Cap Association of the United States, Inc

Text (OCR of the scan at left; may contain errors)

IN THE MATTER OF CAP ASSOCIATION OF Tile UNITED STATES, INC., ET AL. COMPLAINT, FINDINGS, AND ORDER IN REGARD TO Tile ALLEGED VIOLATION OF SEC. I! OF AN ACT 0.fj' CONGRESS APPROVED SEPT. 26, 1914 Docli:et 2530. Complaint, .Attg, 29, 1935-Decision, June 10, 1937 'Vhere two trade associations, composed, reHtlectively, ot some 100 cap manu· !acturers of all types, and of ZT uniform cap manufacturers; the 'officers of said associations; the aforesaid uniform cop manufacturer-members engaged in manufacture and sale of all types of headwear used or worn in conjunction with a uniform, and including products used by the military, naval, postal, and coast guard service of the United States, military service of the States, pollee and fire departments, railway employees, etc., and, prior to the llerelnafter set forth acts and practices, engaged In offer and sale of their aforesaid products at competitive and frequently varying prices; and four manufacturers of visors and trimmings used in manufacture of uniform caps, makers nnd sellers in interstate commerce of about GO percent of the total Volume of such itrms used in the uniform cap manufacturing industry in the United States, aP.d, up to not long theretofore, sole source of ~>upply for afore~aid indlsvcn:;able items uecessary to manufacture of uniform caps, and making of whleh items himself is not practicable for the average uniform cap manufacturer; following a series of meetings, called by and presided over by officers of suld association first named, and dlscus~-;ions and comparison of prlecs at whlrh they wpre offering compctitiYe uniform caps- ( a) Entered into an agreement to fix, and did tlx and abide by, prices which were uniform as among themselves for the ot'fer and sale of aforesaid products;

(b) Printed, In pursuance of tlwlr nforesn id agreement, price lists indicatingjobber price, retail prlee, and contract prlee to uniform tailors of such products made and sold by the members, and <'ircnlnted, through use of corresvondence facillties of aforet-mld association, such price lists, and, in pursuance of their said undert>tanding, uniformly changed said prices and adhered to schedule thereof as revised;

(c) Exacted and procured agrecml'Uts of eooperntlon from said visor and tl'lmmlng manufacturers, to the cfll•ct that they would support, adhere to and enforce the program herelnnbove indicatl'd, and proeured from them agr('e· ments to cooperate with the aforesaid second assudatlon or trade org:lll· lzation of cap manufacturers;

(d) Supplied to aforesaid visor manufacturers, in COOII{'ration and confedl'ra· tlon with one nnotbrr and through use ot the offii'CR, ~;tatlOJwry and sN·rP· tarlal fncllltles of sold first af'lso<'lation, lists containing nam('S of nulfo n rap manufacturers who refused to sell their prOlluets at the prlc,•s sng~ gested, as hereinabove noted, and nnnws of such non-member mnnufaeturers who thus refused to SPII their said products, nnd Induced said visor munn- !octurcrs to erase dPallng with nnd to refuse to sell yfsors nnd trim· mlngs to uniform c·np mnnnfactnrcrs thus n'liOI'IPd, and m•ute use of coerefve and concPI'IPd nctlon and threats of ltoycott against such ,·!sol'" CAP ASSOCIATIO~ OF THE U. S., INC., ET AL. 97 96. Complaint manufacturers to induce and require thf'm to support the program herdn set forth and to refrain from selling their visors and trimmings to non· member uniform cnp manufacturers; nnd (e) lif'ld meetings In several large cities to devise means of exerting Influence, pressure and coercion upon uniform cap manufacturers to abide by and adhere to the program hereinabove set forth, and imposed upon and col· lC'cteu from members selling below suggested prices, fines, and in one instance made threat of fine of $2,000 aud strike and labor troubles; and "'here aforesaid visor mnuufactnr(·rs, so-cnlleu ''Policemen of the Industry," (f) CoovC'rnteu with the oti1C'r:> herelnl•!·fore fet forth In carrying out the above 11oteu prog-rnm nud rf'fus!'d to sell to those uniform cap manufacturers who fulled to talce membership In aforesaid first-named association or to obsene uniform prices fixed In aforesaid lists, necessary 'Visors and trimmings;

With result that prices of such caps were raised to levels higher than those prevailing before effecting of said agreement and preparation of said lists, prices for visors and trimmings used in manufacture of such uniform caps were advanced by aforesaid visor manufacturers, purchasing public was deprived of advantages in price, service and other considerations which they would receive and enjoy under conditions of normal competition in uniform cap manufacturing industry, and small business enterprises en· gaged in manufacture and sale of su<.:h proclncts were ovpressed n.nd discrimilmt<>u aguhist:

Held, Thn.t 1-lUdl ucts aij(l prnl'tiC'PS \Wre to the prejudice of the public and comfl('Utors and t('llded unduly to hinder competition and create monopoly and constitufl'U unfair methods of competition. Defore !Jfr. William 0. Reeves, trial examiner. Air. P. 0. J(olinski for the Commission.

Mr. Elias Lieberman, of New York City, for Cap Association of the United States, Inc. and various other respondents. Air. Jer01ne L. Greenberg, of New York City, for Irving L. Lewis and Herman Buchbinder.

Site·on d'! Schwartz, of Chicago, Ill., for Chicago Uniform Cap Co. },f r. John J. llf mitchell, Jr., of Philadelphia, Pa., for Kuenzel Drothers.

Miller, J{omenear & Jl/argoli8, of Chicago, Ill, for Jacob Apfelbaum, Morris Gre>enberg and Jacob Wax.

Coliii'LAINT Pursuant to the provisions of an Act of Congress entitled, "An Act to create a Federal Trade Commission, to define its powers and duties, and for other purposes," the Federal Trade Commission, having teason to believe that each awl all the parties named in the caption hereof, hereinafter>r referred to as respondents, have been and now are ~Ising- 11nfai1· Im·tl1ods of competition in commerce, as "commerce" ls defined in sni1laet, and it nppraring to the Commission that a pro- FEDERAL TRADE C0:;\11\IISSION DECISIO:XS98 Complaint 231!". T. C. t•ecding by it in respect thereof would be in the public interest, hereby issues its complaint ancl states its charges in that respect as follows:

PARAGRAPH 1. That the respondent Cap Association of the United States, Inc., hereinafter referred to as the association, is a corpora· tion incorporated and existing under the laws of the State of New York having its principal office in New York City; that prior to April 19, 1934-, its corporate name was National Cap & Cloth Hat Institute, Inc.; that its membership consists of approximately 100 cap manufacturers distribute1l throughout the United States, whose combined output constitutes practically all caps manufactured in the United States;

That the respondent Uniform Cap Manufacturers Iustitnte, Inc.,. hereinafter referred to as the institute, is u corporation ineurporatcd and existing under the laws of the Stale of New York, having its lJrincipal office in New York City; that its membership cousists of approximately 80 uniform cap manufacturers llistributed throughout the United States, whose combined output constituh•s practically all the uniform cups manufactured in the United States; That the following named inuivluuab, partnerships, and corporations are representative uniform cap manufacturers holding membership in both organizatim1s, the association a ud the institute: Respondent E. :Matte::! & Son, Inc., is a corporation organized, existing, and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the State of New York, with its principal office and place of busirw~s at New York City.

Respondent William B. Mackey, is an indi\'idual tratli11g as J. Mackey & Sons, with his office and principal place of bn:-;im's,; m New York City.

Uespondent Pekursky Cup Fronts, Inc., is a corporation organizc\1, existing, and doing business under and by virtue of the law& of the State of New York, with its principal offi(·e and place of husim·ss at New York City. · Respondent American Cap Fronts :\Hg. Co., Inc., is a corporation organized, existing, and doing busiiWHS uwler antl by virtue of the htws of the State of New York, with its prindpal office aJHl place of business at New York City.

Respondent Samuel D. Batch is llll i1Hlivitlual trading as Basd1 Cap Co., with his office a111l principal place of business in Buslou, Mass.

R£>spomlent "'entworth Forman Co., Inc., is a corpomtiou or· ganized, existing, and doing busiiWHS under and by virtue of the CAP ASSOCIATIO~ OF THE U, S., INC., ET AL, 99 Complaint laws of the State of Massachusetts, with its principal office and place of business at Boston.

Respondent George Brunssen Co., Inc., is a corporation organized, existing, and doing business under and by virtue of the b.ws of the State of New York, with its principal office und place of business at New York City.

Respondent Nas Saw Equipment Corporation, is a corporation organized, existing, and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the State of New York, with its principal office and place of businpss nt New York City.

R.respondent Philadelphia Uniform Co., Inc.: is a corporation organized, existing, and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the State of Delaware, with its principal office and place of business ut Conshohocken, Pa.

R.l'sponden~ Kuenzel Brothers is a corporation organized, existing, rind doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the State of Pennsylvania, with its principal office and place of business at Philadelphia.

Rl'spomlf'nt Op{X'r Cap Co., is a corporation organized, existing, n11d doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the· State of Ohio, with its principal office and place of business at Cleveland. Uespondent, Figmore Uniform Cap Co., Inc., is a corporation organizl'u, existing, and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the State of Michigan, with its principal office and place of business at Detroit.

Respondent Chicago Uniform Cup Co., is a corporation organized, existing, and doing business under and by virtue of the b.ws of the State of Illinois, with its principal office and place of business at Chicago.

Ucspondent Jacob Apfelbaum is an individual trading as J. Apfelbaum, with his office and principal place of business in Chicago, Ill. Respondent Morris Greenberg and Jacob 'Vax are partners trading as Eastern Uniform Cap Mfg. Co., with their office aml princi- Pal place of business in Chicago, Ill.

Respondents Irving L. Lewis, Jacob Bressler, Herman Buchbinder, and Isaac Uoss nre respectively president, treasurer, !iecretnry, nnd ~executive sPcretnry of said association, in charge of and conducting lts activities and affairs .

. That "respontlents l\Iurray II. Bader, Sidney Lesser, Herman J uhck, and 'Valter Seifert are respectively president, vice president, treasurer, and secretary of said institute . . That respondl'nts E. Mattes & Son, Inc., William B. Mackey, tradlng as J. Mackey & Sons, Pekursky Cap Fronts, Inc., and American Complaint 23l!'.T.C. Cap Fronts Mfg. Co., are manufacturers of vizors and trimmings used in the manufacture of uniform caps.

That the other respondents specifically named herein as members of the respondent association and respondent institute do not em· brace the entire list or number of such members; that such members constitute a class so numerous, far-flung, and changing as to make it impracticable to specifically name each and every one of them as parties respondent herein; that those specifically named herein are fairly representative of the whole; that all members of the aforesaid respondent association and respondent institute are also made parties respondent herein as a class of which those specifically named are representative; that said members of said association and said institute are hereinafter calh'd the members. That such respondent members manufacture and sell uniform caps, being any and all types of headwear used or worn in conjunc· tion with a uniform. The uniform caps manufactured and sold by respondent members are used by the armed forces of the United States, the Army, Navy, Marine Corps, and Coast Guard, all United States Postal Carriers, members of National Guard organizationst polica and fire departments in every city of the United l;states, rail· way employes, including railroad, street railway, rapid transit and bus employes, chauffeurs, telegraph and delivery messengers, build· ing and theatre attendants, gasoline, laundry and other industrial uniformed organizations, and large patriotic and fraternal organiza· tions in ev('ry city and town in the United States. PAR. 2. That in the course and conduct of the business and activi· ties of said association and institute respondents, their officers and members respondent, they have been and are engaged in commerce among the several States and in trade, business, nnd commerce relating to, and affecting interstate commerce, as hereinafter alleged; that resp( ndcnt members of said association nnd institute purchase the vizors, cloth and trimmings used in the manufacture of uniform caps from manufactur('rs in various States and cause such products to be shipped to their places of business; and in the course of the sale and distribution of uniform caps said respondents caused such mN·chandise wll('n sohl to be shipped and transported from their places of busiJwss to their customers at points in States othH than the State in which such shipments originated; that except insofar as competition has been restrained, stifled, lessened, or destroyed by the responuents as hereinafter alleged, each of the respondents have been and are engaged in the course and conduct of their businesses and activities in substantial competition with each other in price, and are otherwise in such substantial competition with other indi- CAP ASSOCIATION OF THE U, S., INC., ET AL. 101 00 Complaint viduals, partnerships, and corporations also engaged in the manufacture of uniform caps.

PAn. 3. In July 1933, or thereabouts, respondents united in a common course of action and cooperated and confederated together to fix and establish uniform prices at which said members of respondent association and respondent institute should sell uniform caps and to prevent others from selling at less prices and by and through the aforesaid means to suppress competition and especially competition in price in the selling and distribution of said products. To ~arry out the aforesaid purposes the respondents have done, among others, the following acts and things :

(a) Exacted and procured pledges and other promises of agreements from each member of respondent Association and respondent Institute and from manufacturers of vizors and trimmings to the eflect that such members and manufacturers would support, adhere to and enforce the foregoing program of respondents set forth in paragraph 3 hereof.

(b) Printed and circulated among members price lists indicating the price to jobbers, the retail price, and the contract price to uniform tailors, of uniform caps manufactured and sold by respondent members.

(c) Printed and circulated among members, lists (so called black lists), containing the names of members who refused to manufacture and sell uniform caps at the suggested prices, and the names of uniform cap manufacturers not members of said association and institute, Who refused to manufacture and sell uniform caps at the prices suggested by respondents herein, and supplied said lists to the manufacturers of uniform cap vizors, respondents herein, and induced said vizor manufacturers to cease dealing with and to refuse to open accounts with the uniform cap manufacturers so reported. (d) Used in concert and agreement among themselves and with others, coercive and concerted action, boycott, threats of boycott, and other united action against vizor manufacturers, to induce and require them, awl to attempt so to induce and require them, to agree and conform to and to support and enforce the said program of respondents, and to refrain from selling said products to uniform cap manufacturers Who "·ere not members of said association. (e) Held meetings of respondent association, and respondent institute, their members, officers and executive committe<'<;, to devise means of exerting influence, pressure and coercion upon uniform cap manufacturers, to abide by and adhere to said program. PAn. 4. The combination fl.nd agreement so entered into and carried on by said respondents and the acts and things done thereunder and 102 FEDERAL TRADE CO:\IMISSION DECISIONS Findings 25F.T.C.

pursuant thereto, as hereinabove alleged, resulted and results in the suppression and prevention of competition between and among them and in the enhancement of prices to the using public; in depriving the purchasing and consuming public of advantages in price, service and other considerations which they would receive and enjoy under conditions of normal and unobstructed, or free and fair, competition in said trade and industry; in oppression in discrimination against small business enterprises which were or are engaged in manufacturing and selling uniform caps; and are monopolistic practices and methods of competition which are unfair, and they constitute unfair methods of competition in commerce within the intent and meaning, and in violation of Section 5 of said Act approved September 26, 1914, entitled" An Act to create a Federal Trade Commission, to define its powers ahd duties, and for other purposes."

REronT, FINDINGS AS TO THE FACTS, AND Onder Pursuant to the provisions of an Act of Congress approved September 2G, 1914, entitled "An Act to create a Federal Trade Commission, to define its powers and duties, and for other purposes," the Federal Trade Commission on August 2!>, 1935, issued and sened its complaint in this proceeding upon respondents, Cap Association of the United States, Inc., its officers and members, Irving L. Lewis, Jacob Dressler, Herman Buchbinder, Isaac Ross, individually and as president, treasurer, secretary, and executive secretary, respectively, of said associa· tion; Uniform Cap Manufacturers Institute, Inc., its officers and mem· hers, Murray II. Bader, Sidney Lesser, Herman Julick, 'Valter Seifert, individual11y and as president, vice president, treasurer, and secretary, l'Nlpectivf'ly of said association; E. l\Iattes & Son, Inc., William B. Mackey, trading as J. l\Iackey & Sons, Pekarsky Cap Fronts, Inc .. American Cap Fronts Mfg. Co., Inc., Samuel D. Dasch, trading as Dasch Cap Co., 'Ventworth Forman Co., Inc., George llrunssen Co., Inc., Nas Saw Equipment Corporation, Philadelphia Uniform Co., Inc., Knenzel Brothers, Opper Cup Co., Figmore Uniform Cnp Co., Inc., Chicago Uniform Cap Co., Jacob Apfelbaum, and l\iorris Green· berg and Jacob Wax, partners trading as Eastern Uniform Cup Mfg. Co., charging them with the use of unfair methods of competition in commerce in violation of the provisions of said act. After the issu· tt.nco of said complaint, and the filing of ref;pondents' answ<>rs thereto, testimony and other evidence in support of the allegations of said colll· plaint were introduced by P. C. Kolinski, attorney for the Commis· sion, before William C. Reeves, an examiner of the Commission, there· tofore duly JesignateJ by it, and in opposition to the alle.gations of CAP ASSOCIATION OF THE U, S., INC., ET AL. 103 06 Findings the complaint by Elias Lieberman, David Miller, and D. L. Apfelbaum, attorneys for the respondents; and said . testimony and other evidence were duly recorded and filed in the office of the Commission. Thereafter, the proceeding regularly came on for final hearing before the Commission on the said complaint, the answers thereto, testimony alld other evidence, briefs in support of the complaint and in opposition thereto, and tl~e oral arguments of counsel aforesaid; and the Commission having duly considered the same, and being now fully advised in the premises, finds that this proceeding is in the interest of the public, and makes this its findings as to the facts and its conclusion drawn therefrom:

FINDINGS AS TO Tile FACTS PARAGRAPH 1. Respondent, Cap Association of the United States, Inc., is a non-profit corporation existing under thie laws of the State of New York with its principal office in New York City. It is a trade association of approximately one hundrrd members who are manufacturers of all type of caps, and prior to April19, 1934, its corporate name was National Cap & Cloth Hat Institute, Inc. Respondents, Irving L. Lewis, Jacob Dressler, Herman Buchbinder, and Isaac !{oss are officers of this respondent association in charge of conduct- Jug its activities. Respondent Uniform Cap Manufacturers Institute, Inc., is n non-profit corporation organized in September 1934, under the htws of the State of New York with its principal office in New York City. It is a trade association of twenty-seven members who are manufacturers of uniform caps. Respondents Murray II. llader, Sidney Lesser, Herman Julick, and \Valter Seifert, are officers of this respowlent association in charge of conducting its activities. These association respon(lents and their officers are not engaged in inter- ~tate commerce on their own accounts. Respondent E. Mattes & Son, Inc., Pekarsky Cap Fronts, Inc., and American Cap Fronts Mfg. Co., are corporations f'Existing undf'r the laws of the State of New York, with their principal offices and places of business in New York City, engaged in the manufacture and sale of visors and trim- Jnings used in the manufacture of uniform caps. Respondent 'Villiam D. Mackey is an individual trading as J. Mackey & Sons, with his I.Jffire and place of business in New York City, engaged in the manufactm·e and sale of visors and trimmings used in the manufacture of ttni form cups. These four respondent manufacturers of visors and !rimmings are, and at all times hereinafter mentioned were engaged in Interstate comm(>rce, and in the sale of visors and trimmings make ship- Inents of such commodities from the State of New York through and 104 FEDERAL TRADE COMl\IISSION DECISIONS Findings 25F.T.C.

into other States of the United States. The remaining respondents manufacture and sell uniform caps, being any and all types of headwear used or worn in conjunction with a uniform. These commodities are used by the military, naval, postal and coast guard service of the United States, military service of the States, police and fire departments, railway employees, chauffeurs, telegrapl;l messengers, building and theater attendants, gasoline, laundry, and industrial employees, and fraternal organizations. These respondents are Samuel D. Basch, an individual trading as Basch Cap Co., with his office and place of business in Boston, Mass.; ·wentworth Forman Co., a corporation existing under the laws of the State of Massachusetts, with its principal office and place of business in Boston, Mass.; George Brunssen Co., Inc., and Nas Saw Equipment Corporation, corporations existing under the laws of the State of New York, with their principal offices and places of business in New York City; Philadelphia Uniform Co., Inc., and Kuenzel Brothers, corporations existing under the laws of the State of Pennsylvania, with their principal offices and places of business at Philadelphia, Pa.; Opper Cap Co., a corporation existing under the laws of the State of Ohio, with its principal office and place of business in the city of Cleveland, Ohio; Figmore Uniform Cap Co., a corporation existing under the laws of the State of Michigan, with its principal office and place of business in the city of Detroit, Mich.; Chicago Uniform Cap Co., a corporation existing undrr the laws of the State of Illinois, with its principal office and place of business in the city of Chicago, Ill.; Jacob Apfelbaum, an individual trading as J. Apfelbaum, with his office and principal place of business in the city of Chicago, Ill.; and Morris Greenberg and Jacob Wax, partners, trading as Eastern Uniform Cap Mfg. Co., with their office and principal place of business in the city of Chicago, Ill. W'ith the exception of respondent Nas Saw Equipment Corporation, all of the respondents last named, eng<lged in the manufacture and sale of uniform caps, are, and at all times hereinafter mentioned· were, engaged in interstate commerce, and make shipments of uniform caps from their respective places of business in the States of Massachusetts, New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, l\Iichigan, and Illinois, through and into other States of the United States.

PAR. 2. There are in the United States, and have been during the time referred to in paragraph one hereof, other persons, partnerships, and corporations engaged in the manufacture and. sale of cloth caps, and other persons, partnerships and corporations engaged in the manufacture and sale of uniform caps. In the sale of thcso commodities, such other persons, partnerships, and corporations, pursuant CAP ASSOCIATION OF THE U, S., INC., ET AL. 105 Findings to such sales, ship and have shipped such commodities into an<l through the various States of the United States other than the States of origin of such shipments; and with such other persons, partnerships, and corporations respondent uniform cap manufacturers are and have been in active and substantial competition. These commodities are used by the military, naval, postal, and coast guard service of the United States, military service of the States, police ancl fire departments, railway employees, chauffeurs, telegraph messengers, building and theater attendants, gasoline, laundry and industrial employees, and fraternal organizations.

PAn. 3. There are in the United States, and have been during the time referred to in paragraph one hereof, other persons, partnerships, and corporations engaged. in the manufacture and. sale of visors and trimmings used in the manufacture of uniform caps. In the sale of these commodities, such other persons, partnerships, and corporations, pursuant to such sales, ship and have shipped such commodities into and through the various States of the Unitell States other than the States of origin of such shipments; and with such persons, partnerships and corporations, respondent visor manufacturers E. Mattes & Son, Inc., Pekarsky Cap Fronts, Inc., American Cap Fronts Mfg. Co., and William D. l\Iackey, are and have been in active and substantial competition. These respondents are not engaged. in the manufacture and sale of uniform caps. Their commodities, visors and trimmings, used in the manufacture of uniform caps, are indispensable items necessary to the manufacture of uniform caps. Until the year 1934, these respondent visor manufacturers were the only source of supply of such necessary visors and trimming for uniform caps. At all the times hereinafter mentioned they manufactured, sold, and shipped in interstate commerce approximately 60 percent of the total 'Volume of visors and trimmings used in the uniform cap manufacturing industry in the United States. It is not practicable for the average uniform cap manufacturer to manufacture his own visors and trimmings.

PAR. 4. Prior to the year 1933 respondent uniform cap manufacturers had been offering for sale and selling competitive uniform caps at prices determined by competition among them, and these Pricl's in many instances varied as among said respondents. In July 193) an<l therl'after, all rl'spond£'nts ]wrein held n seri£'s of meetings at "which they discu~~ed and compared prices at which they were offering for sale and selling competitive uniform caps, and at and by lnP:tlJS of such meetings came to an agreement or understanding to fix tlte prices at which they would and did thereafter offer for sale and sell competition~ uniform caps, which prices were uniform as 106 :FEDERAL TRADE COl\DUSSION DECISIONS Findings ~F.T.O.

among said respondents. These meetings were called by the officers of respondent Cap Association of the Unite<l States, Inc., and were presided over by such officers. rursuant to such agreement to fix prices of uniform caps, respondents printed and circulated among members of the uniform cap mannfactming industry price li:'its i1111icating the price to jobbers, the retail price, and the contract price to uniform tailors, of uniform caps manufactured and sokl by respondent members. Such price lists were circulated by means of and through the use of the correspondence facilities of the respondent Cap Association of the United States, Inc. From time to time thereafter, pursuant to such understand<ling, respondents uniformly changed said prices and adhered to the schedule of prices as revised. PAn. 5. Pursuant to the agreement set forth in paragraph four hereof, respondents exacted and procured agreements of cooperation from the four respondent visor and trimming manufacturers to the dfect that such visor manufacturers would support, adhere to u.nd enforce the program of respondents set forth in paragraph four J1ereof. Said visor manufacturers lJccame membc.>rs of the CapAssociation of the United States, Inc.

PAR. 6. In September 1934, respondents organized. the respondent association Uniform Cap Manufacturers Institute, Inc., being a group of uniform cap manufacturers who were and are members of the respondent Cap .Association of the Ul1itcd States, Inc. Respond- ~:-nts, Murray II. llader, Sidney Lesser, Herman Julick, and Walter Seifert acted as officers of the Uniform Cap Manufacturers Institute, Inc. which continued in active existence until June 1935. Uespondents procured from the four visor manufacturer respondents agreements to cooperate with the Uniform Cup Manufacturers Institute. PAn. 7. Respondents cooperating and confederating together and using the offices, stationery, and secretarial facilities of respondent Cap Association of the United States, Inc., printed and circulated among members, lists containing the names of uniform cap manufacturers who refused to sE>ll uniform caps at the suggested prices mentioned in paragraph four hereof, and containing the names of uniform cap manufacturers not nwmLers of re~pondent Cap .Asso· ciatiori of the United States, Inc., who refused to sell uniform caps at such suggested prices, nn<l supplied said lists to the four respondent visor manufacturers herein, anll induced ~aid visor manufacturer respondents to cease clear]ing with and to refuse to sell visors and trimmings to the uniform cap manufacturers so reported. Hespondents used in concert and agrcl'ment among themsch·es, coer· ci,·e and concerted action, and thr{'ats of boycott against respondent CAP ASSOCIATION OF Tile U, S., INC., ET AL. 107 96 Conclusion 'Visor manufacturers to induce and require such visor manufacturers to support the program of respondents set forth in paragraph four herein, and to refrain from selling visors and trimmings to uniform cap manufacturers who were not members of said respondent association.

PAn. 8. Meetings were held in the cities of New York, Boston, Philadelphia, and Chicago, by responuent association, their members, and their officers, to devise means of exerting influence, pressure, and coercion upon uniform cap manufacturers to abide by and adhere to the program set forth in paragraph four hereof. At some of these meetings fines were imposed antl collected from members who sold uniform caps below the suggested prices. In one instance a uniform cap manufacturer was threatened with a fine of $2000.00 and with strike and lal>or troubles.

PAn. 9. The four 1·respondent visor manufacturers uid cooperate With the other respondents herein, to carry out the program set forth in paragraph four hen•in. Saitl visor manufacturers refused to sell Visors and trimmings to uniform cap manufacturers who either failed to take member::;hip in respouuent Cap Association of the United States, Inc., or who faile(l to obHCrvc the uniform prices fixed in the lists described in pat·agraph four hereof. This method of refusing necessary supplies earned for responuent manufacturers the. title of "PolicemPn of the Industry."

PAn. 10. As a result of the combination and agreement entered into and carried on Ly respondents, prices of uniform caps were l'aist-d to levels higher than those prevailing before the agreement '"as eifectetl and uniform price lists prepareu. The prices for visors nnd trimmings US('d in the manufacture of uniform caps were ad- Vanct•tl by the visor manufacturer respondents. The acts of respond- Pnts have deprived the purchasing public of advantages in price, service and other considerations which they would receive and enjoy llndt'r conditions of normal and free competition in fue uniform cap lnanufacturing industry, and such acts have resulted in oppression nnt] discrimination against slllall business enterprises which were or are engaged in manufacturing and selling uniform caps. COXCLUSJO~ The aforesaid acts and pmctices of the respondents Cap Association of the United States, Inc., its offiei'rs and members, Irving L. Lewis, Ja<>ob Tiressler, Berman Buchhimh·r, haac Ross, individually and as P1'Psidellt, trpnsurPr, srcrPtary and executive secretary, respectively, of said association; Uniform Cap Manu fact urPrs Institute, Inc., its officerg 108 FEDERAL TRADE CO:r.11\IISSION DECISIONS Order 25F.T.C.

and members, :Murray H. Bader, Sidney Lesser, Herman J ulick, 1Valter Seifert, individually and as president, vice president, treasurer, and secretary, respectively, of said association; E. Mattes & Son, Inc., William B. Mackey, trading as J. Mackey & Sons, Pekarsky Cap Fronts, Inc., American Cap Fronts Mfg. Co., Inc., Samuel D. Basch, trading as Basch Cap Co., 1Ventworth Forman Co., Inc., George Brunssen Co., Inc., Nas Saw Equipment Corporation, Philadelphia Uniform Co., Inc., Kuenzel Brothers, Opper Cap Co., Figmore Uniform Cap Co., Inc., Chicago Uniform Cap Co., Jacob Apfelbaum, and Morris Greenberg and Jacob ivax, partners trading as Eastern Uniform Cap Mfg. Co., are to the prejudice of the public and of respondent's competitors, and tend unduly to hinder competition and create a monopoly, and constitute unfair methods of competition in commerce, within the intent and meaning of Section 5 of an Act of Congress, approveu September 2G, 1914, entitled "An Act to create a Federal Trade Commission, to define its powers and duties, and for other purposes." ORDER TO CEASE AND DESIST This proceeding having been heard by the Federal Trade Commission upon the complaint of the Commission, the answers of respondents, testimony and other evidence takrn before William C. Ueeves, an examiner of the Commission theretofore duly designated by it, in support of the allegations of said complaint and in opposition thereto, briefs filed herein, and oral arguments by P. C. Kolinski, counsel for the Commission, and by Elias Lieberman, counsel for the respondents, anu the Commission having made its findings as to the facts and its conclusion that said respondents have violateu the provisions of an Act of Congress approved September 2G, 1914, entitled, "An Act to create a Federal Trade Commission, to define its powers and duties, and for other purposes."

It is Q'rdered, That the respondents, Cap Association of the United States Inc., its officers and members, Irving L. Lewis, J acoL Bressler, Herman Buchbinder, Isaac Ross, individually, and as president, treas· urcr, secretary, and executive secretary, respectively, of said associa· lion; Uniform Cap Manufacturers Institute, Inc., its olllcC'rs and mern· Lers, 1\Iurray II. llader, Sidney Lesser, Herman Julick, Walter Seifert, individually and as president, vice president, treasurer, and secretary, respectively, of said association; E. MattE's & Son, Inc., William n. :Mackey, trading as J. l\Iackey & Sons, Pckarsl>y Cup Fronts, Inc., American Cap Fronts l\Ifg. Co., Inc., Samuel D. Basch, trading as Basch Cap Co., 'Ventworth Forman Co., Inc., George Bruns:,PJl Co., Inc., Nas Saw Equipment Corporation, Philadelphia Uniform Co., Inc., CAP ASSOCIATION OF THE U, S., INC., ET AL. 109 '96 Order Ku.enzel Br?thers, Opper Cap Co., Figmore Uniform Cap Co., Inc., Chicago Umform Cap Co., Jacob Apfelbaum, and Morris Greenberg and Jacob 'Vax, partners trading as Eastern Uniform Cap Mfg. Co., their officers, representatives, agents, and employees, in connection with the offering for sale, sale and distribution of uniform caps in interest!lte commerce or in the District of Columbia, <lo forthwith -cease and desist from :

1. Entering into any agreement or understanding among themselves, or between two or more of them, or between any one or more and others, fixing the prices at which they would offer for sale or sell uniform caps.

2. Maintaining by concerted action, coercion and persuasion a boy- -cott against and refusal to purchase visors and trimmings from any visor manufacturer who fails to abide by respondents' program to withhold supplies from non-members of their uniform price fixing agreement.

3. Publishing lists containing the names of members of respondent associations, so as to include in said lists only so-called regular or recognized members entitled to procure visors and trimmings used in the manufacture of uniform caps.

4. Refusing supplies of visors and trimmings to uniform cap manufacturers, and restricting or suppressing competition among themselves or any of them, or with others by any other similar concert 'Of action.

It is further ordered, That the respondents shall, within 60 days after service upon them of this order, file with the Commission a report in writing, setting forth in detail the manner and form in which they have complied with this order.

110 FEDERAL TRADE CO:\Il\IISSIOX DECISIO;\S Syllabus 25 F. T. C.