Coronet Casuals, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 28, 1971

190 N.L.R.B. 685 (N.L.R.B. 1971)

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.