Regal Shirt Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 16, 1937

4 N.L.R.B. 567 (N.L.R.B. 1937)

In the Matter Of REGAL SHIRT COMPANY and AMALGAMATED CLOTH-
ING WORKERS OF AMERICA
Case No. C-2,50.-Decided December 16, 1937
Shirt Manufacturing Industry-Interference, Restraint, or Coercion: surveil-
lance of union meetings ; intimidation of union organizer ; attempts by violence
to force union organizers to leave town ; by public officials and members of
civic organization ; expressed opposition to labor organization ; threats of
retaliatory action ; threat to close plant unless organization cease ; shut-down
of plant-Discrimination: closing plant to discourage membership in Union-
Company Dominated Union: domination and interference with formation and
administration of ; active solicitation of members for permitted during working
hours but denied to petitioning union ; disestablished as agency for collective
bargaining-Back Pay: awarded for period plant closed.
Mr. Jacob Blum and Mr. Reeves R. Hilton, for the Board.
Mr. Philip Newman, of Philadelphia, Pa., and Hamilton & Mc-
Neill, of Morehead City, N. C., for the respondent.
Mr. S. G. Lippman, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
On June 8, 1937, W. I. Smith, an organizer for Amalgamated
Clothing Workers of America, herein called the Amalgamated, filed
with the Regional Director for the Fifth Region (Baltimore, Mary-
land), a charge alleging that Regal Shirt Company, Morehead City,
North Carolina, herein called the respondent, had engaged in and
was engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within
the meaning of Section 8 (1'), (2), and (3) of the National Labor
Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein called the Act. On July 9, 1937,
the National Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board, issued
its complaint against the respondent, alleging that the respondent
had committed unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the
meaning of Section 8 (1) and (2) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the
Act. In substance the complaint alleged that the respondent, by
threats to close and move its plant, and by the subsequent actual
closing of the plant for an indefinite period,- had intimidated and
coerced its employees in the exercise of rights -guaranteed to them
67573-38-vol iv-37 567
568 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
in Section 7 of the Act. The complaint also alleged that the re-
spondent through its officers, agents, and employees, and through
local business men and city officials, specifically through the mayor
of Morehead City, and a local organization of business men known
as the City Builders, had promoted and engaged in the formation of
a labor organization of the employees of the respondent, had inter-
fered with the administration of said organization, and had en-
couraged membership therein. It was further alleged that the plant
had closed because of the membership of a substantial number of
the respondent's employees in the Amalgamated, and that the closing
had the purpose and effect of discouraging membership in the
Amalgamated and concerted activity by the employees for the pur-
poses of collective bargaining and other mutual aid and protection.
On July 22, 1937, the respondent filed its answer denying that
it was engaged in interstate commerce within the meaning of the
Act; and denying that it had engaged in the alleged unfair labor
practices; and averring that the closing of the plant was caused by
business considerations and not influenced by any labor organization
or labor activities among its employees.
Pursuant to a notice duly issued and served by the Regional Direc-
tor upon the respondent and the Amalgamated, a hearing was held
in Morehead City, North Carolina, on July 22, 1937, before William
H. Griffin, the Trial Examiner duly designated by the Board. At
the hearing the respondent was represented by counsel. Full oppor-
tunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses and to
introduce evidence bearing upon the issues was afforded the parties.
On September 18, 1937, the Trial Examiner filed his Intermediate
Report finding that the respondent had engaged in the unfair prac-
tices alleged in the complaint and recommended that the respondent
cease and desist from such unfair labor practices, and withdraw all
recognition from the Regal Employees Association, Inc. Exceptions
to the Intermediate Report, and a brief in support thereof, were filed
by the respondent. The respondent's request for oral argument was
granted by the Board, but the request was subsequently withdrawn.
On November 10, 1937, pursuant to Section 10 (b) of the Act and
Article II, Section 7, of National Labor Relations Board Rules and
Regulations-Series 1, as amended, the Board issued an amendment
to the complaint. The amendment in substance alleged that the
closing of the respondent's plant on May 10 was, in addition to being
an unfair labor practice within the meaning of Section 8 (1), an
unfair labor practice within the meaning of Section 8 (3). On No-
vember 13, 1937, the respondent filed its answer to the amendment,
denying that the closing on May 10 constituted an unfair labor prac-
tice within the meaning of Section 8 (3). On November 11, 1937,
the respondent petitioned for leave to introduce additional evidence
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 569
in support of its answer and in connection with its petition stated
the nature of the evidence intended to be introduced. The Board
hereby denies the petition on the ground that the evidence sought to
be introduced relates to no new issue but merely to the question of
the purpose of the closing of the plant on May 10, as to which the
respondent has already had full opportunity to introduce evidence at
the original hearing.
Various objections to the introduction of evidence were made dur-
ing the course of this hearing by counsel for the respective parties.
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner and finds
that no prejudicial errors were committed. The rulings are hereby
affirmed.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE RESPONDENT AND ITS BUSINESS
The respondent is a Pennsylvania corporation engaged in the
manufacture, sale, and distribution of men's and boys' shirts. The
respondent operates a plant at Morehead City, North Carolina, and
operates a general sales office and storeroom in Philadelphia, Penn-
sylvania. It employs approximately 154 employees at its plant in1
Morehead City.
In its manufacturing operations the respondent uses cotton prints,
threads, linings, starch, paper boxes, buttons, and other miscel-
laneous materials. Ninety per cent of the raw material comes from
outside the State of North Carolina, being shipped to the respond-
ent's plant by rail and truck. The finished products of the re-
spondent's plant are shipped to the Philadelphia storeroom ready
for sale. These products are sold mainly through salesmen who
travel through various states, other than North Carolina, and solicit
orders from retailers and jobbers. The principal part of the Com-
pany's sales are made in Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, New York,
New Jersey, the District of Columbia, and in practically all the
other Middle Atlantic States.
The respondent leases the factory it occupies from a corporation,
the Morehead City Builders, herein called the City Builders, or-
ganized by local business men who subscribed the funds necessary
to purchase a lot and erect a factory for the respondent's occupancy.
The rental is $1 per annum under a five-year lease. The respondent
has the option of a renewal for an additional five-year period on the
same terms.
H. THE UNION
Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America is a labor organiza-
tion affiliated with the Committee for Industrial Organization. It
570 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
admits to membership all workers employed in the men's clothing
industry, excluding clerical and supervisory employees.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Interference, restraint, and coercion.
About May 2, 1937 , Herbert Windfield and Leonard Rice, organ-
izers for the Amalgamated , discussed with several of the respond-
ent's employees the benefits of organizing a union. A meeting
was decided upon and set for May 4, 1937 , at the home of one of
the workers . From 20 to 25 of the respondent 's employees attended
the meeting . Jackson, the general manager of the respondent, ob-
served the attendance from his automobile parked nearby . Jackson
testified that he was on his way home and noticed automobiles
belonging to his employees , but had no idea what was going on.
On the evening of May 5, the Amalgamated organizers were in
Morehead City awaiting the arrival of W. I. Smith, a third organ-
izer for the Amalgamated. They were accosted by Dowdy, the
president of the City Builders, who posed as a detective and
searched the organizers for weapons . Dowdy took them to the
mayor, who had with him a group of local citizens and a uniformed
police officer . Asked their business in Morehead City, the organizers
stated they were authorized to organize the employees of the Regal
Shirt Factory . The mayor replied , "We are not going to have any
organization ." Then Dowdy proceeded to assault one of the or-
ganizers . Given thirty minutes to leave town or go to jail, they
left. The following afternoon , however, they returned and joined
W. I. Smith.
On May 5, Dowdy, the president , and Pitman , the secretary of
the Morehead City Builders , met several employees who had at-
tended the Amalgamated meeting and asked them to call on Jackson,
saying they were sure he would give the employees raises if they
refrained from joining the Union . Pitman said he had been to
see Jackson , and would go back and tell him the employees were
coining down . These employees called on Jackson the following
day, May 6, and were told that he would not recognize a union,
and further , that he would move the plant before doing so.
On May 6, a half hour before closing, W. I. Smith stationed him-
self outside the plant , and prepared to distribute handbills. He
was observed by Jackson. Soon after , a group of citizens , including
the mayor and Dowdy, arrived . Smith informed the mayor that
he was there to organize the plant . The mayor replied that it was
his business to see that the factory was not organized , and added,
according to Smith , "'We built our factory here, and we intend to
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 571
run it without any outside interference'." When Smith started to
distribute the handbills, Dowdy assaulted him.
The occurrence outside the factory was followed by an Amalga-
mated meeting late that afternoon attended by from 60 to 70 em-
ployees. At this meeting practically all of the employees present
signed application cards for membership in the Amalgamated. These
signatures were subsequently supplemented by those of other
employees.
The same morning Jackson had invited the employees to attend a
meeting in the plant immediately after working hours. Arrange-
ments for the meeting were made that morning by the mayor and
Jackson. Jackson was present at the meeting and introduced the
mayor. The mayor and local citizens addressed the employees trying
to dissuade them from joining the Amalgamated, stating that if the
employees joined the Union, the factory would immediately move
out of town.
When the employees reported for work on May 10, they found
the factory closed, and a notice posted that it was closed for an
indefinite period. Jackson testified that, prior to the first appear-
ance of the organizers, the factory was operating 40 per cent below
normal, with a reduced personnel and pay roll, and that practically
no raw material was on hand for manufacturing needs. Jackson
stated that this retardation of production was caused by poor work-
manship and an oversupply of merchandise, and was directly respon-
sible for the May 10 shut-down. This testimony was contradicted
by employees who stated that they had work on hand, and by the
mayor who testified that Jackson gave him the impression that the
factory closed to prevent violence.
About May 10, 1937, Stanley Woodland, a prominent citizen, who
is openly and violently opposed to labor unions, was present at a
meeting of employees after the factory had closed. At this meeting
Woodland stated that prominent citizens were convinced that the
respondent would leave town if the Union became organized.
Soon after the plant closed, when the employees returned to the
factory for their checks, they noticed that the machines in the most
conspicuous positions were being moved, creating the impression that
dismantling had actually begun.
About May 18, 1937, the factory reopened temporarily for the
purpose of completing some work on hand. Subsequently, the fac-
tory reopened on a permanent basis. It appears that practically all
employees returned to work.
B. The Association
Shortly after the closing on May 10, active steps were taken to
organize an unaffiliated local union. The mayor and Woodland,
572 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
assisted by Miss Nelson, who is in charge of the respondent's office
work, and Miss Gilgo, who is employed as a floor walker and a
teacher, were active in the formation of the local union. The or-
ganizational appeal was that if the C. I. O. organized a union, the
factory would remain closed.
The day pay checks were distributed, after the closing, Miss
Nelson appeared at the factory with two typewritten sheets, one to
be signed by employees who wished to form a local union, and one
to be signed by employees who were in favor of the Amalgamated.
The latter sheet bore a caption which read that those who signed
this paper signed away their rights to work, and closed the door of
the factory. She took a position near the pay window and solicited
signatures.
On May 18 printed notices were mailed to all employees, calling a
meeting for May 21 at the Municipal Building. This meeting was
summoned by the mayor who had the notices printed at his own
expense and delivered to Miss Nelson for addressing. The purpose
of the meeting was to formally organize the local union. After this
meeting a second meeting was held on May 25, at which 69 of the
75 or 80 employees present signed application cards for membership.
At the instance and expense of Woodland the organization was incor-
porated as the Regal Employees Association, Inc., herein called the
Association.
Subsequently, Woodland prepared a proposal for an agreement be-
tween the respondent and the Association containing a provision re-
garding a scale of wages, which he submitted to Jackson for signa-
ture. Without any prior negotiations respecting its provisions, and
without any serious attempt to ascertain whether the Association
represented a majority of the respondent's employees, Jackson signed
the agreement. The agreement was then submitted to the respond-
ent's officers in Philadelphia for approval. The officers submitted
a revised draft. The revised document recognized the Association
as the exclusive bargaining agency of its employees, but was totally
devoid of any provision relating to a scale of wages, or to working
hours, or to other conditions of employment. Upon the recommenda-
tion of Woodland it was signed by the representatives of the Associa-
tion. Jackson testified that following the signing of the agreement,
he negotiated orally with the Association, which negotiations resulted
in a general ten per cent increase in wages.
On July 14, a meeting of all the employees was called by the presi-
dent of the Association and was held in the plant during working
hours. This meeting had been authorized by Jackson, who ordered
the machinery in the plant stopped while the meeting was being held.
The purpose of the meeting was to read the charter of the Associa-
tion and the agreement with the respondent.
DECISIONS AND ORDERS
IV. CONCLUSIONS IN RESPECT TO THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
573
The members of the City Builders had a substantial financial stake
in the operation of the respondent's plant. While the legal relation-
ship existing between the City Builders and the respondent was that
of landlord and tenant, in practical operation the parties were joint
venturers. The City Builders contributed the use of the factory
building in return for the increased business which would flow to its
members through the operation of the factory.
Thus the impelling motive for the assaults on the organizers and
the hostile attitude displayed toward the Amalgamated by the mayor
and leading members of the City Builders, was the fear that the fac-
tory would close and move elsewhere if the Amalgamated organized
the employees. This fear was engendered and encouraged by the
respondent's officers through such acts as Jackson's statement to the
group of employees on May 6, and the dismantling of machinery after
the shut-down on May 10. Again, at the meeting of the factory em-
ployees and local citizens addressed by the mayor on May 6, Jackson
lent credence to such fear by his failure to disclaim the mayor's state-
ments, and fostered and encouraged this fear by his presence and
acquiescence. The respondent's conduct interfered with, restrained,
or coerced its employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in sec-
tion 7 of the Act.
In view of the respondent's threats to its employees to move the
plant, the fear inculcated in the citizens that the plant would close
if the C. I. 0. organized the employees, the shut-down in spite of un-
finished work on hand, and the subsequent temporary' reopening for
the purpose of completing the unfinished work, we are compelled to
the conclusion that the shut-down on May 10, 1937, was motivated
by a desire to discourage Amalgamated activities. The failure of the
plant to continue operations after the temporary reopening was, how-
ever, caused by the legitimate business considerations. We find that
the closing of the plant interfered with the organization of the em-
ployees, and we find that respondent has discriminated against its
employees in regard to hire and tenure of employment, thereby dis-
couraging membership in a labor organization.
The Association was the creature of the mayor and the City Build-
ers who were impelled by fear that the factory would move if the
Amalgamated organized the employees. It was their desire to form
a labor organization that would be amenable to the respondents, and
would at the same time have the effect of keeping a legitimate labor
union out of Morehead City. In Matter of Amin Shoe Manufactur-
ing Company and Shoe Workers' Protective Union, Local No. 80, we
stated with reference to Section 8 (2) : "Its object is to protect the
rights of employees from being hamstrung by an organization which
has grown up in response to the will and the purposes of the employer,
574 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
an organization which would not be, in the sense of Section 7, an
organization of the employees' choice. The workers may be aware
of their employer's antipathy to union organization and seek to pro-
pitiate him by acceptable conduct. This may be unavoidable. But
the employer can be prevented from engaging in overt activity cal-
culated to produce that result. If labor organizations are to be truly
representative of the employees' interest, as was the intention of
Congress as embodied in this Act, the words `dominate and interfere
with the formation of'any labor organization' must be broadly inter-
preted to cover any conduct upon the part of an employer which is
intended to bring into being, even indirectly, some organization which
he considers favorable to his interests." I. The respondent actively en-
couraged membership in the Association by permitting a neeting to
be held in its plant, during working hours, and further showing its
approval by ordering the current of the plant shut off during the
meeting. The summary manner in which the agreement between the
Association and the respondent was made, confirms the conclusion
that the Association is nothing but a tool of the respondent. We find
that the respondent dominated or interfered with the formation or
administration of the Regal Employees Association, Inc.
V. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES ON COMMERCE
The activities of the respondent set forth in Sections III and IV
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 disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the
free flow of commerce.
THE REMEDY
Because of the respondent's unfair labor- practice in closing the
plant on May 10, resulting in a loss of pay to its employees from that
date to May 18, we will order the respondent to compensate in full
all of its employees who were locked out on May 10, 1937, at the rates
of pay or wages which they had been earning prior to May 10, 1937,
to the date of the temporary reopening on May 18, 1937, less any
amount earned by them during such period.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire
record in the case, the Board makes the following :
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America and Regal Em-
ployees Association, Inc., are labor organizations, within the meaning
of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
11 N. L. R. B. 929.
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 575
2. The respondent, by interfering with, restraining, and coercing its
employees in the exercise of their rights to self-organization, to form,
join, and assist a labor organization, to bargain collectively through
representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted
activities for the purposes of collective bargaining and other mutual
aid and protection, as guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, has engaged
in and is engaging in unfair labor practices, within the meaning of
Section 8 (1) of the Act.
3. The respondent, by dominating and interfering with the forma-
tion and administration of Regal Employees Association, Inc., and
by otherwise lending support to it, has engaged in and is engaging
in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (2) of the
Act.
4. The respondent, by shutting down its plant on May 10, 1937, has
discriminated in regard to hire and tenure of employment of its
employees and has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 8 (3) of the Act.
5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices constitute unfair labor
practices affecting commerce, within the meaning of Section 2 (6)
and (7) of the Act. '
ORDER
On the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of
law, and pursuant to Section 10 (c) of the National Labor Relations
Act, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the
respondent, Regal Shirt Company, Inc., and its officers, agents,
successors, and assigns, shall :
1. Cease and desist :
(a). From in any manner interfering with, restraining, or co-
ercing its employees in the exercise of their rights to self-organiza-
tion, to form, join, and assist labor organizations, to bargain col-
lectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to en-
gage in concerted activities, for the purposes of collective bargaining,
and other mutual aid and protection;
(b). From dominating or interfering with the formation or ad-
ministration of, or lending support to, Regal Employees Association,
Inc., or any other labor organization of its employees;
(c). From in any manner discriminating in regard to hire or
tenure of employment of any of its employees in order to discourage
membership in the Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America or
any other labor organization of its employees.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a). Withdraw all recognition from Regal Employees Association,
Inc., as the representative of its employees for the purpose of col-
576 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
lective bargaining with the respondent concerning grievances, labor
disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, or other condi-
tions of employment; and completely disestablish Regal Employees
Association, Inc., as such representative;
(b). Make whole all the employees for any loss of pay they have
suffered by reason of the closing of the factory on May 10, 1937, by
payment to each of them, respectively, of a sum equal to that which
each of them would normally have earned as wages during the period
from May 10, 1937 to May 18, 1937, less the amount, if any, which
each has earned during said period;
(c). Post notices in conspicuous places in its place of business,
stating : (1) that the respondent will cease and desist in the manner
aforesaid; (2) that Regal Employees Association, Inc., is disestab-
lished as representative of any of its employees for the purpose of
collective bargaining with it with respect to grievances, labor dis,
putes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, and other condi-
tions of employment; and (3) that such notices will remain posted
for a period of at least thirty (30) consecutive days from the date
of posting;
(d). Notify the Regional Director for the Fifth Region in writing
within ten (10) days from the date of this order what steps the
respondent has taken to comply herewith.