Norwich Knitting Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 12, 1943

50 N.L.R.B. 451 (N.L.R.B. 1943)

In the Matter of NORWICH KNITTING, COMPANY and UNITED TEXTILE
WORKERS OF AMERICA, Local No., 2575
In the Matter of NORWICH KNITTING COMPANY and TEXTILE WORKERS
UNION OF AMERICA
In the Matter of NORWICH KNITTING COMPANY and TEXTILE WORKERS
UNION OF AMERICA
,,Cases Nos.-C-586 to C-2588,1 inclusive, respectively.Decided
June 12, 19,W
DECISION
AND
ORDER
'On April 13, 1943, the Trial Examiner issued his Intermediate Re-
port in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the respondent,
Norwich Knitting Company, Norwich, New York, had engaged in and
was engaging in certain unfair labor practices and recommending that
it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action as set
out in the copy of the Intermediate Report attached hereto. There-
after, the, respondent filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report with
,a brief in support thereof. The Board has considered the rulings made
by the Trial Examiner at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial
error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed.
Pnrsuant to notice, a hearing for the purpose of oral argument was
held before the. Board at Washington, D. C., on June 8, 1943. ^ Counsel
for the respondent participated in the oral argument.
The Board has considered the Intermediate Report,, the exceptions
and brief, and.the entire record in the case,2 and hereby adopts the
findings, conclusions, and recommendations' of the Trial Examiner,
except in the following respects :
1. The Trial Examiner found' that O'Hara, in, his speech of May
1941; disparaged unions and union activities of the employees. O'Hara
denied making these statements, and upon the record we are not satis-
fied that he did, and we so find. . However, we affirm the Trial Exam-
See footnote 1 of intermediate report.
We approve , the stipulation signed by counsel for the Boaid and the respondent cor-
recting a statement in the record attributed to the respondent ' s, counsel , and hereby order
that the correction be made in accordance therewith.
50N.L R.B,No.72. '
451
452 DECISffONTS OF NATIONAL L&B,Oill RELATIONS BOARD
iner's findings which relate .to the "red-pink" portion of O'Hara's
speech.
2. The Trial Examiner found that the respondent discharged Ryan
because of his union membership and activities and, in doing so, re-
jected-'the respondent's-:contention-that it,-discharged- this employee
because, he brought the civil action against the respondent and three
other named defendants. We do not agree with the Trial Examiner's
conclusion, and, accordingly, shall dismiss the complaint insofar as it
alleges that the respondent discri'rilinated 'against Ryan. in violation' of
Section 8 (3) of `the Act: - '
-
ORDER
Upon the entire record in the case, and ''pursuant to -Section 10 (c)
of the National Labor Relations Act, the National Labor Relations
Board hereby orders that the respondent, Norwich Knitting Company,
its officers, agents, successors, and assigns shall:
1. Cease' and desist from ; -
(a) Interfering with, restraining, 4 coercing its employees in the
exercise of the right"to self-organization, to form, join, or assist labor
organizations, to bargain collectively through representatives of their
own choosing, and to engage, ii: `concerted activities for the purposes
of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, as guaran-.
teed in Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act. -
2. Take the following 'affirmative action which will effectuate the -
policies of the Act :
(a) Post immediately in conspicuous places throughout its plant
at Norwich, New York, and maintain for a period of at least sixty'
(60) consecutive days from the date of posting notices to its'employees
stating that it will not engage in the conduct from which it is ordered to
cease and desist in paragraph 1 (a) hereof. '
(b) Notify the Regional Director of the Third Region in writing
within ten (10 ) days - from the date of this Order, what steps the re-
spondent has taken to comply herewith. '
AND IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint be, and It hereby is,
dismissed , insofar as it alleges that the respondent discriminated
against Christopher Ryan in violation of Section 8 (3) of the Act..
MR. GERARD D. REILLY took no part in the consideration of the above
Decision and Order.
INTERMEDIATE REPORT"
Mr. Peter J. Crotty, for the Board. '
Lee,, Gallagher & Lee, by Mr. David F. Lee, Sr. 'of- Norwich, N. Y. for the
respondent. -
-
1 rhese thrre cases were consolidated by order of the 'Board , dated 'March 2, 1943.
I
+s' ' ' ( 'NORWICH KNITTING COMPANY 453:
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon charges and amended charges' duly , filed, by United Textile Workers of
America, Local No. 2575 affiliated with the American Federation of Labor,
herein. called A. F. L. Local, and Textile Workers Union of America , affiliated
with the Congress of Industrial Organizations , herein called C.'I. O. Local, the
National Labor Relations Board herein called the Board, by.the Regional Director
for the Third Region ( Buffalo, New York), issued its complaint, dated March
-10, 1943,.against Norwich Knitting Company, Norwich , New York, herein called
the respondent , alleging that the 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. Copies of the complaint accompanied by
notice of hearing thereon , were duly served upon the respondent , A. F. L. Local
and C. I. O. Local. -
With respect to the unfair labor' practices , the complaint alleged in' sub-
stance: ( 1) that from about May 1, 1941, to the date of the complaint, the
respondent , by a preconceived plan and course of action , interfered with the
self-organization of its employees and discouraged membership in A. F. L. Local
and C. I. O. Local by making anti -union statements and- speeches ; circulating
anti-union petitions and hand bills ; vilifying A. F. L. Local and C. I. O. Local
leaders; and causing certain , employees to resign their membership from A. F. L
Local or C. I. O. Local; (2) that the respondent , on or about September 8, 1942,
discharged Chris Ryan s and has since refused to reinstate him, because of his
union membership and activities ; and (3) that by the foregoing acts, the respond-
ent interfered with, restrained , and coerced its employees in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. On March 17, 1943, the respondent
filed its answer , admitting certain allegations of the complaint in respect to its
business , and that it discharged and refused to reinstate Christopher Ryan,
but denying that it has engaged in the alleged unfair labor practices.
Pursuant to notice , a hearing was held on March 29 and 30, 1943,-at Norwich,
New York, before W. P. Webb, the Trial Examiner duly designated by the
Chief Trial Examiner . The Board and the respondent were represented by
counsel and participated in the hearing . Full opportunity to be heard, to examine
and cross -examine witnesses and to introduce evidence bearing upon the issues
was afforded all parties.
Ruling on the motion of the respondent 's counsel, made at the end of the
Board's case and renewed at the end ' of the hearing, to dismiss the entire
complaint for the lack of proof, was reserved by the Trial Examiner . The motion
is now denied by the undersigned.
The motion of the Board 's counsel, made at the conclusion of the hearing,
to conform the pleadings. to the proof in respect to minor inaccuracies in regard
to dates and the spelling of names, was granted by the Trial Examiner without
objection.
The parties waived the opportunity afforded them to argue orally before,and
to file briefs with, the Trial Examiner.
Upon the entire record in the case and from his observation of the witnesses,
the undersigned makes the following:
2 Case No. 3-C-519, charges were filed on November 4, 1941. Case No. 3-C-535, charges
were filed on December 19, 1941, and amended charges on April 16, 1942. Case No.
3-C-622, charges were filed on October 1, 1942.
3 It was stipulated by the parties that this employee was discharged by the respondent
on September 28, 1942, and that his correct name is Christopher I.yan.
536105-44-vol. 50-30
454 DEILffSQONS OF NATIDONAL LABOR RIELATTONISf BOARD
.
FINDINGS OF FACT
I THE BUSINESS Or THE RESPONDENT
The respondent, Norwich Knitting Company, is a New York corporation, having
its principal office and place of business in Norwich , New York. It is engaged
in the manufacture , sale and distribution of underwear 'and shirts . The principal
raw materials used are cotton, wool, and silk. During the year 1942 the
respondent purchased for use at the Norwich plant, raw materials valued in
excess of 21/Z million dollars, of which, approximately 75 percent was transported
to the plant from points outside the State of New York During the same period
the respondent manufactured and sold finished products of the plant having a
i alue , in excess of 41/2 million dollars, of which, approximately 80 percent was
sold and shipped to points outside New York. The respondent admits for the
purpose of this proceeding that it is engaged -in, commerce,' within - the.nieaning of
the Act. o In 1942 the respondent employed approximately 625 employees in the
plant. -
II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
United Textile Workers of America, Local No. 2575, affiliated with the Amer-
ican Federation of Labor, and Textile-Workers Union of America, affiliated with
the Congress of Industrial Organizations , are labor organizations admitting
to membership employees of the respondent.
Ili. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACIICES
A. Interference, restraint and coercion
.Prior toi'May 1941'tire Employees' Organization of,'Noi*rich Kuitting`gonipaiiy,
an unaffiliated labor organization, was the only recognized union in the plant.'
In May 1941 the United Clienango Employees Union No. 294, herein called the
United, an unaffiliated organization, was formed in the plant. Employee Chris-
topher Ryan became the first and only president of the United.
During the morning of May 12, 1941, A F. L. Local distributed circulars at
the plant announcing that a meeting of A. F. L. Local would be held in the County
Court House the next day. - At 1 p. in. on that day Fred O'Hara, the respondent's
president and general manager, called a , meeting of all the employees in the
finishing room of the plant. The meeting lasted about 45 minutes and there were
approximately 500 employees present, including the supervisory staff. The room
was equipped with a "loud speaker" especially installed for this meeting. ` Samuel
Sedden, head of the dyeing department, opened the meeting and said usually
such meetings were held for the purpose of selling war bonds or in the interest of
the Red,Cross, but that the instant meeting was for something differelit. He
then introduced O'Hara to the audience
In respect to this meeting Christopher Ryan testified as follows : -
Mr. O'Hara said that it seemed like every time he looked out his window
somebody was either passing out leaflets or having a union meeting, and
if he looked inr the paper, somebody was going to have a union meeting.
He was getting pretty fed up with it, and the employees were beink-the
Under Board Decision dated April 3, 1941 (30 N. L. R. B. 914) pursuant to a stipu-
lated settlement, the respondent w a3 ordered to withdraw recognition from and dis-
establish Employees ' Organization of Norwich Knitting Companv;^ also to reinstate and
make whols 15 employees \ilw had been discriminatorily discharged.
NORWICH KNITTING COMPANY 455
employees were paying more attention to the union than they were their
jobs. He said that for years if any of the employees had any grievanbes
they had always taken them to the Company, but of late, they had gone
to the-union, to see if the union would take care of it for them. He said
the, union iwas thinking more of filling the bellies of somebody 'else, and
not the employees. He' said that if we had any grievances that came up
aiid we couldn't settle them with the Superintendent or foreman, that
the latch string on the door was always out . . . He said the colors of
the Norwich Knitting Company were not pink or red, and they never
would be. That they would never run the Norwich Knitting' Company as
long as he was in charge of it.'
'O'Hara admitted that he called the meeting on May 12 and that he spoke to
the employees; that he said the colors of the respondent would be red, white
and blue and not "red" and "pink"; but that he knew Marian (Red) Burdick was
president of'A. F: L.'Local, but denied that he knew.she was called "'Red" Burdick.
When testifying, 'O'Hara was asked why he said that the colors of the plant would
not be "red" or "pink". He replied, "Well, red might have been referring to these
people who are liars, and pink might have . . ." 8 The undersigned finds that
O'Har.a's reference to red and pink was intended to designate the Burdicks, and
that thereby O'Hara indicated opposition on the part of the respondent to the
A. F. L. Local. O'Hara testified that the object of the meeting was to discuss
vacations and production.
O'Hara further testified as follows : -
Q. Did you, at any time in that speech, say this, or this in substance, "That
it seemed like every time I looked out the window, I 'saw somebody distributing
leaflets, that I had had enough of the union, and that I had had enough
of that, and that I was fed up on the union, and that all the'union did was fill
their;own_be'llles, instead of the employees." Did you say anything like'.that,
or that in substance'?
A. To the best of my knowledge I never spoke the word "union". I wouldn't
be so simple.
Q. Well, did you mentiton "union"?
A. I never mentioned union to the best of my knowledge.
The, respondent called 6 employee witnesses who testified that they attended
the 'meeting of May 12, 1911, and that they heard O'Hara's speech but 'they did
not hear O'Hara make the anti-union statements attributed to'him by Ryan:
Superintendent John Morris testified that he attended the meeting but that he
did not hear O'Hara make the anti-union statements,.but that he did not remem-
ber speeches. Employee Margaret Judd testified that O'Hara did riot make the
alleged statements ; that he talked about vacations with pay ; and that he said
the plant colors would be red, white and blue and not "red" and "pink". Em-
ployee Grace Funk testified that she attended the meeting and that O'Hara did
not make the anti-union statements; that he talked about vacations with pay;
that she did not recall everything that was said; that O'Hara was not a good
speaker; that the meeting lasted only 15 or 20 minutes: and that there were
'several hundred employees present-more than 300. Employee Harry Pauth
testified that he did not hear O'Hara make the alleged statements; that according
'At that time Marian Burdick was president of A. F. L Local She was familiarly
known to the employees as "Red" Burdick, and her husband was known.,.as-, Pink'
Burdick, according to Ryan, whom the undersigned credits
O'Hara was interrupted at this point in his answer by another question from counsel
and he did not complete his answer. He made no further explanation of what he meant
by "led" or "pink".
456 DE:CI,SIONS OF NATI.'ONAL LABOR RELATIIO\Tls BOARD
to his understanding, the meeting, was in connection, with a drive ' to sell war
bonds ; that his recollectiton of what O'Hara said was "not too clear, only certain
,parts of it"; and that he had forgotten some of what was said. Employee
Dorothy Swertfager testified that O'Hara did not make the aforesaid statements ;
that he did say that the colors would not be "red" and "pink"; that O'Hara talked
about vacations with pay and speeding up production ; and that is, all she re-
membered that he said. Employee Katherine Bird testified that she attended the
meeting and that O'Hara did not,make the anti-union statements.
Counsel for the respondent stated for the record that he could`produce over 100
witnesses who, if permitted to testify, would testify that they attended this meet-
ing and that they did not hear O'Hara' make the anti-union statements /attributed
to him by Ryan. The undersigned accepted this statement of counsel as'an offer
of proof and -no more witnesses were called by the respondent to testify in this
respect.
According to the' testimony of Ryan,' which is credited by the undersigned,
there were approximately 500 employees at this meeting and it lasted about
three-quarters of an hour. Superintendent Morris who was present at the meet-
ing, did not deny that O'Hara made the anti-union statements accredited to him
by Ryan, but testified that he did not "hear" O'Hara make them, and -that he
did not remember speeches. The other witnesses who testified in regard to this
meeting, appear to have remembered only what Ryan said in-respect to vacation
with pay, and his statement that the colors of the plant would not be "red" and
"pink". Of course O'Hara is in the best position to state just what he did say
at that meeting, and it is significant that when he was asked by counsel if he
make the statements, his answer was vague and evasive and was not a convinc-
ing denial. He made no categorical idenial. He answered as follows : "To the
best-of my knowledge I never spoke the word `union'. I wouldn't be so simple "
In view of the fact that the undersigned was not impressed with O'Hara's testi-
mony ; the innuendo indulged in by O'Hara in respect to the plant colors not
being "red" and "pink", and the entire record, the undersigned credits the testi-
mony of Ryan and believes and'finds that O'Hara made the anti-union statements
at the meeting as related by Ryan. I -
, Ryan testified that in June or July 1941 he discussed a grievance of one of the
employees with O'Hara, and at the same time, informed O'Hara'that the United
wanted to arrange a collective bargaining agreement with hint, and that O'Hara
replied that he thought the respondent and the United "could get along together
very nicely." O'Hara denied that he had ever talked with Ryan about rates or
piece-work or that 'he told Ryan that he could get along nicely with the United.
The undersigned was not impressed with, the testimony of O'Hara, and in view
of the entire record, the undersigned credits the testimony of Ryan and finds
that O'Hara made the statement attributed to him by Ryan. In view of O'Hara's
derogatory reference to the Burdicks and the fact that this speech was made
immediately after the distribution of the A. F. L circulars, the undersigned is
not impressed with the offer of proof that 100 or more witnesses would testify that
no anti-union statements were made by O'Hara. The 6 witnesses who testified
to that effect were equally unimpressive as winesses. The undersigned, as stated
above, credits Ryan's testimony as to the remarks attributed to O'Hara at that
meeting. - 0
On Monday, September 29, '1941, Ryan did not report for work and did not'
notify the plant that he would be off that day.7 The next morning when he went
4 Ryan 's excuse for not notifying the plant was that he had to take his daughter to
another town to attend a'4-II Club meeting, and he did not know that ,he had to take her
'until that morning and ; having no telephone , he did not notify the plant.
'NORWICH KNITTING COMPANY 457
to work, Foreman Harry Charles asked him why he did not notify the plant that
he would be absent. Ryan replied that he did not. know of any company rule
requiring it. Charles then told Ryan to report to Superintendent Morris. Ryan
went to Morris' office. Ryan testified that he tried to explain his absence, but
Morris would not listen ; that after some argument, in which he said that he had
been absent before without notifying the plant and, that he was ignorant of any
rule requiring such notice, Morris said to him, "You are fired, get out of here ;"
that he then saw O'Hara and asked him if he were discharged ; that O^Hara
asked him why he did- not notify the plant that he was going to be absent ; that
he replied that he did not have a telephone and that he did not know that he would
be absent until that, morning; and that it had not been the- practice in the plant
for employees to notify their department when they were absent. Ryan further
testified that O'Hara then said "Well, possibly Morris didn't like your activity
in the union, maybe you are tracking down on him a little bit too much" ; that
he replied, "Anything that I said in the union'meetings was true"; that O'Hara,
said, "It wasn't true, everything you said at the meetings, whatever you said at
the meetings, was a lie"; that he then asked O'Hara if he still wanted to dis-
charge him; and O'Hara replied, "I will see." O'Hara then telephoned to Morris
and Morris carne to the office and told Ryan to go back to work.
O'Hara admitted that Ryan came to his office and told him that Morris had
threatened to discharge him. O'Hara testified that Ryan said the respondent
was discriminating against him because he was connected with the union ; and
that Ryan said "The A. F. of L. can now do or say anything at all they want
to about you."; that he replied, "I have no objection to anything you say about
me, but-just stick to the truth" ; and that Ryan replied, "If I stick to the truth,
nobody would come to my meetings." O'Hara denied that he told Ryan that
he did not like his "activities in the union." -
As previously stated, the undersigned was not impressed with the testimony
of O'Hara and in view of his observation of the witnesses and the entire record,
the undersigned credits the testimony of Ryan and finds that O'Hara made the
aforesaid statements as attributed to him by Ryan.
Frank Binnelli testified that he went to work in the plant in May 1941 as a
bundle carrier in the press room; that in June he was transferred to_work at
O'Hara's summer cottage ; that in the fall of 1941 he went back to work in the'
plant and that when he reported for work, Superintendent Morris asked him if
he had joined C. I. O. Local, and he replied that he had ; that about two weeks
afterwards Art Dibble,' in charge of the trucking department asked him if he
had joined the C. - I. O. Local; that Dibble told him to see Earle,Sage,° the plant
electrician ; that Sage told him' to resign from the C. I. O. Local and that Sage
wrote out a form letter of resignation and that he copied it and sent it to Ryan.
The record shows that Binnelli joined the C. I. O. Local in the summer of 1941.
Morris denied that he asked Binnelli if lie had joined C. I. 0 Local. In view of his
observation of the witnesses and the entire record, the undersigned credits the
testimony of Binnelli and finds that Morris questioned Binnelli in regard to
his union affiliation as related by Binnelli. The undersigned further finds that
Binnelli resigned from C. I. O. Local at the instigation of Dibble.
On November 7, 1941, the members of the United voted to affiliate with the
C. I. O. Local which was accomplished on November 10, 1941. Ryan was delegated
8 Ryan testified that Dibble was in charge of the trucking departments . Dibble did not
testify.. The undersigned credits Ryan's testimony.
Sage testified that he was the plant electrician ; that he was subject to 24-hour call ;
that on occasions he had a helper ; and that Henry Gabler, the plant engineer , was his
immediate superior . The evidence is insufficient to support a finding that Sage was a
supervisory employee.
458 DECTSIONS'-OF NATEIiONAL L J OAR RIELATIiOI,I3, BOAR'D
by the United to arrange the details of the affiliation, and he was chosen tem-
porary president of the C. I. O. Local after affiliation. There has never' been
an election of permanent officers in the C I. O. Local, therefore Ryan is still
temporary president. On November 15, 1941, C. I 0., Local was duly chartered
.,as Local No. 466. Soon after the United had gone over to the C. I. 0., Ryan
received- a number of resignations from employees who had, been members of
the United.
According to the uncontradicted testimony of employee John Gieno, which
is credited by the undersigned, Gieno had worked in the plant approximately
30 years ; he joined C. I. O. Local in May or June 1941; his wife and daughter
were also members of C. I 0., Local and they worked in the plant ; in December
1941 his foreman, Chester Brown, said to him, "I hear you don't like your
job any more. - If you don't like the job, and have another, go ahead and get it" ;
he asked Brown who told him that, and Brown replied, "never mind„ I don't
want to do too much talking in here ;" he told Brown that he was not a member
of C. I. O. Local, although in fact he was a member, at the time; that the reason
he told Brown that,he was not a member was because he thought Brown,was
under the impression that he belonged to C. I. O. Local. About a week or two
after that,. Gieno submitted to Ryan resignations in C. I. O. Local for himself,
wife and daughter. Brown did not testify. The undersigned finds that Brown
made the statements attributed to him by Gieno and that such statements were
intended to indicate to Gieno that continued membership in C. I. O. Local would
prejudice his job; and the undersigned finds further that Gieno's resignation
was motivated by such statements.'
In March 1942 C: I. O. Local notified all of its members that a meeting would
be held in the County Court House in the evening-of March 26, 1942. On the
morning of that day, Harry Charles, foreman of the cutting department, was
seen to go around the plant and speak to the cuttersland inspectors, which was
an unusual occurrence. Ryan heard Charles ask employee Frank Cavaglio it
he were going to the C. I. O. Local meeting that night, and Cavaglio answered in
the affirmative. Charles denied that he' talked to the cutters about the union
that day, but he did not deny that he asked Cavaglio if he were going to the
C. I. O. Local meeting that night. Cavaglio did not testify. The undersigned
finds that Charles questioned Cavaglio about going to the meeting as related
by Ryan.
' According to the uncontradicted testimony of employee Lena Sidote, which is
credited 'by the undersigned, she has been employed in - the • plant for the 'past
31 years. Her duties are to take care of the sewing machine ineedles, thread,
etc., which are, used on garments. She also checks the prices on piecework;
She is also in charge of the sale of merchandise, which is manufactured in the
plant, to the employees. Every two weeks the respondent permits the employees
to purchase articles made in the plant, either for cash or on credit and Sidote
has charge of these sales io v
On March 31, 1942, Sidote made ten typewritten 'copies of the following
petition :
We-the undersigned workers engaged in, the production of material neces-
sary for carrying war to victory feel that whatever labor legislation is
enacted by Congress should give individual freedom to work where one
pleases whether Union or Non-Union. That agitation by would-be organizers
io Sidote testified in regal d to her work as follows : "Well, the piecework employees
have dozens of things they do, and -there is a check, and each one cuts off different opera-
tions, and then those small checks are pasted in a check, book, and that check book comes
in every month and I check the price."
NORWICH KNITTING COMPANY 1 459
with selfish interests should be outlawed and production not interrupted
by underhanded methods at this time. We are doing our best to provide
our sons, brothers and friends in the armed forces, with supplies and desire
to be left alone.
Sidote showed a copy of this petition to Superintendent Morris and obtained
his permission to circulate it throughout the plant for signatures She gave
the copies to two female employees and told them to solicit signatures through-
out the plant and to tell the employees that Morris had given his approval for
them to sign it. Approximately 398 signatures were obtained. At that time
there were approximately 500 employees in the plant
Ruth Bush, employed in 'the cutting room, assisted in circulating this petition.
She gave a copy of it to Ryan and requested him to sign it. - Ryan read the,
petition and then put it into his pocket, stating that he would submit it to his
attorney. He refused to return it to Bush Bush zcported this to Lena Sidote
and the latter suggested that she inform Foreman Charles and see if he could
get it back. Ryan, testified that Foreman Charles asked him if he had the
petition; that he replied in the affirmative; that Charles then demanded that
he give it to him; that he refused and said that the petition would probably
go to the National Labor Relations Board in Buffalo ; that Charles replied,
"You will get it for this. You will go further than Buffalo for this." Charles
admitted that he read the petition and knew that it was being circulated in the
cutting room, and that he requesed Ryan to return it to Bush, but he denied
having said anything further to Ryan about it. From his observation of the
witnesses and from subsequent events, the undersigned credits the testimony
of Ryan and finds that Charles made the statements attributed to him by
Ryan.,• Within a few minutes after this conversation between Ryan and Charles,
Frank Lowe, the plant guard, came into the cutting room and demanded that
Ryan return the petition to Bush. Ryan refused to do so. According to
Ryan, Lowe caught hold of Ryan's arm and by "hauling and shoving", took
him to Superintendent Morris' office. Lowe admitted' that he was ordered by his
superior to request Ryan to come to the Superintendent's office, and that he put
his hand on Ryan only once when Ryan passed him in the aisle. Upon arriving
at Morris' office, according to Ryan, Morris demanded that Ryan give him the
petition and when Ryan refused Morris made a motion as though he intended
to strike Ryan, but he did not strike him. Ryan testified that Morris then
said to him that.he was a trouble maker; that Ryan and his Union had, alieady
caused enough trouble in the plant; that Morris then ordered Lowe to search
Ryan for the petition, but Lowe refused and said he could not do it without a
warrant; and that Morris said he would get a warrant and left. After about
half an hour Morris returned and told Ryan that Bush said the petition was not
of sufficient value to justify having him arrested. Morris then told Ryan that he
could go. back to work.
Morris admitted that he sent for Ryan and when Ryan arrived at his office
with Lowe he asked Ryan to give him 'the petition and that Ryan refused.
Morris denied that he threatened to strike Ryan and that he said anything to
Ryan about the Union While testifying Morris was asked the question, "Now
(lid you say to him that clay, the following or the following in substance : `that
you had been'a trouble maker with the Union, and that you have caused more
trouble here than any employee, or anything else?"' Morris answered, "I didn't
discuss Unions with, any employee." From his observation of the witnesses and
in view of the fact that Morris did not specifically deny having made the above
statements to Ryan, and the entire record, the undersigned credits the tesliznony
of Ryan and finds that Morris'made the statements as testified to by Ryan.
X
460 DEIO1SlIONS OF NATIONAL IABOR RELAT-1110-TYS. BOARD
On April 6, 1942, Ryan filed suit in the County Court for $11,000, against Fred
O'Hara, John Morris, Frank'Lowe, and the respondent alleging "false imprison-
ment and assault and battery." On September '23, and 24, 1942, the case was
tried before a jury. The complaint was dismissed on motion as to O'Hara and
the jury's verdict with respect to the other defendants was, "no cause of
action" by a vote of 11 to 1. -
The undersigned finds that by its course of conduct as evidenced in the state-
ments and activities of O'Hara, Morris, Dibble, Brown, Charles, and Lowe, and
the circulation in the plant of the anti-union petition by Sidote with the approval
of Superintendent Morris, set forth above, the respondent interfered with, re-
strained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in
Section 7 of the Act.
B. The discriminatory discharge of Ryan
The respondent first hired Christopher Ryan in 1928. He worked in the plant
for a time and then left the respondent's employ. He was again employed by
the respondent in April 1935 and worked as a cutter in the plant from that time
until September 28, 1942, the date on which he was discharged by the respondent.
As related above Ryan was very active in union affairs in the plant, in fact, the
most active employee in this respect. He was president of the United and was
instrumental in affiliating the United with the C. I. O. Local,and became tempo-
rary,president of the latter. His union activities, in the plant were well .known
to the respondent. Also as related above in March 1942, Ryan refused to sign
the anti-union petition which was circulated throughout the plant and also
refused to return a copy of the petition which was presented to him and, as a,
result, he was threatened with discharge by Superintendent Morris. Also the
record as disclosed above shows that Ryan sued O'Hara and two other super-
visory employees and also the respondent in connection with this incident.
On September 21, 1942, Ryan was confined to his home with a cold and,his
wife reported it to the plant. - He was attended by a physician and also by the
plant nurse However, he was able to testify at the trial on September 24,
but he did not return to work until Monday, September 28, 1942. Upon arriving
at the plant Ryan was informed by Foreman Charles that-he was discharged.
Ryan asked Charles why he had been discharged Charles replied, "I don't know,
I will have to have your pass button." Ryan gave him the button and left the
plant. Charles testified that he had been instructed by O'Hara to discharge
Ryan. O'Hara admitted that he instructed Charles to discharge Ryan upon his
return to work; and he testified that his reasons for discharging him were that
Ryan had caused the respondent considerable damage in the loss of production
and had humiliated him personally by an unjust law suit, and "on top of that,
lie (Ryan] i!ways seemed to feel that he was the only one that could run the
business, nobody else could run the business, so I thought it was a good chance
to let him try something else."
Contrary to this testimony of O'Hara, Mr Lee, counsel for the respondent, in
discussing the matter of submitting in evidence the entire judgment roll of the
.suit brought by Ryan against the respondent, stated for the record that, "Of
-course, we don't say he (Ryan] was discharged because of this law suit or its
result." O'Hara's own'testimony convinces the undersigned that the respondent
look this opportunity to rid itself of Ryan because of his union activities, and
upon the basis of Ryan's prominence in C. I O. Local, the respondent's hostility
to the C. I. O. Local, the failure of the respondent to establish any convincing
,explanation for Ryan's discharge, and the entire record, the undersigned finds
that the respondent discharged Christopher Ryan because of his union member-
NORWICH KNITTING COMPANY 461
ship and activity, thereby discouraging membership in C. I O. Local and inter-
fering with, restraining. and coercing its employees in the exercise of the rights•
guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
IV THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the respondent set forth in Section III above, 'occurring in,
connection with the operations of the respondent described in Section I above,
have a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce
among the several States-, and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and ob-
structing commerce and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Since it has been found that the respondent has engaged in unfair labor prac-
tices, it will be recommended that it cease and desist therefrom, and take certain
affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
It has been found that the respondent discharged Christopher Ryan, and
'thereafter refused to reinstate him, for the reason that he joined and assisted a
labor organization and engaged in concerted activities for the purposes of col-
lective bargaining and other mutual aid and protection. It will therefore be
recommeridednthat the respondent offer him immediate and full reinstatement
to his former or substantially equivalent position. It will be further recom-
mended that the respondent make him whole for any loss of pay he has suffered
by reason of his discharge, by payment to him of a sum of-money equal to that
amount which lie would normally have earned as wages from the date of his-
digeharge to the date of his offer of reinstatement, less his net earnings' during
said period.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record in
the case, the undersigned makes the following:
CONCLusIONsOF LAW
1. United Textile Workers of America, Local No. 2575, affiliated with the-
American Federation of Labor, and Textile Workers Union of America, affiliated
with the Congress of Industrial Organizations, are labor organizations, within
the meaniug,of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
2. By discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of Chris-
topher Ryan, thereby discouraging membership in United Textile Workers o£
America, Local No. 2575, affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, and
Textile Workers Union of America, affiliated with the Congress of Industrial,.
Organizations, the respondent has engaged in,and is engaging in unfair labor
practices, within the meaning of Section 8 (3) of the Act.
3. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise
of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the respondent has engaged in
and is engaging in unfair labor practices, within the meaning of Section 8 (1)
of the Act.
11 By "net earnings" is meant earnings less expenses, such as for transportation, room,
and board, incurred by an employee in connection with obtaining work and working else-
where than for the respondent, which would not have been incurred but for his unlawful
discharge and the consequent necessity of his seeking employment elsewhere. See Matter
of Crossett Lumber Company, etc , 8 N. L. R . B. 440. Monies received for work performed,
upon Federal, State, county, municipal, or other work-relief projects shall be considered-
as earnings. See Republic Steel Corporation,v. N. L. R B., 311 U. S 7.
462 ' DECISION'S OF NA7•IOaN'AL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
4 The aforesaid unfair labor - practices are unfair labor practices affecting
,commerce , within the meaning of Section 2 ( 6) and ( 7) of the Act
RECOMMENDATIONS
• Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the
undersigned recommends that the respondent, Norwich Knitting Company,,Nor-
wich, New York, and its officers, agents, successors, and assigns shall:
1. Cease and desist from :
(a•) Discouraging membership in United Textile Workers of America, Local
2575, affiliated with the American Federation of ' Labor, and Textile Workers
Union of America, affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations, or any
other labor organization of its employees, by discharging or refusing to reinstate
any of its employees, or by discriminating in any other manner in regard to their
hire and tenure of employment, or any term or condition of 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, join, or assist labor
-organizations,- to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choos-
ing, 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
n
effectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Offer to Christopher Ryan immediate and full reinstatement td his former
or substantially equivalent position, without prejudice to his seniority or other
rights and privileges ; ,
(b)• Make whole Christopher Ryan for any loss of pay he has suffered. by
reason of the respondent's discrimination against him, by payment to him of a
sum of money equal to that which he normally would have earned as wages from
September 28, 1942, to the date of the respondent's offer of reinstatement, less his
net earnings 'Z during said period.
(c) Post immediately in conspicuous places throughout its plant at Norwich,
New York, and maintain for a period of at least sixty (60) consecutive days
from the date of posting, notices to its employees stating: (1) that the re-
spondent will not engage in the donduct from which it is recommended to cease
and desist in paragraph' I (a) and (b) of the aforesaid recommendations; (2)
that the respondent will take the affirmative action set forth in paragraph 2 (a)
and (b) of, these recommendations; and (3) that the respondent's employees
,are free to become or remain members of United Textile Workers of America,
Local 2575, affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, and Testile Work-
ers Union-of America, affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations,
and that the respondent will not discriminate against any employee because
of his membership in or activity on behalf of these organizations;,
(d) Notify the Regional Director for the Third Region in writing within ten
(10) days from the date of the receipt of this Intermediate Report what steps
the respondent has taken to comply herewith.
It is further recommended that, unless on or before ten (10) days from the
date of the receipt of this Intermediate Report the respondent notifies said
Regional Director in writing that it will comply with the foregoing recommenda-
tions, the National Labor Relations Board issue an order requiring the respondent
to take the action aforesaid. ,
As provided in Section 33 of Article II of the Rules and Regulations of the
National Labor Relations Board, Series 2-as amended, effective October 28,1942-
I
See footnote 11, supra.
NORWICH KNITTING COMPANY _ 463
any party may within fifteen ( 15) days from the date of the entry of the order
transferring the case to the Board , pursuant to Section 32 of Article II of said
Rules and Regulations , file with the Board, Shoreham Building , Washington,
D. C., an original and four copies of a'statement in writing setting forth such
exceptions to the Intermediate Report or to any other part of_the record or
proceeding ( including rulings upon all motions or objections ) as he relies upon,
together with the original and four copies of a brief in support thereof. As further
provided in said Section 33 , should any party desire permission to argue orally
before the Board, request therefor must be made in writing to the Board within
ten (10 ) days from the date of the order transferring the case to the Board.
W. P. WEBB,
Trial Examiner.
'Dated April 13, 1943.