Standard Handkerchief Co., Inc., 15 (1965)

STANDARD HANDKERCHIEF CO., INC. 15

Standard Handkerchief Co., Inc . and Ladies' Neckwear Workers' Union Local 142, International Ladies' Garment Workers Union, AFL-CIO. Case No. d-CA-9519. February 15, 1965 DECISION AND ORDER

On July 7, 1964, Trial Examiner Joseph I. Nachman issued his Decision 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 attached Trial Examiner's Decision. Thereafter, the General Counsel and the Union filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision and supporting briefs.

Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, the National Labor Relations Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel [Chairman McCulloch and Members Fanning and Jenkins].

The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed.

The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the entire record in this case, including the Decision and the exceptions and briefs, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner.

ORDER

Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board hereby adopts as its Order the Order recommended by the Trial Examiner, and orders that the Respondent, Standard Handkerchief Co., Inc., its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order.

TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE

This proceeding heard by Trial Examiner Joseph I. Nachman at New York,

New York, on March 25, 1964, with all parties present and participating , involves a complaint under Section 10(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended,' herein called the Act, alleging that Standard Handkerchief Co., Inc., herein called Respondent or Company, refused to bargain in certain particulars, hereafter discussed, with Ladies' Neckwear Workers' Union Local 142, International Ladies' Garment Workers Union, AFL-CIO, herein called the Union or Local 142, the recognized collective-bargaining representative of Respondent 's employees. The re'Issued January 31, 1964 , based on a charge filed August 9 and amended August 26, 1963.

151 NLRB No. 2.

spective parties were afforded full opportunity to introduce evidence, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to argue orally on the record. Oral arguments were presented and are reported in the transcript of proceedings. Briefs submitted by the General Counsel and Respondent have been received and duly considered.

Upon the pleadings, stipulations, and evidence, including my observation of the demeanor of the witness, and upon the entire record in the case, I make the following:

1. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES INVOLVED A. The facts For some years Respondent operated a plant in New York City (herein called the Bronx plant), and since about 1950 the Union has been the recognized collectivebargaining representative of the employees. Over the years successive contracts have been in effect, the last such entered into November 30, 1960, effective until March 15, 1962, and later mutually extended to March 15, 1963.

There operates in another segment of the industry an employer group known as National Women's Neckwear and Scarf Association, herein called the Association, with which the Union bargains. The contract with the Association also had an expiration date of March 15, 1963. Respondent is not a member of Association, but since 1950 it has been the pattern that the Union after reaching agreement with Association, negotiates with the nonmember employers, including Respondent. Contract negotiations between the Union and Association were begun in January 3 and agreement was reached about March 20.

While negotiations between the Union and the Association were in progress,

Joseph Tuvim, business manager of the Union, and the person who negotiates all contracts on its behalf, received a telephone call from Henry Smooke, president of Respondent. Smooke asked that the Union not 'push' him about contract negotiations, that he (Smooke) would be in touch with Tuvim in about 10 days. Tuvim, however, did not hear from Smooke. After agreement was reached with Association, the Union fixed a 'stoppage date' for April 4,4 and all employers were notified of the date so fixed. A day or two later Smooke telephoned Tuvim and asked whether it would be necessary for his employees to attend the ratification meeting. Tuvim said that it was. Following the meeting Tuvim instructed his business agents to arrange a date for negotiating with Respondent, but they reported their inability to contact Smooke. Finally, Tuvim, after meeting Smooke on the street and a subsequent telephone call, a meeting was arranged.5

According to Tuvim, the parties met at the Union's office on June 4 or 5; the Union made known its demands; Smooke stated that he was experimenting with some new machinery and until he got the results, in about 3 weeks, would not know his labor costs, and therefore, could not then respond to the Union's demands; and the parties then agreed to defer the matter until June 24.6 At the request of Smooke's office the meeting on June 24 was postponed to June 25. According to Tuvim, on June 25, the parties again discussed the Union's demands, certain points were compromised, and, after agreement had been reached on all issues, Tuvim remarked that all agreements were to be retroactive to March 15. Smooke demurred to retro2 No issue of commerce or labor organization is involved. The complaint alleges and the answer admits the necessary facts to establish both elements. I find these facts to be as pleaded. The complaint also alleges, the answer admits, and I find that all production and maintenance employees of Respondent, employed at its Bronx plant prior to June 28, 1963, excluding office clerical employees, professional and technical employees, watchmen, guards, and all supervisors as defined in the Act, constitutes a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act.

'° This and all dates hereafter mentioned are 1963 unless otherwise Indicated.

4 This is the date fixed by the Union for all employees to be bound or affected by the contract to suspend work and attend a meeting at which ratification of the contract is to be considered.

The foregoing findings are based upon the credited and undenied testimony of Tuvim.

'° Smooke denied that be had any meeting with Tuvim on June 4 or 5. In view of the fact that the parties admittedly met and discussed contract terms on June 25 and Smooke does not give any different version as to how the meeting for that day was arranged, I credit Tuvim.

STANDARD HANDKERCHIEF CO., INC. 17 activity, saying that he would have to discuss that point with his business associates and would let Tuvim know about it within a week. According to Tuvim, he heard nothing further from Smooke 7 until a telephone conversation on or about July 9 or 10, to be hereafter more fully related.

It has been the practice for some years for all employees to take a ]-week vacation during the week in which July 4 falls. Pursuant to this arrangement the last day of work at Respondent's Bronx plant was June 28. At that time all employees were told there was no work available, and that they should call about July 9 to find out when they could return to work. On or about July 9 or 10, Tu rim received reports indicating that Respondent was moving its Bronx plant Tuvi n sent Business Agent Kaye to investigate. Kaye went to the plant and observed that the plant machinery was being disassembled and loaded on a truck. However, Kaye was unable to ascertain where the plant machinery was being moved. Upon receiving this information from Kaye, Tuvim telephoned Smooke and protested that he had never been informed that the Company was moving. Smooke asked, 'How do you know we are moving9' Tuvim replied, 'We have the evidence,' and called Smooke's attention to the fact that at...