Tabin-picker & Co. And International Ladies' Garment Workers'1 Union (american Federation Of Labor), 928 (1943)
National Labor Relations Board
Linked as:
Extract
Tabin-picker & Co. And International Ladies' Garment Workers'1 Union (american Federation Of Labor), 928 (1943)
In the Matter of TABIN-PICKER & Co. and INTERNATIONAL LADIES' GARMENT WORKERS'1 UNION (AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR) Case No. C-2537.-Decided June 29, 1943 DECISION AND ORDER On February 15, 1943, 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 affecting commerce, and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the Intermediate Report annexed hereto. Thereafter the respondent and the Union filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and other parts of the record, and supporting briefs. The Board has considered the rulings made by the Trial Examiner at and subsequent to the hearing, and a further ruling made by the Chief Trial Examiner denying the respondent's motion to reopen the hearing, and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed.
Pursuant to notice to all parties, a hearing for the purpose of oral argument was held before the Board in Washington, D. C., on May 18, 1943. The respondent appeared and participated in the hearing.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 following exceptions and additions:1. The Trial Examiner found that the respondent violated the Act by dominating and interfering with the formation of the T. P. E.While we agree that the respondent engaged in such conduct, we find that it did not constitute an unfair labor practice because it occurred before the effective date of the Act.2. The Trial Examiner found that the respondent violated the Act by discriminatorily discharging Embroidery Department Foreman Otto Buenzli and nine of the employees under his supervision. We agree with this finding, except with respect to Foreman Buenzli.In the summer of 1941 the embroidery department, in operation under SSo entitled in the amended charge and complaint. The correct name is International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union. 928 929 the supervision of Foreman Buenzli since 1938, employed three men and nine girls in addition to Buenzli. In August 1941 Buenzli, in violation of the respondent's instructions that its supervisors should not interfere with the union activity of its rank and file employees, encouraged the employees under his supervision to join the Union during working hours at the plant. They all began wearing union buttons at work on Friday, September 5. Albert Tabin, the respondent's president, admitted at the hearing that he visited the department on that day, observed the union buttons, and was 'surprised' to see Buenzli also wearing one. On the next workday, Monday, September 8, Buenzli, without obtaining permission from any of his superiors, left the department in mid-morning with the intention of spending the rest of the day at his home. The summer rush, which had lasted for the months of July and August and had required Buenzli's attendance for irregular, extra periods in order to supervise both of the two shifts then in operation, had given way to a slack 'in-between' season before the early fall rush commenced. Tabin visited the department on three separate occasions later that day, each time observing Buenzli's absence and being told by the employees that he was not expected back. Tabin, according to his own testimony, thereupon decided to 'let the people out,' not only Buenzli, but also Buenzli's son Charles, Irving Lipschultz, and all the girls who were not needed to assist in completing the unfinished work. Accordingly, when Buenzli returned to the plant near the close of work on that day,Tabin called him into the office, criticized him for having been absent without permission and for having signed up his department in the Union, and thereupon discharged him and his son Charles.2 Before the commencement of work on the next day, September 9, Tabin assembled the girls and told them that it was impossible to continue the department and that they would be laid off; he then told Lipschultz that the latter was discharged. Five of the girls (Summaria,Mullard, DiDominico, Tvrdy, and Jensen) were dismissed at the close of work on that day, and two more (Johnson and Ciafaglia) on September 12, the end of the workweek. One man (Blum) and two girls (Simoulis and Niemczewski) were not laid off, but continued in the respondent's employ.2 Charles Buenzli was not directly discharged by Tabin. According to Tabin, he had previously decided to discharge Charles, and accordingly had Charles' pay check made out before he discharged Otto Buenzli. When he discharged Otto, the latter threatened to take Charles with him. Tabin replied that it would 'suit him fine,...See the full content of this document
Sponsored links
