National Labor Rel. Bd. v. Associated Dry Goods Corp.

• Decision Date: 05 January 1954
• Docket Number: Docket 22745.,No. 41,41
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit
• Parties: NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD v. ASSOCIATED DRY GOODS CORP. (LORD & TAYLOR DIVISION).

209 F.2d 593 (1954)

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD v. ASSOCIATED DRY GOODS CORP. (LORD & TAYLOR DIVISION).

No. 41, Docket 22745.

United States Court of Appeals Second Circuit.

Argued November 4, 1953.

Decided January 5, 1954.

George J. Bott, Gen. Counsel, David P. Findling, Associate Gen. Counsel, A. Norman Somers, Asst. General Counsel, Arnold Ordman, David J. Vann, Attys., N. L. R. B., Washington, D. C., for petitioner.

Gould & Wilkie, New York City, for respondent; Morrell S. Lockhart, Vincent P. O'Hara, New York City, of counsel.

Before CHASE, Chief Judge, CLARK, Circuit Judge, and BRENNAN, District Judge.

BRENNAN, District Judge.

The National Labor Relations Board seeks the enforcement of its order of March 4, 1953, in accordance with the provisions of the National Labor Relations Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act.

The order is based upon findings which led to the conclusion that respondent had violated Section 8(a) (1) of the Act, 29 U.S.C.A. § 158(a) (1), in that respondent threatened its employees with loss of benefits in the event that its store became unionized, and by the coercive nature of the interrogation of employee Wiszuk. The factual background will be concisely stated.

From May, 1951, continuing throughout the balance of the year, the United Department Store Workers of America, C. I. O., hereinafter referred to as the Union, were engaged in an effort to organize the employees of respondent, then known as "Lord & Taylor."

In September, 1951, shortly after Labor Day, a Mr. Stohldreier, a service manager of respondent, talked with employee Weiner, as follows:

"Q. Will you give us all the conversation that took place between you and Mr. Stohldreier at that time? A. We got into a discussion about unions, and he stated that he worked in Macy\'s and that they had a union there and he believed that if we did have a union here the spirit of Lord & Taylor would not be there, and that most likely if we did have a union we might lose some of the benefits we had now in the store.

"Q. Did he specify any benefits you might lose? A. He said they might put in a time clock."

In June, 1951, in the course of the campaign, a leaflet was distributed throughout the store, which bore the signature of a salesman-employee of respondent, named Wiszuk, as one of the employee organizers. In the same month Wiszuk was asked by a Mr. Carroll, a buyer: "He wanted to know my views and why I wanted a union. That was the discussion." The record shows no reply and no further discussion. Buyer Wallace Smith in the same month inquired of Wiszuk in Mr. Smith's office, as follows: "To the best of my recollection, he asked me about union activities, why I was interested in the union, what I would personally gain out of belonging to a union. And I again told him what I believed so far as the benefits of security and what we did not have at that time." The quotation ended the conversation. In August, 1951, Miss Donnelly, Director of the Training Department, conversed with Wiszuk as follows: "She asked me why I wanted a union at Lord & Taylor, why I was for it, and again what benefits I would derive from having a union there, and I explained what I believed in and told her * * *." "I explained that I would have a certain amount of security with a union, where working under the conditions they have I would not have it; also I would gain other benefits that were not given us by the concern." The conversation took place in Miss Donnelly's office, and she suggested that Wiszuk make an appointment with a vice-president of respondent who would be able to give him additional information so far as benefits that the store gave the employees were concerned. Sometime after Labor Day, 1951, Mr. Hamlet, an assistant operating manager, conversed with Wiszuk as follows: "He asked why I was in favor of a union, what benefits I would gain in having a union at Lord & Taylor." "I gave him my answers why a union would help me and other employees in the store." The conversation took place in Mr. Hamlet's office.

So far as material here, the findings and conclusions of the Board upon which the order was based must find their support in the occurrences outlined above. There is no finding of anti-union hostility to afford support for the findings of the Board. In fact, union organizers were allowed free access to the public areas of the store during the organization campaign. Wiszuk was granted two increases in compensation during the campaign; one, as part of a general wage increase, and the other upon his specific request. The...