Dixie Shirt Company, Inc. And United Garment Workers Of America, A. F. L., 127 (1948)

Summary

---

Dixie Shirt Company, Inc. And United Garment Workers Of America

See the full content of this document

Extract

---

Dixie Shirt Company, Inc. And United Garment Workers Of America, A. F. L., 127 (1948)

In the Matter of DIXIE SHIRT COMPANY, INC. and UNITED GARMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA, A. F. L.

In the Matter of DIXIE SHIRT COMPANY, INC. and UNITED GARMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA Cases Nos. 10-R-1734 and 10-C-1906, respectively.-Decided August 27, 1948 DECISION AND ORDER On May 26, 1947, Trial Examiner Mortimer Riemer issued his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the Intermediate Report attached hereto.1 Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and a supporting brief.

The Respondent's request for oral argument is hereby denied, as the record, in our opinion, adequately presents the issues and positions of the parties.

The Board 2 has reviewed the Trial Examiner's rulings made at the hearing, and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Intermediate Report, the Respondent's exceptions and brief, and the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner, with the additions and modifications hereinafter set forth.

1. The Respondent, in its exceptions, contends in effect that it was prejudiced by the issuance of an Intermediate Report by Trial Examiner Riemer, who did not preside at the hearing, despite the availSThose provisions of Section 8 (1) and (3) of the National Labor Relations Act which the Trial Examiner found were violated are continued in Section 8 (a) (1) and (3) of the Act, as amended.

2 Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-man panel consisting of Chairman Herzog and Board Members Murdock and Gray.

ability of Trial Examiner Greenberg, who did preside at the hearing.3 We do not agree. The Union, after the close of the hearing, filed a statement alleging bias and prejudice on the part of Trial Examiner Greenberg. Trial Examiner Greenberg denied bias and prejudice, but requested that he be relieved of further participation in the proceeding. Thereafter, the Chief Trial Examiner advised the parties that they might, within 10 days, file a motion for a new hearing before another Trial Examiner, which motion, if filed, would be granted.

The parties were further advised that, if no such motion was made, another Trial Examiner would be designated in place of Trial Examiner Greenberg to prepare and serve upon the parties an Intermediate Report based upon the record already made. The Respondent made no motion for another hearing. Having failed to take timely action, although afforded an opportunity to do so, the Respondent in effect waived the right to have a recommended decision prepared by the officer who had presided at the hearing.4 2. We agree with the Trial Examiner that the action of Abrams, the Respondent's vice president, in directing Horton to find out who was responsible for starting the Union and then to give the information to him, violated Section 8 (1) of the Act, despite the fact that Horton made no effort to comply with this direction. The Respondent thereby attempted to interfere with its employees' right to self-organization, for the information sought could have been used by the Respondent for no other purpose but such interference. The fact that the Respondent's attempt did not succeed does not excuse the violation. The test is whether the Respondent engaged in conduct reasonably calculated or tending to interfere with the free exercise of employee rights under the Act.5 3. We do not, however, agree with the Trial Examiner's findings concerning the speech made by Jack Cohen on March 18, 1946,6 and the statements made by the Respondent's supervisors ridiculing the Union and its leaders and disparaging the wearing of union buttons.

The speech and the statements contained no threat or promise of benefit (Section 8 (c) of the Act, as amended).

I The Respondent, in its exceptions, also objects to the denial of its motion to dismiss the complaint, arguing that it was prejudiced by the joinder of the representation and complaint proceedings. We find no merit to this contention. Matter of Hoosier Cardinal Corporation, et al.,

Regulations-Series 5, Sections 203.33 and 203.64.

Although the Administrative Procedure Act (60 Stat. 237) provides that the officer who presided at the hearing shall make the recommended decision, the legislative histo...

See the full content of this document

---