Crystal Springs Shirt Corporation

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 28, 1979

245 N.L.R.B. 882 (N.L.R.B. 1979)

)DEC(ISIONS OF NA'I'IONAL LABOR RELA'IIONS BOARD
Crystal Springs Shirt Corporation, Bernstein and
Sons Shirt Corporation and Amalgamated Clothing
and Textile Workers Union, AFL-CIO-CLC. Case
15 CA 6685
September 28, 1979
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN FANNING ANI) MIMBI!RS JNKINS
ANI) PNIlI.,O
On July 11, 1979, Administrative law Judge Julius
Cohn issued the attached Decision in this proceeding.
Thereafter, Respondent filed exceptions and a sup-
porting 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-
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 brief
and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings.' and
conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge and to
adopt his recommended Order.2
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Rela-
tions Board adopts as its Order the recommended Or-
der of the Administrative Law Judge and hereby or-
ders that the Respondent, Crystal Springs Shirt
I Respondent has excepted to certain credibility findings made by the Ad-
ministrative Law Judge. It is the Board's established policy not to overrule
an administrative law judge's resolutions with respect to credibility unless
the clear preponderance of all the relevant evidence coninces us that the
resolutions are incorrect Standard Dry Wall Products. Inc. 91 N.RB 544
(1950), enfd. 188 F.2d 362 (3d Cir. 1951i. we have examined the record
carefully and find no basis for reversing his findings.
2 In agreeing with the Administrative Law Judge that a "broad" cease-
and-desist order is appropriate in the instant case. we additionally rely upon
Hickmolt Food. Inc., 242 NLRB 1357 (1979j.
In his Remedy. the Administrative Law Judge provided that the hackpay
period for the unfair labor practice strikers entitled to reinstatement shall
commence 5 days after Respondent's receipt of an unconditional reinstate-
ment request and continue thereafter until an offer of full reinstatement is
made. The Board has found that the 5-day period is a reasonable accommo-
dation between the interests of the employees in returning to work as quickly
as possible and the employer's need to effectuate that return in an orderly
manner. Drug Package Company. Inc.. 228 NLRB 108 (1977) Accordingly
if Respondent already has rejected or hereafter rejects, unduly delays, or
ignores the unconditional offer to return to work, or attaches unlawful condi-
tions to its offer of reinstatement. the 5-day period serves no useful purpose.
and backpay will commence as of the unconditional offer to return to work.
National Car Rental Srstem, Inc., Car Rental Diivision, 237 NLRB 172
(1978); Newport News Shipbuilding & Dry Dock Compani. 236 NLRB 1637
(1978). For the reasons set forth in their dissent in Drug Package (Comparv.
Inc., supra, Chairman Fanning and Member Jenkins would not automati-
cally grant this 5-day grace penriod. Nevertheless, they acknowledge that,
until such time as the majority approving this practice changes, they are
institutionally bound by this position.
C('orporation, and Bernstein and Sons Shirt Corpora-
tion, Crystal Springs. Mississippi, its officers, agents,
successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth
in the said recommended Order, except that the at-
tached notice is substituted for that of the Adminis-
trative l.aw Judge.
APPFND)IX
N()oiI(l T( EMiMP.I()YILS
P0SIEi) Y ORDI)IR () I i
NA I()NAI LABOR RI.AIIO)NS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
After a hearing at which all sides had a chance to give
evidence and state their positions, the National Labor
Relations Boaid has found that we have violated the
National Labor Relations Act, and we have been or-
dered to post this notice and carry out its terms.
WE WILl. NOI refuse to bargain collectively
with Amalgamated Clothing and Textile Work-
ers Union, AFL-CIO-CLC, by changing piece
rates of pay and production quotas without no-
tice to, or consultation with, said union. The ap-
propriate bargaining unit is:
All production and maintenance employees,
excluding office clerical employees, watch-
men/guards, and supervisors as defined in the
Act, employed by Crystal Springs Shirt Cor-
poration at its Crystal Springs, Mississippi, fa-
cility.
WE wIl. NOI in any other manner interfere
with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the ex-
ercise of rights guaranteed them in Section 7 of
the Act.
Wt. vwI.l., upon request, bargain collectively
with Amalgamated ('lothing and Textile Work-
ers Union, A:L CIO CLC, as the exclusive rep-
resentative of all employees in the unit described
above before changing piece rates of pay and
production quotas.
WLi wl.l., upon request, furnish Amalgamated
Clothing and Textile Workers Union, AFL
CIO-CLC, with all records necessary and rel-
evant to decide whether its desires restoration of
the rates of pay and production quotas in effect
prior to May 1977.
Wt Wirl.1. revoke the unilateral changes of pay
and production quotas instituted since May 1977
and restore the rates of pay and production quo-
tas prior thereto, and w Wii.l. make employees
whole for any losses they may have suffered by
reason of the unlawful changes if the Amalga-
mated Clothing and Textile Workers Union,
AFL-CIO-C'LC, as the representative of the em-
245 NLRB No. 112
882
CRYSTAI, SPRINGS SHIRT (ORPORATION
ployees in the appropriate unit, so desires, with
interest.
WE Wlll., upon their unconditional offer to re-
turn to work, reinstate the unfair labor practice
strikers who began their unfair labor practice
strike on April 3. 1978, to their former jobs or, if'
those jobs no longer exist, to substantially equiv-
alent positions, without prejudice to their senior-
ity or any other rights or privileges previously
enjoyed, dismissing if necessary, any replace-
ments hired in their place, and make the strikers
whole for any loss of earnings they may have
incurred. as follows. If we do not reinstate the
striking employees in the manner set forth above
within 5 days from the date reinstatement is re-
quired, backpay shall begin running, with inter-
est, from the date on which the 5 days expire.
CRYSTAL SPRINGS SHIRt CORPORATION ANI)
BERNSTEIN AND SONS SIIIRI CORPORATION
DECISION
STAIEMFN1 OF IHE CASE
JutLus COIN, Administrative Law Judge: This case was
heard at Crystal Springs. Mississippi. on August 9 and 10.
1978. Upon a charge filed by Amalgamated ('lothing and
Textile Workers Union, AFL CIO-CLC, herein called the
Union, the Acting Regional Director for Region 15 issued a
complaint on April 25, 1978, alleging that Crystal Springs
Shirt Corporation, herein called Crystal, violated Section
8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act by unlawfully making unilateral
changes without both notice to the Union or affording it an
opportunity to bargain. Thereafter the complaint was
amended to add Bernstein and Sons Shirt Corporation.
herein called Bernstein, as a Respondent and to allege that
Crystal Springs Shirt Corporation and Bernstein and Sons
Shirt Corporation, herein collectively called Respondent.
constitute a single employer. The complaint was thereafter
further amended to allege that on or about April 3, 1978.
certain employees of Respondent went on strike and that
such strike was caused and prolonged by Respondent's un-
fair labor practices. Respondent has denied that it has vio-
lated the Act, as is alleged.
All parties were given full opportunity to participate, to
introduce relevant evidence, to examine and cross-examine
witnesses, to argue orally and to file briefs. Briefs were re-
ceived from the General Counsel. Respondent. and the
Charging Party and have been considered carefull.
Upon the entire record in the case and from my observa-
tion of the witnesses and their demeanor. I make the follow-
ing:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. Ji RIS)I( II()N
Crystal is a Mississippi corporation with a principal office
and place of business at Crystal Springs. Mississippi. where
it is engaged in garment manufacturing. [)uring the 12-
month period preceding the issuance of the complaint.
Crystal sold and shipped products alued in excess of
$50,000 directly to points located outside of the State of
Mississippi. The complaint alleges Respondent admlits. and
I find that (Crsstal is an emplo(er engaged in commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
As previously noted. ieneral Counsel contends that
Bernstein and ('rstal constitute a single employer, The un-
contradicted testimony on this issue was given hy .Joel Sho-
fel. Paul Bernstein and Shofel are. respectively. president
and ice president of Bernstein and Cr stal as. well as sev-
eral other subsidiaries of Bernstein, all of whoml are en-
gaged in manufacturing men's and bo's shirts and are lo-
cated in the South of the nited States. Shofel testified that
he is in charge of the operations of these plants. the sale of
merchandise, and the controlling of cost. lie is therefore
responsible for sales, pricing of goods. and the oerall ad-
ministration of the operations of all of the plants. tile per-
sonally visits each plant three or four times a ear.
Bernstein's vice president of manufacturing is Richard
Purnick, who spends forty percent of his timne isiting the
plants in the South and is at the Crystal plant at least once
a month and sometimes more. Purnick is responsible for
quality control at all the plants. for coordinamtig shipments
from ne to another. and for monitoring the da;-to-t-d;
actiities of the plant manager at each facilit. he plant
managers report to Purnick who appro,.cs or iad usts their
actions. Purnick has wide authorit 5 in connection with co-
ordinating production at the plants. but reports to Shofel
who is second in conimmand of the entire organization.
Shofel and Purnick are involved in day-to-day monitor-
ing of costs at the southern plants. and in addition. Shofel
reviews a payroll analysis chart submitted bh (Crstal and
the others each month. As soon as cost increases are re-
vealed to Shofel or Purnick, they institute remedial action
to the plant managers involved. In this regard, Purnick
makes recommendations to the plant manager as to the
number of employees and makes the necessar' adjustlments
if the plant manager has not done so directly.
Orders are received by Bernstein and transmitted to each
of the plants for manufacturing, who, in turn. ship finished
merchandise to a central warehouse which then reships in
accordance with order of the customers. A quality control
system, implemented at the suggestion of a major customer.
is followed closely by Purnick. Occasionally, work is shifted
from plant to plant to expedite shipments.
Plant managers are hired by Purnick. who has authority
to transfer a plant manager from one plant to another, and.
indeed, the Crystal plant manager at the time of the events
involved herein was transferred to that location from an-
other plant. Fringe benefits are similar at all the plants and
are determined by Bernstein. Thus three plants are cox ered
hby the same insurance policy. All plants have uniform holi-
days which have been established by Bernstein.
On the basis of the above, it is clear that (Crystal and
Bernstein are a single tegrated husiness enterprisc. since
the lacts establish that the factors normnill, considered hb
the Board in deterntinlg such issues are present in this
case. Thus. Paul Bernstein is the sole stockholder of both ol
these entities. s Aell is ceral other shirt aInd m;ll1auactur-
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ing companies similarly integrated. Financial control is ex-
ercised by Bernstein and Shofel, who testified that he moni-
tors very carefully the reports of the individual subsidiaries.
with particular attention to labor costs. Common manage-
ment is also exercised by Shofel and his immediate subordi-
nate, Purnick, who hires the plant managers at all the sub-
sidiaries and controls their actions. Labor relations at
Crystal and the other subsidiaries are also controlled by
Bernstein in that wages, fringe benefits, and other condi-
tions of employment are determined by Purnick and Shofel.
Finally, the operations of the manufacturing subsidiaries
are interrelated because Shofel and Purnick have the re-
sponsibility of controlling and directing the flow of produc-
tion, transferring work from one plant to another so that
shipments can be timely made and consolidated. I find
therefore that Bernstein and Crystal constitute a single inte-
grated business enterprise.' Because Crystal is concededly
an employer engaged in commerce, and as other subsidiar-
ies controlled by Bernstein also have been found to be en-
gaged in commerce,' I find that Bernstein is also an em-
ployer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section
2(6) and (7) of the Act.
The Union is a labor organization within the meaning of
Section 2(5) of the Act.
I!. HE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Facts
The fact with respect to the alleged unfair labor practices
are not in dispute. In a prior proceeding, Crystal was found
by the Board to have violated Section 8(a)( 1) and (5) of the
Act by engaging in bad-faith or surface bargaining and uni-
laterally putting into effect new rates of pay for unit em-
ployees.2 Although the Union had been certified in 1974.
there was no bargaining during the pendency of this prior
case. The Board, having issued its order in that case in
April 1977, the Union, and Respondent met to resume bar-
gaining on July 22, 1977. Prior to that meeting, the Union
had requested Respondent to furnish certain information,
including a complete set of current piece rates. In June,
Respondent forwarded to the Union a packet of informa-
tion, including piece rates in effect at the time, some of
which were for knit garments.' Jackson stated that he at-
tempted to make a wage analysis based on the information
that he had received just prior to the July 22 meeting.
At the next meeting on September 29, Moore, attorney
and sole negotiator for Respondent, delivered to Jackson
another batch of piece rates which presumably were cur-
rently in effect at the plant. Upon looking at these rates,
Jackson became aware that they covered the production of
knit shirts and that it appeared almost the entire plant was
Stoll Industries, Inc., 223 NLRB 51 (1976).
2 See, e.g., Shaw Industries, Division of Crystal Springs Shirt Corp.. 218
NLRB 1196(1975).
3229 NLRB 4 (1977).
' At a negotiation in January involving another subsidiary of Respondent.
Respondent had turned over to the Union negotiator, James Jackson, a list
of piece rates in effect in December 1976. These were listed under three
categories, one of which applied to knit fabrics. There is no indication, how-
ever, from this information as to the number of styles being run at that time
or which were knit or woven.
working on knit goods. Realizing that his wage analysis
based upon the rates he had previously received, which
mostly pertained to woven garments, was no longer of use
to him, he requested that Moore supply information on em-
ployee earnings. Respondent furnished the requested earn-
ings data to the Union at a meeting held on November I. It
is conceded that an examination of the piece rates con-
tained in the materials turned over at the September 29
meeting show at least three instances of a change of rate for
the same three styles given to the Union before the Jul 22
meeting. In addition, at least two of the three also have
changes in the dozens quota established for the particular
operation. Thereafter in August, October. and November,
according to certain time-stud forms produced by Respon-
dent, changes of piece rates as well as daily dozen quotas
were made in eight other styles.'
The changes in piece rates were conceded by Respondent
in the testimony of Plant Manager Tinsley, who stated gen-
erally that these frequently came about as a result of style
changes in a particular shirt, or change of material used to
make a certain item, or for other reasons. Frequently., this
was accomplished after time studies and. more often than
not, the changes resulted in increased wages for the opera-
tors involved. It is further conceded by Respondent that
with respect to the eleven changes specifically noted in the
record, no notice was given to the Union of the proposed or
actual change. On the other hand, Jackson testified, without
contradiction, that on some occasions over the years he re-
ceived calls from Moore concerning Respondent's desire to
effectuate a rate change and in those situations a procedure
was worked out to consummate it.
According to documents supplied by Respondent at the
hearing, such as a list of weekly dozens of garments pro-
duced, divided between woven and knit shirts. fi)r the latter
half of 1976 and the entire year of 1977, it is clear that
Respondent gradually began to introduce knit goods, and
by the latter part of 1977, the plant was exclusively working
on knits. No notice of a changeover from woven to knits
was given to the Union. However, the data given to Jackson
in January 1977 and in June, prior to the July 22 meeting.
do show a small number of piece rates for knit styles.
The Union held a meeting of employees on February 28,
1978. William Welborn, an organizer, spoke to the employ-
ees and advised them of the negotiations with Crystal over
the years. Welborn testified that he had told the employees
about the unilateral rate changes the company had made
when they went from woven to knit shirts. In reviewing the
negotiations, he also told the employees that Respondent
had engaged in surface bargaining.
Welborn then introduced a Biggs. director of organizing
for the Union in that area, who explained the difference
between an unfair labor practice strike and an economic
strike.
When he finished, an employee, Doris Hall, stated that
because Respondent had engaged in surface bargaining
since the beginning of negotiations, she moved to authorize
the Union to call a strike. This motion was seconded and
unanimously passed at the meeting. Welborn stated that.
At the hearing. a motion by General Counsel to amend the complaint to
include charges in October and November was granted.
884
CRYSTAL SPRINGS SHIRT CORPORATION
prior to the meeting, Hall had been told by Biggs to make
this motion and he had prepared her as to the wording of it.
After a month of preparations, the employees struck on
April 3, 1978.
B. Discussion and A nalvsis
It is undisputed that on 11 occasions during the last three
quarters of 1977, Respondent, in the course of having
gradually converted from the use of woven materials to
knits, unilaterally changed existing piece rates, as alleged in
the complaint. Respondent concedes this, and indeed, from
the testimony of its plant manager, it is apparent that there
were even more of such changes in rates than have been
specifically proved. A number of these changes came after
the filing of the original charge in this proceeding, so that
any contention on the part of Respondent that the Union
did not seek or even desire bargaining on these changes is
unwarranted. And Respondent's contention that the
changes in piece rates did not involve changes in the exist-
ing base rates of employees is also without merit since it is
undisputed that as a result of the changes in piece rates, the
majority of the total number of employees experienced in-
creased wages, and some suffered a loss.
Respondent's principal contention in this matter is based
upon its operation as a style house. Thus, Respondent
manufactures many styles of shirts, resulting in perhaps
thousands of existing piece rates set by established time
study procedures. In addition, the industry is affected by
seasonal changes not only in style, but in the type of mate-
rials used, such as occurred in the instant case when it
changed from the use of woven material to knit goods.
Moreover, its customers would occasionally ask for modifi-
cations in previously established styles. As a result, Respon-
dent argues that it would be chaotic for its managers to
consult with the Union every time a minor change is made
in an established operation that would necessitate a corre-
sponding change in piece rate. While this argument may
have some surface appeal, it is clear that Respondent can-
not lawfully follow its previously established procedures in
the setting of rates as it did prior to certification of the
Union, because the changes obviously affect the wages re-
ceived by its employees. Certainly the situation is not novel
for Respondent, and presumably mechanisms are devel-
oped among employers and unions to resolve this problem.
In any event, recent Board cases have found without merit
defenses relying on changes in styles, patterns, or material
as the cause for unilaterally changing piece rates and quo-
tas.6 1 find therefore that Respondent, by implementing new
piece rates and daily dozens quotas in 1977, without notice
to, or bargaining with, the Union, violated Section 8(a)(1)
and (5) of the Act.
I find no merit to the allegation in the complaint that
Respondent also violated Section 8(aX5) by unilaterally
changing from the use of woven fabrics to knit fabrics. The
determination of the type of material to be used in the
manufacture of its product is clearly a prerogative of the
I Kal-Equip Company, 237 NLRB 1234 (1978); Master Slack and/or Mas-
ter Trousers Corp., e al., 230 NLRB 1054 (1977): Unoco Apparel, Inc.. 215
NLRB 89 (1974).
employer. Insofar as this change affected the employment
status of employees, it was manifested by the change of the
piece rates necessitated by the difference in fabric. When
Respondent unilaterally without notice to the Union
changed the existing piece rates, at that point the Act was
violated, as found above. I therefore shall dismiss Para-
graph 10(b) of the complaint alleging the fabric change as a
separate violation.
C. The Strike of April 3. 1978
As noted above, at a meeting of employees on February
28, 1978, a vote was taken which authorized a strike. The
General Counsel contends that the strike was to protest the
unfair labor practices of Respondent. while the latter urges
that the strike appears to have been the result of the
Union's failure to obtain a contract and was not caused by
any unfair labor practices.
Welborn credibly testified that he addressed the meeting
and informed the employees present about the status of
negotiations and also told them about the unilateral
changes in rates, which the company had made in the pro-
cess of going from woven to knit goods. While it is true that
Doris Hall moved that the employees strike because the
company had engaged in surface bargaining and did not
refer to the unilateral changes in rates, I find, nevertheless,
that there is a casual connection between the unlawful uni-
lateral changes and the strike. In view of the fact that the
employees were informed of the unilateral rate changes at
the same time as the alleged surface bargaining, I do not
believe that a finding as to the cause of the strike need be
restricted to the words of a formal motion. A partial moti-
vation is sufficient to confirm the status of these employees
as unfair labor practice strikers even though their other rea-
sons may not have been found to be grounded in unfair
labor practices.' Accordingly, I find and conclude that the
strike was an unfair labor practice strike.'
II. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON
COMMERCE
The activities of Respondent set forth above, occurring in
connection with its operations described above, have a close
intimate and substantial relationship to trade, traffic and
commerce among the several states and tend to lead to la-
bor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the
free flow of commerce.
7 Laredo Coca-Cola Botling Cornpany, 241 NLRB 167 1979); Albion Cor-
poration, d/b/a Brooks, Inc., 228 NLRB 1365 (1977)
I In view of this finding, I deem it unnecessary to further find. as con-
tended by the General Counsel, that any stnke called before the consumma-
tion of an agreement would be an unfair labor practice strike in view of the
Board's decision in 229 NLRB 4, where it found that Respondent had un-
lawfully engaged in surface bargaining. In this regard, I note that while the
charge in the instant case alleged generally a bad-faith refusal to bargain, the
complaint before me contains no surface-bargaining allegation, but merely
alleges the unilateral rate changes discussed above. On the basis of this rec-
ord, which reveals that Respondent and the Union had indeed engaged in
bargaining subsequent to the Board order, there is no allegation nor can any
finding be made that Respondent has continued to engage in unlawful sur-
face bargaining.
885
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL. LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
IV. HE REMEI)Y
Having found that Respondent has engaged in unfair la-
bor practices in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the
Act, I shall recommend that it be ordered to cease and
desist therefrom and to take appropriate affirmative action
designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
Although the record reveals that the unilateral changes
made by Respondent operated so that a majority of em-
ployees actually received increases in their earnings, it also
appears that a number of them were affected adversely. In
such a situation it would be appropriate to order Respon-
dent to revoke changes and to restore conditions in exis-
tence prior thereto as to those adversely affected. Since it
cannot be determined whether employees desire such revo-
cation, I shall recommend that restoration be conditional
upon the affirmative desire of the affected employees for
such, as expressed through their collective-bargaining rep-
resentative. I shall further recommend that Respondent
make available to the Union, upon request, all records nec-
essary and relevant to decide whether it desires restoration
of the changes and rates of pay and production quotas. To
effectuate the policies of the Act, it could be recommended
that Respondent make all unit employees whole for any
loss of earnings by reason of Respondent's unlawful con-
duct. However, if the employees acting through their collec-
tive-bargaining representative express the desire to retain
the new rates and quotas, a make-whole remedy would be
unnecessary and inappropriate. Accordingly, I shall recom-
mend that employees be made whole for any losses suffered
by reason of the unilateral changes only if the employees
express the desire for restoration as provided above. In such
event, all losses to be reimbursed shall be computed in ac-
cordance with the formula set forth in F. W. Woolworth
Company, 90 NLRB 289 (1950), to which shall be added
interest to be computed as prescribed in Florida Steel Cor-
poration, 231 NLRB 651 (1977).9
Having found that the unit employees who engaged in a
strike commencing April 3, 1978, are unfair labor practice
strikers, I shall recommend their reinstatement upon their
unconditional offer to return to work and the dismissal of
persons hired on or after April 3, 1978, of that becomes
necessary. Reinstatement shall mean reinstatement to their
former jobs or, if those jobs no longer exist, to substantially
equivalent positions, without regard to seniority and other
rights and privileges. Newport News Shipbuilding and Dry
Dock Company, 236 NLRB 1637 (1978). Such unfair labor
practice strikers are to be made whole for any loss of earn-
ings they may suffer as a result of Respondent's refusal, if
any, to reinstate them in a timely fashion, by paying to each
of them a sum of money equal to that which each would
have earned as wages during the period commencing 5 days
after the date on which each unconditionally offers to re-
turn to work, to the date of Respondent's offer of reinstate-
ment, less any net earnings during such period, with interest
thereon to be computed in the manner described above in
this Remedy provision?
9See, generally, Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716 (1962).
i I make no provision, as requested by the Union, for the costs of this
proceeding to be assessed against Respondent. Such request is based upon
Respondent's alleged refusal to consummate a collective-bargaining agree-
Finally, because Respondent has repeated one of the vio-
lations found in the prior case, I shall recommend that it
cease and desist therefrom and in any other manner from
interfering with the rights of employees guaranteed under
Section 7 of the Act. N.L.R.B. v. Entwistle Manuflcuring
('ompanv. 120 F.2d 532, (4th Cir. 1941).
(CON( SI.tONS 1) LAW
I. Crystal Springs Shirt Corporation and Bernstein and
Sons Shirt Corporation are employers engaged in com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. Crystal Springs Shirt Corporation and Bernstein and
Sons Shirt Corporation constitute a single integrated busi-
ness enterprise.
3. Amalgamated Clothing and Textile Workers Union,
AFL-CIO-CLC is a labor organization within the meaning
of Section 2(5) of the Act.
4. All production and maintenance employees, including
office clerical employees, watchmen/guards, and supervi-
sors as defined in the Act, employed by Respondent at its
Crystal Springs, Mississippi facility, constitute a unit appro-
priate for the purposes of collective-bargaining within the
meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act.
5. By making changes in piece rates of pay and produc-
tion quotas of unit employees without notice to, or consul-
tation with, the above-named Union, Respondent has en-
gaged in, and is engaging in, an unfair labor practice within
the meaning of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act.
6. The aforesaid unfair labor practice affects commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
7. Commencing on or about April 3, 1978, the unit of
employees described above engaged in an unfair labor prac-
tice strike in protest of Respondent's unfair labor practices,
said strike being an unfair labor practice strike from its
inception.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law,
and the entire record in this case, and pursuant to Section
10(c) of the Act, I hereby issue the following recommended:
ORDER"
The Respondents, Crystal Springs Shirt Corporation and
Bernstein and Sons Shirt Corporation, Crystal Springs.
Mississippi. their officers, agents, successors, and assigns,
shall:
I. Cease and desist from:
(a) Refusing to bargain with Amalgamated Clothing and
Textile Workers Union, AFL CIO CLC, as the exclusive
bargaining representative of its employees in the unit de-
scribed above, by changing piece rates of pay and produc-
tion quotas without notice to, or consultation with, said
union.
(b) In any other manner, interfering with, restraining, or
ment with the Union. Because there is no issue of surface or hard bargaining
before me, I do not find that the violations found herein are those for which
the Board might entertain the extraordinary remedy of costs.
" 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, 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.
886
CRYSTAL SPRINGS SHIRT CORPORATION
coercing its employees in the exercise of their rights guaran-
teed by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action designed to ef-
fectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Upon request, bargain collectively with Amalga-
mated Clothing and Textile Workers Union, AFL CIO
CLC, as the exclusive representative of all employees in the
unit described above and, if an understanding is reached,
embody such understanding in a signed agreement.
(b) Upon request, furnish the above-named labor organi-
zation all records necessary and relevant to decide whether
it desires restoration of the rates of pay and production
quotas in effect prior to May 1977.
(c) Revoke the unilateral changes in rates of pay and
production quotas initiated in May 1977, and restore those
rates of pay and quotas in effect prior thereto, and make
employees whole for any loss they may have suffered by
reason of the unlawful changes, if the above-named labor
organization, as the exclusive representative of the employ-
ees in the appropriate unit, so desires.
(d) Preserve, and upon request, make available to the
Board and its agents for examination and copyiig, all rec-
ords relevant and necessary to a determination of the
amounts due employees under the terms of this recom-
mended Order.
(e) Upon their unconditional offer to return to work, re-
instate the unfair labor practice strikers, dismissing if neces-
sary, any replacements hired in their place, and make these
strikers whole for any loss of earnings that they may have
incurred in the manner set forth in the section entitled "The
Remedy."
(f) Post, at its Crystal Springs. Mississippi facility, copies
of the attached notice marked "Appendix." 2' Copies of said
notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Re-
gion 15, after being duly signed by Respondent's authorized
representative, shall be posted by it immediately upon re-
ceipt thereof. and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive
days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places
where notices to employees customarily are posted. Reason-
able steps shall be taken by Respondent to ensure that said
notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other
material.
(g) Notify the Regional Director for Region 15, in writ-
ing. within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps
Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
u In the event that this Order is enforced b 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 Pursuant to a Judg-
ment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board."
887