Dinerman said:Took a $5 gamble on this one. We'll see.
Dinerman said:Took a $5 gamble on this one. We'll see.
Baron Kurtz said:So, take a look at your Palm Beach suit labels. For details of dates used, see the first part of the post above. No need to guess at dates on suits, ties, bowties any more. We have specific dates to guide us! Earlier than '44 is still in the realm of using features to guide a date unfortunately. In my experience they tend not to have union labels for some reason :rage: . The labels on specific items may vary in design but the name of the company should be invariant within a date range.
Goodall Worsted, with no mention of Sanford: Pre-'44. It'll look like this but will probably be orange on white.
Goodall-Sanford: '44-'55. (So Feraud, your bowtie is from this era.)
Dinerman said:Unfortunately just the jacket.
Baron Kurtz said:Here's something you guys might find interesting. This is how i know when the Palm Beach goods you see are post 1955 or not. Goodall stopped production in 1955 and the rights to the name were sold. So labels that don't say Goodall-Sanford or something to that effect, along with "Palm Beach" are post-'55.
http://66.102.9.132/search?q=cache:2h_3p2puH_AJ:business.mainetoday.com/news/061229mills.html+goodall-sanford&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk&client=firefox-a
RISE AND FALL OF SANFORD MILLS
1867: The Sanford Mills are started when Thomas Goodall arrives in Sanford and starts construction on the Sanford Mills. The mills initially produce textiles including blankets and carriage robes.
1889: Goodall Worsted is organized to manufacture woolen textiles.
1944: The Sanford Mills and Goodall Worsted merge to become Goodall-Sanford Inc. The mills produce menswear fabrics under the Palm Beach label.
1955: The Goodall-Sanford Mills close, leaving 5,000 workers unemployed. But as we know the Palm Beach brand continued into the 1970s if not the 1980s [bk]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For your edification, here're the meaty bits of the supreme court argument: Goodall-Sanford, Inc. vs Textile Workers, arising from the proposed liquidation of the textile plants and the laying off of workers. This was in 1957, when the Supreme Court took a look at some aspects of the company winding up. Enjoy.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://supreme.justia.com/us/353/550/case.html
U.S. Supreme Court
Goodall-Sanford, Inc. v. Textile Workers, 353 U.S. 550 (1957)
Goodall-Sanford, Inc. v. United Textile Workers
of America, AFL, Local 1802
No. 262
Argued March 25-26, 1957
Decided June 3, 1957
353 U.S. 550
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
Syllabus
1. In a suit by a union under § 301(a) of the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947, a Federal District Court has authority to compel compliance by an employer with an agreement to arbitrate disputes arising under a collective bargaining agreement with the union. Textile Workers v. Lincoln Mills, ante, p. 353 U. S. 448. Pp. 353 U. S. 550-552.
2. A decree under § 301(a) ordering enforcement of an arbitration provision in a collective bargaining agreement is a "final decision" within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and is appealable. Pp. 353 U. S. 551-552.
233 F.2d 104 affirmed.
MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case, a companion case to No. 211, Textile Workers Union of America v. Lincoln Mills of Alabama, ante, p. 353 U. S. 448, was brought by respondent union in the District Court to compel specific performance
Page 353 U. S. 551
of a grievance arbitration provision of a collective bargaining agreement between it and petitioner. The controversy arose over the layoff of employees incident to a curtailment of production and a liquidation of the plants in question. Petitioner terminated the employment of the men who were laid off. The respondent protested the termination of employment, claiming that the men should not have been discharged, thus preserving certain accrued rights to fringe benefits (such as insurance, pensions, and vacations) payable to laid-off employees.
The District Court granted specific performance. 131 F.Supp. 767. The Court of Appeals affirmed, 233 F.2d 104, relying on its prior decision in General Electric Co. v. United Electrical Workers, 353 U. S. 547. For the reasons given in No. 211, Textile Workers Union of America v. Lincoln Mills of Alabama, ante, p. 353 U. S. 448, we think the Court of Appeals was correct in affirming the District Court's judgment ordering enforcement of the agreement to arbitrate.
There remains the question whether an order directing arbitration is appealable. This case is not comparable to Baltimore Contractors v. Bodinger, 348 U. S. 176, which held that a stay pending arbitration was not a "final decision" within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Nor need we consider cases like In re Pahlberg Petition, 131 F.2d 968, and Schoenamsgruber v. Hamburg Line, 294 U. S. 454, holding that an order directing arbitration under the United States Arbitration Act is not appealable. The right enforced here is one arising under § 301(a) of the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947. Arbitration is not merely a step in judicial enforcement of a claim, nor auxiliary to a main proceeding, but the full relief sought. A decree under §301(a) ordering enforcement of an
Page 353 U. S. 552
arbitration provision in a collective bargaining agreement is therefore a "final decision" within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
Affirmed.
MR. JUSTICE BURTON, whom MR. JUSTICE HARLAN joins, concurs in the result in this case for the reasons set forth in his concurrence in No. 211, Textile Workers Union of America v. Lincoln Mills of Alabama, ante, p. 353 U. S. 459.
MR. JUSTICE BLACK took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
[For dissenting opinion of MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER, see ante, p. 353 U. S. 460.]