Molly S. Pomerance, Sarah B. Steinberg, And Naomi Estroff, a Partnership, Doing Business As Louisville Shirt Company And Max Estroff, A. K. Steinberg, And A. Pomerance, a Partnership, Doing Business As Southern Commission Company And Amalgamated Clothing Workers Of America, Cio, 145 (1946)

Docket Number: 10-C-1768

Parts: 162

Linked as:

Extract

In the Matter of MOLLY S. POMERANCE, SARAH B. STEINBERG, AND NAOMI ESTROFF, A PARTNERSHIP, DOING BUSINESS AS LOUISVILLE SHIRT COMPANY AND MAX ESTROFF, A. K. STEINBERG, AND A. POMERANCE, A PARTNERSHIP, DOING BUSINESS AS SOUTHERN COMMISSION COMPANY and AMALGAMATED CLOTHING WORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO Case No. 10-C-1768.-Decided June 28, 1946 DECISION AND ORDER On December 6, 1945, the Trial Examiner issued his Intermediate Report in its above-entitled proceeding, finding that the respondent Louisville Shirt Company 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 thereto. The Trial Examiner further found that the respondent Louisville Shirt Company had not engaged in other unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint and that respondent Southern Commission Company was not an employer, within the meaning of the Act, of the employees involved in this proceeding, and recommended that the complaint be dismissed in these respects. Thereafter, exceptions to the Intermediate Report were filed by the respondents, the Union, and counsel for the Board. Supporting briefs were filed by the Union and counsel for the Board.

The Board 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 exceptions and briefs of all parties, and the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner with the following exception.1 The Trial Examiner found that Estroff's conduct on June 12 and 14, 1945, constituted unlawful interference with the self-organization rights of the employees. This finding is not based on allegations in the complaint, which alleges that 'The respondents, from on or about 1 Subsequent to the issuance of the Intermediate Report, the Union and counsel for the Board each moved to reopen the record for the purpose of receiving further evidence of the Union's majority representation. The motions are hereby denied.

July 9, 1945, to date...have urged, persuaded, threatened, and warned their employees to refrain from joining or remaining members of the Union.' (Emphasis supplied.) As stated above, the events upon which the Trial Examiner based his finding occurred in mid-June. At the hearing, counsel for the Board clearly indicated that he was introducing evidence as to Estroff's conduct in June for background purposes and not as a basis for an unfair labor practice finding. In view of the allegations of the complaint and the explanation offered by the Board's counsel at the hearing, we shall reverse the Trial Examiner's finding of unfair labor practices.

Inasmuch as we have found that the respondents2 have not engaged in unfair labor practices, we shall dismiss the complaint.

ORDER Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and the entire record in the cas...

See the full content of this document