Donnelly Garment Company And International Ladies' Garmnnt Workeus Union And Donnelly Garmentworkfrs Union, Party To a Contract, 241 (1943)
National Labor Relations Board
Linked as:
Extract
Donnelly Garment Company And International Ladies' Garmnnt Workeus Union And Donnelly Garmentworkfrs Union, Party To a Contract, 241 (1943)
In the Matter of DONNELLY GARMENT COMPANY and INTERNATIONAL LADIES' GARMNNT WoRKEus UNION and DONNELLY GARMENTWORKfRS UNION, PARTY TO A CONTRACT Case No. C-1382.-Decided June 9, 1943 DECISION AND ORDER On November 27, 1942, the Trial Examiner 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.
During the hearing, the Trial Examiner ruled upon various motions and upon objections to the admission of evidence. The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner and finds that no prejudicial errors were committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed.Pursuant to notice, a hearing for the purpose of oral argument was held before the Board on March 16, 1943, at Washington, D. C.The respondent, the I. L. G. W. U., and the D. G. W. U. were represented by counsel and presented argument. The Board has considered the Intermediate Report, the exceptions and briefs, and the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations made by the Trial Examiner, with the exceptions and qualifications noted below:A. The remand; the evidence adduced pursuant thereto In remanding the case to the Board for further hearing, the Circuit Court directed that the respondent and the D. G. W. U. be permitted to adduce the previously proffered testimony of respondent's employees to show, in substance, that they formed and joined the D. G. W. U. of their own free will and that they were not influenced, interfered with, or coerced by the respondent in choosing that organization as their bargaining representative. In compliance with the Court's mandate and pursuant to the respective offers of proof submitted by the respondent and the D. G. W. U. at the original hearing, the Board permitted the introduction of such testimony.' We have carefully considered all such evidence adduced by the respondent and the D. G. W. U. We find, however, that the testimony in question does not overcome more positive evidence in the record that the respondent committed acts of interference and assistance in the formation and administration of the D. G. W. U. which subjected that organization to the respondent's domination and which removed from the employees' selection of the D. G. W. U. the complete freedom of choice which the Act contemplates. Since we find the testimony here adduced totally unpersuasive that the employees voluntarily designated the D. G. W. U., we are moreover impelled to adhere to the opinion, derived from our experience in administration of the Act, that conclusionary evidence of this nature is immaterial to issues such as those presented in this case.2 A consideration of all the evidence convinces us, and we find, that the respondent dominated and interfered with the formation and administration of the D. G. W. U.and contributed support thereto; and that the respondent thereby interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.B. Membership and participation in the D. G. W. U. by alleged supervisory employees The Trial Examiner found that Harry Grogan, listed on the pay roll under the heading, 'Instructors and Floor Ladies,' and Hilda SAt the original hearing, the Trial Examiner, although denying the broad offers of proof submitted by the respondent and the D. G. W. U., nevertheless permitted 9 witnesses to testify that they joined the D. G. W. U. of their own free will. Twelve witnesses, whose testimony before Judge Miller in the injunction proceeding was admitted as part of the record, likewise testified that they voluntarily joined the D. G. W. U. At the further hearing, the respondent was permitted to introduce 11 witnesses who gave similar testimony in accordance with the respondent's offer of proof. Five of these witnesses had also signed the D. G. W. U.'s offers of proof, and all of the 11 were examined by the D. G.W. U. pursuant to its offers.2 See Bethlehem Steel Company, et al. v. N. L. R. B., 120 F. (2d) 641 (App. D. C.) enf'g Matter of Bethlehem Steel Corporation, a Delaware corporation and Steel Workers Organizing Committee, (C. C. A. 4), enf'g Matter of American Enka Corporation and Textile Workers Union,No. 22129, American Federation of Labor,Mill Co., 108 F. (2d) 867 (C. C. A. 5), cert. den. 310 U. S. 651, enf'g Matter of Brown Paper Mill Company, Inc., Monroe, Louisiana and International Brotherhood of Paper Makers, affiliated with the American Federation of Labor and International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, affiliated with the American Federation of Labor,Bethlehem Shipbuilding Corp. v. N. L. R. B., 114 F. (2d) 930 (C. C. A. 1), enf'g Matter of Bethlehem Shipbuilding Corporation, Limited and...See the full content of this document
Sponsored links
