collectively through representatives of their
12 See Matter of Shenandoah-Dives Maning Co., 56 N. L. R B 751: Matter of Fred P.
Weissman Co , 71 N L. R B. 147. Even if it appeared that the jobs in the 84th Street
plant were substantially equivalent to the jobs from which the strikers had been separated,
the offer would still be ineffective unless their former jobs were no longer in existence.
Matter of The Chase National Bank, 65 N. L . R B. 827. There is no evidence that this
was the case here.
QUEST-SHON MARK BRASSIERE CO., INC. 1155
own choosing, and to engage in any other concerted activities for the
purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection,
and to refrain from any or all of such activities except to the extent
that such right may be affected by an agreement requiring membership
in a labor organization as a condition of employment as authorized
in Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act, as guaranteed by Section 7 thereof.
2. Take the following affirmative action, which the Board finds
will effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) To the extent that such action has not already been taken, offer
to those individuals whose names are listed in Schedules A and B, at-
tached hereto, excepting Marie Stanford and Mildred Heinle, imme-
diate and full reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent
positions, without prejudice to their seniority or other rights and priv-
i leges;
(b) Make whole those employees whose names are listed in Sched-
ules A and B, attached hereto, for any loss of pay each may have suf-
fered by reason of the discrimination against her, in the manner de-
scribed in Section V of the Intermediate Report in this case;
(c) Post at each of its plants in Brooklyn, New York, copies of the
notice attached hereto, marked "Appendix A." 13 Copies of said no-
tice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for the Second Region,
shall, after being duly signed by the Respondent's representative, be
posted by the Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof and main-
tained by it for a period of sixty (60) consecutive days thereafter in
conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees
customarily are posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Re-
spondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered
by other material ;
(d) Notify the Regional Director for the Second Region in writ-
ing, within ten (10) days from the date of this Order, what steps the
Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that in all other respects the co mplaint herein
be, and it hereby is, dismissed.
SCHEDULE A
Eleanor Berte Ann Marino
Rose Carver Clementine Nardella
Grace Guardino Iola Ogno
Josephine Guardino Mary Semioli
" In the event that this order is entorced by decree of a United States Court of Appeals,
there shall be inserted in the notice , before the word,, "A DECISION AND ORDER," the
words "A DECREE OF THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS ENFORCING -
817319-49--col. 80---74
1156 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
SCHEDULE B
Veronica Cattonar
Theresa Cavallo
Eva DeJames
Anna Giangreco
Mary Guardino
Mildred Heinle
Jean Knauf
Christine McLean
Mary Paramatto
Virginia M. Ruggiero
Marie Stanford
Marie Strandberg
Mary Wasleger
Edith Whalley
APPENDIX A
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to a Decision and Order 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 CORSET AND BRASSIERE
WORKERS OF NEW YORK , LOCAL 32, I. L . G. W. U., A. F. L., 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 protection.
WE WILL OFFER to the employees named below, to the extent
that such action has not already been taken , immediate and full
reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent positions
without prejudice to any seniority or other rights and privileges
previously enjoyed , and make them whole for any loss of pay
suffered as a result of the discrimination.
Eleanor Berte
Rose Carver
Grace Guardino
Josephine Guardino
Veronica Cattonar
Theresa Cavallo
Eva Defames
Anna Giangreco
Mary Guardino
Mildred Heinle*
Jean Knauf
Christina McLean
Ann Marino
Clementine Nardella
Iola Ogno
Mary Semioli
Mary Paramatto
Virginia M. Ruggiero
Marie Standford*
Marie Strandberg
Mary Wasleger
Edith Whalley
*Does not desire reinstatement and no offer thereof to her is required.
QUEST-SHON MARK BRASSIERE CO., INC. 1157
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 employee because of mem-
bership in, or activity on behalf of, any such labor organization.
QUEST-SHON MARK BRASSIERE CO., INC.,
Employoz.
Dated ----------------------- By-------------------------------
(Representative ) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof,
and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
INTERMEDIATE REPORT
George Turitz, Esq., for the General Counsel.
Adolph I. King, Esq., of Brooklyn, N. Y., for the Respondent.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon a first amended charge duly filed June 27, 1947, by Corset and Brassiere
Workers of New York, Local 32, I. L. G. W. U., A. F. L., herein called the
Union, the National Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board, by its
Regional Director for the Second Region (New York, New York), issued its
complaint dated July 2, 1947, against Brooklyn Corset Co., Inc.; herein called
Respondent, alleging that Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in unfair
labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8 (1) and
(3) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat.
449, herein called the Act.
With respect to unfair labor practices, the complaint alleged in substance that
Respondent on given dates in January and March 1947 discharged certain named
employees z and at all times since failed and refused to reinstate them because of
their membership in and activity on behalf of the Union, and from on or about
October 1, 1946, to the date of the complaint issued vilified, disparaged , and ex-
pressed disapproval of the Union, interrogated its employees concerning union
affiliation, urged, persuaded and warned employees to refrain from assisting or
becoming members of the Union, threatened discharge to employees who favored
So named in the charge and complaint. Counsel for Respondent announced during the
bearing that in conformance with applicable statutes of the State of New York, and with-
out change in ownership, officers, or operation, the name of Respondent had been changed
to Quest-Shon Mark Brassiere Co., Inc.
2 Vaz, on January 22
Eleanor Berte Ann Marino
Rose Carver Clementine Nardella
Grace Guardino Iola Ogno
Josephine Guardino Mary Semioli
on January 23
Thelma Agar Eva DeJames
Antoinette Barbieri Anna Della Rocca
Assunta Canone Adelaide DeMarzo
Veronica Cattonar Alexandrina Dorta
Theresa Cavallo Maria Fuschett!
1158 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the Union, promised and granted wage increases to employees who refrained from
activity an behalf of the Union and kept meeting places ait d.meetings of the Union
under surveillance.
Pursuant to notice a hearing was held on various dates from August 18 to Sep-
tember 18. 1947, at New York, New York, before Wallace E Royster, the Trial
Examiner duly appointed by the Chief Trial Examiner. The General Counsel of
the Board and Respondent were represented by counsel who participated in the
hearing and were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-
examine witnesses and to introduce evidence bearing on the issues.
Under date of July 21, 1947, Respondent filed an answer admitting certain of
the allegations of the complaint, but denying the commission of unfair labor
practices. During the hearing and at its close counsel for Respondent made a
number of motions having for their purpose the dismissal of the complaint in
whole or in part. The undersigned granted-such a motion with respect to the
allegation that certain individuals' were discriminatorily discharged, but reserved
ruling on others. The reserved rulings are disposed of by the recommendations
hereinafter made At the close of the hearing, a motion by the General Counsel'
to conform the pleadings to the proof was granted without objection. Both
counsel argued orally on the record and a brief has been received from counsel
for Respondent.
Footnote 2-Continued
Anna Giangreco Virginia M. Ruggiero
Mary Guardino Jennie Ruiz
Lillian Hanover Sue Ruiz
Mildred Heinle Susan Ruiz
Myrtle Heist Frances Scarcella
Jean Knauf Cecilia Schwartz
Mary Paramatto Marie Stanford
Christina McLean Marie Strandberg
Dominica Napoli Marie Tirone
Mary Nappi Mary Wasleger
Millie Rizzo Edith Whalley
Maria Rodriguez
on January 31
Rose Aiello Mary Chinnice
Rose Baldare Anna Ciliberti
Pauline Basile Lena Ciliberti
Jennie Baressi Jeanette DeMauro
Mary Brigante Marion Festa
Grace Chinnice
on March 7
Frances Aiello Genevieve Montoro
Marion Festa Mamie Ferranto
Irene Guglielmino Josephine Martingano
Lena Lavisto Mary Palermo
Vilma Lecce Marie Pomato
Rose Lavallo Marie Russo
Josephine Mazda Vita Zaffaro
Domenica Maniac!
The name of Mamie Ferranto was added by amendment at the opening of the heating
over objection of counsel for Respondent . The spelling of names has been corrected to
conform to the proof.
3 Viz: Mary Brigante , Anna Ciliberti, Irene Gughelmino , Domenica Maniaci, and Mary
Pomato.
I This reference and those hereinafter made to the General Counsel of the Board are to
the representative of that officer who appeared at the hearing.
QUEST-SHON MARK BRASSIERE CO., INC.- 1159
Upon the entire record in the case and from his observation of the witnesses,
the undersigned makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT
Respondent is now and at all times material herein has been a corporation
operating several plants in the Borough of Brooklyn, in the city of New York,
New York. This proceeding concerns the activities of Respondent at the 86th
Street and 39th Street plants where Respondent is engaged in the manufacture,
sale and distribution of brassieres and related products. During 1946 in the
course and conduct of its business, Respondent caused to be purchased, transferred
and delivered to each of the said plants, yarn, piece goods, cotton binding, and
other materials valued in excess of $100,000 of which approximately 75 percent
was transported in interstate commerce from States of the United States other
than the State of New York. During the same period, Respondent in the course
and conduct of its business, caused to be manufactured at each of the said plants,
products valued in excess of $100,000 of which approximately 66 percent was trans-
ported in interstate commerce to States of the United States other than the State
of New York. Respondent does not contest the Board's jurisdiction.
H. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Coy set and Brassiere Workers of New York, Local 32, International Ladies
Garment Workers Union, is a labor organization affiliated with the American
Federation of Labor, admitting to membership employees of Respondent.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Interference, restraint, and coercion
The brothers, Andrew and Anthony Paolillo, are president and vice president,
respectively, of Respondent and maintain their offices in the 86th Street plant.
Anthony appears primarily to have charge of Respondent's manufacturing opera-
tions; Andrew of sales and related matters A third brother, Emelio, not an
officer, is superintendent of the 39th Street plant, directing the activity of the
employees at that operation but responsible in turn to Anthony for the quality
and quantity of the product of that plant.
Eighty-sixth Street has been in operation for several years ; 39th Street since
the summer of 1946 only. Both manufacture the same or similar products and
both, apparently, employ female machine operators exclusively. Over the years,
sporadic attempts to organize Respondent's employees have been unsuccessful.
Sometime in October 1946, employees at 39th Street were assembled in the
plant during working hours, where, with the other brothers present, they were
addressed by Anthony. The purpose of the meeting became obvious when An-
thony inquired, "I heard that you girls were talking about a union . . . . Is it
so? . . . What do you want a union for? What can the union give you that
I am not giving you?"' He went on to say that if the employees wanted a union
° Credited testimony of Ann Marino.
1160 DECISIONS OF NATIONAl, LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
they could have one but that unions were comprised of racketeers and gangsters.`
He then ordered the immediate institution of a 15-minute rest period in the
afternoons and announced that Respondent would secure group insurance policies
for the employees. Anthony denied that he even mentioned a union in announc-
ing the institution of the rest periods. The overwhelming evidence to the con-
trary is believed.
On January 22, 1947, several employees at 39th Street, among them Eva De-
James, Ann Marino, Iola Ogno, Mary Guardino, Josephine Guardino, Grace
Guardino, Clementine Nardella, and Rose Carver, in the plant during lunch hour,
discussed the advisability of forming a union. Some interest being aroused,
it was decided to poll the other employees by requesting those who desired a
union to sign their names on slips of paper,' otherwise blank, which were circu-
lated from table to table during the afternoon. Millie Rizzo, Ann Marino, Grace
Guardino, Mary Guardino, and Rose Carver were among those who assisted in
the circulation. During the rest period which started at 2: 45 p. in., the em-
ployees continued the discussion. Rose Carver questioned another employee,
identified in the record only as "Fat Fannie," as to her reason for refusing to
sign a slip . According to the credited testimony of Mary Wasleger "Fat Fannie"
replied "Don't holler at me."
At 2: 55, with 5 minutes of the usual rest period remaining, the employees were
instructed by their forelady, Frances Pilleggi, to return to their machines and
resume work. For most of the remainder of the afternoon Emelio Paolillo re-
mained on the floor observing the workers closely. At or about 4 p. in., he dis-
charged Clementine Nardella ; at about 5 p. m., Eleanor Berte, Rose Carver, Grace
Guardino, Josephine Guardino, Ann Marino, Iola Ogno, and Mary Semioli were
paid in full and told that they were discharged for "lack of production."
On the morning of January 23, before 8: 30, the scheduled time for starting
work, a number of employees met in the dressing room and discussed excitedly
the discharges which had occurred the day before. Just before 8: 30 the three
brothers entered the dressing room. When Eva DeJames told them that the em-
ployees wanted to know the reason for the discharges, Anthony answered that
it was "none of her God damned business" and suggested that if she did not
like it she could "get the hell out of here." Turning to the other employees,
he said, "If you girls want a union, get out, get the hell out of here." Then,
as if for emphasis, individual workers were asked if they wanted a union and,
when they replied affirmatively, were directed to "Get the hell out."
Leaving the dressing room, Anthony again directed DeJames to leave and
then, using a loud-speaker system which carried his voice to all points in the
plant, announced that all those favoring a union should leave Some minutes
later when a number of employees were still sitting idly at their machines, he
told them either to get to work or to leave at once.
DeJames had not left the plant despite the instruction she had received but
remained to engage the three brothers in conversation. She told them that the
employees wanted a union in order to obtain job security and more pay and gave
Anthony the slips that the workers had signed on the previous day. Anthony
e Credited testimony of Christina McLean as corroborated by Eleanor Berte and Mary
Wasleger.
' Some witnesses testified that by signing the slips they were indicating only a desire for
pay for holidays.
QUEST-SHON 'MARK BUASSIERP, CO ., ]14C. 1161
protested that the production the employees were giving him did not justify
keeping the plant in operation ; reminded DeJames and Christina McLain, Marie
Strandberg, and Anna Giangreco, who had joined the group, of the benefits he had
obtained for them such as fluorescent lighting and group insurance; and told
them that he was always ready to advance money to the girls. Andrew interjected
that he could get rid of any union by paying $50 and stated "I'll be a God-damn
bastard if I ever get a union shop in Quest-Shon Mark. . . . The unions are
nothing but a bunch of racketeers and a bunch of gangsters.... I'm not afraid
of any of them." Anthony remarked that Ann Marino was the cause of all the
"trouble" and that if it took him 10 years he would "get even with her."
After the announcements over the loud-speaker system a number of employees
left the plant, among them those alleged in the complaint to have been discharged
on January 23. Joining with those who were discharged on the previous day,
all repaired to a nearby tavern, discussed their plight, and sought the assistance
of the Union. That afternoon all signed union designation cards and within
a few days established picket lines at 39th Street and 86th Street and occasion-
ally at other of Respondent's plants. Picketing ceased in May.
At 86th Street those on the picket line sought to persuade the workers in the
plant to join them with the result that the sympathy of a number of those workers
was aroused. On the morning of January 31, some of them discussed the ad-
visability of leaving their work and joining the picket line. In order to decide
upon a course of action, they agreed to meet that noon at the nearby home of
one of them. A few minutes before the lunch recess, the power was cut and
Evelyn Castaldi, the forelady, who under Anthony Paolillo was in charge of the
plant, secured the attention of the workers and told them that those who wanted
a union should not return to work that afternoon.' Eighteen workers who were
present on this occasion did not return to work after lunch. Some, if not all,
joined the picket line.
Sometime during the month of February, Anthony called the employees to a
meeting in the cutting room at 86th Street where he told them that he under-
stood they were about to strike. He then advised the workers that if the Union
succeeded in organizing the plant he would move out of town and that they
could follow him if they chose. He then called upon the girls to indicate their
choice-if they desired the Union to stand to one side in the room. This evoked
no response whereupon he remarked that if the girls were "with" him he did not
want them "stabbing" him in the back. Castaldi then interposed that those who
wanted the Union should make their desires known so that Respondent could
know what to do in the shop. Anthony conceded that he so inquired of the
employees on this occasion and agreed that no one then indicated a desire for
union representation.
It is clear, of course, that Respondent opposed the organization of its
employees and exercised its economic power in an attempt to thwart their efforts
' Marion Festa so testified and Castaldi did not deny making the statement although she
did testify in response to a leading question posed by counsel for Respondent that she
had never told anyone to leave the plant because they wanted a union. Grace Chinnice
testified that Castaldi told employees that those who wanted a union should "go out."
Rose Aiello testified that Castaldi said only that the girls could stay out if they desired.
In her pre-trial statement, however, Aiello related that Castaldi on the occasion in question
had said "At twenty minutes to one, all your girls come right in Don't make me drag you
in. And the girls that want the Union-stay out "
1162 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
to secure representation The October meeting at 39th Street was palpably
occasioned by rumors that the employees were discussing unionization and the
concessions then made-rest periods and group insurance-were for the pur-
pose of inducing them to abandon such ambitions The direction on January
23 to those of the employees at 39th Street who desired a union to "get the hell
out" and the instruction on January 31 to the employees at 86th Street who
entertained similar desires not to return to work were both violative of the
right of employees under the Act to be free from employer coercion. Partaking
of the same character was the inquiry by Anthony at the meeting in the cutting
room concerning who among the employees wanted a union coupled as it was
with the threat to move the business to another location.
I find that ( 1) by offering rewards to its employees to lessen their desire for
organization , by (2) ordering those of its employees who desired a union to leave
its employ , and by ( 3) threatening to move its plants in the event its employees
chose to be represented collectively and by interrogating its employees with
respect to such desires , Respondent interfered with, restrained , and coerced
its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act
and thereby violated Section 8 ( 1) of the Act.
These findings are established , in my opinion , by a preponderance of the
credible evidence. True , Anthony Paolillo denied that his remarks to the
employees at the time the establishment of rest periods was announced con-
tained any reference to a union but those in his audience who took the stand
testified convincingly to the contrary . In view of this and his self-contradictory
testimony on other crucial points, to which later reference will be made, his
denial does not merit belief. He also denied that he ordered the union sympa-
thizers to leave 39th Street on January 23. Except for the testimony of his
two brothers , his denial finds little corroboration in the record . On this point,
Respondent relies in the main upon witnesses who, by their own averments, did
not remain in the dressing room to hear what he had to say to refute positive
testimony of others who did. Finally , he denied threatening to move the plants
in the event the employees chose a union . Here again his testimony stands
contradicted by all others who were questioned concerning that occasion
B. The alleged discriminatory discharges
Iola Ogno, a single-needle operator at 39th Street , was employed from the
summer of 1946 until her discharge on January 22, 1947 . In November she
sought a raise in pay from Emilio Paolillo but was told that her production
must improve before it would be granted . On January 22, she discussed with
other employees the desirability of forming a union and signed the slips which
were circulated for signature that afternoon . Near the close of the day, she
saw Emelio take a number of time cards from the rack and at quitting time, she
and six other girls were called to Emelio 's office where they were advised of
their discharge for "lack of production."
Ogno was earning $35 a week at the time and was working on style 706.
There is no evidence that her rate of production was ever criticized although she
was refused a raise upon the ground that her output did not justify it . According
to Respondent 's production records in evidence, Ogno was the best producer
QUEST-SHON MARK, BRASSIERE CO., INC. 1 163
among those receiving the same wage as she . Despite this circumstance and
despite also the fact that Respondent at the time was eager to secure employees
to operate the numerous idle machines at 39th Street , she was discharged.
In May, Ogno was rehired at another of Respondent's plants at her old wage
but after 2 weeks was raised to $37. She was in the employ of Respondent at the
time of the hearing and was a reluctant witness for the General Counsel, re-
pudiating in substantial part her pre-trial statement.
Josephtne Guardino was first employed by Respondent at 39th Street in the
summer of 1946. Probably in December , she quit but was rehired by Emelio
Paolillo shortly after the New Year at a higher wage. During the period from
the rehiring until her discharge on January 22, Guardino worked as a double-
needle operator . Her production average for those few weeks was in excess of
that of three of the four other employees doing the same work and receiving the
same wage as she and was increasing steadily . Her work was never criticized.
About August 1, she was rehired by Anthony Paolillo at the wage she received
at the time of her discharge.
On January 22, near the close of the work day, Guardino with six other em-
ployees was informed by Emelio that she was discharged for "lack of produc-
tion." When Guardino protested that he was discharging his best operators,'
Emelio replied that this action was ordered by Anthony
Mary Semioli was employed as a single -needle operator in mid -December 1946.
She first was assigned to work on style 710 and then, on January 20, started work
on style 706 . Upon examining her production on the new style, the forelady,
Frances Pillegi, remarked encouragingly , "You are doing fine. Keep it up."
No other comment relating to her work was made during her short period of
employment. Semioli was in the lowest wage bracket among the single-needle
operators and her production for the 3 days she worked on style 706 was low-
averaging 2 dozen a day. For the 5 days that she worked on style 710, Semioli
averaged 2.8 dozen per day, slightly less than the daily average of 3 dozen pro-
duced by the group of employees earning the same wage as she, but still a better
average than, for example, Anna Della Rocco, Carmela Mautella, and Marion
Plank , none of whom was discharged for poor production.
On January 22, Semioli signed a slip indicating her desire for union represen-
tation. At the close of the day, she was discharged for "lack of production."
She has not been reemployed.
Eleanor Berte was employed in September 1946, at $27 a week. A month later
she was raised to $32 but received no further increase. Her work was never
criticized Knd none of it was returned as unsatisfactory . It is clear from pro-
duction records in evidence that Berte was not a fast worker either on style 710
or 706 although her production on the former style was somewhat better than at
least three other employees who were not discharged. She appears to have
worked 5 days on style 706, averaging 1.6 dozens daily, quite the lowest average
for those in her wage bracket. To what extent this low production was at-
tributable to her unfamiliarity with work on that style is somewhat conjectural.
Clearly some amount of experience would be needed on a new style before maxi-
mum speed would be attained.
6 Credited testimony of Ann Maiino Guardino did not recall making this statement
1164 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
At noon on January 22, Berte discussed with other employees the desirability
of forming a union and during the afternoon signed one of the slips signifying
her intention of doing so. At the close of the day she was discharged for "lack
of production." When she protested to Emelio Paolillo that he had never been
critical of her production, he replied that he was carrying out the instructions
of his brother, Anthony.
In June, Berte applied to Anthony for work telling him she wanted nothing
further to do with a union. She was offered employment at a new plant on
84th Street but was told that there was, presently, no vacancy at 39th Street.
Ann Marino was first employed in August 1946 at $35 a week and a month or
6 weeks later was raised to $37. When she later was refused a further in-
crease, Marino quit but returned shortly thereafter when Emelio Paolillo
promised her a raise and a promotion. He redeemed his promise by increasing
her wage to $39 and by promoting her to assistant forelady. From the begin-
ning of her employment, Marino was permitted to work alternately 80 hours
and then 60 hours for bi-weekly periods. After 2 weeks as assistant forelady
during which period she worked 80 hours, she was demoted when she insisted
upon working only 60 hours during the ensuing 2-weeks period. Thereafter,
Marino worked as an operator. During December, due to an illness in her
family, she worked not at all but returned to her employment in early January.
Marino was among the leaders in the group wanting a union and, judging
from her demeanor on the witness stand, probably was one of the most forth-
right and articulate among them. She solicited employees to sign the slip
signifying a desire to form a union and of course affixed her signature also.
Like the others, discussed above, she was discharged on January 22 for "lack
of production."
The evidence that "lack of production" was not the true reason motivating
Marino's discharge is persuasive. The inference is a reasonable one that
Emello Paolillo would not have rewarded an undesirable worker with a pro-
motion to forelady or even have permitted her to arrange a work schedule
suited to her own convenience. Indeed, Emelio did not deny earlier testimony
by Marino that he had described her as one of his best and fastest operators
but instead stated that be could not recall Marino's comparative status as a
producer. Finally, Respondent's production records for January 1947, indi-
cate that the labor cost of producing style 651 chargeable against the operators
was as follows :
Per dozen
Ann Marino ----------------------------------------------------- $0.75
Selma Suomi --------------------------------------------------- 0.91
Delia Adrover -----------_ -------------------------------------- 1.03
Josephine Lattuga ---------------------------------------------- 1.13
On the occasion of her discharge, Marino protested to Emelio that, ". . . on
651's, you get top production from me. That is my fastest style. Why are
you letting me go?" to which Emelio replied, "I have orders, and I have a list
of girls that have to go for low production."
On the day following her discharge, accompanied by Clementine Nardella
and Mary Guardino, Marino returned to 39th Street and engaged the three
brothers in a conversation. Anthony again asked why they wanted a union and
QUEST-SHON MARK BRASSIERE CO., INC. 1165
inquired what they might hope to gain through a union that could not be won
without one. Despite Nardella's accusation that she and the others had been
discharged on January 23 because they wanted a union, Anthony insisted that
low production was the cause. Finally, one of the girls asked Anthony why
he did not want a union. Anthony replied because the Union was "nothing
but a bunch of racketeers" and that he would have no outsider running his
shop. He then asked the three employees if they wanted a union and when
they chorused "Yes," answered "Goodbye, ladies." That ended the conversation.
Rose Carver, at the time of the hearing was, according to the General Counsel,
prevented by illness from testifying. However, the evidence as to her is largely
undisputed. Carver was a double-needle operator who was discharged on Janu-
ary 22 for "lack of production." According to Respondent's production sheets in
evidence Carver and Fannie Pronesti were the highest paid of the double-needle
operators and were also the highest producers. For the period in January for
which records were produced, Carver's production averaged 17 dozen daily,
Pronesti 18.8 dozen. Carver's production was at a direct labor cost of $0.48 for
each dozen completed, Pronesti's slightly less than $0.43 per dozen. Such cost
for the remaining 14 workers in the double-needle section ranged from $0.53 to
more than $1.00 per dozen.
On January 22, Carver signed a slip thereby indicating her desire for union
representation and during the rest period that afternoon upbraided "Fat Fanny"
for her failure to do so. At the close of the day Carver was discharged.
Grace Cruardino, although allegedly subpoenaed by the General Counsel, did
not appear at the hearing. According to her sister, Josephine, she was too ill
to do so. On January 22, Grace participated in the circulation of slips for signa-
ture of those who wanted a union. At the close of the day she was discharged
for "lack of production."
At the time of her discharge, Grace was earning $37 a week as a single-needle
operator on style 706. She produced an average of 4 dozen daily, 80 percent of
the production of Marie Erkella who appears to have been the best producer
on that style and, except for Iola Ogno whose production was the same, substan-
tially more than any other worker earning a lesser wage than she10
Clementine Nardella, a single-needle operator, was discharged at about 4 p. in.,
on January 22. Nardella did not appear to testify because, according to the
General Counsel, of illness.
Emelio Paolillo testified that shortly after lunch on January•22, he had a
conversation with Nardella in which he told her that her production must im-
prove and that she should tell her friends, among them Ann Marino, that they
must do the same. Allegedly, Nardella replied that she was doing her best. At
about 4 p. in., during the same afternoon, still according to Emelio, he saw
Nardella pass cigarettes and a note to the girl sitting next to her. Emelio
immediately approached Nardella and said, "Clem, you must cut that out
during working hours, because you are disrupting the other girls around
you." When Nardella laughed, Emelio ordered her to leave the plant. Mildred
Heinle, of whom more later, overheard part of the conversation attending
Nardella's discharge . According to Heinle, Emelio asked what union activity
1O Grace Guardino alone of those earning $37 worked on style 706 during the period
covered by the records in evidence.
1166 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
was going on and that Nardella answered by suggesting that he ask Phyllis, the
mother of his secretary." At that point, according to Heinle, Nardella was
discharged.
On January 23, according to the credited and undenied testimony of Ann Marino,
Emelio stated that Nardella was discharged for passing something to another
worker. When Nardella asserted that she passed only a cigarette, Emelio
rejoined, "Oh no, you know what you were passing." In a pre-trial statement
given to the Board's Field Examiner on February 12, Emelio asserted that he
had remonstrated with Nardella on January 20 over smoking in the lobby of the
rest room and warned her that a repetition of the offense would result in her
discharge. Still according to the statement, he observed Nardella talking to
other workers during the afternoon of January 22, distracting them from their
work. After watching this for about an hour, he discharged her.
Nardella received a wage of $0.975 an hour, a wage exceeded only by Rose
Carver and Fannie Pronesti among the operators. Her production, according to
records in evidence, was highest among those working on style 710 and was ex-
ceeded by one operator only, Marie Erkella, on style 706. Even on the day of her
discharge she produced her average of 4 dozen although she worked less than 7
hours. According to Mary Guardino, the assistant forelady, Nardella was the
fastest worker in her section. Sometime before August 18, Nardella was reem-
ployed but was on sick leave at the time of the hearing.
Conclusions as to the discharges on January 22
Respondent contends and offered evidence to show that all those who were dis-
charged on January 22, and whose separate situations have been discussed above,
were discharged for cause. If this is true, then, of course, Respondent did not
thereby violate the Act.
To the contrary, argues the General Counsel, each of the eight individuals was
believed by Respondent to be engaged in union organizational activities and was
dischargd for that reason in violation of Section 8 (3) of the Act.
One theory, advanced by Respondent's counsel at the hearing, that each of the
eight, assuming the accuracy of testimony adduced by the General Counsel, was
engaged on January 22 in union activity during working hours and thus might
lawfully be discharged is rejected. There is no evidence that the circulation of
the slips on that date caused any substantial slackening in production and even
if it did, Respondent is bound by its assertion that the discharges were deter-
mined upon in the morning of that day, based upon prior poor production before
such activity was initiated. Clearly such a defense is an afterthought.
On January 22, Respondent had been able to hire only enough workers to oper-
ate 130 of its 245 machines and was on that date, as for many months before, at-
tempting to increase its working force. In order to do so, Respondent paid a
starting wage at 39th Street in excess of that paid at 86th Street and, according
to Evelyn Castaldi, forelady at 86th Street, required less production of the 39th
Street workers.
According to Anthony and Emelio Paolillo, production at 39th Street had been
a problem for several months. Emelio appears to have attributed the low pro-
duction, in part at least, to a practice among the workers of loafing and gossiping
in the rest room. According to Emelio he had spoken to all the workers in this
connection and particularly to the eight dischargees. Emelio's further testimony
11 Phyllis, whose last name does not appear in the record, is a production worker and the
mother of an employee working in the plant office as Emelio's secretary.
QUEST-SHON MARK BRASSIERE CO., INC. 1167
concerning the productivity of the workers at 39th Street is curiously confused
and self-contradictory. Although he testified that he observed the workers
loafing "right along" and that most of the "poor production" occurred between
January 15 and 22, in almost the same breath he averred that he had no more
reason to complain in that respect after January 15 than before and that the situ-
ation was bad also in October, November, and December. Again, although he tes-
tified that he saw no loafing on January 2 and 21; could not recall speaking to any
of the dischargees about her work on January 22, except of course Nardella; he
nevertheless determined at 10 or 11 a. m., on the 22nd to discharge nine girls and
later that day did discharge eight of them. As to the ninth, Mary Guardino,
Emelio testified that he secured her check for her wages to date anticipating that
she would no longer desire to work after the discharge of her sisters, Grace and
Josephine.
Emelio's alleged reason for discharging Nardella has been stated; he also
testified that he discharged Grace Guardino and Iola Ogno for smoking in the
dressing room.'
Anthony Paolillo testified that he had been disturbed for some time about the
low rate of production at 39th Street, particularly among those workers who were
earning $39 a week. Seeking to stimulate improvement, he frequently criticized
Emelio 's capacity as supervisor and on January 18 directed him to discharge
those workers whose production was not satisfactory. Although this direction
was given upon the basis of information divulged by the production records,
Anthony did not indicate what individuals were to be discharged, presumably
leaving the selection to Emelio's discretion.
The probative evidence, by its preponderance, leads clearly to the conclusion
that the eight individuals, above named, were discharged because they were
engaged in. or were believed to he engaged in, the formation of a union. I am
unable to decide whether this information came to Respondent by means of con-
versation overheard," through the intelligence disclosed to Emelio's secretary by
that person's mother, or in some other manner." The reasons for discharge
given to the workers at the time of their separation and reiterated at the hearing
are not convincing. The dischargees were not, in comparison at least with their
fellows, poor producers On the contrary, Nardella, Marino, and Ogno, for
example, were among the best. The record supports no logical reason for the
precipitate discharges in the middle of the workweek other than a reasoned
attempt to forestall union organization by discharge of those individuals whom
Respondent believed either to be the leaders or their willing disciples. Any doubt
that Respondent had such purpose was effectively dispelled on the morning of
January 23. The occurrences on that later occasion have been mentioned and
will be further discussed in detail in a following section of this report
I find, then, that by discharging Nardella, Berte, Carver, Marino, Ogno, Semioli,
Grace Guaidino and Josephine Guardino on January 22, Respondent discrim-
inated in regard to their hire and tenure of employment because of their interest
in and activity in promotion of a labor organization and that Respondent thereby
Aiolated Section 8 (1) and (3) of the Act"
" One of Respondent's witnesses who testified that Emeho fi equently complained about
Loafing in the ladies' room also testified that he never voiced objection to smoking in there
"" For example, Carver's argument with "Fat Fanny "
" The shortening of the rest period and Emelio's close surveillance of the workers on
that after noon toe some indication that Respondent was aware of this activity.
15 These se( tions are continued as Section 8 (a) (1) and 8 (a) (3) of the Act as amended,
Labor Management Relations Act, 1947.
1168 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
C. The alleged discharges on January 23 and thereafter
At 39th Street
I have already described some of the occurrences at 39th Street on the morning
of January 23 and the names of the 33 individuals allegedly discharged on that
date are listed elsewhere in this report. The record indicates that one of these,
Myrtle Heist, last worked on January 7. There is no evidence that she ever
attempted to return or that she was in the plant on January 23. I shall recoiii-
mend therefore that the complaint as to her be dismissed.
Anthony Paolillo testified that shortly after 8 a. in. on January 23, Emelio
advised him by telephone that the employees at 39th Street were about to "pull
a strike." 18 Whereupon, Anthony and Andrew drove to 39th Street, arriving
shortly before 8: 30. There, according to Anthony, he conversed with one of
the workers, Eva DeJames, who told him that the girls wanted a union for their
protection and that they would strike if those discharged on the 22nd were not
reinstated. As closely as I can determine the chronology from his testimony,
Anthony then went into the dressing room to aid in reviving a girl who had
fainted. Although, as he testified, a number of girls were in there, he spoke to
none of them. Leaving the dressing room he twice 17 used the loud-speaker system,
exhorting the employees either to work or to leave. I find that he first addressed
the employees at 8: 30 a. m. Anthony's testimony in sum is that the employees
were not working and that his remarks to them were only for the purpose of
persuading them to do so.
Emelio Paolillo testified that, on the morning of January 23, neither he nor
his brothers entered the dressing room and that the only request he made of any
of the workers was that they work or leave.
Eva DeJames, who worked for Respondent from August 1946, to January 23,
1947, and who to some extent was spokesman for a group of employees on the
latter date, testified that on the evening of January 22, Mary Guardino and Ann
Marino delivered to her the slips of paper signed by the employees that afternoon.
Accompanied by Mary Guardino, she entered the plant on following morning
shortly before 8: 30 and went to the dressing room. There she found a number
of workers and discussed with them the discharges of the previous day. At about
8: 30, the three Paolillo brothers came in, Anthony inquiring, "What the hell is
going on in the God Damned plant." When DeJames answered that the employees
wanted to know why the eight girls were discharged, he replied that it was none
of her business and that if she did not like it she could leave Apparently flying
into a rage Anthony repeated "Get the hell out of here Get out ! Getout!" Then
turning to the other employees in the room, he said, "If you girls want a union,
get out, get the hell out of here." When DeJames did not leave promptly,
Anthony again told her to leave but as she was walking out she heard Anthony
complain that lie did not know what the girls wanted. DeJames returned and
for an hour or two engaged intermittently in conversations and discussions with
the three brothers. DeJames gave Anthony the slips signed by the employees
the previous afternoon 18 and told him why his employees wanted a union. For
16 Anthony, later in his testimony, asserted that Emelio advised him only that lie was
needed at 39th Street His earlier version is credited. It seems unlikely that a plant man-
ager would request his superior to come at once to the plant without giving a reason.
17 Anthony later testified that he spoke to the employees only once on this occasion. His
earlier testimony is credited
18 Both DeJames and Emelio so testified Anthony's denial that the slips were turned
over to him is not credited.
QUEST-SHON MARK BRASSIERE CO., INC. 1169
most of this period DeJames was in the company of Marie Strandberg, Anna
Giangreco, and Christina McLean. At about 10 or 10: 30, all four workers left
the plant.
Christina McLean entered the dressing room at about 8: 25 on the morning of
the 23rd, followed, a few minutes later, by the Paolillo brothers. According to
McLean's credited testimony which corroborates that of DeJames in all essential
particulars, one of the brothers asserted that DeJames had been sent into the
plant to cause trouble and one of them asked McLean if she wanted a union.
When she answered "Yes," she was told to "get the hell out." McLean testified,
credibly, that all the employees in the dressing room were told either by Anthony
or Andrew that those who wanted a union should leave the plant.
Mary Guardino during the period from August 1946 to January 23, 1947, had
risen from production worker earning $30 a week to assistant forelady at $48.
She testified that on January 23 she was told by Andrew Paolillo that she was
discharged for lack of production whereupon she asked for and received her
check, which had been prepared the day before, and left the plant. Guardino
also testified that she took no part in any activity having for its purpose the
formation of a union and did not know that such activity was afoot.
Guardino testified that a pre-trial statement which she admittedly made on
January 24 was, in part, fabricated. In the statement she said that on January
22 she heard of the union sentiment among the workers. At the close of that
day, according to the statement, Emelio Paolillo showed her a check made out
to her order, stating that he assumed that she would leave since her sisters
(Josephine and Grace) were being discharged. Still according to the statement,
she was discharged on January 23 by Anthony who told her to "get the hell out."
To the extent that Mary Guardino's statement and her testimony are in con-
flict, I will make no finding based upon either. There is testimony by Ann
Marino, however, which I credit, that on January 23, Guardino, Nardella, and
Marino conversed with Anthony Paolillo and were told, in effect, that they
could not work so long as they desired a union.
Veronica Cattonar and Edith Whalley, according to the credited testimony of
the latter, were at their machines at 8: 30 on the morning of the 23rd. In a
few minutes, according to Whalley, Anthony stated over the loud-speaker that
the "union-minded" girls could leave. Cattonar and Whalley went to the dress-
ing room to get their coats and there encountered Emelio. According to Whal-
ley's credited testimony, Emelio asked each of them if they wanted a union.
When they replied "yes," he rejoined with "get the hell out." 18
Marie Strandberg and Anna Giangreco entered the plant together at about
8: 45 or 9 on the morning of the 23rd. When they approached the time clocn,
Emelio told them, according to their undenied and credited testimony, not to
punch in as there was no work. Both then joined DeJames and McLean who
were conversing with the Paolillos. According to Giangreco's credited testimony,
Anthony stated that he would move the plant out of town before permitting
his employees to be represented by the Union.
Not long before the picketing ceased, probably in March or April, Strandberg
sought reinstatement. Emelio refused her request saying that he intended to
take back none of the girls who were "outside." When she explained that she
had not left voluntarily, he observed, "Well, that's the trouble, the good have to
suffer for the bad." Strandberg has since been reemployed.
1° Emeho's denial that he used this expression to the workers on any occasion is not
credited.
1170 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Mary Wasleger arrived at the plant at about 8: 30 on the 23rd and spent the
next 10 minutes in the dressing room. During this period, according to her testi-
mony which is credited, the Paolillos entered. One of them said that all girls
who wanted a union should get out. Wasleger did so.
Mildred Heinle learned as she approached the plant on the morning of the
23rd that a number of workers had been discharged the day before. When she
entered at 8:30, her forelady, Frances Pileggi, asked her what she wanted.
Heinle replied that she wanted a union. Pileggi thereupon observed, " It is en-
tirely up to you. If you want a union go out with the rest of them, otherwise,
go to work." Heinle then conversed with another eiriploNee. Adelaid DeMarzo,
who told her that one of the "bosses" had said that those who wanted a union
should get out. A few minutes later, when Anthony told the employees either to
work or leave, she left. Her time card was punched out at 9:03.
Marie Stanford was in the dressing room on the morning of January 23 and
heard Emello say , "Girls, get to work. Those of you who want a union, get
out." Stanford went to her machine for a few minutes and then left.
Jean Knauf was in the dressing room on the morning of the 23rd and heard
Emelio direct all those who wanted a union to "get the hell out." She went to
her machine to get her possessions and then heard Anthony announce that those
who wanted a union should leave. Knauf left.
Theresa Cavallo, called as a witness by Respondent, testified that she (lid not
enter the dressing room on the morning of the 23rd but went directly to her ma-
chine. In a few minutes Anthony said that those who did not want to work
should leave. Cavallo did so. She testified that Anthony (lid not direct those
who wanted a union to leave. However in a pre-trial statement given on Jan-
uary 24, Cavallo stated that Anthony shouted that those girls who wanted a
union should "get the hell out" and that she thereupon left. In view of this con-
tradiction, I shall make no finding upon her testimony to the extent that it is in
conflict with her statement.
Mary Paramatto, called by Respondent, testified that on the morning of the
23rd she went to the dressing room and proceeded immediately from there to
her machine. Within a few minutes, Anthony instructed the workers either to
work or leave. On cross-examination, she testified that on this occasion she
saw the Paolillos and many of the employees in the dressing room and overheard
some discussion between Anthony and DeJames in which "union" was men-
tioned. Although in her pre-trial statement datiod January 24 she stated that
Anthony told the employees on January 23 that he would not have a union in the
plant and that "any girl who doesn't like it can get the hell out," at the hear-
ing she testified that she was not sure he made such a statement.
I am convinced, and find, that the credible evidence by its preponderance es-
tablishes that Respondent in its determination to prevent the organization of its
employees did instruct those who wanted a union or who were "union-minded"
to "get the hell out." Thus it made a condition of continued employment
the abandonment of the employees' legitimate and protected right to be repre-
sented in matters of collective bargaining. In arriving at this conclusion, I
have accepted testimony adduced by the General Counsel and in large measure
rejected that offered in behalf of Respondent. Without exception, of which I
am now aware, making due,allowance for their apparent capacities, those tes-
tifying in support of the complaint were convincing in manner and unshaken on
cross-examination. The same cannot be said of Respondent's witnesses. Eme-
lio and Anthony Paolillo were on occasion evasive, prone to testify to sweeping
generalities, and often self-contradictory. In general, I have not credited their
QUEST-SHON MARK BRASSIERE CO., INC. 1171
testimony . The credibility of other witnesses called by Respondent was seri-
ously weakened when it appeared that their testimony from the stand was
sharply in conflict with their written statements made immediately after the
happening of the events in question . Finally, the testimony of Ann Tuozzo,
called by Respondent, was palpably false. After testifying glibly that on Jan-
uary 23 she heard Anthony Paolillo speak over the loud-speaker and that he said
only that those who did not want to work should leave the premises, it was de-
veloped on cross-examination that her employment with Respondent had not yet
begun on that date.
With the exception of Myrtle Heist, all those alleged in the complaint to have
been discharged on January 23 were present in the plant on that morning. This
was established by credible testimony or by time card records or by both. Each
of those individuals signed a designation card for the Union on the afternoon of
that date . I find that all employees in the plant that morning heard one of the
Paolillos state that those who wanted a union should leave. It follows, and I
find, that all Respondent's employees of the 39th Street plant were thus given
an election-to abandon their desire and purpose to form a union or to relinquish
their employment. I find that those who left the plant under these circumstances
were locked out because of their desire to exercise their right to form a labor
organization.20
By the words and actions detailed above, I find that on January 23, Respondent
discharged or locked out its employees because of their interest in and activity
on behalf of a labor organization and that Respondent thereby discriminated in
regard to the hire and tenure of employment of the 32 individuals 21 listed in
Schedule B attached hereto in violation of Section 8 (1) and (3) of the Act.
At 86th Street
Within a few days following the discharges of January 22 and the lock-out of
January 23, those affected, having secured the assistance of the Union, established
a picket line at 86th Street in an effort to secure the support of the workers in
that plant. To some extent they were successful . By January 31, a considerable
body of the employees at 86th Street were discussing the advisability of striking
and some favored such action. A group of them had decided to meet at the
home of one of their number during the lunch period on January 31 to decide
just what action should be taken. Just before the end of the morning's work,
Evelyn Castaldi; 2 supervisor over 130 workers, caused the machinery to be
stopped and told the employees that those among them who wanted a union
should not return."
In my opinion it is immaterial that some of the employees may have already
decided to strike" as Rose Aiello testified for they had taken no overt act to
separate themselves from Respondent's pay roll. By Castaldi's instruction, Re-
20 Cf . N. L. R. B. v. Armour cE Co., 154 F. (2d) 570, 576.
21 Mary Nappi was carried on the time card records as Mary Gallo.
22 Castaldi possessed authority to hire and discharge. Under Anthony Paolillo , she was
in charge of the operators at 86th Street.
22 Credited testimony of Marion Festa. Although called as a witness, Castaldi did not
deny making this statement. In view of this, the testimony by Grace Chinnice that Cas-
taldi merely requested the employees not to strike is not credited. Rose Aiello testified that
Castaldi's words were "If you want to stay out, it is up to you. You can stay out." In a
pre-trial statement, Aiello stated that Castaldi directed the employees who wanted the
Union to stay out. In view of this contradiction, I will base no finding upon Aiello's testi-
mony concerning Castaldi's words.
"See N. L. R. B. v. American Mfg. Co., 106 F . (2d) 61, 67.
817319-49-vol. 80-75
1172 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
spondent advised its employees that its policy of excluding union members or
sympathizers from employment had been extended to 86th Street. Again the
election was offered-forego either your rights to engage in union activity, to
form, join, or assist unions, or relinquish your employment. Seventeen 25 took
the latter alternative and did not return to their machines that afternoon. All
signed union designation cards that day and some of them joined the pickets
outside the plant.
On February 5, Julia Festa, mother of Marion Festa, visited the plant and
asked Anthony Paolillo to permit her daughter to return to work, telling him
that she opposed her daughter's action in joining the Union. According to Mrs.
Festa, Anthony replied that he would take Marion back only on condition that
she abandon the Union-that if Marion wanted a union she should stay out as
he did not "want her to come in and play two games." Marion returned to her
employment the next day. Anthony denied that the Union was mentioned in
this conversation and Evelyn Castaldi, who claimed to be present, corroborated
his testimony. Julia Festa impressed me as an honest and sincere witness who,
although not in sympathy with her daughter's interest in the Union, was not
deterred thereby from giving, as precisely as she could recall it, the content of
her conversation with Anthony. I am also persuaded to accept her testimony,
and to reject that in contradiction, by the earlier attitude of Respondent as ex-
pressed through Anthony toward the Union. After the events of January 23,
hereinbefore described, I find it to be completely credible that he would impose
such a condition on Marion Festa's returning to work, and indeed, quite unlikely
that he would do otherwise.
Marion Festa worked without particular incident, except for the meeting in the
cutting room which already has been related, until March 7. She had not, how-
ever, lost interest in the Union and met occasionally with those on the picket line
as well as with some of the union organizers. During this period she kept a
supply of union designation cards and solicited her fellow workers to join. Her
espousal of the Union's cause was not undetected. Supervisor Evelyn Castaldi
testified that she overheard Festa talking about the Union in the rest room and
heard Festa sing songs favorable to the Union in the plant. Anthony Paolillo,
too, apparently became aware that Festa's return to work did not signal a
change in her attitude toward the Union for at the time of the meeting in the
cutting room in mid-February, he remarked that he had heard she was about to
"walk out."
Mamie Ferranto entered Respondent's employ at 86th Street in 1945 and,
starting at a weekly wage of $24 had advanced to $41 on March 7, 1947. On
March 6, with Festa and a number of others, she attended a meeting of those
interested in the Union at the home of Mary Palermo, an employee who was
locked out on January 31. On the following day, Ferranto and Festa, to the
neglect of their work, held many conversations in the rest room and at their
25 Rose Aiello Marion Festa
Rose Baldare Lena Lavisto
Pauline Basile Vilma Lecce
Jennie Baressi Rose Lavallo
Grace Chinnice Josephine Maids,
Mary Chinnice Josephine Martingano
Lena Ciliberti Mary Palermo
Jeanette DeMauro Marie Russo
Vita Zeffaro
Five others named in the complaint were not shown to have been In the plant on the 31st.
Respondent 's motion to dismiss as to these was granted.
QUEST-SHON MARK BRASSIERE CO., INC. 1173
machines concerning the Union. Near the close of the day, Anthony stopped
at the table where both were at work and said to Festa, "Your production is very
low, ... you go about twenty times a day into the bathroom and you talk about
the union, ... your mother begged me to take you back but I don't want you
back. . . . But I took you back just the same and if you want the union get the
hell out." Festa remained at her table whereupon Castaldi, the supervisor, re-
marked, "What are you waiting for, get the hell out" Festa still made no move
to comply. Anthony then returned and, this time addressing Ferranto, said
"What are you waiting for?" Ferranto left. In a few moments a voice from
the picket line calling Festa was audible in the plant. Anthony then remarked,
"Do you hear what they say, get the hell out." Festa lingered for a short time,
punched her time card and left. Both Festa and Ferranto have been reemployed.
The above findings are based upon the credited testimony of Festa and Ferranto
neither of whom was hostile to Respondent. Indeed Ferranto testified that the
Union had made her "a traitor against [her] boss" and that she thought "this
case is awfully silly today, the girls don't realize what they are in." The di-
rection to Festa to "get the hell out" and the inquiry at about the same time of
Ferranto, "what are you waiting for" conclusively establishes, in my opinion, that
both were discharged on March 7 and I so find. Nonetheless Festa testified that
she was not discharged but left her employment voluntarily.
Anthony did not refer to this incident in his testimony. Castaldi testified
that, when she heard either Festa or Ferranto say to the other, "What are you
waiting for?" she interjected, "that's right, what are you waiting for." It is
clear from the testimony on this point that Castaldi meant to indicate that Festa
and Ferranto should join the pickets on the outside and that she was so under-
stood. Anthony Paolillo's attitude, which was reflected faithfully by Castaldi,
was, in essence, that the employees had no right to continue their employment
if they cherished any thought of organization. Of course, he agreed, they had
a right to join a union but not at the same time to remain his employees. Ac-
cording to Castaldi, Ferranto expressed some confusion when the 17 employees
failed to return to work on the afternoon of January 31. Many of Ferranto's
friends were among them and Ferranto, allegedly, was undecided whether to
join them or to remain at work. Castaldi asked, "Are you staying in, or are you
with your friends?" When Ferranto exhibited indecision, Castaldi continued,
"If you really want your job here, and don't care about the Union, you will be
protected." To the undersigned, this statement epitomizes Respondent's policy
toward those of its employees who favored unionization.
Frances Aiello and Genevieve Montoro both left the plant at the end of their
shift on March 7. According to Castaldi, Aiello had expressed herself in op-
position to the Union but, nonetheless associated with those employees who
favored it. Anthony Paolillo questioned both of them concerning their dispo-
sition toward the Union and at quitting time on March 7, told the employees if
any of them wanted a union they should "speak up." 2' Aiello testified, credibly,
that Castaldi remarked, "I will keep picking on the girls until they tell the
truth." I find that Castaldi meant that she would thus discover which of the
employees favored the Union.
Montoro testified that she and Aiello decided at about 3 on the afternoon of
March 7 to quit and seek employment elsewhere. When they left the plant
that night they joined the picket line.
u Another manifestation of his apparent conviction that he had a right as their em-
ployer to poll his employees on this question.
1174 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Although there is evidence that the dissatisfaction of both with their employ-
ment was traceable to Respondent's opposition to the Union, I do not find that
either was, in effect, forced to the point of resignation because she may have
been a union sympathizer. Aiello testified that she quit because she felt she
was distrusted both by Anthony and the employees. Montoro testified she left
because she disliked working where a strike was in progress.
Upon the basis of the evidence discussed above, I find that Rose Aiello, Rose
Bardare, Pauline Basile, Jennie Baressi, Grace Chinnice, Mary Chinnice, Lena
Cilberti, Jeanette DeMauro, Marion Festa, Lena Lavisto, Vilma Lecce, Rose
Lavallo, Josephine Maida, Josephine Martingano, Mary Palermo, Marie Russo,
and Vita Zeffaro were on January 31 directed not to return to work because of
their interest in and activity on behalf of the Union and that by thus locking
them out Respondent violated Section 8 (1) and (3) of the Act.
With respect to Marion Festa and Mamie Ferranto, I find that they were
discharged on March 7 because of their interest in and activity on behalf of
the Union and that Respondent thereby violated Section 8 (1) and (3) of the
Act.
I further find that with respect to Frances Aiello and Genevieve Montoro,
Respondent did not violate Section 8 (3) of the Act.
General conclusions
Respondent has reemployed most of those named in the complaint. Two,
Mildred Heinle and Marie Stanford, appear not to desire reinstatement. Ac-
cording to Castaldi, all who applied for and received reemployment apologized
for the action they had taken. It is clear that there was name calling by some
of the pickets directed toward Respondent and toward those who remained at
work but even the most vociferous of these, Josephine Guardino, was rehired
when she told Anthony she regretted her actions and assured him it would not
happen again. One of the workers, Susie Bimbo, was splattered with ink by
pickets, among them Grace Chinnice. Chinnice too was reemployed. Some-
time during the strike, a number of windows were broken in two of Respondent's
plants but there is no evidence to show which, if any, of those locked out or
discharged was responsible. I find no basis in the record to deny reinstatement
to any of those locked out or discharged because of her conduct on the picket line.
Eva DeJames was rehired about August 1 but did not return to her employ-
ment after testifying in this case. According to her undenied and credited
testimony, when she told Anthony she expected to be a witness at the hearing,
he remarked "After all, if the girls are going to go against me and are going
to testify against me, what's the sense of them working for me." No conten-
tion was made that Defames was thereby discharged and she desires to be
reinstated. In my opinion she should be on the basis of her discriminatory
discharge on January 23. Working for a few weeks in August with Respond-
ent's unfair labor practices still unremedied and in a different plant from that
from which she was discharged does not, in my opinion, constitute reinstatement.
Throughout the hearing, counsel for Respondent contended that within a few
days after January 23, all those who were discharged or locked out on that day,
and subsequently, were offered reinstatement. I have no doubt that many and
perhaps most of them were advised in one fashion or another that they could
come back to work even though Marie Strandberg's application was refused.
These offers clearly, however, were not such offers of reinstatement as the Act
contemplates to remedy unfair labor practices. Those to whom they were
QUEST-SHON MARK BRASSIERE CO., INC . 1175
directed must have assumed that the condition which cost them their employment
(that they could not work if they desired a union) was still effective.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of Respondent set forth in Section III, above, occurring in con-
nection with the operations of 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 thereof.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent has engaged in certain 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.
Having found that Respondent
(a) on January 22 discriminatorily discharged the 8 individuals named
in Schedule A attached hereto;
(b) on January 23 discriminatorily discharged or locked out the 32 indi-
viduals named in Schedule B attached hereto ;
(c) on January 31 discriminatorily discharged or locked out the 17 indi-
viduals named in Schedule C attached hereto ; and
(d) on March 7 discriminatorily discharged Marion Festa and Mamie
Ferranto,
it will be recommended as to each of these, excepting only Marie Stanford and
Mildred Heinle who do not desire reinstatement, that Respondent in those cases
where it has not already done so, offer reinstatement to her former or substan-
tially equivalent position," without prejudice to her seniority and other rights
and privileges and make each whole for any loss of pay she may have suffered
by reason of Respondent's discrimination by payment to each of them of a sum
of money equal to the amount each would have earned as wages from the date
she was discharged or locked out to the date of the offer of reinstatement ' less her
net earningsRO during that period.80
Respondent's fixed intention to defeat its employees' efforts toward self-
organization as manifested by discharges, lock-outs, threats to move the plant,
granting of rest periods and group insurance, and interrogation indicates such
a disregard of employees' rights under the Act as to convince me that there
exists danger of the repetition of such violations. It will, therefore, be recom-
mended, in order to effectuate the policies of the Act, and to deter Respondent
from future violations thereof that Respondent be ordered to cease and desist
from infringing in any manner upon the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the
Act.
37 In accordance with the Board's consistent interpretation of the term, the expression
"former or substantially equivalent position" is intended to mean former position wherever
possible, but if such position is no longer in existence then to a substantially equivalent
position. See Matter of The Chase National Bank of the City of New York, San Juan,
Puerto Rico, Branch, 65 N. L. R. B. 827.
m Heinle and Stanford are entitled to back pay only until August 26 and 27, respectively,
the dates upon which they testified that they did not desire reinstatement.
29 See Matter of Crossett Lumber Co., 8 N. L. R. B. 440, 497-498
80 In the case of Marion Festa there are two such periods, the first, from January 31 to
February 6 and the second, following March 7.
1176 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Having found no violation of the Act with respect to Mary Brigante, Anna
Ciliberti, Irene Guglielmino, Dominica Maniaci, Mary Pomato, Myrtle Heist,
Frances Aiello, and Genevieve Montoro, it will be recommended that the com-
plaint be dismissed as to those individuals.
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact, and upon the entire record in the
case, the undersigned makes the following:
CONOLUSIONs OF LAw
1. Corset and Brassiere Workers of New York, Local 32, International Ladies
Garment Workers Union, affiliated with American Federation of Labor, is a labor
organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
2. By interfering with, restraining and coercing its employees in the exercise
of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, Respondent engaged in and is
engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (1) of the
Act.
3. By discharging or locking out the employees named in Schedules A, B, C, and
D, attached hereto, thereby discouraging membership in Corset and Brassiere
Workers of New York, Local 32, I. L. G. W. U., A. F. L., Respondent engaged in
and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (1)
and (3 ) of the Act.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting
commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
5. The allegations in the complaint that Respondent discriminatorily dis-
charged Mary Brigante, Anna Ciliberti, Irene Guglielmino, Domenica Maniaci,
Mary Pomato, Myrtle Heist, Frances Aiello, and Genevieve Montoro are not
supported by a preponderance of the credible evidence.
RECOMMENDATIONS
On the basis of the above findings of fact and conclusions of law, and upon
the entire record in the case, the undersigned recommends that Quest-Shon Mark
Brassiere Co., Inc., Brooklyn, New York, its officers, agents, successors and
assigns shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Discouraging membership in Corset and Brassiere Workers of New York,
Local 32, I. L. G. W. U., A. F. L., or in any other labor organization by dis-
charging, locking out, or refusing to reinstate any of its employees or by dis-
criminating in any other manner in regard to their hire and tenure of employ-
ment, or any term or condition of employment ;
(b) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its em-
ployees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist
Corset and Brassiere Workers of New York, Local 32, I. L. G. W. U., A. F. L.,
or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively through representatives
of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted activities for the purposes of
collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection as guaranteed in Section
7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the undersigned finds will
effectuate the purposes of the Act :
(a) Offer to those individuals whose names are listed in Schedules A, B, C,
and D, attached hereto, excepting Marie Stanford and Mildred Heinle, immedi-
ate and full reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent positions
without prejudice to their seniority or other rights and privileges ;
QUEST-SHON MARK BRASSIERE CO., INC . 1177
(b) Make whole those whose names are listed in Schedules A, B, C, and D,
attached hereto, for any loss of pay each may have suffered by reason of the
discrimination against her in the manner described herein in the Section entitled
"The remedy" ;
(c) Post at each of its plants in Brooklyn, New York, copies of the notice
attached hereto marked "Appendix A." Copies of said notice, to be furnished
by the Regional Director for the Second Region, shall, after being duly signed by
Respondent's representative, be posted by Respondent and maintained by it for
a period of sixty (60) consecutive days thereafter in conspicuous places, includ-
ing all places where notices to employees customarily are posted. Reasonable
steps shall be taken by Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered,
defaced, or covered by other material;
(d) Notify the Regional Director for the Second Region in writing, within
twenty (20) days from the receipt of this Intermediate Report, what steps
Respondent has taken to comply therewith.
It is further recommended that unless on or before twenty (20) days from
the receipt of this Intermediate Report, Respondent notifies the said Regional
Director in writing that it will comply with the foregoing recommendations, the
National Labor Relations Board issue an order requiring Respondent to take
the aforesaid action.
It is further recommended that the allegations of the complaint that Mary
Brigante, Anna Ciliberti, Irene Guglielmino, Domenica Maniaci, Mary Pomato,
Myrtle Heist, Frances Aiello, and Genevieve Montoro were discriminatorily dis-
charged, be dismissed.
As provided in Section 203.46 of the Rules and Regulations of the National
Labor Relations Board, Series 5, effective August 22, 1947, any party may, within
twenty (20) days from the date of service of the order transferring the case to
the Board, pursuant to Section 203.45 of said Rules and Regulations, file with
the Board, Rochambeau Building, Washington 25, D. C., an original and six
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 six
copies of a brief in support thereof ; and any party may, within the same period,
file an original and six copies of a brief in support of the Intermediate Report.
Immediately upon the filing of such statement of exceptions and/or briefs, the
party filing the same shall serve a copy thereof upon each of the other parties.
Proof of service on the other parties of all papers filed with the Board shall be
promptly made as required by Section 203.85. As further provided in said
Section 203.46, 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 service of the order transferring the case to the Board.
In the event no Statement of Exceptions is filed as provided by the aforesaid
Rules and Regulations, the findings, conclusions, recommendations and recom-
mended order herein contained shall, as provided in Section 203.48 of said Rules
and Regulations, be adopted by the Board and become its findings, conclusions
and order, and all objections and exceptions thereto shall be deemed waived
for all purposes.
WALLACE E. ROYSTER,
Trial Examiner.
Dated December 31, 1947
1178 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Eleanor Berte
Rose Carver
Grace Guardino
Josephine Guardino
Thelma Agar
Antoinette Barbieri
Assunta Canone
Veronica Cattonar
Theresa Cavallo
Eva DeJames
Anna Della Rocca
Adelaide DeMarzo
Alexandrina Dorta
Maria Fuschetti
Anna Giangreco
Mary Guardino
Lillian Hanover
Mildred Heinle
Jean Knauf
Christina McLean
Rose Aiello
Rose Baldare
Pauline Basile
Jennie Baressi
Grace Chinnice
Mary Chinnice
Lena Ciliberti
Jeanette DeMauro
Marion Festa
Marion Festa
SCHEDULE A
Ann Marino
Clementine Nardella
Iola Ogno
Mary Semioli
SCHEDULE B
Dominica Napoli
Mary Nappi
Mary Paramatto
Millie Rizzo
Maria Rodriguez
Virginia M. Ruggiero
Jennie Ruiz
Sue Ruiz
Susan Ruiz
Frances Scarcella
Cecilia Schwartz
Marie Stanford
Marie Strandberg
Marie Tirone
Mary Wasleger
Edith Whalley
SCHEDULE C
Lena Lavisto
Vilma Lecce
Rose Lavallo
Josephine Maida
Josephine Martingano
Mary Palermo
Marie Russo
Vita Zeffaro
SCHEDULE D
Mamie Ferranto
APPENDIX A
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 CORSET AND BRASSIERE WORKERS OF NEW YORn,
I. L. G. W U., A. F L., 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.
QUEST-SHON MARK BRASSIERE CO., INC . 1179
WE WILL OFFER to the employees named below to the extent that such action
has not already been taken , immediate and full reinstatement to their
former or substantially equivalent positions without prejudice to any senior-
ity or other rights and privileges previously enjoyed, and make them whole
for any loss of pay suffered as a result of the discrimination.
Eleanor Berte
Rose Carver
Grace Guardino
Josephine Guardino
Thelma Agar
Antoinette Barbieri
Assunta Cannone
Veronica Cattonar
Theresa Cavallo
Eva DeJames
Anna Della Rocca
Adelaide DeMarzo
Alexandrina Dorta
Maria Fuschettl
Anna Giangreco
Mary Guardino
Lillian Hanover
Mildred Heinle*
Jean Knauf
Christina McLean
Rose Aiello
Rose Baldare
Pauline Basile
Jennie Baressi
Grace Chinnice
Mary Chinnice
Lena Ciliberti
Jeanette DeMauro
Marion Festa
Ann Marino
Clementine Nardella
Iola Ogno
Mary Semioll
Dominica Napoli
Mary Nappi
Mary Paramatto
Millie Rizzo
Maria Rodriguez
Virginia M. Ruggiero
Jennie Ruiz
Sue Ruiz
Susan Ruiz
Frances Scarcella
Cecilia Schwartz
Marie Stanford*
Marie Strandberg
Marie Tirone
Mary Wasleger
Edith Whalley
Lena Lavisto
Vilma Lecce
Rose Lavallo
Josephine Maida
Josephine Martingano
Mary Palermo
Marie Russo
Vita Zeffaro
Mamie Ferranto
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 employee because of membership in or activity on behalf of any such labor
organization.
QUEST-SHON MARK BRASSIERE CO., INC.,
Employer.
By ------------------------------------------
(Representative ) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof , and must not
be altered , defaced, or covered by any other material.
•Does not desire reinstatement.