Bryan Infants Wear Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 25, 1978

237 N.L.R.B. 963 (N.L.R.B. 1978)

BRYAN INF:ANTS WEA R (OMPANY
Bryan Infants V'ear ('onipan, and Texas-Oklaholla
District Council, International Ladies' Carnient
Workers' Union. Case 16 CA 7509
August 25. 1978
DECISION AND ORDER
By CIHAIRMAN FANNIN(G \NI) M t:MR RS .11 NkINS
ANI) PF NFI I )
On June 8. 1978. Administrative lIaw Judge JerrN
B. Stone issued the attached Decision in this pro-
ceeding. Thereafter. the General Counsel filed excep-
tions and a supporting brief.
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-
thorit) 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 brief
and has decided to affirm the rulings. findings. and
conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge alnd to
adopt his recommended Order.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National I.abor
Relations Act. as amended, the National Labor Re-
lations Board adopts as its Order the recommended
Order of the Administrativce Law Judge and herebN
orders that the complaint be. and it herebh is. dis-
missed in its entirety.
DECISION
S1ATFMENT OF ttIl CASI
JERRY B STONF. Administrative Law Judge: This pro-
ceeding, under Section 10(b) of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, as amended, was heard pursuant to due notice
on April 27. 1978. at Tulsa. Oklahoma.
The charge was filed on September 26, 1977. the com-
plaint in this matter was issued on October 31. 1977. The
issues concern whether the Respondent has violated Sec-
tion 8(a}(4). (3). and (1) of the Act by discharging Nadine
Moore because of her union or protected concerted actisi-
ties and because she appeared under subpena at a Board
proceeding.
All parties were afforded full opportunity to participate
in the proceeding. The parties made oral argument and
waived the right to file briefs.
Upon the entire record in the case and from my observa-
tion of witnesses. I hereby make the following:
F INI)IN(,S of F.( I
I 1111 HI SIN [SS ()O liI I MI( O I() R
the facts herein are hased upon the pleadings and ad-
missions therein.
Bryan Infants Wear Company. the Respondent. is, and
has been at all times material herein, an Oklahoma corpo-
ration. with its principal office and place of business locat-
ed at 9120 East 43rd Street. Tulsa. Oklahoma, where it is
engaged in the manufacture and sale of infants' clothing.
Said Respondent during a I-Near representative period. re-
cei-ed goods and materials valued in excess of $50,000 di-
rectlN from suppliers located outside the State of Oklaho-
ma.
As conceded hb Respondent and based upon the fore-
going. it is concluded and found that the Respondent is.
and has been at all times material herein, an emploer en-
gaged in commerce w'ithin the meaning of Section 2(2). (6).
and (7) of the Act.
11 tI1 I ..BO)R O)R( i.NIZ TION IN\OI\ 11)
Texas-Oklahoma District Council. International Ladies'
Garment Workers' lnion is and has been at all times ma-
terial herein a labor organization within the meaning of
Section 2(5) of the Act.
II1 Il i AlI(iID) IN AIR LABOR PRACTI(IS
A. Prelimnunrv l Isues. Supervisory Status I
At all times material herein, the following named per-
sons occupied the positions set opposite their respective
names, and were agents of the Respondent, acting on its
behalf. andl were supervisors within the meaning of Section
21 I) of the Act. 2
Ethel Shedd Plant Manager
Ernestine Robinson Supervisor
L ucille (' launch Supervisor
B. 1l I)islharge of AMoore
the Respondent discharged Nadine Moore on August
I 1. 1977. The said discharge occurred after a problem
arose on August 10 and I1. 1977. relating to the sewing on
of cuffs on coats hb Moore. The General Counsel contends
that the Respondent discharged Moore because of her
union and protected concerted actis ity and because she
had appeared as a subpenlaed witness at an unfair labor
practice hearing. The Respondent contends that it dis-
charged Moore because Moore intentionally sewed defec-
tive cuffs upon coats on August I 1. 1977. that the discharge
of Moore was for cause and not because of union or pro-
tected concerted activits, or because Moore had appeared
Ihe fa[., te .IC h.,.eI [i, the. [I t.,h II 5I, JTnd .adIidl. /s x there il
\It cxcpnt[IsTn I lln Rbhrm- ha.1te iX nhtlc o be agenlq and aup-
erlssorF of Ihe R.Cp, dcrT t u 1 Alld It, [[c ltttl/ of hearing of tht, mlatter
237 NLRB No. 141
963
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
under subpena as a potential witness at an NLRB unfair
labor practice trial on August 3, 1977.
Nadine Moore worked for the Respondent from June
1968 until August 11. 1977. when she was discharged. The
discharge of Moore presents issues related to her work on
August 10 and 11. 1977. in sewing fake fur cuffs on coats
made for sale as coats for 2-year-old girls. Moore was a
skillful and experienced employee who had worked as an
operator (sewing) in the making of clothes for 23 years.
Because of Moore's skill, Moore was often used in the making
of samples for the Respondent. Moore had worked on coats
very little. The work involved in the making of coats, the
sewing of one part on another part of a garment, was similar
to her regular work.
In 1976, an occasion arose wherein Plant Manager
Shedd believed that Moore was not performing to the best
of her ability. At such time, Robinson. Moore's immediate
supervisor, could find no fault with Moore's work. Shedd.
who had a background of experience in the type of work
performed by Moore, believed that Moore was capable of
better work and production, and believed that Moore was
able to fool Robinson about Moore's capabilities. In an'
event Shedd complained to Robinson that Moore was not
working fast enough, and Robinson transmitted such
complaints to Moore. Moore replied to Robinson that she
was doing the best she could. On another occasion in late
1976, around December, Moore complained about the ma-
chine she was using. Shedd answered such complaint by
assigning Moore to another machine. Shedd told Moore
that she was griping and complaining too much.
Robinson also credibly testified to the effect that a few
days before Moore was discharged that Shedd spoke to her
about Moore as is revealed bs the following credited ex-
cerpts from Robinson's testimony:
Q. Do you recall any other conversations you had
with Ethel about Nadine's work'?
A. Well, I do one time Lucille and Ethel was in
Ethel's office and when I went in we were fixing to do
our we had a worksheet that we had about four
weeks work scheduled on it and E'thel told me that
when I went in that she and Lucille was going to get
Nadine out.
Q. Did she say why'?
A. No. She just told me that they were going to.
Shedd did not testify as to the above incident. ('launch
credibly testified to the effect that the only incident, other
than the August 10 and 11, 1977, events, concerning Moore
and conversations about Moore that she recalled was as is
revealed by the following excerpts from C'launch's testi-
mony:
Q. Were you ever present with Ernestine Robinson
and any other members of supervision, with Ethel
Shedd or other members of supervision in which the
subject matter of Nadine Moore came up?
A. One other time I can remember, we had a cut of
caps and coats and dresses that came back on us one
time that Nadine had sheared the brims.
Q. Now, was Ernestine Robinson present at this
meeting?
A. Uh-huh.
Q. All right. What was said?
A. And we all had got chewed out and we were in
there being chewed out at the time for getting them
back because the', were had tucks in them and not
made right, and for letting them go. And Ethel made
the remark I'll not having anybody working for me
that doesn't inspect their work. We make every girl
inspect their work or try to make them. And she said
that we will get rid of anyone that doesn't care.
Q. Did Nadine Moore's name come up for any rea-
son in the course of that meeting?
A. I can't remember for sure, I mean, it could have.
Nadine did all of the shearing on that cut but I don't
know whether, I honestly don't remember whether her
name was mentioned or not.
Q. But she was involved in that work which was the
source of that problem?
A. Right.
('onsidering Robinson's testimony to the effect that
Shedd did not give her a reason as to why she was going to
get rid of Moore and the fact that the events testified to by
Claunch reveal a plausible reason for such remarks, I am
persuaded that Robinson's testimony as to what Shedd
said about planning to get rid of Moore lacks persuasive
weight to reveal that Moore's ultimate discharge was based
upon pretextuous, discriminatory, or retaliatory reasons
because of Moore's union, protected, or concerted activity
in being a subpenaed witness at an unfair labor practice
hearing.
The Union won an NLRB representation election on
June 26, 1975. Moore had become a member of the Union
in January 1975, and served on the Union's negotiation
committee after the Union won the NLRB representation
election. A collective-bargaining agreement was not
reached. Moore and certain other employees then engaged
in a strike against the Respondent from February 2, 1976.
until April 9. 1976. During the aforesaid strike, Moore
walked the picket line and served as a strike captain. After
the strike, Moore returned to work on September 27, 1976.
Prior to August 3. 1977, Moore received a subpena to
appear at an unfair labor practice hearing on August 3,
1977. Moore showed her subpena to her supervisor and
was allowed to, and attended, the August 3, 1977, unfair
labor practice hearing but did not testify. There was a com-
pany official present at said trial.
Moore had asked and received permission to be off from
work on August 4, 5, and 8, 1977, was off from work on
said dates and returned to work on August 10, 1977.
On August 10. 1977, Moore worked on infants' wear de-
signed for use by little boys. Upon completion of such
work, Moore started working on coats designed for wear
by little girls around the age of 2.
Moore's duties involved the sewing of fake fur cuffs on
sleeves and the sewing of the sleeves as is revealed by the
following credited excerpts from Moore's testimony:
A. I was sewing the complete coat together. It had
raglan sleeves. There was a seam here in front on both
sides I sewed, also a seam in the back I sewed. The
sleeve was sewed across the top together, the cuff was
964
BRYAN INFANTS WEAR C(OMPANY
sewed on and then the, were to be side-seamed.
Q. And so among the things that you were doing
then was sewing a sleeve on to excuse me, sewing a
cuff onto a sleeve?
A. Yes.
Bundles of sleeves and bundles of cuffs were brought to
Moore for her phase of the operation in making such coats.
The issues in this case concern the sewing of cuffs upon the
sleeves. On August 10 and Il. 1977, there were two other
employees, Ivy and Martin, performing similar work. the
sewing of fake fur cuffs on the sleeves for said coats.
On August 10 and 11, 1977, there were two significant
problems affecting the work of sewing the fake fur cuffs
upon the sleeves for the making of the coats. The sleeves
and cuffs were of different sizes and were for the makine of
extra large, large, medium, and small coats. The bundles of
sleeves and cuffs were supposed to be appropriately
marked as to sizes. The first problem was that some of the
bundles of cuffs had wrong sized cuffs for such bundles as
marked. The second problem was that a new employee had
improperly sewed the linings for some of the cuffs.
In some instances, an improperly sized cuff can be sewed
on a sleeve and by a slight sewing alteration, the sleeve and
cuff for the coat will fit together properly. However, a cuff
that is smaller than the sleeve cannot be altered to fit prop-
erly. On the other hand, some larger cuffs can be altered to
fit properly. It appears that if there is too much of a sarl-
ance in the linings of the sleeve and missized cuff that
proper alteration cannot be made.
It also appears that where the problem is one of improp-
erly sewed linings for cuffs (and not that of a missized
cuff), that whether alteration can be made for proper fit-
ting depends upon the amount of variance between the
linings of the sleeves and cuffs.
It also appears that, where alterations for missized cuffs
and sleeves have been made, further alterations may be
necessary in the lining of the coat in order to make a prop-
er fitting.
The credited testimony reveals that an experienced em-
ployee would be able to determine from the sleeve and cuff
linings variance or lack of variance as to whether some
cuffs should or could be sewn onto sleeves for ultimate
proper fitting with adjustment to be made in the sewing. It
is also clear that in some cases, the amount of variance
between linings would be of such a nature that it would be
difficult to tell whether the cuff-sleeve fitting would be im-
proper until sewing had been completed. The testimony is
confused and contradictory as regards whether an employ-
ee could tell about an improper fitting resulting from a
missized cuff. I am persuaded that the ultimate determina-
tive factor as to proper fitting would depend upon the vari-
ance of the linings between sleeves and cuffs in either case.
In the case of a missized cuff, it would appear that were an
extra large cuff sewed on a large sleeve, large cuff sewed on
a medium size sleeve, or a medium cuff sewed on a small
sleeve, the variance very well might not appear obvious.
On August 10, 1977, Moore encountered problems in
sewing cuffs on sleeves for proper fitting and complained
to Floorlady Boone who sought out Moore's supervisor.
Robinson. A discussion ensued and it become apparent
that some of the cuffs had been placed in a bundle marked
for a different size. In any, event. Robinson looked at
Moore's work and the cuffs and sleeves and told her that
some looked oka . that seeral did not, and took seeral
cuffs back to another department to be repaired. Robinson
told Moore to do the best she could and to send the ones
back that she couldn't do.'
The problems of missized cuffs and improper linings in
other cuffs continued to bother emplo'ees Moore. Martin,
and Ivs on August 10 and 11 1977. 4 '
On August 10 and 11. 1977, Moore observed missized
cuffs and cuffs with improper linings. ripped out some
cuffs that were improperly fitted and complained to Super-
visors Claunch and Carpenter about the cuffs.' Supers isors
Claunch and Carpenter took some of the cuffs back for
repair. I am persuaded that the overall facts reveal that the
supervisors took back cuffs which appeared to be of the
type that had significant variance in the linings and okaved
such cuffs which had minor ,ariances which could be cor-
rected bv slight alteration.
I.ate on August 10 or on the morning of August I 1. 1977,
Moore became frustrated or angry because of the continu-
ing nature of the problems and commenced sewing on
cuffs which were obviousl', defective because of the iari-
ance of the linings. did not rip the same out. and was pre-
pared to let such work go forward without correction.
Some generalized testimone was presented to the effect
that I,x and Martin had the same problems in their work
as Mloore. No evidence was presented to reveal that Is[, or
Martin sewed cuffs, other than missized cuffs, on sleeves
where there was a significant variance problem as regards
the linings. Nor was an! evidence presented to reveal that
Ivs and Martin failed to rip out improperly fitted cuffs and
sleeves if such had been sewed on. Moreoser, Ivv and Mar-
tin did sew some missized cuffs on sleeves and such had to
be ripped out later.
On the morning of August II11. 1977. Supervisor Claunch
told Moore that Plant Manager Shedd had left her a note
indicating that Shedd had looked at "coats" worked on b'
Moore and that the' were not right. Claunch picked a coat
up. said it looked like all the rest, and to sew the good
(cuffs) on.
What occurred next is revealed by the following credited
excerpts from Shedd's testimony: '
Shortlv after lunch I went out to Nadine's machine
and I said, "Nadine. when 'ou finish your bundle, I
want you to go on samples."
Sne ,m f \to .lorc.' Ic' lr ton\ 'e ille to.d he to the effeitl Ih e sit'c a. 1, hJdI
1, do her loh rilrploperl, AII lltnlesse, seem to agree thal the Rcpon dent
did o pili.oluc o.r ell Theidd merchandise, it i cliar th i e .mpIcc. kI nc,
.hlil LiirI, lcr nork oul. il.i c t, hc rIpprd ,oui and done rroperei ] he
general pli;atlice 1 1h i dfCCIll,. hbundl e, ias I, , (ld Ihe h ole bundle hack
Thil h,.sc er. it, n i; done S{l aetirne, dne ctiie itenls ere Iterc-
I\ c .,i lsic 1 he cl dence doe not rc\eal .. change In practice a. mnled out
t id ioorc
4 Roh il,,nl icedibi teiiccd hi tihe cftctl thal he tsraightcicd our Ihe
hundle' mirked extra iLre. nd Itl cc Sppirrcill hc bundles marked nicd-
Iul. and nma1ll had mnprop.erl! sie cuff, and thu '.er well c..uld ha\c
included l.ire anti c\lr.i large cuff, in ,uch bundles
('lrpenlci a, uperr ior t o tcl the deparrmcntn r¢c,ponsibl i for Ihe e -
f h ini- m I ell l ti .u ',,
(lullch's tcstmiotm 15i oXrroihoril.e c of Shicdd's I di,redit \Moorec
Ce lilll i l lk lt.' 1 C nt* "elln l 1 i ic .fLt.. f n lrd
DI(CISIONS OF NA] IONAL I .ABOR RELA I IONS BOARD
Okay, at break time which is around 2:00 1 s\rent
back to see how much she still lacked before she ,went
on samples and I just automaticaill picked up one of
her sleeves to inspect it. so it was twisted, the lining.
and the cuff when the lace was inserted had not been
made right, it didn't come out es`en at tile end. She
pulled it the opposite direction and made the othei
edge line up which created a twist and sewed it on t(le
sleeve.
So I called l.ucille, she -wvas the head supeirlssoFr of
the plant at that time.
Q. Lucille ('launch'?
A. Yes, Lucille Claunch. :es.
And I said. "Lucille. look at these sleeves. theN are
terrible." And she said. "MN goodness. we have been
having them fixed for her all morning. I told her to
send them back and we swould hae them fixed."
So break was over about that time and Nadine
walked up. And I said. "Nadine. these sleeves uon't
go." and she said, "1 kntmu it." and I said. \Welll. htl,
did you sew them on?" and she said. "I didn't think
they would have them fixed."
And at that time I realized that thailt as somethilni
that you didn't discuss on the floor, so I asked Nadine
and Lucille to come into the office and I asked Ann
Carpenter. she was at the supersisor's desk, because
Ann's operator was the girl that didn't insert the lace
right.
Ann's operator was a new operator. IThis v as a diffi-
cult job to do but that's the onNl s wa)s we train our
people. trial and error. we all, the thiee of us. went
into the office.
Q. The four of you?
A. Right.
Q. Now. who all was present at this meeting'?
A. Nadine. myself. Lucille ('Claunch and Ann ('ar-
penter.
Q. And Nadine is Nadine Moore?
A. Nadine Moore.
Q. All right.
Now, will you tell what you said in that meeting and
what other people said.
A. I said. "Nadine. why did nou sew these sleeves
on?" and Lucille turned to her and said. "Nadine. we'-
ve been having them fixed all morning. Ah)N would
you sew them on? Why didn't you send them back'?"
and Nadine looked over to me and she said. "Well. I
didn't think it would do anN good to send them back."
She said. "I just decided to sew them on anywaN."
And this is when she looked me straight in the eve and
said. "I don't care how thes look." And I have neser
had an operator look me in the evNe or even not look
me in the eye. as far as that goes, and tell me thait theN
don't care how their work looked.
Q. What did you do what was said next'?
A. I said, "Nadine, if Ou feel like this about Nour
work, there is no place in this conipanN for Nyot. I'mi
sorry. I'll have to terminate sou." And she looked at
me and she said. "Ethel. sou better think twice befoei
you fire me. I'll cause you a lot of trouble later." And
at that time I took it as a personal threat. I didn't
know that this is what she meant.
Q. Wlhat did sou do next'?
A. I called the other plant and I asked them to
hibing her check and I asked them to pa, her until
4:( 0(
()kx.. She unlit out to her maichine to pick up her
personal belongings and I went back out in the plant
for something and I come back and she swas standing
there with Marie Newell and she said "EIthel. I want
Nou to go over this with Marie." And I said. "Nadine.
,ou'%e been terminated: I'm not going to go over it a
second time. Matrie. you go back to work." and Marie
did go back to `olrk.
So I asked her to wait in the lunchroom till the
check was brought over because she was no longer
emploNed with the cornpan) and wasn't insured.
Moore then went to the lunchroom What occurred then
is reveialed b! the following credited excerpts from Moore's
testnlimon\
A. After I had called mni husband to come and get
me and I went back in the lunchroom to wait for him
to come and pick me up. Ethel and Jay Mamood come
in and JLa gasve mie m check.
Q. Who is Ja , Mamood'?
A. lie swas. I think. plant supervisor or plant presi-
dent. sice president.
Q. So he came in'?
A. He came in with ms check and told me that I
couldn't he in the building that their insurance didn't
coNver me anI more.
Q. What did soul do then'?
A. I told him I would sta, until man husband came
to pick me up, which I did.
Q. I)id tOl have anri further discussions with any
of those people'?
A. We stood there and talked, I don't remember
wlhat about. except Lthel did tell me that she didn't
ha`se anythinng personaill) against me.
The defective cuffs that Moore had sewsed on sleeves on
August 10 and I I1 1977. were, after Moore's discharge, rip-
ped out by lxs atnd Boone. Ivy was paid for the time she
worked in rippiinL out the cuffs sewed on by Moore. and in
ripping out missized cuffs sewed on by herself on the basis
of "ninets-nine" time.7
Ninety-nine time is described by witness as is revealed
hb the follow ing excerpts from Latham's and Claunch's
testillon,L:
[tFxcerpts from Latham's Testimony
A. N inet m-nile time is like if you do some other job
or something that is not Nour job and if (ou havse an
I ll (]Cnlal: (li 111'(¢[ /11k 'lll]itc [ 1, i stabo i xhlil ] h %.l I ll Ol.l .' Ih,.c s1,11t
,.lk IllXtlk . 11 1 / kp't I i t il 11 1,977. il } l/t been lade hic Miore Ir he
I.cts rc,.cAl I11/i Riesplc dllell, ti .n,ldiiered the nill.ake m.ade hs MWoore to he
nitiIInai.i and it) glII [ i"i L e 'c o t cuffs ill c.Mli it ictproper Ih ing ,a.crl.lnes
I.1t t,1hi IIsI.kC idc ltc l cd rlcllp" J, "'c i R. ihe. scc ()11 i l the c itlcng %ic cuff'.
,l lt 11lil I '% iti cclic 11c1 l Ci.ilSik cll .Ced1i thl n /il cd cuffs C il sIlee cs the
( lu. 1rl] ( ' ,C1.i ltciillc led [1' silo hoi ,l hurt 1 ; r[ecet.Led nlnltlf-nlint pal feor
I 1h Ball. mtici ktv i[ stork ils pelf.cHited l b[ xt.'J re I he f[ctcs do. nim si
eqiblih ih
966
BRYAN INFANTS WEAR COMPANY
average then they pay you your average. ninety-nine
time. If you don't have an average, the ninety-nine
time is $2.90 an hour and they don't figure it into sour
average.
Excerpts from Claunch's Testimon!
A. Well, that's the time when the girls doesn't have
a card to account for their time that if they have to do
something that they don't have a card for to make up
their time or if they are doing a repair that isn't their
faalt.
The essence of "ninety-nine" time appears to be to pro-
tect an employee from loss of wages if on a different job, or
if on work for which fault should not he attributed.
Around 3 p.m., after Moore's discharge, employee Lat-
ham heard Supervisor Lucille Claunch speak to Supervisor
Robinson as is revealed by the following credited excerpts
from Latham's testimony:
A. Well. Lucille had a bundle of coats in her hand
and she had-in one hand she had the coat and in the
other hand she was holding this cuff that was sewed
onto the coat.
Q. Was she standing with anyone?
A. Ernestine Robinson.
And she said to Ernestine she says, "Well. we
might as well give Ada ninety-nine time to fix these
because it was our fault anyway."
C. Contentions and Conclusions
The General Counsel contends that the Respondent dis-
charged Moore because of her union and protected con-
certed activity and because Moore had appeared under
subpena at a hearing on August 3. 1977. The Respondent
contends that Moore was not discharged because of her
union or protected concerted activities or because she ap-
peared under subpena at an unfair labor practice hearing
on August 3, 1977.
The facts reveal that Moore had engaged in union and
protected concerted activity, and had appeared under sub-
pena at an unfair labor practice hearing on August 3, 1977.
The facts are also clear that the Respondent was aware
that Moore was a union supporter. engaged in striking and
protected concerted activity, and appeared under subpena
at an unfair labor practice hearing on August 3. 1977.
The facts do not reveal evidence of union animus. The
testimony of Robinson that Shedd had told her that they
were going to get rid of Moore did not rev eal the reason for
such action. Such testimony, in view of the timing of
events, is suspicious. Claunch's testimony relating to what
appears to be the same incident, and in more detail. sup-
plied a nondiscriminator' reason for such statement by
Shedd.
The facts as to Moore's discharge reveal that Moore.
understandabl, frustrated or not. did intentionally do
work that she knew was improper and would have to be
ripped out and repaired.
(Considering all of the foregoing. I conclude and find
that the facts are insufficient to establish that the Respon-
dent discharged Moore on August 11, 1977, in violation of
Section 8(a)(4). (3). and (I) of the Act.s
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and upon
the entire record in the case. I make the following:
CON( L L SIONS OF LAW
I. Bryan Infants Wear Company, the Respondent. is an
employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Sec-
tion 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. Texas-Oklahoma District Council, International La-
dies' Garment Workers' Union. is, and has been at all
times material herein, a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. 1he facts do not establish that the Respondent vio-
lated Section 8(a)(4). (3). and (I) of the Act by the dis-
charge of Nadine Moore on August 11. 1977.
4. T he aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law,
and the entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the
Act. I herebN issue the following recommended:
ORDER
IThe complaint in this matter is dismissed in its entirety.
Nlihoiugh the e'iidence ,I somerhal fuiz' as to whether Is and Martin
sh.ould hase been able to ascertain that sesed on missized cuffs resulted in
ir u. uild result in impropcr Flinig. and therebs) ere nmproperls se.ed on.
it is not clear that such would he oih us at the time Furthermore, the faots
are clear Ihat Respondent did riot hbheiee I and Martin tor hase Iniention-
all sere d uiirk on Improperl? and knews from awareness of 1 oores skill
and experience and frrom Moore' s statements thai Moore knou.ingli and
intentionallB hald sered on defective cuffs
In the eenl no exeptions are filed as proided his Sec 10246 of the
Rules, and Reckm.tinn of the National l.ahor Relatlons Board. the findings.
colltulousl. .land reimenlnlnded Order herein shall. as proi.ded In Se,
1(12 48 of the Rulen Regul d ilartons he adopted bs the Board and hecome
its findings. c.nclusions. and Order. and all ohlectlons thereto shall be
deemiled sa;lied for allt purposes
967