Brewton Fashions, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 30, 1980

252 N.L.R.B. 1038 (N.L.R.B. 1980)

DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Brewton Fashions, Inc., a Division of Judy Bond
and International Ladies' Garment Workers'
Union, AFL-CIO. Case 15-CA-7396
September 30, 1980
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN FANNING AND MEMBERS
JENKINS AND PENELLO
On June 26, 1980, Administrative Law Judge J.
Pargen Robertson issued the attached Decision in
this proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent filed ex-
ceptions and a supporting brief, and both the Gen-
eral Counsel and Charging Party filed briefs in sup-
port of the Administrative Law Judge's Decision.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au-
thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the record and the at-
tached Decision in light of the exceptions and
briefs and has decided to affirm the rulings, find-
ings,' and conclusions ' of the Administrative Law
Judge and to adopt his recommended Order.:
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Re-
lations Board adopts as its Order the recommended
Order of the Administrative Law Judge and
hereby orders that the Respondent, Brewton Fash-
ions, Inc., a Division of Judy Bond, Brewton, Ala-
bama, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns,
shall take the action set forth in the said recom-
mended Order, except that the attached notice is
substituted for that of the Administrative Law
Judge.
Respondent has excepted to certain credibility findings made by the
Administrative Law Judge. I is the Board's established policy not to
overrule an administrative law judge's resolutions with respect to credi-
bility unless the clear preponderance of all of the relevant evidence con-
vinces us that the resolutions are incorrect. Standard Dry Wall Products.
Inc., 91 NLRB 544 (1950), enfd. 188 F.2d 362 (3d Cir 1951) We have
carefully examined the record and find no basis for reversing his findings
I In adopting the Administrative I.aw Judge's conclusion that Respon-
dent violated Sec. 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act by discharging employees
Grace Boozer and Kathleen Chavers because of their union or other pro-
tected activities, Member Penello does not rely on the Administrative
Law Judge's reference to Alleluia Cushion Co.. Inc., 221 NRB 999
(1975).
3 Member Jenkins would award interest on the backpay due in accor-
dance with his partial dissent in Olympic Medical Corporation, 250 NLRB
No 11 (1980)
252 NLRB No. 148
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WitI. NOT interrogate our employees
about their activities on behalf of International
Ladies' Garment Workers' Union, AFL-CIO,
or any other labor organization.
WE WIL.l NOT create the impression among
our employees that we are engaged in surveil-
lance of our employees' union activities.
WE WILL NOT threaten our employees with
discharge because of their union activities.
WE WILL NOT discharge our employees for
engaging in union activities or concerted ac-
tivities protected by the National Labor Rela-
tions Act.
WE WIL NOT in any other manner interfere
with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the
exercise of the rights guaranteed them by Sec-
tion 7 of the National Labor Relations Act.
WE WILL offer Kathleen Chavers and Grace
Boozer immediate and full reinstatement to
their former jobs or, if those jobs no longer
exist, to substantially equivalent positions,
without prejudice to their seniority or other
rights and privileges previously enjoyed.
WE WILL make Kathleen Chavers and
Grace Boozer whole for any loss of earnings
they may have suffered as a result of our dis-
crimination against them, with interest.
BREWTON FASHIONS, INC., A DIVI-
SION OR JUDY BOND
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
J. PARGEN ROBERTSON, Administrative Law Judge:
This case was heard on January 23 and 24, 1980, at
Brewton, Alabama. The charge was filed on August 27,
1979. The complaint, which issued on October 17, 1979,
and was amended at the hearing, alleges that Respondent
violated Section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations
Act, as amended, herein called the Act, by interrogating
employees concerning their union activities, threatening
its employees with plant closure because of the Union,
and creating the impression of surveillance of its employ-
ees' union activities; and that Respondent violated Sec-
tion 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act by terminating the em-
ployment of Grace Boozer and Kathleen Chavers be-
cause of their protected concerted activities or union ac-
tivities.
Upon the entire record and from my observations of
the witnesses, and after due consideration of the briefs
1038
BREWTON FASHIONS, INC
filed by the General Counsel,' Respondent. and the
Charging Party (Union), I hereby make the following:
FIN)IN(GS
I. THE EVll)ENCF
Respondent is engaged in the manufacture of women's
blouses at its facility in Brewton, Alabama.2
From the fall of 1978, Respondent has engaged in a
campaign to improve the efficiency of its plant. The
steps taken in that regard included abolishing some jobs
and consolidating functions formerly included among the
duties of several jobs into a single job.
In that regard Supervisor Charles Hawkins notified
employee Kathleen Chavers3 in March 1979 that, in ad-
dition to her other job duties as a "trimmer" in the cut-
ting department, she would have to start taking the ma-
terial she had worked on into the sewing room when she
finished her operation.
After trimming, the bundles of material are loaded on
a cart (or buggy) which is pushed into the sewing de-
partment where the bundles are placed in storage racks.
The bundles of material varied in weight but, according
to the testimony of one of Respondent's witnesses, each
averages 10 to 15 pounds. The cart, according to the
same witness, is approximately 4 feet long and 3 feet
high. It has two stationary wheels and two casters at
each end to permit steering. The floor of the cart is
made of wood. Other testimony reflected that the cart is
slightly less than 3 feet wide. The cart is pushed from
the cutting department into sewing where the bundles
are stored in storage racks (bins). The bins include three
shelves with the highest shelf being 5 feet off the floor.
Chavers protested to Hawkins that she did not know if
she could do the additional work of pushing the cart and
storing the bundles in the bins. However, she followed
his instructions and pushed the loaded cart to the bins
where she unloaded the bundles. After finishing the task,
Chavers returned to Hawkins and told him that "I don't
believe I can push the buggy, it's too much." Hawkins
made light of her concern.
Thereafter, on each occasion when the cart was
loaded, fellow "trimmer" Grace Boozer came over and
helped Chavers transport the bundles to sewing. The
two employees would push the cart together and unload
the bundles into the bins together.
I The General Counsel, in his brief, moved to correct two errors in the
transcript. I find merit to that motion and hereby grant it The General
Counsel also moved in his brief to conform the pleadings to the proof in
regard to par. 6a) of the complaint. I shall grant the General Counsel's
motion in that regard by examining the conversation which allegedly
contained statements violative of Sec 8(a)(l) to determine whether the
evidence supports my finding a violation.
2 The commerce facts and conclusions are not at issue. The complaint
alleges, the answer admits. and I find that Respondent is an employer en.
gaged in commerce within the meaning of Sec 2(6) and (7) of the Act
The answer also admits, and I find, that the Charging Party is a labor
organization within the meaning of Sec. 2(5) of the Act.
I Chavers was involved in an earlier National abor Relations Board
proceeding. She was found to hase been discharged h Respondent in
violation of the Act in the case cited at 145 NL.RB 9 (1963) In 1967.
Chavers was reinstated in accordance sith a court order in Brerbon
Fashion. Inc. v .L LRB. 361 F 2d 8 (5th Cir 1966), cert denied 35
U S 842
However, on March 30, 1979, Chavers and Boozer
were called into Plant Manager Robert Bays' office.
Bays testified that during that meeting he asked both em-
ployees why they refused to do the assigned work (push-
ing the cart and unloading the bundles individually
rather than together). Chavers and Boozer both told
Bays that they were physically unable to perform those
tasks alone. Bays said that he reprimanded the employees
and told them to think about the matter over the week-
end and, if they agreed to come back and perform the
tasks as directed, they should report back on Monday.
Otherwise they should not bother to report back to
work.
Both Chavers and Boozer reported for work on
Monday, April 2, 1979. However, they continued to
push the cart together. That afternoon they were again
called into Bays' office. Chavers and Boozer were again
asked if they were going to perform the tasks separately
and both responded as they had on March 30. After
some discussion the vice president of manufacturing,
James Byrd, came into the meeting. The discussion con-
tinued.4 However, there are conflicts on what occurred
during the meeting. Chavers and Boozer contended that
they continued to insist that they were unable to perform
the task of pushing the cart. They understood Byrd to
tell them at the end of the meeting that they could go
back and push the cart together. Respondent's witnesses
all testified that Chavers and Boozer indicated they
would try to push the cart one at a time and that Byrd
told them to try that and, if they had trouble, to tell their
supervisor, Charles Hawkins.
In any event, the evidence is not disputed that Chavers
and Boozer continued to push the cart together. Neither
made any attempt after March 30 to push the cart alone.
Both admit that their supervisor, Charles Hawkins, con-
tinued to ask them to push the cart alone.
During April, employee Louise English ascertained
from Kathleen Chavers how to contact the Union.
Thereafter, English contacted the Union and, on April
17, 1979, Union Representative Bob Vest came to Brew-
ton and commenced an organizational drive among Re-
spondent's employees.
Respondent admitted that it learned of the Union's
campaign in April. Respondent also admitted learning in
April that Boozer and Chavers were involved in the
Union's activities.
Grace Boozer testified without contradiction that she
had a conversation with Supervisor Hawkins about the
Union.5 Hawkins told Boozer that the Union had closed
the plant where he worked in Mississippi. Boozer replied
that she did not think that the Union would close the
plant. Hawkins replied that it did in the one in which he
4 During those discussions Chavers told Byrd and Bays that they were
prohibited from changing her job under the court order (see fn 3. upra)
Bays sent for Chavers file and read the letter from the Board regarding
Chasecr-s reinstatement
s I credit Boozer's testimony about her conversation with Hawkins
However. I do not credit her recollection that the conversation occurred
during March The osverwhelming evidence indicated that the union cam-
palgn did not tart, and Respondent did not learn of the campaign until
April Therefore, I find that her conversation with Hawkins regarding
the nion did nol occur until April 17. or aflecr ard
1039
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
had worked. Boozer said that they had a union at one
time and it did not close the plant. Hawkins said, "Well,
it will close the plant for you."
On April 23, Chavers and Boozer went to Byrd's
office and asked to meet with him. 6 Bays testified that
both Chavers and Boozer again protested that they were
physically unable to push the cart alone. Bays said that
the meeting ended with Byrd telling the two employees
that he did not care how the employees worked the job
out (whether Chavers or Boozer pushed the cart), but
that they would have to do the job as it was outlined.
On April 25, employee Helen Pugh was told by her
supervisor that James Byrd wanted to see her in his
office. Byrd told Pugh that he had heard that she had
"been seen passing recipe cards." Byrd said that they had
a "girl that would testify in court that you were passing
out recipe cards during working hours." Pugh replied
that she did not call them recipe cards that what she had
"is union cards." Pugh admitted passing out union cards
but contended that she had passed them out before
working hours. Pugh told Byrd that she had been with
the Union before and she knew she could lose her job
over it. Byrd replied, "You're right, you could. We don't
want it [Union] down here, we don't need it and we
don't intend to have it." Pugh testified that, although she
had worked for Respondent for 7 years, this occasion
was the first time she had been called into the office.' 7
Around May 3, Byrd called several employees into his
office. Helen Pugh, who was one of the employees, testi-
fied that the meeting included two employees from each
section. Pugh testified that Byrd talked some about pro-
duction. Byrd recalled discussing hospital insurance. Ac-
cording to Byrd, one employee commented that they
would have a retirement plan if they had a union. Byrd
testified that he said that the Union was not really inter-
ested in getting the employees a retirement plan. Byrd
then held up a flyer which had the union label printed
on its face along with "Please Don't Buy Judy Bond
Blouses!" 8 Byrd testified that he told the employees,
"You think a union would want to give you insurance
and help you when they are saying don't buy Judy Bond
blouses."
Several employees testified about Byrd making a
public address speech to the employees. Apparently the
speech was made in June 1979.9 Byrd said that he com-
plimented the employees on a "fine first six months." He
went on to say that some had asked him "how to get rid
of some strangers that are coming to their house." Ac-
cording to Byrd, he said that the employees did not have
to let anyone in their houses if they did not want to. He
told the employees that they could ask the strangers to
8 Although Chavers and Boozer did not include this conversation in
their testimony, they were not called to rebutt that the meeting occurred
as indicated by the testimony of Byrd and Bays. I credit the testimony of
Respondent's witnesses in that regard and find that the April 23 meeting
occurred in accord with that testimony.
7 Byrd did not deny Pugh's testimony regarding their April 25 conver-
sation.
A witness for the Union testified that the flyer Byrd held up was
distributed by the Union during the 1960's. Byrd testified that he told the
employees in the May 3 meeting, when referring to the flyer, that that
was something that had happened 16 years ago.
g Byrd testified that the public address speech was made shortly before
the July 4 vacation.
leave but that, if they did not leave after they were asked
twice, then they (the employees) could call the sheriff's
department or police department. Byrd also said that he
had been advised that some people were saying that
people were visiting their houses and staying until II
p.m.
On June 18,1° Boozer and Chavers were called into
the plant manager's office. Prior to calling in Boozer and
Chavers, Plant Manager Bays prepared a statement
which he planned to have Boozer and Chavers sign if
they continued to refuse to push the cart separately.
That statement read:
June 18, 1979. The above listed people met to dis-
cuss the job of Trim & Bundle. Robert Bays ex-
plained that the Engineering Project has been com-
pleted in the Cutting Room and that the job of
taking the work to the sewing room and putting it
in the bins is to be done by one person. Both Grace
Boozer and Kathleen Chavers stated that they were
physically unable to perform this portion of their
job alone. They requested that they be allowed to
bring the work up together. Robert Bays stated that
the job had been done in the past by one person and
it would have to be done this way. He stated that
the company cannot make the job to fit the employ-
ees physical restrictions.
According to Grace Boozer's testimony, Bays told her
and Chavers that he had their termination slips ready if
they were not going to push the buggy. Boozer and
Chavers replied that they could not push the buggy.
Bays, they said, said that "Mr. Byrd said there wasn't
anything else to say that he had to give us our termina-
tion slips." Boozer and Chavers were terminated.
Later, on June 18, Bays called employee Louise Eng-
lish I into his office. Bays told English that he had ter-
minated Boozer and Chavers because they refused to
push the buggy alone. Bays then said to English, "We're
offering you the job." English replied, "I have asthma, I
can't push it." Bays said, "Well, I heard you did and you
go on back to pinning and we'll call somebody else."
11. CONCLUSIONS
A. The Alleged 8(a)(1) Violations
1. Threat of plant closure
In support of its allegation that Respondent threatened
its employees with plant closure, the General Counsel
points to evidence of a meeting which Vice President
Byrd had with employees around May 3, 1979. Accord-
ing to the testimony of employee Helen Pugh, Byrd held
up a "flyer" which indicated, "Please Don't Buy Judy
Bond Blouses," and contained the Union's label. Byrd
"' Boozer and Chavers testified that they were first called into Bays'
office on June 15, and asked again if they would push the buggy sepa-
rately, When they told him they could not physically do that work, Bays
said he would have to talk with Byrd. Bays denied that he met with
Boozer and Chavers n June 15. Bays admits the June 18 meeting and
discharges.
"l English, like Chavers and Boozer, was employed as a "Trim &
Bundle" employee.
1040
BREWTON FASHIONS, INC
said, "You see what they're doing to us." Pugh said the
discussion then went to company benefits. As the em-
ployees started to leave Byrd said that "you have to be
careful how you word things because it will always
come back to you." As they left, Byrd remarked that he
was the first one at Respondent's Brewton facility, and
he would be the last one to leave. 12
Byrd admitted having the above conversation on May
3. According to Byrd he held up the union flyer when
an employee stated that if they had a union they would
have a retirement plan. Byrd said that he remarked as he
held up the flyer, "You think a union would want to
give you insurance and help you when they are saying
don't buy Judy Bond blouses." Byrd denied that he said
during that meeting that he was the first person here and
he would be the last one to leave.
As to the conflict in their testimony, I credit the ac-
count of Helen Pugh. Pugh's testimony, which preceded
that of Byrd, was substantially in accord with Byrd's.
Pugh, who impressed me as a candid witness, is still em-
ployed by Respondent. Her other testimony, which as
shown below, included another alleged 8(a)(l) conversa-
tion with Byrd, was not denied by Byrd. Additionally,
the comment itself, i.e., first here and last to leave, does
not impress me to make up a damaging comment. The
normal tendency would be to make the statement strong-
er than the subtle comment Byrd allegedly made.
However, despite my crediting Pugh's testimony, I
find that Byrd's comments in this regard do not rise to
the level of an 8(a)(l) violation. His comment that he
would be the last to leave is ambiguous in that it did not
necessarily connote an intent to close the plant or loss of
jobs. Therefore, I find that Respondent did not violate
Section 8(a)(1) in this particular instance.
2. Impression of surveillance
Several witnesses, including James Byrd, testified
about a public address system address which Byrd made
to the employees during June 1979. According to Byrd's
testimony, he told the employees:
I said there are some people that have asked me
how to get rid of some strangers that are coming to
their house and you don't have to let anybody in
your house if you don't won't [sic] to. If they do
come in you can ask them to leave once. If they
don't leave, you can ask them to leave again. If
they don't leave then you can call the sheriffs de-
partment or police department. You don't have to
let anyone in your house that you don't want to.
Byrd admitted that he was referring to union organiz-
ers when he made the above comments. According to
the testimony of former employee Katherine Nelson,
Byrd said that he had received word that the employees
were having late night visitors. 13
L2 Although the transcript indicates Pugh testified that Byrd said he
would he the irst one to leave. I have granted the General Counsel's
motion to correcl the transcript to reflect that Byrd said that he would
be the last one to lease
"3 However, the testimony of Louise English is more in accord with
Byrd's. According to English, Byrd stated that some employees had said
to him that people were being visited at night
In this particular instance I credit Byrd's account of
his speech even though I found Nelson to be a straight-
forward, candid witness. Nelson implied that she was not
in a position to hear the speech clearly by commenting,
"The best I could hear of it, they were talking about
having night visitors in your home."
Although Byrd's version of the speech does raise some
questions, he does imply that he received his information
about the night visitors through voluntary employee
comments by stating, "there are some people that have
asked me how." I find that Byrd's comments were not
likely to demonstrate to employees that Respondent was
engaging in surveillance of activities of union organizers
or of surveillance of visitors to employees' homes. I find
that Respondent did not violate the Act in this particular
instance.
3. Interrogation and impression of surveillance
Employee Helen Pugh testified that, on April 25,
James Byrd called her to his office where:
[H]e said we have heard that you have been seen
passing recipe cards, and I looked at him funny, and
I said Sir? And he said we heard already, we've got
a girl that would testify in court that you were
passing out recipe cards during working hours. And
I sort of laughed and said no sir, I don't call them
recipe cards to start with. I said what I have is
union cards. I said I was passing them out. I gave
three girls cards; they gave them back to me but it
was before working hours, before 7 A.M. I had
them in my purse before 7 A.M. I said I'm no fool
and I know that you're not supposed to do that
during company time. And I said I have been with
the union before and I know that I can lose my job
over it. And he said, you're right, you could. So he
said, we don't want it down here; we don't need it
and we don't intend to have it. And I said well I
have worked for unions before and I said I think it's
good for the people and I think it will help them
down here. And I said I have signed the card
myself and I think it would be good for everybody.
And he said, everybody is entitled to their own
opinion. And, I said, well you're right there. And
he went on and kept talking and he said, he told me
again I believe it was twice he told me that day that
he didn't need it, didn't want it and he didn't intend
to have it.
Pugh testified that that was the first time she had been
called into the office during her 7 years work with Re-
spondent. Although Byrd testified after Pugh, he did not
testify about this particular conversation. As indicated
above, I found Pugh to be a credible witness.
I find, in agreement with the General Counsel, that the
above conversation contains comments which constitute
violations of Section 8(a)(l). Respondent offered no evi-
dence to show that Byrd was relying on information that
Pugh was passing out recipe cards or that he had actual
information that the activity occurred during working
hours. I find that his comments about recipe cards were
ruses designed to get Pugh to defend her action of pass-
1041
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ing out union cards. I find that his comments in that
regard constituted illegal interrogation and created the
impression of surveillance, in view of the unrebutted evi-
dence that Pugh was not passing out cards during work-
ing hours. Moreover, I find that Byrd's comment that
she could lose her job because of her union activities
constituted a threat of discharge. 4
4. The discharges
Respondent contends that Grace Boozer and Kathleen
Chavers were fired because they refused to perform their
assigned task of pushing the cart. The General Counsel
and the Union contend that Respondent's asserted basis
for the discharges was pretextuous. In support of their
contention the General Counsel and the Union point to
several factors. The evidence does show that from before
March 30, 1979, both Boozer and Chavers refused to
push the cart alone on the basis of their contention that
they were both physically unable to perform that task.
Only on March 30 did they receive any disciplinary
action for their refusal. Additionally, it is undisputed that
both Chavers and Boozer were long-term employees
with excellent work records. Neither had presented dis-
ciplinary problems to Respondent before March 30, and
their supervisor stated that both were good workers.
Moreover, the record failed to show that their work effi-
ciency suffered as a result of their joint efforts in pushing
and unloading the cart. Respondent did not deny that
that joint activity occupied only a small portion of their
worktime.
Additionally, undisputed evidence proved that other
employees were not disciplined for refusing to push the
cart alone. In 1978, before the union activity, employees
Nelson, Lois Hart, and Maxine Cunningham refused to
push the cart after being asked by Respondent. None of
those employees was disciplined for his or her refusal to
perform the cart pushing task. Moreover, on June 18,
shortly after the discharge of Boozer and Chavers, em-
ployee Louise English,'s who held the same position as
Boozer and Chavers, refused to push the cart alone on
the ground that she was physically unable to perform the
task. English was not disciplined.
I am persuaded that the evidence does demonstrate
that something mor'e than the pushing of the cart was in-
volved in the discharges of Boozer and Chavers. No ex-
planation was offered as to why Respondent decided to
discharge two valuable employees for action which it
permitted in other employees both before and after their
discharge. Nor did Respondent show with persuasion
why it permitted Boozer and Chavers to push the cart
together for over 2-1/2 months without taking corrective
action.
14 Byrd's threat of discharge is related to and intertwined with the
complaint allegations. and. I find, this matter was fully litigated See The
Estate of Alfred Kaskel d/b/a Doral Hotel and Country Club, 240 NLRB
1112 (1979).
l' English was the employee that first contacted the Union. She, like
Chavers and Boozer, engaged in union activity during the campaign.
However. that evidence does not defeat the General Counsel's contention
that the failure to discipline English demonstrated disparate treatment.
The record does not show that Respondent was aware of any of Eng-
lish's union activities.
Therefore, I shall consider the evidence in attempting
to determine the true reason for the discharges of these
two employees.
The record is clear that both Boozer and Chavers en-
gaged in activities designed to support the Union during
the organizing campaign. Respondent admitted that it
was aware of union activities among its cutting depart-
ment employees and that it was aware of the union ac-
tivities of Boozer and Chavers.
Moreover, the record is clear, and I find, that Boozer
and Chavers engaged in protected concerted activity in
protesting Respondent's request that they push the cart
alone. There is no evidence which would demonstrate
that Boozer or Chavers were insincere in their asserted
belief that they would be hurt physically by pushing the
cart alone. Each is a relatively small, middle aged
woman and each had experienced serious health prob-
lems before the spring of 1979.' ° The fully loaded cart
weighed between 300 and 700 pounds and the wheels of
the cart were often clogged by lint and material as it was
pushed across the floor. Boozer and Chavers acted in
concert when they went to Byrd on April 23, and pro-
tested that the job of pushing the cart alone was too
much for either of them. 1 7
The evidence reflects facts which support the General
Counsel's contention of union animus. The General
Counsel cited the prior case which involved, among
others, Kathleen Chavers. 18 Additionally, Respondent,
through James Byrd, demonstrated through the public
address system speech, Byrd's May 3 discussion with
several employees, and Byrd's April 25 conversation
with employee Helen Pugh, that it strongly opposed the
Union. In his 8(a)(l) conversation with Pugh, Byrd twice
stated that he did not want a union down here, he did
not need it, and he did not intend to have it. Additional-
ly, the evidence is uncontested that Supervisor Charles
Hawkins threatened Grace Boozer with plant closure if
the Union came in.
The record supports, and I find, that Chavers' and
Boozer's discharges were the result of their union and
concerted activities. If there were any doubt that Re-
spondent recalled Chavers' involvement in the discharge
case during the 1960's,'9 that doubt was dispelled on
April 2 when Chavers told Byrd and Bays that the court
order did not permit Respondent to change her job. The
total record, and especially the evidence of Respondent's
union animus, the disparate treatment of Boozer and
Chavers,2 0 and the timing of the discharges during the
midst of the Union's campaign convince me, and I find,
that the two employees were discharged in violation of
Section 8(a)(l) and (3) of the Act.
"o Chavers had abdominal surgery in the fall of 1978. Boozer testified
that she had experienced bladder problems.
'7 See NL.R.B. v. Washington Aluminum Company. Inc., 370 US. 9
(1962); Alleluia Cushion Co., Inc., 221 NLRB 999 (1976); Pink Woody.
Inc., 237 NLRB 39 (1978).
18 Brewton Fashions, Inc. v. N L.R.B, 361 F2d 8 (5th Cir 1966), enfg.
145 NLRB 99 (1963). cert. denied 385 U.S. 842.
I9 Ibid.
I' In addition to the above facts, an official of Respondent admitted
that, as of the time of the hearing, women employees occasionally teamed
up to push the cart
1042
FBREWT()N FASHIONS INC
Upon the foregoing findings of fact and upon the
entire record, I hereby make the following:
CONCI USIONS Oi LAW
1. Respondent Brewton Fashions, Inc., a Division of
Judy Bond, is an employer engaged in commerce within
the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act.
2. International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union,
AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within the meaning of
Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. By interrogating its employees about their union ac-
tivities, creating the impression of surveillance of its em-
ployees' union activities, and threatening its employees
with discharge, Respondent has engaged in unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(l) of the
Act.
4. By discharging its employees Kathleen Chavers and
Grace Boozer on June 18, 1979, Respondent engaged in
unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section
8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act.
5. Respondent did not engage in additional unfair labor
practices as alleged in the complaint.
6. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor
practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Sec-
tion 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent has engaged in unfair
labor practices, I shall recommend that it be ordered to
cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative
action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
As I have found that Respondent unlawfully dis-
charged Kathleen Chavers and Grace Boozer, I shall
recommend that Respondent be ordered to offer them
immediate and full reinstatement to their former jobs or,
if those jobs no longer exist, to substantially equivalent
positions, without prejudice to their seniority or other
rights and privileges. I shall further recommend that Re-
spondent be ordered to make Chavers and Boozer whole
for any loss of earnings they may have suffered as a
result of the discrimination against them. Backpay shall
be computed with interest as prescribed in F. 4 Wool-
worth Company, 90 NLRB 289 (1950), and Florida Steel
Corporation, 231 NLRB 651 (1977).21
Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of
law, and the entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c)
of the Act, I hereby issue the following recommended:
ORDER 2 '2
The Respondent, Brewton Fashions, Inc., a Division
of Judy Bond, Brewton, Alabama, its officers, agents,
successors, and assigns, shall:
21 See, generally. Isis Plumbing & Hearing Co., 138 NLRB 716 (1962)
22 In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 10246 of
the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the
I. Cease and desist from:
(a) Interrogating its employees about its employees'
union activities, creating the impression of surveillance of
its employees' union activities, and threatening its em-
ployees with discharge because they engage in union ac-
tivities.
(b) Discharging and refusing to reinstate its employees
because of its employees' union activities and protected
concerted activities.
(c) In any other manner interfering with, restraining,
or coercing employees in the exercise of their rights
guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which I find
will effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Offer Kathleen Chavers and Grace Boozer immedi-
ate and full reinstatement to their former jobs or, if those
jobs no longer exist, to substantially equivalent positions,
without prejudice to their seniority or other rights and
privileges, and make whole Chavers and Boozer for any
loss of earnings suffered by them as a result of the dis-
crimination against them in the manner set forth in the
section of this Decision entitled "The Remedy."
(b) Preserve, until compliance with the order for rein-
statement and backpay, and, upon request, make avail-
able to the National Labor Relations Board and its
agents, for examination and copying, all payroll records,
social security records, timecards, and other records that
are relevant to a determination of any right of reinstate-
ment and the amount of backpay due under this Order.
(c) Post in conspicuous places at its place of business
in Brewton, Alabama, including all places where notices
to employees are customarily posted, copies of the notice
attached hereto and marked "Appendix A." Copies of
this notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director
for Region 15, shall, after being signed by an authorized
representative of Brewton Fashions, Inc., be posted by it
immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by
it for 60 consecutive days thereafter in such conspicuous
places. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Brewton Fash-
ions, Inc., to insure that the notices are not covered, al-
tered, or defaced by any material. 2
(d) Notify the Regional Director for Region 15, in
writing, within 20 days of the date this Order, what steps
it has taken to comply herewith.
findings, conclusions, and recommended Order herein shall. as provided
in Sec 102 48 of the Rules and Regulations, be adopted by the Board and
become its findings, conclusions, and Order, and all objections thereto
shall he deemed waived for all purposes
2" In the event that this Order is enforced by a Judgment of a United
States Court of Appeals. the words in the notice reading "Posted by
Order of the National Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursu
ant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an
Order of the National L.abor Relations Board"
10(43