Coronet Casuals, Inc.Download PDFNational Labor Relations Board - Board DecisionsMay 28, 1971190 N.L.R.B. 685 (N.L.R.B. 1971) Copy Citation CORONET CASUALS, INC. Coronet Casuals , Inc. and International Ladies' Gar- ment Workers Union , AFL-CIO, Upper South De- partment . Case 5-CA-4750 May 28, 1971 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS JENKINS AND KENNEDY On December 10, 1970, Trial Examiner Melvin Pol- lack issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceed- ing, finding that Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices and recom- mending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Decision. Thereafter, Respondent filed exceptions to the Decision and a supporting brief, and the Charging Party filed an answering brief to the exceptions of the Respondent. 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 powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel. The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Ex- aminer made at the hearing and finds that no prejudi- cial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial Ex- aminer's Decision, the exceptions and briefs, and the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions,' and recommendations of the Trial Examiner.' ' Respondent has excepted to certain credibility findings made by the Trial Examiner . It is the Board's established policy not to overrule a Trial Examiner's resolutions with respect to credibility unless the clear prepon- derance of all the relevant evidence convinces us that the resolutions were incorrect. Standard Dry Wall Products, Inc., 91 NLRB 544, enfd. 188 F.2d 362 (C.A.3). We find no such basis for disturbing the Trial Examiner's credibility findings in this case . In so concluding, we carefully reviewed the record in light of Respondent 's claim that the Trial Examiner's recitation of the facts relevant to the independently alleged 8 (a)(1) violations ignored in many instances the testimony offered by Respondent 's witnesses . We found that with one exception , Respondent 's witnesses did not explicitly deny engaging in the conversations about the Union which employees described, and did not otherwise undertake to explain what precisely they said to the employees . Rather, Respondent's officials merely denied in categorical and conclusionary terms that they had ever "threatened" or otherwise coerced any employees. There was one instance where an official of Respondent testified in detail about a conversation with an employee . In the testimony given by President Larry Ashinoff he admitted having summoned Sandra Hahn to his office on or about March 20 or 21, as Hahn had stated, and explained his union remarks in a manner satisfying the Trial Examiner that he had not exceeded the bounds of permissible conduct. It is therefore plain, and we find , that the Trial Examiner did not ignore any relevant testimony offered by Respondent in response to the complaint. ' In footnote 22 of the Trial Examiner's Decision, substitute "20" for "10" days. ORDER 685 Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Re- lations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board adopts as its Order the recommended Order of the Trial Examiner and hereby orders that the Re- spondent, Coronet Casuals, Inc., Norfolk, Virginia, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's recommended Order. TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE MELVIN POLLACK, Trial Examiner: This case was heard on September 28, 1970, at Norfolk, Virginia, pursuant to charges filed on April 30 and June 25, 1970, and a complaint issued on June 30, 1970. The complaint alleges that Respond- ent, Coronet Causals, Inc., interrogated employees concern- ing union activities, threatened them with economic reprisals because of their union activities, and promised and granted them economic benefits to induce them to refrain from union activities, in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended. The complaint further alleges that Respondent discharged Sandra Hahn because of her union activities, in violation of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act. Upon the entire record in the case, oral argument pre- sented at the hearing by the General Counsel and Respond- ent, a brief filed by Respondent, and my observation of the witnesses, I make the following: FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS I. THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT Respondent , a Virginia corporation , is engaged in the manufacture of men 's sport shirts at Portsmouth , Virginia. Its annual interstate purchases and sales each exceed $50,000. I find that Respondent is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. ll. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED International Ladies' Garment Workers Union, AFL- CIO, Upper South Department , is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act. III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. The Relevant Facts Sandra Hahn, a collar setter, called Louis Faison, a repre- sentative of Local 649 of the Laborers' International Union, on March 19, 1970.' Faison visited Hahn at her home that night and gave her about 100 union authorization cards. Hahn signed a card and the next day at Respondent's parking lot handed out 45 cards to "girls [who] were sitting in their cars eating lunch." Two days later, Plant Manager Bernard Lukoff asked Hahn at her machine where she came from. Hahn said Pennsylvania and Lukoff remarked, "That's where all those unions are, isn't it?" Hahn replied, "Yes, I guess so," and Lukoff said, "You don't want a union in here. All the union does is close places down." He told Hahn he came from Massachusetts and had been in a union shop. He repeated that all unions do is close places down. Later that day, Lukoff again came over to Hahn and said, "Isn't it a shame about ' All dates are in 1970 unless otherwise stated. 190 NLRB No. 135 686 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD the mail strike that 's going on now?" Hahn answered , " If the postmen get a raise my husband, who is in the Navy, would get a raise too." At 3:30 p.m., President Larry Ashinoff told Hahn at her machine he wanted to see her after work. Hahn went to Ashinoff's office "right after work." He said, "I heard you are passing out union cards." Hahn said , "Did anyone see me passing out union cards?" and Ashinoff replied, "Yes." Hahn asked, "Well, who saw me?" Ashinoff shrugged his shoulders and said, "I heard you have 14 already. I'm not asking you for the names. I just want to know the name of the union. If I'm going to be fighting someone , I want to know who it is." Hahn inquired: "Well, will you fight the union if it tries to get in here?" Ashinoff said it was none of her business, and Hahn retorted, "Then it's none of your business what I'm doing." Ashinoff said, "If that's the way you want it." Hahn replied, "Yes, that's the way I want it," and walked out.' Late in March, Plant Manager Lukoff came over to Doro- thy Kania, who worked at the machine in front of Sandra Hahn's, and asked her "to come a little bit closer to her machine" because he did not want "that thing sitting behind [her] to hear" what he said. Lukoff told Kania she was "too much of a nice girl to get involved in this" and not to let Hahn get her involved. About 2 week later, Kania and Hahn at lunch time had a conversation with Stover , a union man, on Respondent's parking lot. That afternoon Lukoff came over to Kania and Hahn and said, "You two are trouble makers. That's all you can do in here: make trouble. I can 't stand a union . I was in one at one time and I know what they're like. I know what you two are doing in here. You're trying to cause trouble ... I am going to tell you how much I hated unions. I could take you right now and throw you through that window because you're in here causing trouble ... I can be mean if I want to. If [a union man] were to come here right now I would knock him down. That's how much I hated the Un- ion." Lukoff also said Hahn should go back to Pennsylvania where she came from if she wanted a union. The next day, Kania went to the office of Vice President Rubens and told him she did not like it that Bernie "jumped" on her. Rubens said Lukoff would apologize, that he had no business jumping on her like that, and added, "I hope you're not in it ." Kania replied it was her business . Rubens said, "I'll tell you something. A union is nothing but a racket. All they want to do is cause real trouble." He asked Kania what Stover had said in the car. He said he would have to get rid of Hahn because she was causing trouble. He remarked that he was good to his girls and gave them Christmas parties. About April 1, after the lunch break, Lukoff asked Shirley Mills at her machine whether Sandra Hahn and Jane Shelton "were filling [her] full of that Union bull" and if she knew what Sandy was doing. Mills said, "No, sir," and Lukoff said, "The plant where she worked at before was paying her a commission to unionize our plant. All she's going to do is cause Mr. Ashinoff to close the plant down." Mills asked Lukoff if he really thought Ashinoff would close the plant down "if we got a union." Lukoff replied, "You're doggoned right he would." Early in April, Lukoff came over to Jane Shelton and said she "had caught it." Shelton, who had been scratching her arm, said, "What?" and Lukoff, nodding towards Hahn, said "That's leprosy she's got." On another occasion, Lukoff ac- cused Shelton "of pressuring Dot Kania and causing her to quit her job on account of the Union mess." ' Hahn continued to distribute union cards and gave out a total of about 85 cards. Shelton further testified that supervisor Alice Silvers asked her a couple of times if she was for the Union. Silvers also asked her one time if she had a union card, saying she had heard Shelton was giving them out. About April 1, Ashinoff spoke to all the "girls" in the cafeteria. He said he was in "a very tricky area" and could not say what he wanted to say, that he had to be "very careful." He looked at Hahn and said , "I am standing in front of you so that you will hear me." He said he did not want "to unionize his shop ." He made some reference to unions "sell- ing" employees to a clothing union and said, "I don't think you want to be sold like that." He said a shop could take "many alternatives" to keep a union out, that "there was no trouble in closing a place down and moving everything out somewhere else." He closed by saying that Plant Manager Lukoff "was going to check the rates and set new rates be- cause he knew that in many instances the rates weren 't right." About 2 weeks later, Ashinoff held another meeting with the employees and distributed a document headed "Em- ployee Benefits." The document inter alia provided for 5 days sick leave to employees who had worked for Respondent 3 years or more. The employees previously had no sick leave benefits. The document also eliminated punching the time- clock when leaving for lunch, so giving the employees addi- tional time for lunch as a bottleneck at the timeclock had caused the employees to lose about 5 minutes of lunch time. It also established a procedure under which an employeee could present a grievance concerning any condition of em- ployment, first to Plant Manager Lukoff and then, if not satisfied by Lukoffs disposition, to President Ashinoff. A day or so before her discharge, Manager Lukoff re- marked to Hahn, "I want you to see what a union does for a shop." He directed her to the door and asked her to look up the street where a union was picketing the premises of a trucking company. Hahn said, "It looks like a lot of men fighting for their rights." Lukoff remarked, "Well, what about the rights of the men who don't want the union in there?" B. The Discharge of Sandra Hahn Hahn testified as follows concerning her discharge: Plant Manager Lukoff came over to her machine on Monday, April 20, and asked her if Frances Bausch rode to work with her. Hahn said, "Yes," and Lukoff inquired, "Did she tell you why she wasn't coming to work?" Hahn said, "I don't know. She just called Jane Shelton and said I shouldn't pick her up until she called me." Lukoff said, "There's another girl that's gone now." Pointing in front of Hahn, where Dorothy Kania had sat,' Lukoff continued; "You know, I talked to [Bausch] on Friday. She told me you got her confused. "You know, they're your best friends. They're not going to tell you they're tired of your union mess." Hahn declared , "Bernie, that's not so. You know it's not true." Lukoff, according to Hahn, "just kept on, repeating that Frances quit because of me." Hahn looked at Lukoff and uttered a terse scatalogical word. Lukoff walked away and said to supervisor Alice Silvers, "There's another girl that's quit." Hahn, who heard this, told Lukoff, "Unless you are willing to put that statement in writing and sign [your] name to it, [you]had better shut up." Lukoff "got mad" and said, "What do you mean 'put it in writing' 'shut up'? You're fired. Get out of here. You're a sloppy operator anyway. I've had more girls to quit because of you. I could have fired you because of your union mess ." Hahn said she wanted " in writing that I was fired and why I was fired." Lukoff said, "All right, so, come on up and I'll give you ' Kania had quit Respondent's employ about 2 weeks before. CORONET CASUALS, INC. 687 anything you want. I'm not afraid of you." Hahn said, "I'm not afraid of you either." Hahn and Lukoff then walked over to the plant office where Lukoff gave her a letter of suspension after talking to President Ashinoff, Vice President Rubens, and Tugman, a labor relations consultant. The next morning, Hahn spoke to Vice President Rubens at the plant. She told Rubens that her union representative had called her that morning and said she was "just sus- pended." She said, "If I'm just suspended, I'm ready to go to work this morning." Rubens said, "You will be notified of the results of your suspension." Hahn asked how long that would take and Rubens said he had "no idea. You will be notified." He next said, "A young lady doesn't use the language you used with Bernie." Hahn replied, "Bernie shouldn't have gone around pressuring the girls the way he was." Rubens said, "The only one that's been doing any pressuring around here is you. You remember that." Hahn said she would not argue with him and walked off. Mary Clark, a floorgirl on April 20,' testified that Lukoff walked over to Hahn's machine and told her she was respon- sible for the loss of two collar setters, that they had quit because she was pressurizing them to join the union and they wanted no part of it. Hahn mad a vulgar response, but Lukoff began to holler, saying "It was your fault. You did it." Every- body in the plant stopped work and looked at Lukoff "be- cause you could hear him." Hahn said, "Bernie, either shut up or put what you're saying in writing and sign your name." Lukoff said, "Get up. You're fired. We don't need you here. You're fat and sloppy and we don't need you." Plant Manager Lukoff testified that he was worried about the collar sewing section because Dorothy Kania had quit and Bousch "had been missing for a week." He asked about Bousch and was told she rode to work with Hahn. He walked over to Hahn and said, "Sandy, is Frances gone the same reason like Dottie's gone?" According to Lukoff, Hahn turned around and said, "you're full of...... Lukoff "tried to walk away from her but Hahn stood up and told him to shut [his] big, fat mouth." At that, "the factory just stopped" and Lukoff told Hahn, "Get your stuff. I'm firing you." Lukoff took Hahn to the office where, acting on Labor Relations Consultant Tugman's advice, he gave her a letter of suspen- sion.' Supervisor Alice Silvers testified that she walked up while Lukoff and Hahn were talking in time to hear Hahn say, "You're full of ... and you'd better shut your big fat mouth." Hahn "was just sitting and looking up at" Lukoff, who said she was fired and to get up and leave or come with him. Supervisor Betty Stewart said she had seen Lukoff and Hahn talking and came up just in time on a tour of inspection to hear Hahn say to Lukoff, "You shut your big fat mouth. You're full of. . . " Lukoff said to Hahn, "Get up. Come with me. You're fired. Nobody talks to me that way." Hahn's version of her discharge (corroborated in its essen- tials by Mary Clark) is detailed and internally consistent and ascribes remarks to Plant Manager Lukoff which comport with his previous antiunion remarks to Hahn and other em- ployees. Lukoff did not impress me as a reliable witness, and I find entirely unconvincing his testimony that Hahn ignored his question about Bousch's absence and responded with ex- tremely vulgar and offensive language. Nor do I find convinc- ing the testimony of supervisors Silvers and Stewart that .they heard Hahn use this language to Lukoff. According to each superviser, she came up without having heard anything said by Lukoff to Hahn and just in time to hear what Hahn said Clark was terminated about August 1. Lukoff left Respondent's employ on June 20. to Lukoff. In addition to this "pat" testimony, both super- visors on examination gave testimony in support of Respond- ent's claim that Hahn 's work before her discharge was un- satisfactory and merited discharge. As shown below, Hahn was in fact an acceptable employee. For the foregoing rea- sons, and because I consider Hahn a reliable witness, I credit her testimony concerning her discharge. C. Analysis and Conclusions 1. Interference, restraint, and coercion President Ashinoff called Hahn to his office on March 20, told her she had been observed passing out union cards, and asked her for the name of the union, saying, "If I'm going to be fighting someone, I want to know who it is." The record does not indicate that Hahn made any effort to conceal her union solicitation from management. Ashinoff told Hahn he was not asking her for the names of the employees who had signed union cards. His remarks to the effect that he would fight the Union were privileged. In these circumstances, I find his request that Hahn tell him the name of the organizing Union did not tend to inhibit Hahn in the exercise of her rights under the Act and hence that it was not violative of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. I have found above that President Ashinoff told the em- ployees that a shop could take "many alternatives" to keep a union out; that "there was no trouble in closing a place down and moving everything out somewhere else"; that Plant Manager Lukoff told Shirley Mills that Ashinoff would close the plant down if a union came in; and that Vice President Rubens, in an antiunion context, told Dorothy Kania he would have to get rid of Hahn because she was causing trou- ble. I find that the foregoing statements constituted threats of economic reprisal violative of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. I have also found that President Ashinoff accompanied antiunion remarks with a statement that Plant Manager Lukoff would check rates and set new rates, and that Ashinoff subsequently granted the employees new benefits, including sick leave and more time for lunch by eliminating a punching out requirement. I find that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by promising and granting economic be- nefits to induce employees to refrain from supporting a union. Supervisor Silvers asked Jane Shelton if she favored the Union and also asked her if she had a union card. As these interrogations concerning union activity or sentiment oc- curred in a context of coercive conduct, including threats, promises, and, as I find below, the discriminatory discharge of Hahn, I find them coercive under Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. 2. The discharge of Hahn Hahn had initiated the drive to organize Respondent's plant by distributing union cards at the parking lot on March 20. Although President Ashinoff called her to his office the next day and indicated that he would fight the Union, Hahn continued to distribute union cards. Plant Manager Lukoff advised Kania not to let Hahn get her involved in union activity; he told both Kania and Hahn they were "trou- blemakers" and that he hated unions; he told Jane Shelton that she had "caught" leprosy from Hahn; and he told Shirley Mills that Hahn's union activity, if successful, would cause Ashinoff to close the plant down. Vice President Rubens told Kania he would have to get rid of Hahn because she was causing trouble. On April 20, Lukoff told Hahn her union activity had caused Kania and Bausch to quit. Hahn denied Lukoff's charge and, when Lukoff continued to blame her, used a vulgar word. Lukoff remarked to supervisor Alice Silvers 688 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD "there's another girl that quit." Hahn told Lukoff either to put his charge in writing or "to shut up." Lukoff told Hahn she was fired but, after talking to President Ashinoff, Vice President Rubens, and Labor Relations Consultant Tugman, gave her a letter of suspension. Hahn told Rubens the next day that she was ready to return to work. Rubens said she would be notified "of the results of [her] suspension." Hahn was not recalled to work. Respondent contends that Hahn used "defiant, obscene language" to Lukoff which constituted insubordination that justified her discharge. Hahn's credited testimony indicates that Lukoff paid little attention to the single vulgar word used by Hahn, a word that the record shows was not uncommonly used at the plant, and that he said he was firing her because she told him to put his charge against her in writing or "to shut up." Hahn's remark was provoked by Lukoff s reiterated accusation that Hahn's union activity had caused employees Bausch and Kania to quit. Lukoff had previously shown by his reaction to Hahn's union activity that he would welcome an excuse to discharge her. Respondent argues that no interference of discrimination is warranted because Lukoff had ample reason to discharge Hahn as she was a sloppy operator whose work before her discharge was no good. Supervisor Alice Silvers testified that Hahn's work was not satisfactory and that "everyone on the floor had taken her work back to her." Silvers conceded on cross-examination that Hahn was "cooperative," "never gave any trouble," and was a "fast" operator. Supervisor Betty Stewart testified that Hahn "Most of the time ... did fair work but a week or maybe two [before her discharge] she got a little careless with it. We had to take back quite a few shirts to be repaired." On cross-examination, Stewart acknowl- edged that the other operators "get a little bit careless once in a while." She said she had to warn Hahn about the quality of her work but that Hahn was "very cooperative." Hahn testified that she had a lot of work returned to her the week before her discharge and had "to rip about two or three bundles but it wasn't my fault, they were put together wrong." Mary Clark, a floorgirl at the time, explained that the work given Hahn for sewing together had been "shaded wrong" and that Hahn was not responsible for checking the shading. I find from the foregoing that Hahn was an accepta- ble operator. I find under all the circumstances that Hahn was dis- charged for her union activity and not for her remarks to Lukoff. I conclude, accordingly, that the discharge was viola- tive of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 2. International Ladies' Garment Workers Union, AFL- CIO, Upper South Department, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 3. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. 4. By discharging Sandra Hahn on April 20, 1970, Re- spondent has discouraged union membership by discriminat- ing in regard to tenure of employment, thereby engaging in unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act. 5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. THE REMEDY Having found that the Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices it will be recommended that Respondent cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action to effectuate the policies of the Act. It having been found that Respondent discriminatorily dis- charged Sandra Hahn on April 20 , 1970, in violation of Sec- tion 8(a)(3) and ( 1) of the Act, the Recommended Order will provide that Respondent make offer of reinstatement to Hahn and make Hahn whole for loss of earnings within the meanin gg of and in accord with the Board 's decisions in F. W. Wool- worth Company , 90 NLRB 289 , and Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716, excepting as specifically modified by the wording of such Recommended Order. Because of the character of the unfair labor practices herein found , the Recommended Order will provide that the Respondent cease and desist from the specific unfair labor practices found and that it cease and desist from in any other manner interfering with , restraining , and coercing employees in the exercise of their rights guaranteed by Section 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 hereby issue the following: RECOMMENDED ORDER6 Respondent, Coronet Casuals, Inc., its officers, agents, successors, and assigns , shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of their rights to self-organization by threats of discharge or other reprisals, by promises and grants of eco- nomic benefits, and by coercively interrogating employees as to union activities or sentiments. (b) Discharging or otherwise discriminating against em- ployees in regard to hire or tenure of employment, or any term or condition of employment, in order to discourage membership in any labor organization. (c) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of their rights guaran- teed in Section 7 of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action which it is found will effectuate the policies of the Act. (a) Offer Sandra Hahn immediate and full reinstatement to her former position or, if such position is no longer available, to a substantially equivalent position, without prejudice to her seniority or other rights previously enjoyed, and make her whole for any loss of pay suffered by reason of the discrimina- tion against her, in the manner described in The Remedy section of the Trial Examiner's Decision. (b) Notify Sandra Hahn, if presently serving in the Armed Forces of the United States, of her right to full reinstatement, upon application, in accordance with the Selective Service and the Universal Military Training and Service Act, as amended, after discharge from the Armed Forces. (c) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the Board or its agents, for examination and copying, all payroll records, social security payment records, timecards, person- nel records and reports, and all other records necessary to ' In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the findings, conclusions, recommendations, 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 be deemed waived for all purposes. CORONET CASUALS, INC 689 analyze the amount of backpay due under the terms of this Recommended Order. (d) Post at its plant at Portsmouth, Virginia, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix."' Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 5, after being duly signed by Respondent's authorized repre- sentative, shall be posted by it immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to ensure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (e) Notify the Regional Director for Region 5, in writing, within 20 days from the receipt of this Decision, what steps have been taken to comply herewith.' IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the allegations of the com- plaint not specifically found herein to constitute violations of the Act be dismissed. ' In the event that the Board's Order is enforced by a Judgment of a United States Corut of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by Order of the National Labor Relations Board" shall be changed to read "Posted pursuant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations Board " ' In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board, this provision shall be modified to read "Notify the Regional Director for Re- gion 5, in writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith " tion , without prejudice or her seniority or other rights previously enjoyed , and make her whole for any loss of pay suffered by reason of the discrimination against her. WE WILL notify Sandra Hahn , if presently serving in the Armed Forces of the United States, of her right to full reinstatement , upon application , in accordance with the Selective Service Act and the Universal Military Training and Service Act, as amended , after discharge from the Armed Forces. WE WILL NOT coercively interrogate our employees as to union activities or desires , threaten our employees with discharge or other economic reprisals because of their union activities , or promise or grant economic benefits to our employees to discourage support of any labor organization. WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain , or coerce our employees in the exercise of their rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. All our employees are free to become or remain, or to refrain from becoming or remaining , members of any labor organization. Dated By APPENDIX NOTICE To EMPLOYEES POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government WE WILL offer Sandra Hahn immediate and full rein- statement to her former position or, if such position is no longer available, to a substantially equivalent posi- CORONET CASUALS, INC. Employer (Representative) (Title) This is an official notice and must not be defaced by any- one. 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. Any questions concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions may be directed to the Board's Office, Federal Building, Room 1019 Charles Center, Baltimore, Maryland 21201, Telephone 301-962-2822. Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation