Berlin Coat Manufacturing Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 6, 1967

162 N.L.R.B. 1435 (N.L.R.B. 1967)

PHIL-MODES INC. 1435
in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce
employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed them by Section
7 of the Act.
BEDFORD CAN MANUFACTURING CORP.,
Employer.
Dated---------------- By-------------------------------------
(Representative ) ( Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the
date of posting, and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any
other material. Employees may communicate directly with the
Board's Regional Office, Fourth Floor, 16 Court Street, Brooklyn,
New York 11201, Telephone 596-5386.
Phil-Modes Inc., and Harold Berlin d/b/a Berlin Coat Manufac-
turing Co and International Ladies ' Garment Workers' Union
AFL-CIO. Case 16-CA-661. February 6,1967
DECISION AND ORDER
On November 3, 1966, Trial Examiner William W. Kapell issued
his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that Respond-
ent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor prac-
tices within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended, and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and
take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial
Examiner's Decision. He further found that Respondent had not
engaged in certain other unfair labor practices alleged in the com-
plaint and recommended that such allegations be dismissed. There-
after, the Respondent filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's
Decision.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board has
delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member
panel [Members Fanning, Jenkins, and Zagoria].
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 Trial
Examiner's Decision, the exceptions, and the entire record in this
case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions , and recommenda-
tions of the Trial Examiner.
[The Board adopted the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order.]
162 NLRB No. 136.
1436 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Case 16-CA-2661 , a proceeding under Section 10(b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended , herein called the Act, was heard in Athens , Texas, on
August 16, 1966,1 before Trial Examiner William W. Kapell with all parties par-
ticipating pursuant to due notice on a complaint 2 issued by the Regional Director
for Region 16, of the National Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board,
alleging violations of Section 8(a)(1), (3 ), and (5 ) of the Act by Respondents.
The complaint, as amended at the hearing alleges, in substance , that Respondents
interrogated their employees ; and that although requested to bargain with the
Union, the exclusive bargaining representative of their production and maintenance
employees since August 1965, Respondents have refused to do so in that they uni-
laterally changed the wage structure of their employees from a piece rate to an
hourly rate and granted wage increases . Respondents in their answer deny the mate-
rial allegations of the complaint.
All parties were represented and afforded full opportunity to be heard , to intro-
duce relevant evidence , to examine and cross-examine witnesses , to present oral
argument , and to file briefs.3 General Counsel and Respondents filed briefs which
have been duly considered.
Upon the entire record in the case and from my observation of the witnesses,
I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. TIIE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENTS
Phil-Modes Inc., a Texas corporation , and Harold Berlin d/b/a Berlin Coat
Manufacturing Co., have recently been found by the Board 4 to constitute an inte-
grated enterprise engaged in the manufacture and sale of ladies' coats and other
products in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and ( 7) of the Act. I
find that, at all times material herein, Respondents have continued to constitute an
integrated business, and that they individually and jointly have been engaged in the
manufacture and sale of ladies' coats and other products in commerce within the
meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.5
H. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Respondents admit, and I find, that at all times material herein , the Union has
been a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Background
On June 22, the Board adopted the findings and conclusions of Trial Examiner
James Constantine in Phil-Modes , Inc., and Harold Berlin d/b/a Berlin Coat
Manufacturing Co., Case 16-CA-2451, supra, involving charges filed by the Union
alleging violations of Section 8(a)(1) and (5) by Respondents. Respondents were
found to have violated Section 8(a)(1) by engaging in threats of economic repris-
als against their employees because of their union support , soliciting employees to
withdraw from the Union, threatening to break the Union, and coercively inter-
rogating employees as to their union support, and to have violated Section 8(a)(5)
by their refusal to recognize or bargain with the Union as the exclusive bargaining
representative of their employees in a unit found appropriate , consisting of their
production and maintenance employees . The Board also adopted the Trial Exam-
iner's Recommended Order that Respondents cease and desist from engaging in
1 All dates hereinafter refer to the year 1966, unless otherwise noted
Based on a charge filed on April 26 , by International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union
AFL-CIO, herein called the Union , against Phil -Modes, Inc, and Harold Berlin, d/b/a
Berlin Coat Manufacturing Co., herein jointly called the Respondents.
Respondents ' motion to dismiss at the conclusion of General Counsel's case , on which
ruling was reserved at the hearing , is disposed of on the basis of the 'findings and con-
clusions made herein.
4 159 NLRB 944
6 The admitted allegations of the complaint pertaining to the commerce of Respondents
also support the assumption of jurisdiction
PHIL-MODES INC. 1437
the aforesaid violations, and that they recognize and bargain with the Union upon
request. Respondents' motion to the Board to reconsider its Order was denied on
August 1.
B. The alleged violative interrogation
On or about March 2, Respondents called a meeting of the factory employees
in the lunchroom of the plant. Phil Walters, managing agent of Phil-Modes Inc.,
Harold Berlin, production manager and owner of Berlin Coat Manufacturing Co.,
Mrs Mills, Respondents' secietary, and an unidentified woman, who took notes of
the meeting, also attended the meeting. Walters read a telegram, which he had
received from John Vickers,6 protesting a reduction in employee wages and the
failure of Respondents to negotiate with the Union regarding said reduction.
According to Nener Hunt, an employee who attended the meeting, Walters then
pointed to employee Lottie Till and said, "You've a big mouth; tell me who is
responsible for this," and then turning and pointing to her (Nener Hunt) said,
"You're another."
Hunt replied that it was Vicker's duty to know what was going on. Walters
then advised the employees, in effect, that if they were dissatisfied with their wages,
they could go back to 50 cents an hour which they were making before he came
to Athens. Employee Lottie Till corroborated Hunt's testimony. Walters testified
that he addressed the employees on the day in question and identified a statement
which allegedly contained all that he said at the meeting. The statement (Respond-
ents' Exhibit 8), admitted in evidence without objection, sets forth that he received
a telegram from John Vickers, that he read it, and that he then stated "What I
would like to know is who told them. Somebody told the Union we were cutting
prices. Somebody did." 7
The evidence clearly discloses that Walters directed an inquiry to the employees
as to who informed the Union about the alleged wage changes. Although he did
not specifically deny pointing to Hunt and Till and addressing offensive remarks to
them, the omission of those remarks from his statement inferentially denies that
they were made. Regardless of any credibility finding on the point in conflict, it is
obvious that the employees were interrogated concerning their reports to the
Union, and the accusatory nature of the interrogation left no doubt as to
Respondents' displeasure in having their employees advise the Union concerning
the terms and conditions of their employment. "Even a single question put to a
single employee may be a violation, however, if there is a background of hostility
to the Union." N.L.R.B. v. Lexington Chair Company, 361 F.2d 283 (C.A. 4). Or,
as the court stated in N.L.R.B. v. Griggs Equipment, Inc., 307 F.2d 275, 278
(C.A. 5), "The statements in and of themselves might possibly be lawful and non-
coercive, but viewed in its entirety, there is sufficient evidence of a background of
union hostility in context with statements made to bring them within the pro-
scription of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act." In view of the background of Respond-
ents' hostility to the Union, as evidenced by the recent prior case involving them,
and the nature of the instant interrogation in the context of the other remarks
made by Walters, which inferentially carried an admonition 8 to the employees,
I find that the aforedescribed interrogation violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
See N.L.R.B. v. The Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Company, Inc., 346 F.2d 936,
958 (C.A. 5).
C. The alleged violations of Section 8(a) (5)
The complaint, as amended, alleges that Respondents violated Section 8(a) (5)
by unilaterally (1) changing the preexisting wage structure of some of their
employees during February and March from a piece-rate basis to an hourly rate
basis; and (2) granting a 5-cent-an-hour wage increase on or about February 21
to their employees who were regularly compensated on an hourly rate basis.
The evidence establishes that it was Respondents' yearly practice to shut down
their plant during December, and to resume working during or about the follow-
6 International representative of the Union, who had previously organized Respondents'
employees
7 The statement also included a denial that wages were cut or working conditions were
changed, a discussion of the wage rates paid to employees, and an observation to the effect
that they were free to leave their jobs if dissatisfied.
8It is not necessary to show that the employees were actually coerced. "The test is
whether the questioning tends to be coercive, not whether the employees are in fact coerced."
IN L It B. v. Cameo Inc, 340 F.2d 803, 804, footnote 6 (C.A. 5).
1438 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ing February when samples were produced for the coming season. Thus, in Decem-
ber 1965, when the plant shut down there were about 36 employees in the produc-
tion and maintenance unit of whom somewhat less than half were paid on an
hourly rate basis, while the others were paid on a piecework basis (General Coun-
sel's Exhibit 4). In February when the plant resumed operations, all employees,
including about 22 previously compensated on a piecework basis, were put on an
hourly rate basis, and were paid on that basis for the payroll period ending Febru-
ary 25 (General Counsel's Exhibits 5 rand 5(a)). They continued to receive wages
on that basis until about the end of March when the sample-making period alleg-
edly ended, and the employees previously paid on a piecework basis were restored
to that basis. Excerpts of Respondents' records (General Counsel's Exhibits 4, 5,
5(a), and 9) introduced in evidence also indicate that hourly wage rates paid to
eight employees 9 for their last working payroll period in December 1965 were
increased by 5 cents an hour for the payroll period ending on February 25, during
which they resumed working. One employee (Nereus Howell), who resumed work-
ing on March 18, was given a 5-cent-an-hour wage increase at that time. Two other
employees (Gracie Jones and Lena Dunn), who were paid $1.25 an hour for their
last payroll working period in December 1965, received the same hourly rate when
they resumed working during the payroll period ending Febuary 18, and then each
was given a 5-cent-an-hour wage increase for the next payroll period ending
February 25.
The parties stipulated that at no time since August 25, 1965, have Respondents
notified or consulted with the Union regarding the wage rate increases or method
of computing wages of their employees.
With respect to the unilaterally granted wage increases, Respondents contend
that only a few "merit" increases were given, which was done systematically and
as promised. In support thereof Walters testified that it was the policy of Respond-
ents to give 5-cent-an-hour merit wage increases every 3 to 6 months based on
tenure of service and ability, and that such increases were given to only three
employees 10 since 1962, each of whom received two increases prior to 1966. On
cross-examination, however, he admitted that such increases were given to other
employees, as indicated in the records of the Companies, and attempted unpersua-
sively to explain his previous conflicting testimony, claiming that he was under the
impression that his testimony was being requested concerning only the three named
employees. Respondents' records indicate that a very large percentage of the
employees, who were regularly compensated on an hourly rate basis, received
5-cent-an-hour increases in February or March. Nor was it established that prior
promises were made to those employees concerning their wage increases. Respond-
ents assert that the wage increases were given pursuant to their managerial pre-
rogative and therefore did not require consultation or bargaining with the Union,
and that further, at the time the increases were granted, they were not required
to bargain with the Union and had a good-faith doubt as to the Union's majority
status.
As appears above, the Board found that since August 25, 1965, Respondents
were legally obligated to recognize and bargain with the Union as the exclusive
bargaining representative of their production and maintenance employees with
respect to wages and other conditions of employment. I find no merit in Respond-
ents' contention that they were committed to follow an established practice of
automatically granting merit increases, which was not subject to any bargaining
obligation. The raises given herein were in no sense automatic, but were dependent
upon the discretion of Respondents, inasmuch as they were the sole judges in
appraising the ability of the employees. N.L.R.B. v. Wonder State Mfg. Co., 344
F.2d 210, 214-215 (C.A. 8). Furthermore, the large proportion of the employees
granted increases is highly indicative of an across-the-board increase. Even assum-
ing that the increases were given pursuant to an established automatic "merit"
policy, they were nevertheless given unilaterally without notifying or consulting
with the Union in contravention of Respondents' obligation to bargain collectively
with the Union in respect to wages and other conditions of work. Bauer Welding
& Metal Fabricators, Inc., 154 NLRB 954. See also N.L.R.B. v. J. H. Allison
& Company, 165 F.2d 766, 768, cert. denied 335 U.S. 814. I also find no merit in
Respondents' contentions that inasmuch as the Board's order requiring them to
bargain with the Union was issued subsequent to granting the wage increases and
0 Lorene Morris, Alice Boyd, Rosalee Green, Verda Johns, Lula Stone, Ruth Whitener,
Willie Spradlin, and Travis Barker.
10 Willie Spradlin, Sophie Krysinski, and Lorene Morris.
PHIL-MODES INC. 1439
they had a good-faith doubt of the Union's majority status, they were under no
obligation to bargain about the increases . The Board , however, ruled that they had
been legally obligated to bargain with the Union since August 25, 1965 . Accord-
ingly, I find that Respondents violated Section 8(a)(5) and ( 1) of the Act by
unilaterally granting wage increases.
With respect to the wage change from a piece -rate basis to an hourly rate basis
during the sample-making period, Respondents assert that this also was a preroga-
tive of management and a practice in the industry, and in support thereof pro-
duced copies of extracts from their records indicating that wages paid to employees
during the sample-making periods in the years 1962, through 1965 , were based on
an hourly rate . Respondents also contend in justification of the wage change that
it was beneficial to the employees involved because it resulted in increasing their
wages, and produced summaries based on their records indicating that the aggre-
gate wages which would have been earned by the employees computed on a piece-
rate basis during the sample -making period in 1966, would be considerably less
than those actually paid to them on an hourly rate basis. In addition , Respondents
reiterate that they were under no obligation to consult or bargain with the Union
concerning the wage change because it was implemented before the issuance of the
Board's decision in the prior case, at which time they had a good-faith doubt as
to ,the Union 's majority status.
Even assuming that Respondents had in years past followed the practice of
compensating their regular piecework employees on an hourly rate basis during
sample-making periods, their failure to notify or consult with the Union concern-
ing the implementation of this practice in 1966 violated Section 8 ( a)(5). It is
settled law that an employer violates Section 8 ( a)(5) by changing the wages of
employees or other conditions of employment , without giving the employees' stat-
utory representative adequate opportunity to bargain about the change . Such uni-
lateral action is unlawful whether the employment condition that was changed was
established before the employees selected a collective -bargaining representative
because it is a circumvention of the duty to negotiate which frustrates the objec-
tives of Section 8(a)(5). See N.L .R.B. v. Benne Katz, etc., 369 U.S. 736, 743;
N.L.R.B . v. Wonder State Mfg. Co., supra ; Bauer Welding & Metal Fabrictors,
Inc., supra." Also, the change , regardless of its beneficial or advantageous effect
on the employees involved, is a matter of legitimate concern to their exclusive
bargaining representative , and a matter on which the employer must bargain in
good faith. Similarly, an economic reason for the change does not justify Respond-
ents' failure or refusal to bargain with the statutory representative of their
employees.
D. The alleged violation of Section 8(a) (3)
The complaint alleges that the change in method of computing the wages of
Respondents ' employees was effected in retaliation for and because of their selec-
tion of the Union as their collective -bargaining agent, in violation of Section
8(a)(3). To sustain this contention in the posture involved herein it was incum-
bent upon the General Counsel to establish that by this change Respondents dis-
criminated in regard to the hire or tenure of their employees or to any term or
condition of their employment to encourage or discourage membership in any labor
organization . No direct evidence to that effect was presented by the General Coun-
sel, and it can be sustained only upon inferences drawn from the facts relating
to the change , its timing and background . I find viewing the evidence in its
entirety , especially the past practice of compensating employees on a time-rate
basis during sample-making periods, that the General Counsel has failed to estab-
lish by the preponderance of the evidence that the change was implemented by
Respondents to encourage or discourage the union membership of their employ-
ees. Accordingly, I shall recommend that the 8 ( a)(3) allegations of the complaint
be dismissed.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of Respondents , set forth in section III, above , occurring in con-
nection with the operations of Respondents , described in section I, above, have
u In arriving at this result I find it unnecessary to resolve the conflict in the evidence
as to whether or not the 1,800-odd coats made during the sample -making periods were all
samples as contended by Respondents , or also included regular production of coats as
claimed by the General Counsel.
1^'--43 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among
the several States, and constitute unfair labor practices which tend to lead to labor
disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce.
Upon the above findings of fact and upon the entire record in the case, I make
the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. At all times material herein the Union has been a labor organization within
the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
2. At all times material herein, Respondents, and each of them, were employers
engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
3. Respondents are engaged in an integrated enterprise and they are jointly and
severally liable for the unfair labor practices found herein.
4. All production and maintenance employees of Respondents employed at
their Athens, Texas, plant, including shipping clerks, but excluding all guards and
supervisors as defined in the Act, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of
collective bargaining within the meaning of Sections 8(a)(5) and 9 of the Act.
5. Since August 25, 1965, the Union has represented a majority and has been
the exclusive bargaining representative of all the employees in the aforedcscribed
appropriate unit for purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Sec-
tions 8(a)(5) and 9 of the Act, and Respondents since that time have been legally
obligated to recognize and bargain with the Union as such representative.
6. By failing to recognize or bargain with the Union in the aforedescribed unit
with respect to wage increases granted to employees during February and March
1966, and to the change in the method of computing employee wages during said
period, Respondents have engaged in and are engaging in unfair labor practices
within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act.
7. By interrogating their employees concerning their reports or communications
to the Union regarding their employment, Respondents interfered with, restrained,
and coerced their employees in the exercises of their rights guaranteed by Section
7 of the Act, and thereby have engaged in and are engaging in unfair labor prac-
tices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
8. The above-described unfair labor practices affect commerce within the mean-
ing of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
9. Respondents have not committed any other unfair labor practices as alleged
in the complaint.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondents engaged in certain unfair labor practices, I
shall recommend that they cease and desist therefrom, and that they take certain
affirmative action ordered in such cases as provided in the Recommended Order
below, which I find necessary to remedy and remove the effects of the unfair labor
practices, and to effectuate the policies of the Act.
Having found that Respondents violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) by unilaterally
changing the method of computing the wages of certain employees from a piece-
rate basis to a time-rate basis during February and March of 1966, I shall recom-
mend that Respondents make whole those employees for any loss of earnings they
may have suffered as a result of Respondents' unlawful action in bypassing their
bargaining representative. Backpay shall be the difference, if any, between the
wages those employees would have earned had the unilateral change not been
made. Staub Cleaners Inc., 148 NLRB 278; Cloverleaf Division of Adams Dairy
Co., 147 NLRB 1410. Backpay shall be computed in the manner set forth in
F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289, with interest added at the rate of 6
percent as set forth in Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716.
Although Respondents have also been found to have violated Section 8(a) (5)
and (1) by unilaterally granting wage increases, nothing contained herein shall be
construed as requiring them to rescind said increases.
Because of the character, scope, and history of unfair labor practices engaged
in by Respondents, I shall recommend that they cease and desist from in any
other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing their employees in the exer-
cise of their rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, and the
entire record in this case, I recommend that Phil-Modes Inc., and Harold Berlin
PHIL-MODES INC. 1441
d/b/a Berlin Coat Manufacturing Co., their officers, 'agents, successors, and
assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Refusing to bargain collectively with International Ladies' Garment Work-
ers' Union AFL-CIO as the exclusive bargaining representative of a unit of all
production and maintenance employees of Respondents employed at their Athens,
Texas, plant, including shipping clerks, but excluding all guards and supervisors as
defined in the Act, with respect to wages, hours, and other terms and conditions
of employment, by unilaterally granting wage increases or unilaterally changing
the method of computing wages of unit employees without affording the afore-
named Union an opportunity to bargain about the proposed changes.
(b) Interrogating employees in a manner constituting interference, restraint, or
coercion within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
(c) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing their employ-
ees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to join, form, or assist Inter-
national Ladies' Garment Workers' Union AFL-CIO, or any other labor organiza-
tion, to bargain collectively through representatives of their choosing, and to
engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or
other mutual aid or protection or to refrain from any and all such activities.
2. Take the following affirmative action which I find necessary to effectuate the
policies of the Act:
(a) Bargain, upon request, with International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union
AFL-CIO concerning the granting of wage increases and/or the changing of the
method of computing wages for unit employees.
(b) Make whole their employees for loss of pay, if any, that they may have
suffered because of the unilateral change in the method of computing their wages
from a piece-work basis to an hourly rate basis as set forth in the section above
entitled "The Remedy."
(c) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the Board or its agents, all
payroll records, social security payment records, timecards, personnel records and
reports, and all other records in Respondents' possession necessary for the computa-
tion of lost earnings which may be due hereunder.
(d) Post at its plant in Athens, Texas, copies of the attached notice marked
"Appendix." 12 Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for
Region 16, after being duly signed by Respondents, shall be posted immediately
upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by them for 60 consecutive days there-
after, in conspicuous places, where notices to employees are customarily posted.
Respondents shall take reasonable steps to insure that such notices are not altered,
defaced, or covered by any other material.
(e) Notify the Regional Director for Region 16, in writing, within 20 days
from the date of the receipt of this Decision, what steps Respondents have taken
to comply herewith.13
IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the complaint herein be dismissed insofar as
it alleges violations of Section 8(a)(3) which have not been sustained.
12 In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board, the words "a
Decision and Order" shall be substituted for the words "the Recommended Order of a Trial
Examiner" in the notice. In the further event that the Board's Order is enforced by a decree
of a United States Court of Appeals the words "a Decree of the United States Court of
Appeals Enforcing an Order" shall be substituted for the words "a Decision and Order "
13 In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board, this provision
shall be modified to read • "Notify said Regional Director, in writing, within 10 days from
the date of this Order, what steps Respondents have taken to comply herewith."
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor
Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, as amended, we hereby notify our employees that.
WE WILL bargain collectively, upon request, with International Ladies' Gar-
ment Workers' Union AFL-CIO as the exclusive bargaining representative of
2 6 4-0 4 7-6 7-v o f 16 2-9 2
1442 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
our employees in the unit heretofore found appropriate for bargaining pur-
poses concerning their wage rate changes and/or changes in the method of
computing their wages.
WE WILL make whole our employees for loss of pay, if any , they may have
suffered as a result of our unilateral change in computing their wages from a
piecework basis to an hourly rate basis.
WE WILL NOT interfere with, restrain , or coerce our employees in the exer-
cise of their guaranteed statutory rights by interrogating them concerning their
reports or communications to the above -named Union regarding the terms and
conditions of their employment.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain , or coerce our
employees in the exercise of the right to self-organization , to form, join, or
assist International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union AFL-CIO, or any other
labor organization , to bargain collectively through representatives of their own
choosing , or to engage in any other concerted activities for the purpose of col-
lective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection , or to refrain from any
and all such activities.
All our employees are free to become or remain, or to refrain from becoming or
remaining , members of the labor organization.
PHIL-MODES, INC.,
Employer.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------
(Representative ) ( Title)
BERLIN COAT MANUFACTURING CO.,
Employer.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------
(Representative ) ( Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting
and must not be altered , defaced, or covered by any other material.
If employees have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its pro-
visions, they may communicate directly with the Board 's Regional Office, Room
8A24, Federal Office Building, 819 Taylor Street, Fort Worth, Texas 76102, Tele-
phone 334-2921.
Cramco, Inc. and United Rubber, Cork, Linoleum and Plastic
Workers of America, AFL-CIO. Cases 26-CA-2344 and 2428.
February 6, 1967
DECISION AND ORDER
On September 9, 1966, Trial Examiner Jerry B. Stone issued his
Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respond-
ent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor prac-
tices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take
certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial Examin-
er's Decision. He further found that Respondent had not engaged in
certain other unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint and he
recommended dismissal as to them. Thereafter, the Respondent filed
exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision and a supporting brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board has
delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member
panel [Chairman McCulloch and Members Jenkins and Zagoria].
162 NLRB No. 142.