**Date:** 62867
**Source:** Uniroyal
—
Uniroyal, Inc. will suffer a very severe financial loss ‘forcing a reduction in production’ at its Naugatuck Footwear plant if it is not permitted to produce samples of its new designs, a company official said today. Thomas J. Nelligan, labor re-lations manager, testified at a Superior Court hearing this morning that failure of the com-pany to have samples to show to its customers in August will mean a very large drop in the amount of production needed for the coming year and ‘in turn less employes.’ Nelligan was the first com-pany representative to testify at a hearing to consider United Rub-ber Workers Union application for an injunction against the company production. He said samples for the next sum-mer’s market would normally have been scheduled to begin April and July of this year. He said salesmen would have been scheduled to take the sam-ples into the field beginning Aug. 1. Without the samples, he said, the company will have to way ‘that its line is better than its competi-tors.’ At the opening of the session Tuesday before Judge Leo V. Gaffney, a Local 35 official pre-dicted ‘there would be bloodshed in Naugatuck if the company is permitted to resume production with non-union mem-bers.’ The union filed its application for an injunction against Uniroyal last Thursday after the com-pany began production of sam-ples of new footwear designs. The company agreed at that time to halt production until af-ter a court hearing. April 18 agreement At the core of the controversy is a written agreement signed by both parties April 18, three days before the nation-wide rub-ber workers strike began. The agreement provides for orderly shutdown and mainte-nance of the borough Footwear Plant during the strike. It includes a clause stipulating that ‘the company agrees that for the duration of any strike there will be no work performed by non-bargaining unit employees that is normally bargaining unit personnel.’ Local 35 claims Thursday’s pro-duction violates that agree-ment. While will not clearly stating what its defense would be, the compa-ny Tuesday indicated it will argue that the April 18 agree-ment was rendered void when the union allegedly violated a provision intended to insure un-impeded entrance and exit to the plant through barricades. (Cont’d on Page 2–UNIROYAL)